Nuclear power...

[3chordcharlie]

I like nuclear power.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

nuclear energy is by far the most clean, reliable and environmentally friendly source of energy as of now.

Incorrect. Wind, Solar and Hydro are obviously cleaner. Nothing is cleaner than zero emissions.

 

[Feldenak]

Definately in favor of nuclear power and I grew up just down the river from Shippingport, PA.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
For the US and any allies of the US, YES. For any member of the Axis of Evil, NO. You can't trust evildoers with nuclear power, just look at the historic track record of the lunatics that have had nuclear power.

Maybe in the future, they are working on nuclear fuel that is not suitable for nuclear weapons.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

nuclear energy is by far the most clean, reliable and environmentally friendly source of energy as of now.

Incorrect. Wind, Solar and Hydro are obviously cleaner. Nothing is cleaner than zero emissions.

Hydro is pretty much done. All the rivers that could be used are used. Sure Solar and wind look clean because they produce very small amounts of power. It is like comparing a car to a train full of people. Sure the train produces more pollution but it also moves alot more people.

 

[Rustican]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

nuclear energy is by far the most clean, reliable and environmentally friendly source of energy as of now.

Incorrect. Wind, Solar and Hydro are obviously cleaner. Nothing is cleaner than zero emissions.

Hydro has it's own issues, namely changing the surrounding environment and displacing wildlife and people. Hydro also has the risk of failure and washing away people and buildings down stream. A majority of rivers in the US that can sustain a hydro plant already have one. Lastly a dam is just as viable a target for terrorists as a Nuke plant are, since you're not only destroying power generation but water supplies as well as infrastructure down the river.

Solar and Wind power are nice to have but have their own weakness. Solar is generating peak power at only about 6 hours during the day and there needs to be a way to store excess energy for use during evening hours. Wind is only constant in certain areas and also needs a way to store excess energy for later use. Both methods unable to vary energy generation as it is demanded. This is one of their biggest draw backs.

I'm also kind of confused why people are so terrified of nuclear waste being transported from one place to another. It's not like the fuel rods magically appeared all of a sudden at a nuclear plant. They had to be shipped there before hand. A lot of nasty stuff is transported via rail, and truck everyday from toxic waste, acids, chlorine and other gases and radioactive material but everyone is focused on the radiation only.

And as far as nuclear waste goes, it is possible to recycle it with the use of breeder reactors. LINK We just don't do it for political reasons which at this point are out of date.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Sure Solar and wind look clean because they produce very small amounts of power. It is like comparing a car to a train full of people. Sure the train produces more pollution but it also moves alot more people.

Solar and wind power are the cleanest significant sources of power available (Not significant you say? Spain now gets more electricity from wind than any other source).

Are they more expensive than nuclear? Probably. Are they more expensive than coal? Maybe not if you consider the environmental problems of coal power.

Mining and transporting uranium and constructing the power plant and waste storage facilities must be taken into consideration when evaluating the cleanliness and cost of nuclear power.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nuclear, of course, remains popular among those who are unable to see they are pigs.

 

[Kwaipie]

For those that think storing this stuff is safe and that we are best off listening to government experts, please take a couple of moments and familiarize yourself with Hanford.

 

[bdude]

I love it when people talk ****** and they don't even know what they are talking about.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
For those that think storing this stuff is safe and that we are best off listening to government experts, please take a couple of moments and familiarize yourself with Hanford.

Hanford frankly doesn't have significant relevance for civilian nuclear power. It produced plutonium for the MILITARY and nuclear weapons there, so its simply a different situation.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

Yes, it's selfish because any other alternative doesn't make any selfish decisions for the future generations...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?

How damaging is turbines via wind or water? Just curious...

Other than construction waste, land issues, storage capacity, locational environmental impact, they are perfect but unpractical on a whole-replacement basis.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: piasabird
In France they have had accidents at nuclear facilities and relaeased contaminated air and not even bothered to tell the public. Or maybe you want to live in Chernobyl?

Proof? Nice straw-man with Chernobyl.


Do you fly? Because lets use the worst air accident in history as hyperbole to scare you! Do you drive? Because lets use horrible accidents to scare you! Do you breath? Because lets tell you how you can suffocate!

Ignore all rationality by using only worst-case scenarios is just stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bdude
I love it when people talk ****** and they don't even know what they are talking about.

You must have a bad case of self love.

 

[zinfamous]

:thumbsup: to Nu-cular power

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I?m conflicted on this. It has great benefits, but another Chernobyl is beyond unacceptable and there is always that risk.

Pebble bed reactors don't melt down like Chernobyl did.

Chernobyl happened b/c of administrative flaws ingrained through strict Soviet-era Communist culture. It could have been easily avoided, but the director on duty during those hours refused to admit that anything was wrong, despite the technicians' plees. Those that could fix the problem were simply not allowed to. Think: Iraqi information minister broadcasting as Bagdhad was falling.

The facts in this case make the disaster all-the-more tragic.

 

[squirrel dog]

For it.There is one about 20 mi from my 10/20. Never had an issue in the 20 or so years.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Are you going to store the nuclear waste in your back yard?

Sure. Pay the right price and put it in the right packing, and I have no problem storing it in my back yard. The government might, but I don't. Of course, storing it in people's back yards isn't very secure.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I?m conflicted on this. It has great benefits, but another Chernobyl is beyond unacceptable and there is always that risk.

Pebble bed reactors don't melt down like Chernobyl did.

Chernobyl happened b/c of administrative flaws ingrained through strict Soviet-era Communist culture. It could have been easily avoided, but the director on duty during those hours refused to admit that anything was wrong, despite the technicians' plees. Those that could fix the problem were simply not allowed to. Think: Iraqi information minister broadcasting as Bagdhad was falling.

The facts in this case make the disaster all-the-more tragic.

That and the decision to save on steel and concrete by not including a containment structure in the plant's design...

oops

 

[ntdz]

Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

 

[sonoma1993]

I'm for both nuclear fission and future nuclear fussion power plants. From what I read, a kilogram of uranium or thorium, has the same energy content equivalent of 3.5 million kilogram of coal. the cost of making power from nuclear fission is about the same as using coal burning power plants.

Be nice though, when nuclear fusion power plants can generate more power than what they use currently. They generate more power than a comparable size nuclear fission power plant, also the fuel is very plentiful. Nuclear waste is pretty much non-existent as well. But nuclear fusion is still many years away from being a valuable power source.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Everyone should have a plutonium based reactor core in their house, more if they can afford it.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

I'm sure your years and years in the field of Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Impact qualify you to make a broad statement like that.

I bet your mom is proud.

/not an idiot
//nor a hypocrite (still not sure how someone not in favor of nuclear power could be construed as a hypocrite)(of course, that could be the word that was under his finger when he blindly opened his Big Book of Random Insults)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It really comes down to a choice of whether you want to deal with nuclear waste or coal-fired power plant waste...which is the lesser evil. One creates enormous amounts of CO2 and the other doesn't (assuming that you're really concerned about CO2). One you breathe in every day and the other you don't. We should be able to store nuclear waste long enough until we have the technology to chuck it into the Sun. I think that most politicians are afraid of this issue....they seem to have different priorities than us common folk.