Nuclear power...

[Cabages]

In favor.

I watched 60 minutes last Sunday, and it really seems like we can gain from this.

Dont they have 0% carbon dioxide emissions?

And I really think we should go with the pebble bed reactors, or cool and reuse the rods like the French are doing.

 

[HombrePequeno]

For those that bring up Chernobyl: Chernobyl was a sh!t design that had all of the safety features taken out of it. The designer stressed against its usage but gave a list of safety precautions to take in case it was used. To save on cost, many of those safety features were taken out.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
For those that bring up Chernobyl: Chernobyl was a sh!t design that had all of the safety features taken out of it. The designer stressed against its usage but gave a list of safety precautions to take in case it was used. To save on cost, many of those safety features were taken out.

Well, it was crap design, but their were safety features. They just had them offline to run experiments on what would happen if the reactor lost power. Well when the cooling shutdown, they were fu**ed, to say the least.

 

[Moonbeam]

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

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
For those that bring up Chernobyl: Chernobyl was a sh!t design that had all of the safety features taken out of it. The designer stressed against its usage but gave a list of safety precautions to take in case it was used. To save on cost, many of those safety features were taken out.

Well, it was crap design, but their were safety features. They just had them offline to run experiments on what would happen if the reactor lost power. Well when the cooling shutdown, they were fu**ed, to say the least.

When I was 5 I did an experiment to see if the bathroom door lock knew if you were in there when you locked the door and then closed it (it seemed dumb to me that you would be able to lock yourself out of a room).

It was kinda the same thing, except with a really angry babysitter, and no radiation.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I think like this.

Screw Nuclear Power

Fusion FTW!!

Water is the fuel
Output is a huge amount of energy and a mild short lived radioactivity.

No danger of meltdown or explosions either.

In other words, I also support Nuclear power for the time being

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I think like this.

Screw Nuclear Power

Fusion FTW!!

Water is the fuel
Output is a huge amount of energy and a mild short lived radioactivity.

No danger of meltdown or explosions either.

In other words, I also support Nuclear power for the time being

umm, you mean Nuclear Fusion, which is still nuclear?

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
For those that bring up Chernobyl: Chernobyl was a sh!t design that had all of the safety features taken out of it. The designer stressed against its usage but gave a list of safety precautions to take in case it was used. To save on cost, many of those safety features were taken out.

Well, it was crap design, but their were safety features. They just had them offline to run experiments on what would happen if the reactor lost power. Well when the cooling shutdown, they were fu**ed, to say the least.

When I was 5 I did an experiment to see if the bathroom door lock knew if you were in there when you locked the door and then closed it (it seemed dumb to me that you would be able to lock yourself out of a room).

It was kinda the same thing, except with a really angry babysitter, and no radiation.

Are you implying that your experiment revolved around the total absence of common sense. You were 5, not a nuclear engineer, lol

 

[Brovane]

I give two thumbs up for nuclear power.

There are two ways to generate large amounts of baseline power cheaply. You either use coal our nuclear. I would choose nuclear.

Wind, solar, Gas Turbine, nuclear, and Hydro all have there place in the power generation of the future. You use nuclear to generate your baseline load that you can always depend on. You then use wind and solar for another 20-30% of your load. Wind is great but you cannot depend on it to be always there. Some of the new solar technology is also great and is pushing down the price but you are looking at only around 6-hours a day. Hydro is great peaking power because at the flip of a switch you can start a turbine at a dam. However in the US all the good sites that can generate hydro have already been taken and it disrupts a rivers eco-system when a river has a Dam build on it. Gas Turbines are great for peaking power also because they can be turned on quickly and then turned off.

Nuclear is great for baseline load because a nuclear powerplant can run for months before needing to be turned off for a refueling our maintenance. However a nuclear power plant cannot quickly generate steam for a turbine our be quickly turned off.

The one catch with electricity is that it cannot be stored easily our cheaply at all. At least not in the amounts needed to deliver energy to a power grid. The grid operators have to carefully match consumption with capacity. Nuclear and Coal each can deliver consistent energy into the grid that can be depended on at a cheap price. However nuclear is the only way to generate large mounts of this energy with C02 emissions with minimum pollution. Modern western nuclear reactors are extremely safe and they cannot be compared to Soviet designs. The current nuclear reactors in operation today were designed inte 50's, 60's and have a excellent safety record. The current next generation nuclear plant designs are several magnitudes safer including some that are essentially meltdown proof. Please also remember that the US Navy has also operated nuclear reactors at Sea for decades with a excellent safety record.

 

[mect]

I'm especially in favor if they can get Thorium reactors working. No chance of a melt down (since the fuel itself isn't self sustaining) and a 500 year half life on the waste (if I remember right). Even so, I think it is the best immediate base power supply. I think solar will be ready to pick up a big part of the load in 10 or 20 years, so we may have already missed best window opportunity for nuclear, but I'm still in favor of filling in with nuclear until other energy sources are ready.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: 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)

Just as point of fact, my dad has a masters in nuclear engineering and 30 years working as a nuclear engineer and he thinks pretty much the exact same thing, would you consider him qualified or you think you know more on the subject than he does?

EDIT: the hypocrite insult derives from enviromentalsits who say they HATE coal and want to get rid of greenhouse gasses but then oppose nuclear as well. This is of course hypocritical because nuclear and coal are the only two baseload energy sources so oppose nuclear is a defacto vote in favor of more coal plants and more greenhouse gases (although the greens either won't admit this or thing that its OK since we could probably do without 75% of our energy use anyways).

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Great....that's all we need is to give the Chinese nuclear technology. Next thing, they'll have nuclear weapons and then we'll be in trouble.

they already have nuclear weapons trust me...

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

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

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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...

Are these major sources of power in the United States? Realistically can we expect these technologies to provide enough power?
The enviornmental impact of wind and water isnt free either. Just ask the Chinese and their super dam they are building. They had to displace an entire city and its over 1 million inhabinants. Not to mention all the wildlife and ecosystems destroyed.

Yes, they are. No idea if they can provide more or not...it works now why wouldnt it if it was 2fold or 3fold? *shrug* No one really knows

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

Im going to disagree about wind providing small amounts of power. I suggest putting this into Google and do some reading: how effective is wind power

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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.

Im going to disagree about wind providing small amounts of power. I suggest putting this into Google and do some reading: how effective is wind power

A 1.5 MW wind generator weights in at 163 tons mostly of steal and copper and 50 acres of land. Your going to need a hell of a lot of them to produce the 3.656 Trillion KWH used a year in the US. Of course in environmentalist lala land wind turbines grow on trees, right next to the solar power panel producing weeds, and no resource need to be used in there building.

 

[judasmachine]

:music: Have no fear for atomic energy
'cause none of them can stop the time /:music:

I'm for it, if it's controlled well and competently staffed.

 

[ericlp]

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

No, I say we hurry up and build a space elevator... Then we could ship all the spent rods out into space! Problem solved.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: ericlp

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

No, I say we hurry up and build a space elevator... Then we could ship all the spent rods out into space! Problem solved.

I think that violates some treaty, but I think it's a decent idea.

 

[SexyK]

I love how people think wind power is somehow environmentally "free"... those turbines can completely destroy ecosystems, many times trees are cut down to place the turbines, and it just so happens that many of the best wind-producing areas are also among the most aesthetically beautiful. According to the figures I found, 1.5MW/hrs of wind power requires 300 square kilometers of turbines. If someone was taking down trees and building skyscrapers on hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of pristine, open land there would be a serious outcry, but when it's wind turbines no one cares about the aesthetic or ecological effects I guess.

For contrast, the Pressurized Light Water Reactors at Calvert Cliffs (just as an example) produce 1,685MW/hrs using a tiny fraction of the space.

Wind is great for what it is, but it will never be a primary source of electricity generation.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ericlp

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

No, I say we hurry up and build a space elevator... Then we could ship all the spent rods out into space! Problem solved.

I think that violates some treaty, but I think it's a decent idea.

What would happen if we hurled spent rods into the sun? It sounds silly, but I honestly don't know what the impact would be...Anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ericlp

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

No, I say we hurry up and build a space elevator... Then we could ship all the spent rods out into space! Problem solved.

I think that violates some treaty, but I think it's a decent idea.

What would happen if we hurled spent rods into the sun? It sounds silly, but I honestly don't know what the impact would be...Anyone have an opinion on this?

They would probably burn up well before they arrived imo.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
See thats the problem. Nuclear is excellent *when it works*. The problem is humans arent perfect, and mistakes happen. One mistake in a nuclear facility and...well...we've all seen the results of that. The consequences of a dam failing in regards to human life, isnt anywhere near as destructive. And Im really not confidant of these *one million year* storage solutions. Sure, in theory it works, but we really REALLY dont know.

Actually the total number of deaths due to dam collapses far, far, far outweighs the number of deaths (including the highly debatable number of future cancers) caused by nuclear accidents. There was one dam collapse in China that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The worst nuclear accident (Chernobyl) killed ~60 (with an upper limit of future cancer deaths around 4000).

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ericlp

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

No, I say we hurry up and build a space elevator... Then we could ship all the spent rods out into space! Problem solved.

I think that violates some treaty, but I think it's a decent idea.

What would happen if we hurled spent rods into the sun? It sounds silly, but I honestly don't know what the impact would be...Anyone have an opinion on this?

They would probably burn up well before they arrived imo.

Not if we sent them at night.