View Poll Results: What do you think of Nuclear Power?
Nuke power is the best option to meet our energy demand. No worries!
11
22.92%
Nuke power has some safety/security and waste issues but is still the best short term option.
22
45.83%
While Nuclear power is clean and does not contribute to global warming the safety risks concern me.
9
18.75%
Nuclear power is not safe, waste is a huge and long term problem. Option of last resort.
6
12.50%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll
Nuclear Power?
#41
03-09-2007, 10:42 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Maybe this is taking the conversation in a direction that we don't want it to go, but it's so easy to overlook and so often not part of these types of conversations that I just have to at least mention it:
Nuclear weapons.
As long as there are nuclear bombs in the world with the actual PURPOSE of causing the types of disasters that nuclear power detractors talk about so much, aren't fears about the risks of accidental emissions and exposures a little ... beside the point? Of all the posters here who have mentioned nuclear disasters, I notice no one mentioned the two times actual nuclear weapons were used intentionally (except snax who used them to illustrate the relative amount of radiation released but didn't mention the larger issue). No one here would be likely to dispute that the loss of life, environmental damage, long term effects and other consequences of those two events outweigh the rest of the history of nuclear incidents, combined. We now live in a world with many nuclear powers, two of which are actually at war with one another. Don't other nuclear risks pale in comparison?
I hope that, for consistency's sake, all of you who oppose nuclear power plants feel equally strongly about opposing the building of any new nuclear weapons at all- I mean BY THE U.S., TOO- and are as disappointed as I am about the lack of effort the Bush/Cheney administration has put into nuclear disarmament issues and anti-proliferation diplomacy. The situation in India and Pakistan, or unsecured warheads in the former Russian Republics, are the kinds of things that should be keeping us up nights, not some NIMBY attitude that could just as well apply to trash incinerators or chemical plants, or half a dozen other hazards. If you ask me what I'm afraid about, I'll tell you: I'm afraid of the consequences of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.
I do think that some valid points have been made by both sides, here. Nuclear accidents and nuclear waste need to be taken very seriously, and the consensus among all of us is that we'd rather see more wind and solar power. I would also add, hydropower- when it's done right. We haven't discussed oil, coal, or natural gas, hopefully because we mostly agree that it would be good to use far less of all of them to get the energy we need. So there's a lot of agreement among us- so it should be easy to keep this cordial.
Edited to add: I just noticed a scary headline on this subject:
New Design for Warhead Is Awarded to Livermore
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The Bush administration announced the winner of a
competition to design the nation's first new nuclear weapon
in nearly two decades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/wa...html?th&emc=th
From the article:
Nuclear weapons.
As long as there are nuclear bombs in the world with the actual PURPOSE of causing the types of disasters that nuclear power detractors talk about so much, aren't fears about the risks of accidental emissions and exposures a little ... beside the point? Of all the posters here who have mentioned nuclear disasters, I notice no one mentioned the two times actual nuclear weapons were used intentionally (except snax who used them to illustrate the relative amount of radiation released but didn't mention the larger issue). No one here would be likely to dispute that the loss of life, environmental damage, long term effects and other consequences of those two events outweigh the rest of the history of nuclear incidents, combined. We now live in a world with many nuclear powers, two of which are actually at war with one another. Don't other nuclear risks pale in comparison?
I hope that, for consistency's sake, all of you who oppose nuclear power plants feel equally strongly about opposing the building of any new nuclear weapons at all- I mean BY THE U.S., TOO- and are as disappointed as I am about the lack of effort the Bush/Cheney administration has put into nuclear disarmament issues and anti-proliferation diplomacy. The situation in India and Pakistan, or unsecured warheads in the former Russian Republics, are the kinds of things that should be keeping us up nights, not some NIMBY attitude that could just as well apply to trash incinerators or chemical plants, or half a dozen other hazards. If you ask me what I'm afraid about, I'll tell you: I'm afraid of the consequences of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.
I do think that some valid points have been made by both sides, here. Nuclear accidents and nuclear waste need to be taken very seriously, and the consensus among all of us is that we'd rather see more wind and solar power. I would also add, hydropower- when it's done right. We haven't discussed oil, coal, or natural gas, hopefully because we mostly agree that it would be good to use far less of all of them to get the energy we need. So there's a lot of agreement among us- so it should be easy to keep this cordial.
Edited to add: I just noticed a scary headline on this subject:
New Design for Warhead Is Awarded to Livermore
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The Bush administration announced the winner of a
competition to design the nation's first new nuclear weapon
in nearly two decades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/wa...html?th&emc=th
From the article:
The potentially expensive initiative faces an uncertain future and has generated much criticism from skeptics who argue that a new design for the nuclear arsenal is unneeded and is a potential stimulus to a global nuclear arms race.
“This is a solution in search of a problem,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a group in Washington. “There is an urgent need to reduce these weapons, not expand them. This will keep the Chinese, the Russians and others on guard to improve their own stockpiles.”
“This is a solution in search of a problem,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a group in Washington. “There is an urgent need to reduce these weapons, not expand them. This will keep the Chinese, the Russians and others on guard to improve their own stockpiles.”
Last edited by leahbeatle; 03-09-2007 at 02:26 PM.
#42
03-09-2007, 11:12 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
I'm definitely concerned with nuclear proliferation, but my observations of human nature say it's going to be a very long time - if ever before all nukes are scrapped.
I'd be delighted with a stockpile reduction in the current nuclear states and no more proliferation, but even that seems very optimistic these days.
I'd be delighted with a stockpile reduction in the current nuclear states and no more proliferation, but even that seems very optimistic these days.
#43
03-09-2007, 09:43 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Nuclear weapons just plan baffle me. It's like two seperate people ready to hang at the gallows, each holding onto the other's release mechanism. The whole idea of producing more is like reinforcing the rope to hang your opponent. At some point, it's all just a show.
I'll concede that the issue of risk with nuclear power is one of perception, but what I have yet to see aside from the idea that pumpless systems are being implemented is that these power plants are in fact fool proof. Chernobyl was a prime example of what happens when people who don't truly know what they are doing are put in charge of things. In other words, going back to what happened at Chernobyl, the cooling system itself could not handle the energy produced, bursting the containment system with the steam produced.
What safeguards are in place to prevent containment breaches from overload? The cooling system has to be contained, making it subject to pressure issues.
What safeguards are in place to assure that control rods cannot be erroneously removed to the point of runaway reaction?
And assuming everything that can go wrong does go wrong with a reactor, what would be the endgame to get it under control?
Obviously there's allot about nuclear power that I don't know, but I'm not alone, and so far no real public education campaigns have ever crossed my path to put my mind at ease on the issue. People like King George W. professing that nuclear power is safe might as well be telling us 'the check is in the mail'.
Even so, we are still left with deadly waste materials that cannot be easily disposed of nor forgotten.
I'll concede that the issue of risk with nuclear power is one of perception, but what I have yet to see aside from the idea that pumpless systems are being implemented is that these power plants are in fact fool proof. Chernobyl was a prime example of what happens when people who don't truly know what they are doing are put in charge of things. In other words, going back to what happened at Chernobyl, the cooling system itself could not handle the energy produced, bursting the containment system with the steam produced.
What safeguards are in place to prevent containment breaches from overload? The cooling system has to be contained, making it subject to pressure issues.
What safeguards are in place to assure that control rods cannot be erroneously removed to the point of runaway reaction?
And assuming everything that can go wrong does go wrong with a reactor, what would be the endgame to get it under control?
Obviously there's allot about nuclear power that I don't know, but I'm not alone, and so far no real public education campaigns have ever crossed my path to put my mind at ease on the issue. People like King George W. professing that nuclear power is safe might as well be telling us 'the check is in the mail'.
Even so, we are still left with deadly waste materials that cannot be easily disposed of nor forgotten.
#44
03-09-2007, 10:39 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Who can keep the plant running the longest? Check out the cool java simulation of a nuke plant:
http://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/demo.html
http://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/demo.html
#45
03-10-2007, 08:51 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Who can keep the plant running the longest? Check out the cool java simulation of a nuke plant:
http://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/demo.html
http://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/demo.html
Bob Wilson
#47
03-11-2007, 03:53 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
I think that the turbine valve sv1 is actually closing in two spots (on both sides of the breach) not just the single location shown.
#48
03-11-2007, 05:32 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
I think nuclear power is the way to go for many reasons:
1. The energy density from fissionable materials is extremely high.
2. There are commercial and military uses for recycled nuclear waste.
3. This is the big one: in order to make electric cars and trucks a mainstream reality, the power grid has to be able to handle charging tens of millions of vehicles concurrently while at the same time still supporting the household/business needs for the entire country. A coal-fired power plant just can't accomplish this.
4. Chernoble was an abberation. It was built by a government that was falling apart and didn't know what it was doing, and was too secretive to ask for help. The only nuclear accident in the United States was TMI. In that accident, there was very little radiation leakage. One of the three reactors still functions to this day.
1. The energy density from fissionable materials is extremely high.
2. There are commercial and military uses for recycled nuclear waste.
3. This is the big one: in order to make electric cars and trucks a mainstream reality, the power grid has to be able to handle charging tens of millions of vehicles concurrently while at the same time still supporting the household/business needs for the entire country. A coal-fired power plant just can't accomplish this.
4. Chernoble was an abberation. It was built by a government that was falling apart and didn't know what it was doing, and was too secretive to ask for help. The only nuclear accident in the United States was TMI. In that accident, there was very little radiation leakage. One of the three reactors still functions to this day.
#49
03-11-2007, 07:42 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Here us one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
Last edited by lakedude; 03-11-2007 at 07:49 AM.
#50
03-11-2007, 07:55 AM
