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?
#101
04-22-2007, 03:05 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Nuclear Power?
I'm no fan of Bush but I've always been humored by those that criticize Bush for saying nucular. It's the equivalent of criticizing JFK for saying riva instead of river, or pronouncing decade like decayed. Big deal.
I just watched China Syndrome and Michael Douglas said nucular throughout along with 2 other actors.
I just watched China Syndrome and Michael Douglas said nucular throughout along with 2 other actors.
#102
04-23-2007, 09:17 AM
Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carless in Curacao, Netherland Antilles
Posts: 141
Re: Nuclear Power?
Ewwww...China Syndrome. Not one of Douglas' (few) finer moments. LOL!
#103
04-23-2007, 09:18 AM
Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carless in Curacao, Netherland Antilles
Posts: 141
Re: Nuclear Power?
There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions about nuclear power.
1. Waste is deadly, and lasts for thousands of years.
True and false. The waste is indeed deadly, but the reason it's so deadly is because there is so much material left in the waste that's actually useful fuel.
Basically, "full" fuel rods contain a fair amount of fissionable material. As the fuel is "burnt", non-fissionable material builds up, reducing the useability of the rod. Eventually, build-up occurs to the point as to make the rod useless in our current reactors.
The waste is whatever is left in the rod. However, there is plenty of useable material left. The rods would need to be reprocessed. Doing so greatly extends the useable life a a fuel rod. There are also other materials in a spent rod that can be fed into "breeder" reactors to get even more useful fuel out of them.
The bonus is, the end waste is far less deadly and has a dangerous period of about 300 years as opposed to 10,000 years for standard nuclear waste. There would also be a whole lot less of it since more of the fuel fission into non-radiological materials.
2. Nuclear plants are risky, and an accident can wreck major havoc.
Modern designs such as pebble bed reactors can't melt down. Worst case scenario, the core becomes hot but the design prevents it from becoming the next Chernobyl.
However, an even better source of nuclear power is to use thorium. More on this later.
3. Nuclear fuel is a limited resource as well, so we'll hit yet another peak fuel situation.
While it is true that like oil there is a limited supply of fuel, we deadline is much farther into the future. Using a combination of breeder reactors and thorium based fuel, there is enough fuel to last around 10,000 years.
Thorium (unlike uranium) is quite plentiful. It's also safer than uranium as a fuel since thorium reactors require a neutron pump (cut off the pump and the reactions stop on their own).
Nuclear power is the most likely candidate for (mostly) clean power at least in the near term. You can only build so many hydroelectric dams (ecological impacts an all that). Solar cell efficiency is still too low to be practical (though there are some advancements that may help there) and the manufacturing process is rather nasty. Geothermal would be good if only it was more easily obtainable.
Our ultimate solution is fusion, but that still is at least a couple decades away unless some major breakthrough occurs.
In the meantime, both ecologically and practically, nuclear power is the best.
~X~
1. Waste is deadly, and lasts for thousands of years.
True and false. The waste is indeed deadly, but the reason it's so deadly is because there is so much material left in the waste that's actually useful fuel.
Basically, "full" fuel rods contain a fair amount of fissionable material. As the fuel is "burnt", non-fissionable material builds up, reducing the useability of the rod. Eventually, build-up occurs to the point as to make the rod useless in our current reactors.
The waste is whatever is left in the rod. However, there is plenty of useable material left. The rods would need to be reprocessed. Doing so greatly extends the useable life a a fuel rod. There are also other materials in a spent rod that can be fed into "breeder" reactors to get even more useful fuel out of them.
The bonus is, the end waste is far less deadly and has a dangerous period of about 300 years as opposed to 10,000 years for standard nuclear waste. There would also be a whole lot less of it since more of the fuel fission into non-radiological materials.
2. Nuclear plants are risky, and an accident can wreck major havoc.
Modern designs such as pebble bed reactors can't melt down. Worst case scenario, the core becomes hot but the design prevents it from becoming the next Chernobyl.
However, an even better source of nuclear power is to use thorium. More on this later.
3. Nuclear fuel is a limited resource as well, so we'll hit yet another peak fuel situation.
While it is true that like oil there is a limited supply of fuel, we deadline is much farther into the future. Using a combination of breeder reactors and thorium based fuel, there is enough fuel to last around 10,000 years.
Thorium (unlike uranium) is quite plentiful. It's also safer than uranium as a fuel since thorium reactors require a neutron pump (cut off the pump and the reactions stop on their own).
Nuclear power is the most likely candidate for (mostly) clean power at least in the near term. You can only build so many hydroelectric dams (ecological impacts an all that). Solar cell efficiency is still too low to be practical (though there are some advancements that may help there) and the manufacturing process is rather nasty. Geothermal would be good if only it was more easily obtainable.
Our ultimate solution is fusion, but that still is at least a couple decades away unless some major breakthrough occurs.
In the meantime, both ecologically and practically, nuclear power is the best.
~X~
#104
06-05-2007, 04:47 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
"Nuke power has some safety/security and waste issues but is still the best short term option."
It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is a long term investment.
In addition, nuclear power plants have been operational in the United States (using antiquated designs) and in the military for decades without a single life being lost. With modern nuclear power plant design, safety is of little concern if proper safety procedures are followed, which has been the case in the antiquated nuclear power plants that have been operating for decades.
Furthermore, coal burning power plants, which the US currently uses for the majority of its energy demands, the uranium content of coal for a given amount of energy far outstrips the amount of uranium necessary for a nuclear plant to generate that same amount of energy. Our present coal burning power plants are by no means safe and are extremely harmful to human health. Large percentages of people living near coal burning power plants and coal miners develop cancer. It is hard to find sources for much of this, but in my chemistry class I did calculate the amount of coal needed to generate a given amount of energy and the amount of uranium needed to generate a given amount of energy and the results differed by several orders of magnitude. In addition, the federal government has very ****ing evidence to demonstrate the necessity of nuclear power, as a consequence of the unregulateable uranium and thorium emissions of coal burning power plants:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is a long term investment.
In addition, nuclear power plants have been operational in the United States (using antiquated designs) and in the military for decades without a single life being lost. With modern nuclear power plant design, safety is of little concern if proper safety procedures are followed, which has been the case in the antiquated nuclear power plants that have been operating for decades.
Furthermore, coal burning power plants, which the US currently uses for the majority of its energy demands, the uranium content of coal for a given amount of energy far outstrips the amount of uranium necessary for a nuclear plant to generate that same amount of energy. Our present coal burning power plants are by no means safe and are extremely harmful to human health. Large percentages of people living near coal burning power plants and coal miners develop cancer. It is hard to find sources for much of this, but in my chemistry class I did calculate the amount of coal needed to generate a given amount of energy and the amount of uranium needed to generate a given amount of energy and the results differed by several orders of magnitude. In addition, the federal government has very ****ing evidence to demonstrate the necessity of nuclear power, as a consequence of the unregulateable uranium and thorium emissions of coal burning power plants:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 06-05-2007 at 04:54 PM.
#105
06-05-2007, 06:16 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Oh, and the military never misrepresents anything or conveniently ommits accident statistics - in the interest of national security of course.
#106
06-05-2007, 06:56 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Er, yeah, Three Mile Island never happened, and none of the people who were exposed died from the various cancers associated with it. No sale.
Oh, and the military never misrepresents anything or conveniently ommits accident statistics - in the interest of national security of course.
Oh, and the military never misrepresents anything or conveniently ommits accident statistics - in the interest of national security of course.
http://www.google.com/search?q=coal+...ient=firefox-a
The idea that nuclear power is bad because people died from cancer as a result of radiation exposure from it is absurd, as that implies that there is no radiation exposure from coal burning power plants.
Nuclear power is safe, clean and environmentally friendly. The sheer quantities of death caused by coal power generation (and hydroelectric power generation for that matter; see the following article for more information) and the present possible quantities of death that could be caused by radiation release to the environment from a nuclear power plant make nuclear power the only energy option that anyone concerned with human health would want used for the electrical grid.
I suggest that you read the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...on_Post_Ad.jpg
#107
06-06-2007, 06:47 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
I take no issue with your contentions over how dirty and hazardous coal power is. I merely object to the whitewashing of nuclear power as having been the pinnacle of safety. Clearly, on a statistical level, people have died as a result of incidents involving nuclear energy in the US. The DOE has simply refused to acknowledge the association.
No matter what methods are employed to generate electricity, there will always be hazards involved to somebody - whether that is from the creation or extraction of the materials used, the construction of facilities, or the daily operation of energy plants. They key is to evaluate the bigger picture of frequency and severity of accidents vs. the long term payoff.
No matter what methods are employed to generate electricity, there will always be hazards involved to somebody - whether that is from the creation or extraction of the materials used, the construction of facilities, or the daily operation of energy plants. They key is to evaluate the bigger picture of frequency and severity of accidents vs. the long term payoff.
#108
06-06-2007, 07:43 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
I never said that nuclear power is the pinnacle of safety, but it is the safest form of energy that we have, which can satisfy our present energy demand. It is also the only feasible way that the United States could lower its carbon emissions without enormous leaps in technology.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/wo...f51ab1&k=46292
If anything, those who object to carbon dioxide emissions on the premise that they will bring doomsday should be clamoring for nuclear power plants to replace coal burning power plants. If nuclear power plants replaced all coal burning power plants in the United States, the United States' carbon emissions would be reduced by approximately 8.7%:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/carbon.html
Edit: If utilities replaced natural gas and petroleum power plants with nuclear power plants in addition to replacing coal power plants, the United States' carbon emissions would be reduced by approximately 9.8%. That in itself, is a fairly large reduction.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/wo...f51ab1&k=46292
If anything, those who object to carbon dioxide emissions on the premise that they will bring doomsday should be clamoring for nuclear power plants to replace coal burning power plants. If nuclear power plants replaced all coal burning power plants in the United States, the United States' carbon emissions would be reduced by approximately 8.7%:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/carbon.html
Edit: If utilities replaced natural gas and petroleum power plants with nuclear power plants in addition to replacing coal power plants, the United States' carbon emissions would be reduced by approximately 9.8%. That in itself, is a fairly large reduction.
Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 06-06-2007 at 07:48 AM.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Motown
General EV Discussion
17
07-21-2016 03:09 AM
