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?
#11
03-05-2007, 01:28 PM
#12
03-05-2007, 04:43 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
#13
03-05-2007, 07:06 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
My biggest gripe about the promotion of nuclear power is the fact that other sources of renewable energy are nowhere near maximized.
Fact: Solar, wind, and hydro-turbine energy generation cannot reliably meet 100% of our power needs on their own. I.e., when it's dark, no solar. When it's windy, no wind power. When the reservoirs are drained and rivers are low, minimal hydro.
So what happens if all three deficiencies occur at once? We rely on alternative sources. But that doesn't mean we need to embrace the HUGE risk of nuclear energy - which is much like the threat of terrorism, the majority of people don't think much about it until something really ugly happens. (I'm not implying anything political there, just stating reality.) The fact is, that if we maximized our use of the renewable sources above, we could supplement with backup power as needed from fossil fuels. Even better, I haven't even addressed geothermal, tidal, or wave energy based power production - sources of energy that are far more reliable than the other three, and horribly underutilized.
The FACT is, there is so much useable renewable energy around us, we should never have to even use fossil fuels as a backup if we just make the effort to utilize the renewables.
The crux of the problem is cost. People want their energy cheap and are willing to sell out the health of their neighbors and possibly the entire planet to get it. In simple terms, people need to start putting their money where their mouths are and support green energy programs, whether that is directly with solar, wind, or micro-hydro, or by subsidizing grid based renewables. IMO, advocating anything less is harmful and selfish - whether that is out of greed or need.
Fact: Solar, wind, and hydro-turbine energy generation cannot reliably meet 100% of our power needs on their own. I.e., when it's dark, no solar. When it's windy, no wind power. When the reservoirs are drained and rivers are low, minimal hydro.
So what happens if all three deficiencies occur at once? We rely on alternative sources. But that doesn't mean we need to embrace the HUGE risk of nuclear energy - which is much like the threat of terrorism, the majority of people don't think much about it until something really ugly happens. (I'm not implying anything political there, just stating reality.) The fact is, that if we maximized our use of the renewable sources above, we could supplement with backup power as needed from fossil fuels. Even better, I haven't even addressed geothermal, tidal, or wave energy based power production - sources of energy that are far more reliable than the other three, and horribly underutilized.
The FACT is, there is so much useable renewable energy around us, we should never have to even use fossil fuels as a backup if we just make the effort to utilize the renewables.
The crux of the problem is cost. People want their energy cheap and are willing to sell out the health of their neighbors and possibly the entire planet to get it. In simple terms, people need to start putting their money where their mouths are and support green energy programs, whether that is directly with solar, wind, or micro-hydro, or by subsidizing grid based renewables. IMO, advocating anything less is harmful and selfish - whether that is out of greed or need.
#14
03-05-2007, 09:39 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
The crux of the problem is cost. People want their energy cheap and are willing to sell out the health of their neighbors and possibly the entire planet to get it. In simple terms, people need to start putting their money where their mouths are and support green energy programs, whether that is directly with solar, wind, or micro-hydro, or by subsidizing grid based renewables. IMO, advocating anything less is harmful and selfish - whether that is out of greed or need.
Spot on. And this is the sad truth. Make it easy, make it cheap, but if it's ugly, don't put it anywhere near ME. That's our nature. We've been so brainwashed with cheap oil for so, so many years - people here think it's a fundamental right. There's a big part of the problem, right there. That's why we NEED the costs to rise - to wake people up.Oh, I was the second voter for #3, lots of worries for me, although it *might* be better than directly funding terrorism, like we are doing now.
#15
03-06-2007, 06:33 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
We are going to need power and can't be that picky for the next few decades. Nuclear power will be part of an interium solution while other alternative energy comes up to speed.
#16
03-06-2007, 07:35 AM
Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carless in Curacao, Netherland Antilles
Posts: 141
Re: Nuclear Power?
I have great hope for emerging technologies, but as several others have already said, if we wait too long...
#17
03-06-2007, 08:12 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Hydro electric comes at a cost. The land that was once not covered by water is now covered by water, the species/habitat of animals living in the area are destroyed. In China, the 3 river dam (i forgot name), is destroying a ton of historical sites because it's impossible to move it all. I think hydro always gets billed as a clean source of energy but we forget the impact it had on other areas.
#18
03-06-2007, 08:45 AM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Hydro electric comes at a cost. The land that was once not covered by water is now covered by water, the species/habitat of animals living in the area are destroyed. In China, the 3 river dam (i forgot name), is destroying a ton of historical sites because it's impossible to move it all. I think hydro always gets billed as a clean source of energy but we forget the impact it had on other areas.
#19
03-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
Clearly when you make a hydro lake you are changing the enviroment. What was once dry land will of course be covered in water, however this is known in advance. They can tell EXACTLY where the water is going to go and if something is deemed important enough it can be moved. If it is not deemed important enough it is going to end up at the bottom of the lake. You also create a NEW enviroment rich in water dwelling lifeforms and completely safe for humans (unless you drown). The "damage" done by making a lake is not even in the same ballpark as a nuclear accident.
I'm not going to cry a river for the few birds windmills kill either.
I'm not going to cry a river for the few birds windmills kill either.
#20
03-06-2007, 12:47 PM
Re: Nuclear Power?
In general I'd pick hydro over nuclear, but it looks like we will need both for awhile.
Almost any power source is going to have some kind of downside.
Almost any power source is going to have some kind of downside.
