Nuclear Power For or Against?

vduboise

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Coal is the most polluting energy source in the world. The amount of carbon dioxide they emit is very high. And coal power plante emit low levels of radiation. So it's not as clean or safe.

Hydro can damage the environment. Flooded areas behind the dam can release co2 when the vegetation rots. And if the dam was to fail, it would be a huge disaster

The thing about wind is that it's very costly to install, has low power and inconsistent output

there needs to be a combination of things that can work. And nuclear can be one of them. There is new technology now that has multiple redundant fail safes that make it safer.

kenny olav

Have been AGAINST it since I was old enough to understand what it was. Anyone who is for it should be forced to have nuclear waste buried in their back yard.

vduboise

kenny olav wrote:

Have been AGAINST it since I was old enough to understand what it was. Anyone who is for it should be forced to have nuclear waste buried in their back yard.

As a continuing growing society with new technologies that need power, we can look at other options. If nuclear can be made safer, updating older plants, and stricter regulations, its one answer to our growing needs.

Thoughts_Arrive

All of you that are for it, would you live close to a nuclear plant?
I don't care how much more pollution comes out of a coal plant or the risk associated with hydro, they do not cause as much damage as a nuclear plant when it fails.
Where does the radioactive by-product go? They dump it somewhere right?

Kilgore_Trout

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

All of you that are for it, would you live close to a nuclear plant?
I don't care how much more pollution comes out of a coal plant or the risk associated with hydro, they do not cause as much damage as a nuclear plant when it fails.
Where does the radioactive by-product go? They dump it somewhere right?

how many big nuclear meltdowns have you heard of?

would i live near one? yes, assuming it wasn't a total eyesore. i have a 50% chance of dying of cancer. an airplane can land on my house without warning at any second. i can get into a car accident on my way to work. should we base our life decisions on hindsight and worst case scenarios? no. i honestly doubt you would want a fuckin coal plant in your backyard either.

the waste is stored deep below ground in rock bed deemed tectonically safe. its a stupid system and we will run out of space unless we think of a better disposal method, but at least it's not blowing immediately into our atmosphere and causing instant damage like coal

Thoughts_Arrive

Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
Japan 2011
That episode on the Simpsons where Homer saves the day

4 That I can think of.
Look how bad Chernobyl was, they don't have to happen often to be devastating.
Chernobyl won't be safe for another 2000 years.

DinghyDog

-

vduboise

When oil gets to $200 per barrel, peoples opinion against nuclear energy will change.

redrock

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Coal :shock: As I said... any replacement would have to be able to provide the same amount of energy. All these sources you mention can only provide a tiny fraction, even if their use was upped many-fold.

threefish10

stargirl69 wrote:

You are up against that ridiculous newbie thread ... we are all doomed :? It's amazing what a pretty passport photo and a breast photo can do to the feeble minds around here

wait what?

breast photo?

do i have to trawl through 44 pages to see some boobies?

oh and to add to the conversation, without nuclear power we wouldn't have movies like the china syndrome

Thoughts_Arrive

threefish10 could become threeeyedfish12 if we continue with nuclear power.

jmurray

Kilgore_Trout wrote:

jmurray wrote:

So what do we do with the waste?

we could use subduction faults and burn it up in the earth's core, shoot it into the sun, or continue to improve nuclear reprocessing to make it a safer option

When we have a handle on reprocessing, I'm with you. In the mean time, it's just seems to be building up at individual sites which I don't think ideal. One of which is very near me.

ShimmyMommy

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

I agree, it's time to go sustainable. We definitely need new energy sources that can deliver with much less impact on the world. Not for tomorrow, but for now.

ShimmyMommy

81 wrote:

anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.

the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.

cool stuff

Yes, it's amazing how something as small as algae can have the power to do all that. I am excited for ideas like that to get here.

The Juggler

redrock wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Coal :shock: As I said... any replacement would have to be able to provide the same amount of energy. All these sources you mention can only provide a tiny fraction, even if their use was upped many-fold.

right.

people want to break away from oil and nuclear right now ....shit takes time...years....decades

81

ShimmyMommy wrote:

81 wrote:

anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.

the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.

cool stuff

Yes, it's amazing how something as small as algae can have the power to do all that. I am excited for ideas like that to get here.

sadly the company that was working on it went belly up. it appears they were producing more algae than they could handle, and the cost of some structure was twice as much as they anticipated, and of course the market crash of a couple of years didn't help matters when it dried up funding.

JonnyPistachio

Obama mentioned that he has a plan to have 80% of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2035.
2035 is a long way off, but at least its a start.

Kel Varnsen

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
Japan 2011
That episode on the Simpsons where Homer saves the day

4 That I can think of.
Look how bad Chernobyl was, they don't have to happen often to be devastating.
Chernobyl won't be safe for another 2000 years.

The Chernobyl was opened in 1977. Cars were a hell of a lot more dangerous in 1977. I mean should we have banned cars because of the safety problems associated with the Pinto. Plus Chernobyls accident was the result of operator negligence becuase they were trying to do things they knew the plant wasn't designed for.

As for Thee Mile Island, that was something like the worst accident in US history and yet the total amount of deaths associated with that accident was zero. So to me that is a story of a plant that worked well.

Hell there was a coal mine accident last April in West Virginia that killed 29 miners. It would seem to me that, that would make coal way more dangerous than nuclear.

nuffingman

For and against.

Against because I'd like to see the end of nuclear power but with the power demands of the world it won't happen and is necessary.

As for the others, coal is extremely polluting as already mentioned. Wind would need the whole of this country covered in those unsightly windmills. Hydro isn't possible in some countries and very often whole communities and villages disappear because of dam construction e.g The Three Gorges in China. Also building huge dams in a country that suffers earthquakes would be foolish to say the least.

Jason P

I think we have the general tendency to overreact when a freak disaster occurs. My opinion is that you have to weigh the pro and cons of an energy source.

In the US, our main sources of electricity breakdown as follows:
• Coal – 45%
• Natural Gas – 24%
• Nuclear – 20%
• Hydroelectric – 7%
• Others – 4%

I would like to see renewable resources such as wind and solar power advance, but what should they replace first? My opinion is that coal plants should be the first to go. Electricity production accounts for 40% of emission in the U.S. and coal is the main offender.