Nuclear Energy?

[WoW Killer]

That's not what the OP was talking about??
*goes back and reads text*...

Didn't see it mentioned. He3 is what the OP was talking about, which is a pure fusion tech. If anybody was talking about hybrid power then they weren't mentioning it by name.

Most of the anti-nuclear posts seem to be coming from the angle that fusion isn't here yet (true as a self sustaining power source) and fission is inherently dangerous/dirty (and as much as the problems of fission have been overstated due to historical cock-ups like Chernobyl, that is still sort of true). It's thus very much worth stating explicitly that modern designs, like hybrid, are fundamentally based on very different reactions. The fission that is undergone in a hybrid plant is not the same as what goes on in a pure fission plant; the reaction is sub-critical in the former. Something like the Chernobyl disaster couldn't have happened with a hybrid plant, no matter how incompetent the staff there were. Even an unpredictable natural disaster like at Fukushima poses no real issues.

 

[DrOswald]

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

The water being warmer is no coincidence, it is almost certainly caused by the plant's cooling system. But that doesn't mean radiation is leaking. In fact, we have a name for what is happening. It is called thermal pollution. If you had bothered to look it up you would have found that it has nothing to do with radiation and explains the lack of wild life in the area as well as the increase of temperature.

Can you tell what city or town you live in (not an exact address or anything similar)? I would like to check your claim that the cancer rate is 4 times higher next to your power plant. Or at least name the power plant so I can look it up. Otherwise I will have to completely discount your arguments as they are most likely untrue.

 

[Muspelheim]

Also, the issue of the warm plantwater being dumped into the surrounding sea or rivers could be very simply solved if we recycled that water and used it for heating elsewhere. While that might sound dangerous on paper, it's worth to remember that the particular water being dumped haven't been anywhere near the reactor core. It's the water that was used in the steam turbines, and it's just as safe as any old water in the area. A hypothetical accident would have to be pretty flippin' odd in order to irradiate that particular water circuit.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I say fuck nuclear, let's start building Geothermal plants, they have even less risk than nuclear, they cannot be sabbotaged in a way that is dangerous to the surrounding environment, AND they produce a ton of electricity, and have an insanely low opperating cost... Look into it, you'll see what I mean, there's a ton of oppertunity all over the place to build em and the "hotspots" they'd be sittin on are good for thousands more years of electricity production, and well yeah, no fuel materials, no harmful emissions AT ALL!

 

[RastaBadger]

I think it's good. We should use fission until we get fusion working then switch to that.

 

[Naeras]

There is really only two downsides to nuclear power: it's not renewable, and it results in radioactive waste.
No, "but what if it explodes" isn't as big of a question. You remember Japan last year? The radiation level in the city in question was still lower than what it currently is in the city I'm in now(Oslo). Chernobyl isn't going to repeat itself, either, as security on those reactors are far, far better than what it was back then, and that level of human error isn't going to happen again.

But yeah. The only real downside is nuclear waste, a problem that would be a lot smaller if other types of fission reactors(thorium in particular) were viable. On the other hand, that really is a serious downside that we don't really know how to address. I still don't think the cons outweigh the pros, however: it's a very effective energy source and doesn't release greenhouse gases.

 

[gim73]

Huh? What? Somebody wants to know about nuclear power? Somebody wants to know about an industry that is so heavily regulated that shipping casks have to be dropped large distances onto a metal spike without being punctured, set on fire, submerged under the water and various other tests before being able to be used? Okay.

Might as well start with radiation leaking out of the plants. Radiation can't really be 'leaked' out. While some material can be 'leaked' out, that is all carefully monitered to prevent such an occurance. Plants are designed so that by the time you get to the outer fence of the plant, your radiation moniter should read background.

As far as fusion power goes: Imagine this, you have a tiny sun. What material can you build around it to contain it? How do you stop it from getting hotter or cool it down? What material is able to transfer this thermal output into electricity in an efficient and consistant manner? Now cold fusion is the dream, but I have my doubts on being able to attain a critical level.

 

[direkiller]

That won't always be so, they are pretty rapidly improving the power requirements to create hydrogen in large amounts. The progress will put Nuclear energy into the history books in time.

if your talking about hydrogen that powers cars:
you are still breaking the hydrogen off of water?
if so there's a law of physics you need to break to get a net gain of energy
and that's not gona happen.

If your talking about Fusion:
We still have a while to go. Where not even to the point where were getting a positive amount of useful energy let alone a working power plant.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

I love nuclear power. Did you know that there is enough thorium in the U.S. alone to power the whole country for 1000 years? Also switching to nuclear power means no more shitty energy star appliances.

EDIT: One more fact: The Fukushima Reactor was scheduled to be shutdown and was at the end of it's lifespan.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Im completely against it. I don't care how safe some people make it out to be. Accidents can and do happen. The switch from fossil to nuclear is simply trading off one set of problems for another. Keep it out of my country.

You are completely wrong. If knew took off your blinders and looked at the facts then you wouldn't if they built a hundred nuclear plant in where ever you live.