Nuclear Energy?

[triggrhappy94]

This is an interesting issue that I don't think gets discussed enough, escpecially because it doesn't seem to be aligned with one party or another.

What's your stance on it? Way or the future, or dangerous pipe-dream?

My thoughts: I think it's a great idea. As of now, when the most recent designs are used any plants completely safe. In a couple years it could easily surpass any other form of energy with the development of He3, which is already close. For those who don't know, He3 could be used for almost completely clean energy. It's rare on Earth due to the atmosphere, but the Moon is covered in it. A shuttle's worth of the stuff could be enough to power America for a year. It's basically like in the movie Moon, minus the cloning part.

Captcha: motorman's atmlil

 

[Soviet Steve]

They've come a long way since the unsafe designs of the 50s (Like Chernobyl). I support nuclear power plants. I know some folks prefer coal due to its apparent safeness but if you count the tens of thousands of people who die yearly from coal mine accidents and the pollution that coal plants makes we'd need Chernobyl every three weeks to even match that.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I support nuclear plants. They provide a lot of power, we've come a long, long way since Chernobyl and in this province it is not under threat of earthquake damage. Mind you, Saskatchewan doesn't have too many power demands when compared to more populous regions of the country but it is more environmentally friendly.

I always used Nuclear Power in the Sim City games until Fusion became available. Speaking of which, has that been completely disproved or something? I dunno, I don't keep up with these things. I just like building cities and then summoning 26 consecutive hurricanes.

 

[crudus]

People don't really seem to understand how safe nuclear energy is. People were on the fence and warming up to the idea when 3 Mile Island (If I remember right, nobody died) and Chernobyl (which was very avoidable) happened. People kind of vetoed it then. Honestly we need a lot more nuclear power. It is clean and very efficient. Fuel is literally decaying(figuratively in our hands), and people don't want to use it.

They've come a long way since the unsafe designs of the 50s (Like Chernobyl). I support nuclear power plants. I know some folks prefer coal due to its apparent safeness but if you count the tens of thousands of people who die yearly from coal mine accidents and the pollution that coal plants makes we'd need Chernobyl every three weeks to even match that.

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

Indeed, although why people would assume otherwise for a design that was discount by 1950s Soviet standards I am sort of puzzled by.

 

[spectrenihlus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

This should dissuade everyone of their nuclear fears. It is the best solution for long term energy.

 

[Vegosiux]

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

Lets not also forget that even considering that, the reason for it going to hell in a handbasket was human stupidity. Even Chernobyl reactors were "safe enough" not to blow up in your face on their own.


But yeah I support nuclear power. Just has to be treated with utmost respect and care.

 

[JesterRaiin]

What's your stance on it?

I'm 100% supporter of nuclear power. It's efficient, it's considerably clean (at least when compared to coal powerplants), and it's safe.

 

[Eddie the head]

Just throwing it out there, there was the whole Japan thing not long ago so that might shake public faith. Not saying I am against it.

 

[Esotera]

The new breed thorium reactors make most sense for nuclear power, I think they produce very little nuclear waste.

Then again, I'm more in favour of subsidising electricity generation for homemakers, especially in the countryside. It puts less strain of the grid & less can go wrong if one plant stops working for some reason.

 

[GoaThief]

I'm very much opposed to nuclear energy except as a last resort. One wonders if all in support actually have a reactor on their doorstep and know more about the dark side that comes with it. Just as a rather sobering example; cancer rates where I live are four times the national average, and this is a plant with a "good" safety record. What you have to realise is that virtually all the "scientific" groups and thinktanks who are massively in favour of nuclear energy are funded by the energy giants themselves who unsurprisingly have a vested interest in the public perceiving them as the messiah and saviour. There's plenty of local censorship too and no consultations with people in the immediate area, rather taking opinions from a large city over 30 miles away after running with some heavy propaganda campaigns. Even with this public opinion is very divided, the further you are away from the plant the more opinion sways in favour of nuclear energy.

No, give me a tidal barrage with a wind farm atop instead. Yes, it's not the cheapest option (which is why the plans have been made but building yet another reactor is going ahead) but you are effectively throwing the public under the bus in the name of corporate greed. That should be unacceptable to any civilised person, and a nice fuck you to anyone who says nuclear energy is worth more than my child's life.

That's just the day-to-day running, have no lessons been learned from the Fukushima disaster which has ruined large swathes of the country and sent nuclear fallout around the world?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Sure as hell beats war in the middle east

 

[JeanLuc761]

I'm very much opposed to nuclear energy except as a last resort. One wonders if all in support actually have a reactor on their doorstep and know more about the dark side that comes with it. Just as a rather sobering example; cancer rates where I live are four times the national average, and this is a plant with a "good" safety record. What you have to realise is that virtually all the "scientific" groups and thinktanks who are massively in favour of nuclear energy are funded by the energy giants themselves who unsurprisingly have a vested interest in the public perceiving them as the messiah and saviour. There's plenty of local censorship too and no consultations with people in the immediate area, rather taking opinions from a large city over 30 miles away after running with some heavy propaganda campaigns.

No, give me a tidal barrage with a wind farm atop instead. Yes, it's not the cheapest option (which is why the plans have been made but building yet another reactor is going ahead) but you are effectively throwing the public under the bus in the name of greed. That should be unacceptable to any civilised person, and a nice fuck you to anyone who says nuclear energy is worth more than my child's life.

That's just the day-to-day running, have no lessons been learned from the Fukushima disaster which has ruined large swathes of the country and sent nuclear fallout around the world?

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates? Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it. It took a staggeringly powerful 9.0 earthquake and a 26 foot tsunami to cause a problem with the plant, and even then it most likely would have survived without issue had the water not knocked out the power to the cooling systems. Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems. There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs. Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

 

[brubobaggins]

I think Australia should really get on this whole nuclear energy thing. We have wide, desolate, uninhabited expanses of what is basically desert, which gives us a convenient place for waste storage and lessens the impact of a disaster (unlikely as that would be). It's got lots of uranium sitting around waiting to be mined, so wouldn't have to buy it or anything. And finally, Australia's one of the most geologically stable countries on the planet, so next to no chance of anything Fukushima-like occurring. And considering that most of our energy comes from old coal plants, anything alternative would be better for the atmosphere.

Silly fuddle-headed old-fangled politicans and their prehistoric supporters... grr.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

Fuck that unsafe bullshit.
Humans just need to get their shit together and start using geothermal power. There is more than enough sources for clean energy out there like geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, etc that we don't need to be fucking around with dangerous shit like nuclear energy.

 

[5t3v0]

The only headscratcher regarding it I have is the waste product, but if we can figure that out (if we haven't already since I last checked) then its all gud.

 

[Thaliur]

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates? Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

OF COURSE IT'S THE POWERPLANT! YOU BRAINWASHED CORPORATE DRONE JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT!!


ahem...

So much for the argumentation AGAINST them. Most (important) points in favour have already been mentioned, plus, the cancer risk near coal plants is probably much higher than near nuclear plants. After all, smoke has been PROVEN to increase the cancer risks, while radiation leaks are incredibly rare.

It really pissed me off when Germany announced its (apparently final) shutdown of nuclear plants, decided by people who have no clue about the technology. They even want to keep a few reactors "on standby for power shortages", probably because radioactive material is only used up if you actually use the energy it gives off, and stays perfectly stable if you just let all the heat it gives off dissipate into the atmosphere...
And a week later, development of the travelling wave reactor was entering its final stages, providing a possible use for all that "burnt-out" fuel we NEATLY ENCLOSED IN INACCESSIBLE CAVES, COVERED BY CONCRETE!!
Frelling morons, our politicians. And the protesters they listen to, even more.

In one report they interviewed a protester who wanted to stop a nuclear waste transport, because he considered it a waste of tax money because of all the police officers that had to guard the route from protesters, and the danger of their prolonged exposure to the (extremely low) leaking radiation from the containers, which was almost on the level of a CT scan due to the travel speed of the transport, which was very slow, because of ALL THE IDIOTS CHAINING THEMSELVES TO THE TRAIN TRACKS OR DIGGING OUT THE RAILS!!
Idiots and hypocrites, all of them.

OK, not all of them, maybe only 90%...