Nuclear power, yay or nay?

[Mr F.]

We need to pour more money into Nuclear research and green alternatives. Fuck this whole fracking "Lets poison the water supply" bullshit and spend some real money on Thorium reactors, Fusion reactors and Wind Farms/Solar Power/Tidal Power/Geothermal power/Anything that doesn't actively destroy the planet.

 

[MCerberus]

You know all those nukes we don't need because the excess is just pointless overkill?
Might as well get something out of that.
Reprocessing has advanced a good deal since the early days, and seriously, it's still better environmentally than leakage/exploding water with fracking.

 

[Snotnarok]

A lot of our power comes form nuclear but they're mostly old (in the US) and far less efficient and safe than more modern designs but people are fighting nuclear because of what happened in Japan despite the reasons for that being a catastrophic disaster ON TOP of the reactor had (think it was negligence?)

So instead of making newer and better reactors that are more safe and able to get more juice...people fight them on ignorance. No nuclear isn't the be all end all but right now it's PRETTY damn amazing.

 

[Henkie36]

snip

Try looking for JET and ITER. JET is a fusion plant in England and it is a research facility, made mostly for experimenting with various stuff, so that they can get it right in one go with ITER, which they are currently building in the south of France. It's true that over the past years a lot of claims have been made concerning fusion which produces more energy than it costs and all of those have turned out false. But now a lot of countries decided to throw all of their money on one big heap and finally get it done.

Deuterium and tritium are what we have been using for fusion bombs, true. The plan back in the fifties was to harness that pontential in a reactor. But those substances turned out to be so difficult to control (and to a lesser degree, extremely rare indeed), that the scientists switch to plasma, which is the kind of ''fourth state'', next to solid, liquid, gas. When had that figured out in the early sixties, that was when the claims were made that we would have fusion energy in a decade or so. Instead, scientists only found more and more increasingly subtle ways in which the plasma was countering what we wanted to do with it.

The beauty of plasma is that it is stable. We can nudge the hydrogen cores into fusing with the cores from the plasma. The beauty is that we can do that with ''standard issue'' hydrogen cores. That is the most abundand element on Earth, and indeed, the universe. The seas are full of it, for one. Now the trick with plasma is that it is extremely hot, and unless you keep it that way, it would fall back into gas and would be unusable for fusion. It is very difficult, but we are getting there. JET has set its record at 67% return, and that was 16 years ago. Technology has leaped forward since and we are slowly getting there.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Huge amounts of potential energy from the fuel source, entirely containable, entirely known and understood. Low deaths, high safety ratings, containable waste, enormous board of regulations (NRC).

But, it's incredibly costly to start up and maintain. But, when the plants run, the energy output is enormous.

 

[spartan231490]

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

 

[Heronblade]

snip

Try looking for JET and ITER. JET is a fusion plant in England and it is a research facility, made mostly for experimenting with various stuff, so that they can get it right in one go with ITER, which they are currently building in the south of France. It's true that over the past years a lot of claims have been made concerning fusion which produces more energy than it costs and all of those have turned out false. But now a lot of countries decided to throw all of their money on one big heap and finally get it done.

Deuterium and tritium are what we have been using for fusion bombs, true. The plan back in the fifties was to harness that pontential in a reactor. But those substances turned out to be so difficult to control (and to a lesser degree, extremely rare indeed), that the scientists switch to plasma, which is the kind of ''fourth state'', next to solid, liquid, gas. When had that figured out in the early sixties, that was when the claims were made that we would have fusion energy in a decade or so. Instead, scientists only found more and more increasingly subtle ways in which the plasma was countering what we wanted to do with it.

The beauty of plasma is that it is stable. We can nudge the hydrogen cores into fusing with the cores from the plasma. The beauty is that we can do that with ''standard issue'' hydrogen cores. That is the most abundand element on Earth, and indeed, the universe. The seas are full of it, for one. Now the trick with plasma is that it is extremely hot, and unless you keep it that way, it would fall back into gas and would be unusable for fusion. It is very difficult, but we are getting there. JET has set its record at 67% return, and that was 16 years ago. Technology has leaped forward since and we are slowly getting there.

Both JET and ITER are using/will use Deuterium and Tritium as a fuel source, and I have yet to hear of a reactor that can run on standard hydrogen rather than those two isotopes. At least for the present moment, the switch to using plasma as a reaction vector just allows for greater control.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to ITER, and will cheer if they can break even on that energy ratio, all I'm saying is don't pin your hopes on it.

 

[Taurus Vis]

Wind. Geothermal. Solar. All renewable and completely safe. But as long as OPEC is in existence and the US currency is propped up by the price of oil, no private or government funding will ever be given to these resources.

 

[TheLion]

Pfft, all you noobs whining over Uranium nuclear waste make me laugh. LFTR's where it's at

 

[Voulan]

Being from New Zealand, I've had it ingrained in me that nuclear power is bad, unstable, and harmful to the environment and people. It's why there was a big controversy where the US attempted to dock a ship with nuclear material here, and NZ told them to bugger off - a small country taking on a powerful big one was quite a stir at the time. Not to mention its disastrous use as weaponry.

Anyway, I can't really get past that viewpoint, so I'm saying Nay. How about hydrogen power? It uses air and salt water, and only gives off clean drinking water and electricity. Solving all the world's problems at once!

 

[VaporWare]

I have very complex feelings on the subject of nuclear power.

In broad strokes, I would say that I would rather the sum nuclear material of the earth be bound up in constructive purpose. The alternatives are, themselves, far more fearful: To let it lie in the earth, a silently seething poison amidst the stones waiting for natural disaster or errant exploration to let it burst into the skies, or lurk in silos as unthinkable weapons waiting for an unthinkable war.

There is a great deal of fear, some justified and some not, in the shadow of the atom. But it is here, with us, and it is in the universe in which we live. Its nature requires us to either contend with or flee from it, and where can we flee to?

It is our responsibility, knowing it as we do now, to handle it responsibly. We can not handle that responsibility by fleeing from it.

 

[rednose1]

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!

Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

As much as I want to like nuclear power, I don't. There's too many possible problems and too much possible impact to the environment due to radioactive wastes. It's better than coal, sure. But that doesn't mean it's good.

I'm more of a renewable energy person. Solar, wind, all that lovely stuff.

Spoiler: The wave of the future.

 

[spartan231490]

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!

Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.

Mostly, I see some problems with the sustainability. For one, you are adding energy to the Earth system by nuclear power, instead of just converting. This is going to cause more problems with global warming, since we're adding an additional heat source to the equation. It won't matter much over the short term, but over the long term . . .

Also, we have nothing to do with all that radioactive waste. Sure, we can store it somewhat safely for now, but many countries are running out of room to store it in, and with the kind of half-life your looking at for these things, we need to be able to safely store centuries or millennia of waste before it's actually sustainable, and we can't. Not to mention what happens 100 years from now when we run into a uranium crisis that will be every bit as bad as the current oil crisis, maybe worse.

I also think that we will find something better within the next half century or so. Zero point energy, maybe, and then there will be no reason to have risked these dangers.

Nuclear plants are phenomenally stable in normal conditions, and even mildly bad conditions, but we still haven't figured out how to secure them against natural disasters like Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other events that happen with reasonable frequency. Look at fukushima, the disaster was about 2.5 years ago and it's only now being discovered how bad the leaking is, and it could have been much worse.

I also have a problem with the statement that nuclear plants are safe. Yes, nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal conditions, but until we can make these plants safe in our infrequent but consistent disasters we have no business building them in hurricane zones or along fault-lines. Further, no other power plant has or ever will have an accident so bad as to render large tracts of land unlivable for decades or centuries.

Also, even if we could make them run safely through natural disasters, what about if a large war broke out? How would a running nuclear plant do if it was fire-bombed on-par with dresden, and if you shut it off during a war, where would you get the power?

The far better solution, for the environment and society, is to use solar power with smaller scale distribution. It's true that solar is quite difficult to generate enough power to run a plant, but it's laughable easy to run a home on solar, even if areas with poor sunlight. I live on the 45th latitude in an area that sees a lot of cloud cover and rainfall each year, and I know of a family that gets probably 80% of their power needs from about a 10 foot square of solar panels. They make up the difference with propane appliances and a generator. If they had even enough solar panels to cover half their roof, they would be able to run on pure solar no problem at all, and so would the vast majority of the civilized world.

 

[DeadRise17]

I'm a New Zealander so my opinion is automatically against. However, if the problem of waste could be lessened (thorium reactors) or negated (nuclear fusion) I likely would have less of a problem with it.

 

[rednose1]

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!

Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.

Mostly, I see some problems with the sustainability. For one, you are adding energy to the Earth system by nuclear power, instead of just converting. This is going to cause more problems with global warming, since we're adding an additional heat source to the equation. It won't matter much over the short term, but over the long term . . .

Also, we have nothing to do with all that radioactive waste. Sure, we can store it somewhat safely for now, but many countries are running out of room to store it in, and with the kind of half-life your looking at for these things, we need to be able to safely store centuries or millennia of waste before it's actually sustainable, and we can't. Not to mention what happens 100 years from now when we run into a uranium crisis that will be every bit as bad as the current oil crisis, maybe worse.

I also think that we will find something better within the next half century or so. Zero point energy, maybe, and then there will be no reason to have risked these dangers.

Nuclear plants are phenomenally stable in normal conditions, and even mildly bad conditions, but we still haven't figured out how to secure them against natural disasters like Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other events that happen with reasonable frequency. Look at fukushima, the disaster was about 2.5 years ago and it's only now being discovered how bad the leaking is, and it could have been much worse.

I also have a problem with the statement that nuclear plants are safe. Yes, nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal conditions, but until we can make these plants safe in our infrequent but consistent disasters we have no business building them in hurricane zones or along fault-lines. Further, no other power plant has or ever will have an accident so bad as to render large tracts of land unlivable for decades or centuries.

Also, even if we could make them run safely through natural disasters, what about if a large war broke out? How would a running nuclear plant do if it was fire-bombed on-par with dresden, and if you shut it off during a war, where would you get the power?

The far better solution, for the environment and society, is to use solar power with smaller scale distribution. It's true that solar is quite difficult to generate enough power to run a plant, but it's laughable easy to run a home on solar, even if areas with poor sunlight. I live on the 45th latitude in an area that sees a lot of cloud cover and rainfall each year, and I know of a family that gets probably 80% of their power needs from about a 10 foot square of solar panels. They make up the difference with propane appliances and a generator. If they had even enough solar panels to cover half their roof, they would be able to run on pure solar no problem at all, and so would the vast majority of the civilized world.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of nuclear power causing global warming, the only thing coming out of the cooling tower is steam.

As to the rest, i said I wouldn't try to change your mind, so not gonna start. Feel free to think what ya want, differing opinions are always good!

 

[spartan231490]

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!

Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.

Mostly, I see some problems with the sustainability. For one, you are adding energy to the Earth system by nuclear power, instead of just converting. This is going to cause more problems with global warming, since we're adding an additional heat source to the equation. It won't matter much over the short term, but over the long term . . .

Also, we have nothing to do with all that radioactive waste. Sure, we can store it somewhat safely for now, but many countries are running out of room to store it in, and with the kind of half-life your looking at for these things, we need to be able to safely store centuries or millennia of waste before it's actually sustainable, and we can't. Not to mention what happens 100 years from now when we run into a uranium crisis that will be every bit as bad as the current oil crisis, maybe worse.

I also think that we will find something better within the next half century or so. Zero point energy, maybe, and then there will be no reason to have risked these dangers.

Nuclear plants are phenomenally stable in normal conditions, and even mildly bad conditions, but we still haven't figured out how to secure them against natural disasters like Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other events that happen with reasonable frequency. Look at fukushima, the disaster was about 2.5 years ago and it's only now being discovered how bad the leaking is, and it could have been much worse.

I also have a problem with the statement that nuclear plants are safe. Yes, nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal conditions, but until we can make these plants safe in our infrequent but consistent disasters we have no business building them in hurricane zones or along fault-lines. Further, no other power plant has or ever will have an accident so bad as to render large tracts of land unlivable for decades or centuries.

Also, even if we could make them run safely through natural disasters, what about if a large war broke out? How would a running nuclear plant do if it was fire-bombed on-par with dresden, and if you shut it off during a war, where would you get the power?

The far better solution, for the environment and society, is to use solar power with smaller scale distribution. It's true that solar is quite difficult to generate enough power to run a plant, but it's laughable easy to run a home on solar, even if areas with poor sunlight. I live on the 45th latitude in an area that sees a lot of cloud cover and rainfall each year, and I know of a family that gets probably 80% of their power needs from about a 10 foot square of solar panels. They make up the difference with propane appliances and a generator. If they had even enough solar panels to cover half their roof, they would be able to run on pure solar no problem at all, and so would the vast majority of the civilized world.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of nuclear power causing global warming, the only thing coming out of the cooling tower is steam.

As to the rest, i said I wouldn't try to change your mind, so not gonna start. Feel free to think what ya want, differing opinions are always good!

It's not causing global warming. What I mean is that with nuclear power, massive amounts of energy that was locked away in matter is being released as heat and electricity(which always degrades to heat when used). It isn't like hydro or even coal power, where that energy was part of the system in the form of chemical or potential energy. We are increasing the overall energy of the Earth system by converting matter into energy. This wouldn't normally pose a problem, but in a situation where the Earth can't even dissipate the heat energy it gains from solar radiation it merely exacerbates the issue. Don't get me wrong, the amount of electricity human kind needs is a tiny fraction of the energy we absorb from solar radiation, but if we turn to nuclear power as a permanent source of electrical power then over the centuries that extra heat energy might play a role.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

If we can sort out the safety kinks and find a decent way to properly store nuclear waste, then maybe.

To be honest, I'd still prefer that money to be used to develop more sustainable and cleaner infrastructure though.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Nope, I want renewable energy. The sun for example will never run out.