nuclear power

[toastmaster2k8]

what do you think of our nation being mostly run by nuclear power
you like it don't care or tree huger

me like nuclear

Edited for spelling

-mod

 

[BardSeed]

Nuclear.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

The problem with nukes is the waste.
It's incredibly dangerous and you have to store it for a long, long time.
As in way longer than the power plant's life (which is maybe 30-40 years).
As in thousands of years (or tens of thousands).
You have to keep paying money for that storage to make sure nothing leaks out.
For thousands of years.

No nukes for me, thanks. Too freakin' expensive.

 

[Pohlkat]

Indeed, the waste is too difficult to deal with, until we figure out how to make fusion commercially viable, I say we should steer clear of it.

 

[Souplex]

If we were to have most of our nuclear power plants where life aint gonna happen anyway the environmental impact would be moot. There is an energy crisis, we do need to cut down our consumption however we should not need to reduce our output.

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun so NASA gets to feel like they are accomplishing something and possibly if they get to charge and the government makes it mandatory can stop costing tax dollars.

 

[DaruneAlbane]

**The problem with nukes is the waste.
It's incredibly dangerous and you have to store it for a long, long time.
As in way longer than the power plant's life (which is maybe 30-40 years).
As in thousands of years (or tens of thousands).
You have to keep paying money for that storage to make sure nothing leaks out.
For thousands of years.

No nukes for me, thanks. Too freakin' expensive.**


that is the party line all the "waste" from past reactors is usable as fuel in the new ones and so does not need to be burried but reworked and used again

 

[howard_hughes]

If we were to have most of our nuclear power plants where life aint gonna happen anyway the environmental impact would be moot. There is an energy crisis, we do need to cut down our consumption however we should not need to reduce our output.

nukes need a lot of water for cooling, pretty much guarantees you'll be putting them on a river somewhere near humans. But yeah, I'm all for nuclear power myself if the waste becomes a problem we could just shoot it into space.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I'm all for dumping it all on Venus. The planet is uninhabitable anyway.

 

[The Iron Ninja]

No nukes for me, but saying that is pretty pointless since my government already decided that for me 21 years ago.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

this goes to the tree huggers out there

your ides are gonna fail one day or not work at all

blieve it!

 

[Fineldar]

I think Nuclear Power is a very good way to power cities for many reasons, but I think Tesla Coils would be better, but that will never happen either because there's no way to make people pay. So either people give up Capitalism, people get over their fear of anything with the word nuclear in it, or people get over greed. Or some rich philanthropist starts building some to do something with his money and be famous.

 

[Souplex]

Offsea solar and wind stations are a good idea but it is gonna take some time to set up and solar panels require frequent mantainance, nuke fuel is our best bet untill then.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

The problem with nukes is the waste.
It's incredibly dangerous and you have to store it for a long, long time.
As in way longer than the power plant's life (which is maybe 30-40 years).
As in thousands of years (or tens of thousands).
You have to keep paying money for that storage to make sure nothing leaks out.
For thousands of years.

No nukes for me, thanks. Too freakin' expensive.

You know, we have this wonderful little place called Yucca Mountain. It turns out to be a great place to store radioactive waste with very little upkeep.

I personally like the idea. It's clean, safe (if you store the waste properly), and not so expensive that it outweighs the environmental and practical benefits. Ideally, we should be moving toward solar power, but the technology on that front will take quite a while to develop to the level that we need. In the meantime, our best option is nuclear. Besides, in tens of thousands of years, we'll either be extinct or have the technology to do something better with the waste.

By the way, I also favor proper spelling.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Solar is the way to go. The earth gets more energy from the sun in one hour than humanity uses in a year.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

[But yeah, I'm all for nuclear power myself if the waste becomes a problem we could just shoot it into space.

I'm all for dumping it all on Venus. The planet is uninhabitable anyway.

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun so NASA gets to feel like they are accomplishing something and possibly if they get to charge and the government makes it mandatory can stop costing tax dollars.

Do you know how much it costs to send one ton of matter into space?
Do you know how many tons of waste you get from nuclear reactors?
Not viable.

all the "waste" from past reactors is usable as fuel in the new ones and so does not need to be burried but reworked and used again

And exactly what kind of reactor can use all the waste from fission?

Kids, I know you love your science-fiction. So do I. But we have to live in the real world where you can't just spend research points to magically do anything you want.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm all for it, we've discovered an ingenious way of not having to mine for oil and coal so much, and hell, if we could stop needing oil quite so much, that'd be a good thing!
*stops right there*

I do figure if space is infinite, surely we can load a rocket up with all the waste and just fire it away from the planet once every few years tho, sure its terribly irresponsible, but 1 ton of nuclear waste divided by infinity isnt much

Yes, I'm taking a simplistic view.

The main downside is the catastrophic results if terrorists target a plant, tho. There's only so much damage you can do to a mine, but a nuke power plant, that could be...bad.

 

[Shivari]

Solar is the way of the future. They recently discovered a way to effectively store it, so expect that to be the direction we head towards.

 

[SilentHunter7]

[But yeah, I'm all for nuclear power myself if the waste becomes a problem we could just shoot it into space.

I'm all for dumping it all on Venus. The planet is uninhabitable anyway.

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun so NASA gets to feel like they are accomplishing something and possibly if they get to charge and the government makes it mandatory can stop costing tax dollars.

Do you know how much it costs to send one ton of matter into space?
Do you know how many tons of waste you get from nuclear reactors?
Not viable.

I'm talking 50-100 years down the road, after we build the space elevator.

 

[r0manz]

I like nuclear power except for we have several of the same reactors used in Chernobyl O_O

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

The problem with nukes is the waste.
It's incredibly dangerous and you have to store it for a long, long time.
As in way longer than the power plant's life (which is maybe 30-40 years).
As in thousands of years (or tens of thousands).
You have to keep paying money for that storage to make sure nothing leaks out.
For thousands of years.

No nukes for me, thanks. Too freakin' expensive.

That's not entirely true, there's just a lot of places that would make great storage sites that aren't being used to do red tape, such as yukkah (sp) mountain which is located in the desert away from any source of ground water. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear waste isn't extremely dangerous as long as it doesn't end up contaminating the ground water over a long period of time.