Poll: College Research Paper Survery - Nuclear Power

[Good morning blues]

I say this every time these threads get posted, but if I were a college professor and someone submitted an assignment that included data collected from the Escapist forums, I would bust them down at least two letter grades. This is not anything even approaching or approximating a representative sample of public opinion on nuclear power.

That said, I support nuclear power because it is the greenest option available to us that still produces enough power to run our society. There are only two problems with nuclear power: first, the capital cost is very high, and second, people irrationally fear the atom. The first can be overcome with government loans and grants, which are how other power generation methods are usually financed, and the second can be overcome with education; as long as public officials emphasize that it is literally impossible for another Chernobyl to happen with the nuclear safety protocols we have now, and as long as they also point out that the waste from coal power is actually more radioactive than the waste from nuclear power, they should be able to shut down that shrill choir effectively enough.

France hasn't blown up yet. I'm sure that most of the people who oppose nuclear power are also the sorts of people that don't want to seem like they're more afraid of atoms than the French.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

It is the best way to produce electricity (after solar, wind, and water)

And with those three, you have problems.
Solar - Would figure it would only work during the day and effectiveness would be dependent on the weather.
Wind - Not always there.
Water - Location must be near a large enough current.

Right?

Best in terms on environmental impact. Sorry, should have said so...

Yeah, I meant that, but the downside is relying on the Earth, unless I was wrong about the whole wind/solar thing. I don't know much about how solar panels work and am just guessing that that are not as efficient on cloud days and don't work at all at night... Same with wind and how much wind is actually needed to generate a decent amount of energy. Or if hydro relying on a fast moving current or something else...

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

It is better than coal power, what we're using here. We were going to get a nuclear program here in Saskatchewan but a group of fifty or so people with media attention convinced the government that the whole province was opposed to it. I'm pretty sure Nuclear power is better for the environment than Coal is and it produces more power. Also, Saskatchewan has a lot of Uranium, the most in Canada I think so it doesn't make sense that an entire government would back down to fifty people who have friends in the media. Nuclear Power-stations are not Nuclear weapons people! Man, people here are afraid of change.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Yeah, I meant that, but the downside is relying on the Earth, unless I was wrong about the whole wind/solar thing. I don't know much about how solar panels work and am just guessing that that are not as efficient on cloud days and don't work at all at night... Same with wind and how much wind is actually needed to generate a decent amount of energy. Or if hydro relying on a fast moving current or something else...

There are essentially two types of solar power: 1) solar cells, which are the black tiles you put on your roof. You are absolutely correct, those depend entirely on sunlight, and won't do anything at night.
2) Using sunlight to generate fluid movement and power a turbine. This is essentially how traditional powerplants work, except you replace the fuel source with a ton of parabolic mirrors that heat a pipe containing the fluid. These powerplants are capable of working throughout the night, at least the prototype that was built somewhere in Nevada (I think it was there...).

Of course it is always necessary to rely on something for a fuel source, first law of thermodynamics and all, but the amount and type of fuel used can be varied, as can the location. However, cost is a major factor here, and fossil fuels are still cheap enough to discourage innovation in the field beyond ideas and the occasional scale model/prototypew

 

[Marowit]

Fully support it.

There are dozens of nations that have been using it quite successfully, Canada and France for example, and it seems to be a better source of power than Coal.

 

[Xrysthos]

Nuclear power with modern technology is practically without risk. The only problem is handling the waste, which requires careful planning, but represents no real problem if done correctly. A safer alternative, which is almost a reality, are thorium based reactors. The energy yielded per unit of weight is somewhat smaller than uranium or plutonium, but thorium is much more abundant and easier to mine. In addition, it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons with modern date technology, there is virtually no possibility of a thorium reactor meltdown, and it has a much shorter half-life, so storing the waste products will be safer and better for the environment. If you don't take meltdowns and waste products into concideration, nuclear energy is as clean as it gets, which is why I cannot understand why it meets such great opposition.

Using thorium reactors could bring the world cheap energy for a long, long time, while we're waiting for our dear friends the nuclear physicists and engineers to figure out how to make a working fusion reactor. Personally, I think opposing nuclear power is ignorant, because if you are in any way educated in the workings of a modern nuclear plant, whatever the fuel type, you would understand that there is virtually no risk involved.

 

[Daveman]

Yes, it's totally safe and the only issue is the waste. Even that though is a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits that Nuclear power gives us.

 

[Brandon237]

No.

Simply because we'll run out of places to dump all the waste eventually.

Well we have a simple solution for that with fossil fuels don't we. Put it in the atmosphere! /sarcasm.

Sorry. I'm not in a good mood. but I have my reasons. While yes, it does take long for nuclear waste to lose its radioactive properties, it is incredibly easy to dispose of. You can recycle large amounts of it if you use the right isotopes, the yield is massive compared to how little waste there is and it doesn't leach into the atmosphere as it is a solid.

It is, considering all the small factors that come with all but wind energy, the cleanest source of power (as said, after the slightly inefficient wind power and very rarely practical geo-thermal power). Until fusion is a reality, nuclear fission power is our best bet.

If you don't like nuclear, what form of power do you prefer?

 

[WalkNasty]

No.

Simply because we'll run out of places to dump all the waste eventually.

i say shoot it into space. the radiation wouldnt get to us through the atmosphere and magnetosphere.

 

[Spitfire175]

Powerplants are incredibly safe nowadays. "Chernobyl" is an invalid argument. It went boom because the Politbyro had ordered a series of tests to research the reactor's capabilities and they accidentally went too far. There was no failsafe. And that type of reactors aren't even built anymore. The reason it had a high bodycount is our good friend Soviet Union. News of the accident were classified and no evacuation could be assembled.

Nuclear power is at the moment the cleanest and most efficient form of energy production. There's enough uranium to run the current plants and any new planned for a hundred years or more. After we're done with fossil fuels and have finally realised wind/sun/water aren't quite enough, we'll have cracked fusion. If humans are still around.

 

[firedfns13]

Even if it does explode, we'll get awesome anomolic artifacts that can cure any problem!

 

[Brandon237]

No.

Simply because we'll run out of places to dump all the waste eventually.

This is actually the one valid argument against nuclear power. But its also completely fucking moot. Nuclear waste is recyclable! We're running around digging holes under death valley and storing it in tanks when it could be (theoretically) endlessly recycled back into fuel grade material. Except recycling nuclear waste is banned under the nuclear proliferation treaty, as the same process can create weapon's grade material.

A piece of fucking paper is stopping us from having endlessly renewable energy.

Politics and Religion have always been forces for the greater evil. Many countries of the world dig up, process and turn metals into nukes. But they are not allowed to do the same with recycling? Especially when most are *intending* to recycle for power anyway. This also makes nuclear power in my country very impractical. We have plenty of reusable waste from one of our stations that could power new stations, But due to no recycling we have to build a new coal station. I hate paper.

My country gave up nukes! But were still not allowed to recycle our radioactive material...

 

[sagacious]

My father was a reactor operator on a US submarine. "Navy nukes" are what these people are called. He knows a hell of alot more about Nuclear power than I do, or indeed most anyone does, and he is a major supporter of it. I figure he probably knows what he is talking about.

though, I do still support geothermal over any other form of energy. Seriously, look it up. geothermal power rocks.

 

[ChocoFace]

I have to write a research paper over nuclear power, and we need some type of interview or survey, so I thought why not come here? So, do the member of The Escapist support the idea of nuclear power? Why or why not? Or you can just vote...

Basically no pollutants (except the obvious - nuclear waste, which CAN be recycled, although i'm not familiar with the details).
The negative aspects are that there's not too much uranium and at the moment no decent place to store the waste at a large scale, waste that would take ~10 000 years to have it's radioactivity removed.
Also, other means of getting energy have been and will be developed, so i guess you'll have to make your own mind.

 

[dmase]

I don't support nuclear power, I believe that green energy sources should be explored. I live in a village which has four advanced gas cooled reactors distributed between Heysham 1 and Heysham 2. They're seeking planning permission for a third nuclear power station here.

I have little faith in the safety protocol of the stations. The stations themselves are built upon reclaimed land by the sea, and are therefore situated on a flood plain. Both stations have been criticised for the lack of qualifications of their employees. Heysham 1 was offline for months following the discovery of cracks in the core graphite bricks. Heysham 1 also had to seal off part of a turbine basement following a sulphuric acid leak. The nuclear incident alarm is the single most terrifying thing I have heard in my life. The onsite muster call is essentially an air raid siren and can be heard in residential areas. When the stations vent it sounds like the apocalypse.

We don't have the infrastructure to properly deal with a leak, the iodine tablets we're issued would be akin to taking an aspirin when your head was on fire. A letter regarding contingency I took the time to transcribe was so full of typos they even got the area code wrong when listing the telephone number of a local authority. Our roads would not handle a mass evacuation, they'd bottleneck less than a mile away from the stations.

Of course there's also the environmental aspect, brownfield sites that will be contaminated for generations and the secure and sustainable storage of nuclear waste are massive issues.

I was actually thinking about your post for awhile and wondering what the hell is up with the safety codes for your plant, they shouldn't have even been able to open at all with that.

Then i was like oh yeah not everyone is American, so yeah i feel sorry for you. Does Britain have a lackluster nuclear policing agency?

 

[SteinFaust]

I support it. as long as they don't dump byproducts here on earth. launch that 5h!t into the sun.

 

[kinky257]

Yeah, I meant that, but the downside is relying on the Earth, unless I was wrong about the whole wind/solar thing. I don't know much about how solar panels work and am just guessing that that are not as efficient on cloud days and don't work at all at night... Same with wind and how much wind is actually needed to generate a decent amount of energy. Or if hydro relying on a fast moving current or something else...

You are wrong there, I remember reading an article in the paper (The Sunday Times) about a guy who installed solar panels onto his roof. On average over a year he made a profit selling excess power generated back to the national grid. It was about five years ago I read this and the technology in solar panels has advanced since then, making them more efficient. In fact that's a selling point of most companies who put them into your house, that they will pay for them selves over time in reduced energy costs and resale of excess to the grid. I can only guess that the rather high cost (£10,000-£15,000? at a guess)of installation is the only thing stopping them from being made mandatory on all newly built houses.

More on topic yes i support nuclear power, the idea that the entirety of my power needs for my life time is about an ash trays worth of nuclear fuel is rather appealing to me. Well defiantly more so than having horribly inefficient, eyesore wind turbines pop up every where which seems to be the UK governments current course.

 

[hittite]

Yes. Modern nuclear plants are cleaner, and more efficient than coal. And they're more or less completely safe.

 

[Pokedude1013]

Doesn't nuclear waste remain forever and is not able to be recycled? Maybe that's just my uninformed ass, but I'm pretty sure the only use for depleted uranium is tank armor and armor piercing slugs

 

[Pokedude1013]

I have to write a research paper over nuclear power, and we need some type of interview or survey, so I thought why not come here? So, do the member of The Escapist support the idea of nuclear power? Why or why not? Or you can just vote...

Basically no pollutants (except the obvious - nuclear waste, which CAN be recycled, although i'm not familiar with the details).
The negative aspects are that there's not too much uranium and at the moment no decent place to store the waste at a large scale, waste that would take ~10 000 years to have it's radioactivity removed.
Also, other means of getting energy have been and will be developed, so i guess you'll have to make your own mind.

And the thing is that the metal containers that you store the waste in will probably degrade before the uranium becomes safe