Poll: Nuclear power and You

[Kollega]

We all know about Nuclear Power. Some of us love nuclear power. The question is: how do YOU feel about it?

Pros of nuclear power:
- Good energy output.
- Long-lasting fuel (replacement once in a few years).
- No poisonous/greenhouse gases.
- Not affected by economics too much.
- Reactors can be installed on ships to bring energy whereever it's needed.
- Great plot element for all forms of fiction,and is awesome in general.
- Is a viable option for space travel.

Cons of nuclear power:
- Possibility of a meltdown and radioactive pollution.
- Nuclear terrorists can get their hands on a nuclear fuel or radioactive materials.
- Highly dangerous waste remaining for thousands of years.

First two risks are not too big,but one should never underappreciate a risk.

The Chernobyl argument: As we all know,Chernobyl has shown the dangers of... not so much of a nuclear power in general,as the dangers of mishandling it. Disaster happened because reactor was defective by design,safety protocols were ignored,and some guys among the personell were too dumb to live. Nuclear meltdowns do not happen all the time,but are extremely dangerous nontheless - so all constructions must be double-checked,and only best of the best should be allowed to man nuclear power stations.

I,personally,don't think renewable sources could bring all the energy needed. But when we get fusion power (more output,less radioactivity),we should switch to it.

 

[Nimbus]

...No direct pollution...
...
...Highly dangerous waste remaining for thousands of years...

Umm... Contradiction?

 

[Simalacrum]

I strongly disagree with nuclear energy. Sure, it has very little pollution in comparison to coal power stations, but it just replaces one problem with another - with so much deadly nuclear waste produced from nuclear power plants, we should really just switch to renewable energy sources, which will last for much longer, and, with enough R&D, can become much more efficient than it already is.

 

[Kollega]

...No direct pollution...
...
...Highly dangerous waste remaining for thousands of years...

Umm... Contradiction?

I'll edit it for clarity.

 

[JRCB]

I strongly disagree with nuclear energy. Sure, it has very little pollution in comparison to coal power stations, but it just replaces one problem with another - with so much deadly nuclear waste produced from nuclear power plants, we should really just switch to renewable energy sources, which will last for much longer, and, with enough R&D, can become much more efficient than it already is.

Oh! I have an idea for the extra nuclear materials! Fire them into the sun!

Seriously, I am fine with nuclear reactors. They create energy relatively cleanly. The only time I'm worried is when one of them goes bottom up.

 

[Kollega]

Oh! I have an idea for the extra nuclear materials! Fire them into the sun!

That's what i was thinking about waste disposal.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

Disaster happened because reactor was defective by design,safety protocols were ignored,and some guys among the personnel were too dumb to live.

It was because the Technicians decided to perform a test, without informing everyone, or going through all of the safety procedures.

If it weren't for Chernobyl, my guess is that Nuclear Power would be much much more widespread.

Also, 19% (more like 13% now, actually, in light of recent closures) of the Uk's Energy comes from Nuclear Power. They want to reduce the number of Nuclear Power Stations. This is a terrible idea, as then there is a massive gap to be filled.
Filled with Expensive and low-efficiency Wind Turbines, which disturb wildlife. With Tidal Power, which disrupts the tide patterns, screwing up ecosystems.

Nuclear Power is the way to right now, but the dangerous waste produced is the problem.
In the past, it was dumped in the sea. Now it is buried underground.
Imagine 200 years from now, digging up the ground, and finding Some nuclear waste?
Terrible. The waste takes hundreds of millions of years to decompose.

 

[Necrofudge]

Well I just feel that until we design a disposal system that isn't just digging a really big hole and dumping the nuclear waste. But overall if the workers are competent enough, its pretty safe.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

...No direct pollution...
...
...Highly dangerous waste remaining for thousands of years...

Umm... Contradiction?

Nope. There is no harmful gases given off (eg: Co2), but the waste afterwards in the harmful bit.

 

[Simalacrum]

Oh! I have an idea for the extra nuclear materials! Fire them into the sun!

Yeah, sure, lets use huge amounts of non-renewable oil to launch highly volatile nuclear waste into the big firery ball millions of miles away, cause that won't make it angry!

 

[LockHeart]

I think it should be given greater consideration as a viable option for energy generation. Obviously it's not perfect, but then again what current system is?

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Oh! I have an idea for the extra nuclear materials! Fire them into the sun!

As if space missions weren't dangerous and expensive enough.

OT: Nuclear power is the best we got so far. Renewable energy is great and everything but if it can cope with the demands of the daily energy grid then that's a path worth venturing into. Right now though, all those solar panels, wind turbines and hamster balls (or whatever environmentalists use) just can't maintain a constant and reliable output of power to match the daily energy needs of a developed country let alone that of a nuclear power plant.

Solar power, wind power, tides, these are all good on paper but sadly they are dependent on the environment. Our demand for electricity however has to be met 24/7 not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. Therefore, the only environmentally friendly option that can provide that is a nuclear power plant.

Basically until we can develop fusion power further, nuclear fission is the safest way to go. Provided it doesn't have a meltdown.

The only other environmentally friendly and possibly effective solution is to develop space-based solar power. That way the sun's radiation can be harnessed effectively (as the stations would be in space) and it can beam the energy down via microwaves to a "gathering station". It would be much more efficient, possibly generate more power, there would be no need for unsightly terrestrial based solar panel farms and almost negligible environmental impact.

It would be horribly expensive though.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

I really think we should use Nuclear Power more. Sure there's a risk of an accident, but that risk is small if precautions are taken. We'll only need a few compared to the wind turbines we might need to power the country. It's very efficient, and it's what the government is most interested in.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Nothing's perfect. I say, we use nuclear power. If not because of the environment, then for the sake of making economies more self-sufficient.

 

[JenXXXJen]

If the waste was disposed of properly, it'd be absolutely fantastic. IF. Though I still think it's a pretty good option.

 

[Daughterofether]

Well it happened. I finally saw enough stupid posts on here i had to make an account just to reply. I feel dirty ... like ive allowed myself to be trolled.

Lets lay down some more facts shall we?

cost per kilowatt hour:
solar 50c
hydro 29c
Oil 18c
Gas 8c
Coal 3c
Nuclear 2c

of these nuclear and solar are the only one decreasing with time. and as someone working on solar - its not decreasing all that fast.

Waste per killowatt hour:
Coal 0.95kg
Nuclear 30g

Deaths by car accident in america PER YEAR: 39000
Deaths due to the Chernobyl incident EVER: 4000

i am in no way exagerating when i say opposition to nuclear power plants is fairly irrational. that said its hardly the be all end all response either we do need to move on to renewable sources sharpish. theres just no reason we shouldnt admit that total power generation by renewable means is at best a millenia off and with exhaustion of fossil fuels only 200 years away and death due to the problems they cause even closer we should very definitely be powering ourselves with nuclear until we get there.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Well I think solar/wind/tidal power is the best option, but it isn't always practical, and sometimes you just need a massive output for small imput. In these cases I think a nuclear power plant would work fine, especialy if we had a fool proof way of disposing of the waste(A dig site on the moon?)

overal, with the exception of renewables, nuclear power is the best option we have today.

 

[Daughterofether]

Oh! I have an idea for the extra nuclear materials! Fire them into the sun!

Yeah, sure, lets use huge amounts of non-renewable oil to launch highly volatile nuclear waste into the big firery ball millions of miles away, cause that won't make it angry!

T.T

we use electrically cracked oxygen and hydrogen to fuel space craft, this is not the 1980's.

nuclear waste isnt volatile. nuclear waste is a selection of solids. not that i expect someone who makes a statement like that to know what volatile actually means