Poll: Nuclear power and You
- Thread starter Kollega
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But then what is depleted uranium? The stuff they use in tank shells? I know, I could google this, but discussion is much more fun.Kollega said:
And for goodness sake, people, don't let the terrorists scare you into not doing things- that's exactly what they want!
In bombs,they use enriched (high-concentration) uranium (in a mix with plutonium,i guess - i don't really know). Depleted uranium is leftovers,IIRC. It's toxic,and is ignited by air exposure,but it's not radioactive. And with current cannons,it pierces armour just fine. When better cannons or railguns roll around,wolfrahm will be used instead - it's better in armour piercing at very high speeds.Danny Ocean said:But then what is depleted uranium? The stuff they use in tank shells? I know, I could google this, but discussion is much more fun.
I'm for nuclear power as long as you can manage the waste, and breeder reactors would help with that problem.
Also, because it can never be said enough, Chernobyl was the result of gross incompetence in its construction and management. Most nuclear power plants are much less likely to kill us all than that, though I can understand fear about them since such a situation would be catastrophic.
Also, because it can never be said enough, Chernobyl was the result of gross incompetence in its construction and management. Most nuclear power plants are much less likely to kill us all than that, though I can understand fear about them since such a situation would be catastrophic.
I hate to give in to a pet peeve, but it's bugging me; there's no "h" in "plutonium". I know it's petty, but it's bugging me like that one piece of grit in your salad.Kollega said:
Some reactors do take unenriched uranium and make plutonium as a byproduct, yes. Extracting that plutonium, though, isn't an easy task; it's not only hard to do, it's incredibly dangerous. Take that into account when looking at countries building reactors (cough Iran cough) of course, but don't be too concerned about some backyard crank making his own Fat Man as a gesture of protest or a group of amateur (insert preferred stereotype here) taking out (insert favourite city here). I'll repeat; current fossil fuels offer just as much opportunity for Heinous Acts as fission fuel right now with far less regulation and monitoring today, and people still sleep at night.
If plutonium concerns you that much, lobby for reactors with a more efficient fuel cycle that "burn" the plutonium created as well as the uranium... lower proliferation risk and less waste per megawatt-hour too.
-- Steve
You know,English is not my native language. I was a bit unsure about "h" myself. Well,i'll go fix it now.Anton P. Nym said:
I guess what worries people in basement-built nukes is that they're slightly more destructive than traditional fossil fuels/explosives. Imprecise comparsion: you surely can burn down a house with a few barrels of petrol,but you can obliterate entire city if you turn a crate of uranium into a nuke. That's why stricter regulation is needed.
Even 100 Chernobyl disasters are NOTHING compared to the danger of runaway Global Warming which WILL happen if we do not cut emissions by HALF of what they were back in 1990, and that needs to be done by 2050 or we are talking global extinction here. We have already passed the point of no return, global warming is coming and it is unavoidable but if it heats up too much then a feedback loop will begin and the entire planet will bake and burn.
A huge move towards nuclear power is the only way we have a chance of reaching that 50-50 deadline. And that IS a deadline literally.
You could cover the entire coastline of UK in wave power generators and it still wouldn't provide even a fraction of the UK's energy needs. Wind power also won't cut it as one turbine can only provide power for 400 people out of a population of 60'000'000 plus they don't give a constant power output and if it is too windy or not windy enough then no power. Solar power is equally useless as power consumption is highest at night (light and heating on) and during the winter months where there is the LEAST amount of light.
Carbon sequestering is WAY more dangerous than nuclear power, one thing goes wrong and there is even a minor leak then everyone for hundreds of miles suffocates to death as the CO2 seeps out and hugs the ground.
A huge move towards nuclear power is the only way we have a chance of reaching that 50-50 deadline. And that IS a deadline literally.
You could cover the entire coastline of UK in wave power generators and it still wouldn't provide even a fraction of the UK's energy needs. Wind power also won't cut it as one turbine can only provide power for 400 people out of a population of 60'000'000 plus they don't give a constant power output and if it is too windy or not windy enough then no power. Solar power is equally useless as power consumption is highest at night (light and heating on) and during the winter months where there is the LEAST amount of light.
Carbon sequestering is WAY more dangerous than nuclear power, one thing goes wrong and there is even a minor leak then everyone for hundreds of miles suffocates to death as the CO2 seeps out and hugs the ground.
Uhg. I consider myself an environmentalist at heart, but I can't here these arguments without going, "Goddamn hippie losers". In fact, the environmentalist in me absolutely hates people opposing Nuclear power. Nuclear meltdowns. No, this is not the 80's, nor is it a movie. Do you really think that we haven't advanced safety precautions since the 80's? Compare 80's technology to present day. I am more worried about a hydroelectric dam breaking then I am about a power plant. It's very telling that the big nuclear disaster happened in the soviet union. In the 80's. If safety is your concern, then nuclear power is probably close to the bottom of the list.Kollega said:
Nuclear Waste is really not a big concern from a safety perspective either. Nuclear waste does not explode. When its being transported around you're safe. Cargo of nuclear waste could probably be hit with a rocket powered train, and still not risk contamination. Oh wait, it definitely can be hit buy a rocket powered train. Because the department of test fricken DID THAT in one of there test, and nothing happened. They also burned it in jet fuel. Nothing. Besides, what if somehow something went above and beyond, and nuclear waste was spread around a major city? Well, a scientist was asked that question, and his reply was, "Well, we would pick it up again." A few locals would get the equivalent to a few X Rays, nothing would happen, and it gets loaded back into the cargo. Yeah, Nuclear Waste being used by terrorists is dangerous. The main reason it is dangerous is the hysteria it would cause in people who don't know any better then to listen to the anti-nuclear propaganda. besides, is the anti-nuclear argument based on the principle that we should bow down in supplication before the fear of terrorism? Both by changing out lives by fearing there attacks, and by not useing a power source that doesn't require oil? Im not prepared to do that.
Yeah, Nuclear power does have waste. It sucks. Which is why they are building an underground facility in the Nevada desert to supply all out nuclear waste storage needs. Does the radiation pose much danger to sand? No, not really, and if it did, it's sand. Oh, what about water runnoff? Yep, that's why it's in the desert. This facility would make the nuclear waste problem go away. And the anti-nuclear power people oppose it.
Nuclear Power is sustainable for way, way longer then it will take to bring about something like tidal of fusion. To not use it will force us to rely on technology's far less sustainable, dirtier, less efficient, dangerous, and more costly. People who oppose nuclear power need to stop watching 1950's sci fi movies, and start listening to scientists.
For the time being it is the best, but what we really want is Nuclear Fusion Reactors, which burn so hot there is no radioactive waste like in fission, it also makes 10X as much energy.
/threadXanadu84 said:
I was going to mention all of theses things but you beat me too it.
Moral of the story look at the data.
Nuclear waste have a half-life.
The mercury in my lights do not.
Of course it's not ideal in any way and you shouldn't build more nuclear plants carelessly and keep using them forever, but we do need more of them, especially now (or rather yesterday).
The mercury in my lights do not.
Of course it's not ideal in any way and you shouldn't build more nuclear plants carelessly and keep using them forever, but we do need more of them, especially now (or rather yesterday).
The nuclear waste that is created is easily handeled. Just bury it. Bury it deep. In a few thousand years it will be like nothing ever was there, and down there it doesn't hurt anyone.
