Poll: Nuclear power and You

[Tekyro]

until fusion and solar are both perfected, no power source is perfect

Well the same could be said for anything really. Once you perfect it, it is perfect. I know what you mean, but you could have phrased it a bit better in my opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

It doesn't make a bit of difference guys, no matter what you say or believe the world is just going to use oil until it runs out.

Oil isn't the problem, we can burn all of our gas and oil resources fairly safely... the problem is coal power which is still where the UK gets most of it's power from.

Remember, oil and gas are hydrocarbons, most of their energy comes from the hydrogen, though the carbon output as CO2 is significant, it is manageable especially if efficiencies are increased and overall rate of consumption are reduced, possibly through carbon taxation.

Coal fired power stations on top of being less efficient get 100% of their energy from carbon. The big target for reduction has to be coal power stations since they release so much CO2 for the amount of energy they provide.

 

[lucaf]

uranium isnt like oil; if we dont use it we loose it. its all in the ground slowly degrading into lead. once its gone its gone forever, so we should make the most of it. the waste will be made wether we make it or not. the only difference is the rate

 

[ljd184]

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.

what about the mole people

 

[wolfy098]

It's the best working energy source

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

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

That costs lots of monies. Monies we can't pretend to have.

I think nuclear energy has great potential. France is practically living off of it now, and so far has had only one accident, which has practically been classified as negligible.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Remember, oil and gas are hydrocarbons, most of their energy comes from the hydrogen, though the carbon output as CO2 is significant, it is manageable especially if efficiencies are increased and overall rate of consumption are reduced, possibly through carbon taxation.

Um, no, it doesn't work that way. Hydrocarbons combust ideally into water and carbon dioxide; no matter how efficient you get, you can't change that. (Improving the efficiency just means you're producing more energy for the same output, and cranking out fewer secondary reactions that produce pollutants like nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.) In this, gas and oil are no better than coal; the advantages gas and oil have over coal come from how efficiently and energetically they burn. Burning any carbon-based fuel (besides biodiesel, though that's a whole different headache) will add to the greenhouse problem.

The problem with all fossil fuels is that they add old carbon back into the atmosphere; this is carbon trapped out of the atmosphere by plant life that got buried over several million years. Burning this old carbon increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere today faster than today's plant life can draw it back down and sequester it underground... and that's the problem with all fossil-carbon fuels.

-- Steve

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

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.

nuclear power stations only cause damage if a meltdown occurs.

 

[yaik7a]

Those waiting for fusion power might want to put the kettle on now because they have will be having a fucking long wait.

Not really , as the expertments at the LHC have shown a possibal way to fusion protons

 

[JWAN]

...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.

^ That's correct
I wish that they would remove all of the bullshit so we could actually use this resource.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Once we've got nuclear powerplants with zero waste, I'll say they're awesome, until then...

Besides that, I don't think burying radioactive waste for later generations to find is a very nice thing to do.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

I thought there went meant to be an increase in nuclear power stations, I thought that there where going to be a lot more for 2020.

They are thinking of doing that. But recently, all they've done is close them down.
The Government's in two minds about it.

 

[JWAN]

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.

Nuclear energy gives off about a gallon of waste every 4 years, then you take that, put it into a lead box and dispose of it. OR you can run it through a process and make it usable for another year and a half, and after that its reduced to the point where you can bury it, e.x Under Yucca Mountain.
The new systems give off less waste.

There is absolutely no reason NOT to use more nuclear energy.

 

[JWAN]

Once we've got nuclear powerplants with zero waste, I'll say they're awesome, until then...

Besides that, I don't think burying radioactive waste for later generations to find is a very nice thing to do.

How much waste do you think they give off?

 

[JWAN]

Nuclear Power is AWESOME,

This is a beautiful sight

Whats wrong with water vapor?