Nuclear Energy - Yay or Nay.

[Jak]

Solar and wave power(kind of ironic) can produce vast amounts of energy as can wind turbines so generation is not exactley a problem.Implementing is as it cost alot of money but once they are in place these turbines and other forms need very little maintence and have very little chance of blowing up.Also there isnt a dependency on fuels that will run out eventually.

but what do you do in countries that aren't sunny a lot of the time and countries where there isn't very much wind. Nuclear power produces monumental times of energy compared to wind and sun.

 

[pistolped7]

Nay. I'm not an expert on all the different information about efficiency and that, but I think the risk factor, however small, is too much to gamble on. Obviously I'm the last person you'd ask on this, but it is just too dangerous and volatile for my liking. :S

 

[coolguyrko]

Nuclear fusion is a near infinite supply as it uses Hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the universe. We have Uranium supplies to last us hundreds; and thousands of years if we can develop certain technologies to be safe. I'll be stunned if we don't have a fusion reactor in that time scale.

Thats true but Hydrogen does run out e.g Stars die.(Completley diff tho.Anyway countries are looking to cleaner alternatives anyway.More and more countires are looking into Wind Solar and wave power and thats because these industries are growing.

 

[Mike.]

you do understand that solar and wind power pales in comparison to the amount of power generated by a nuclear plant? and neither are constant supplies,you cannot replace nuclear with either, only supplement them

 

[Lizard_Growl]

Yay and Nay. Best solution to energy at the moment but imo produces to much waste (which is more polluting in a way than greenhouse!) and can be unstable involving certain circumstances, nuclear power stations should be kept limited as well. Harnessing nature is part the future, all for underwater snakes as long as they dont damage the sea floor to much which i suspect they wont.

And the best thing would be to reduce energy in the first place!

 

[coolguyrko]

but what do you do in countries that aren't sunny a lot of the time and countries where there isn't very much wind. Nuclear power produces monumental times of energy compared to wind and sun.

It doesnt actually matter about the intensity of the sun becasue solar is more about light.All energies can be exported and imported from other countries.Ireland I think at the momment is building a connector with England which is also going to be conncected to Europe and the enregy is being supplied threw these connectors.

 

[Joel`]

Thats true but Hydrogen does run out e.g Stars die.(Completley diff tho.Anyway countries are looking to cleaner alternatives anyway.More and more countires are looking into Wind Solar and wave power and thats because these industries are growing.

Yes but those stars have a life span of billions of years. Humanity will be over by then, thus near infinite.

 

[Ronaldoz]

I think is a hard question with 2 totally different sides.
1 is the very efficient and clean one.
2 is the very nasty one.

As long it is been used in the safe way and absolutely safe, it would be fine?
But still, it will ran out, and the waste is nasty.
Also disasters can make disasters even more worse.

I don't know. I would like another source, that comes from something that will never ran out.
Must be efficient if it would become major for the future.

 

[GodCubed]

Thats true but Hydrogen does run out e.g Stars die.(Completley diff tho.Anyway countries are looking to cleaner alternatives anyway.More and more countires are looking into Wind Solar and wave power and thats because these industries are growing.

Erm. Hydrogen makes up most of the Universe. I understand you can't fathom how much that is (I can't either. Nobody truly can) but needless to say it more or less goes on forever. So that's an infinite supply, as near as makes no difference.

Countries are looking into it because we haven't developed fusion yet. When we do, there's no point.

 

[JH-94]

Nuclear Power FTW. This is what one disaster you have heard about involving Nuclear power, they've been using it for years.. Yes Chernobyl was a huge disaster for the world but they don't happen often and as it is the best method for energy then why not?

I also think the use of tidal power is the only other method that is reasonable, wind farms cost too much..

 

[Joel`]

It doesnt actually matter about the intensity of the sun becasue solar is more about light.All energies can be exported and imported from other countries.Ireland I think at the momment is building a connector with England which is also going to be conncected to Europe and the enregy is being supplied threw these connectors.

If the light is more intense than then there's more potential energy ..

Exporting energy between country's is just adding another inefficiency to an already inefficient source.

 

[coolguyrko]

you do understand that solar and wind power pales in comparison to the amount of power generated by a nuclear plant? and neither are constant supplies,you cannot replace nuclear with either, only supplement them

Yoes I know that but if every country in the world wud have some kind of unity every country has the ability to produce different types of natural power which can then be used to power the world for example.Northern Europe can produce mass amounts of Wind power and Africa can produce mass amounts of solar power and both these could actually combine to power both continents in theroy.The only problem is that and kind of ironically the fight for Fossil Fuels has left pretty much every country at war with each other.

 

[Jak]

Nuclear fusion is a near infinite supply as it uses Hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the universe. We have Uranium supplies to last us hundreds; and thousands of years if we can develop certain technologies to be safe. I'll be stunned if we don't have a fusion reactor in that time scale.

I think is a hard question with 2 totally different sides.
1 is the very efficient and clean one.
2 is the very nasty one.

As long it is been used in the safe way and absolutely safe, it would be fine?
But still, it will ran out, and the waste is nasty.
Also disasters can make disasters even more worse.

I don't know. I would like another source, that comes from something that will never ran out.
Must be efficient if it would become major for the future.

As Joel says it uses hydrogen so it won't run out. As long as it's built in countries that aren't known for disasters then there is no need to worry in that respect. Also you see Japan's nuclear station. Even after all the punishment it has taken it still hasn't had a major meltdown. The waste is a negative point but as long as we can store it safely there isn't too much of an issue

 

[coolguyrko]

As Joel says it uses hydrogen so it won't run out. As long as it's built in countries that aren't known for disasters then there is no need to worry in that respect. Also you see Japan's nuclear station. Even after all the punishment it has taken it still hasn't had a major meltdown. The waste is a negative point but as long as we can store it safely there isn't too much of an issue

So they say but they are still fairly worried about it.Most people dont like the fact that a refinery for natural gas is built near them so I dont understand why people think that these people would feel safer with what is practically a nuclear bomb beside them.

 

[Lizard_Growl]

As Joel says it uses hydrogen so it won't run out. As long as it's built in countries that aren't known for disasters then there is no need to worry in that respect. Also you see Japan's nuclear station. Even after all the punishment it has taken it still hasn't had a major meltdown. The waste is a negative point but as long as we can store it safely there isn't too much of an issue

Will be an issue if there is to much considering as high level can take up to hundreds of years to become safe. Been to a site before.

 

[Joel`]

Erm. Hydrogen makes up most of the Universe. I understand you can't fathom how much that is (I can't either. Nobody truly can) but needless to say it more or less goes on forever. So that's an infinite supply, as near as makes no difference.

Countries are looking into it because we haven't developed fusion yet. When we do, there's no point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ntists-plan-to-ignite-tiny-man-made-star.html

We're getting closer. Exciting schtuff.

 

[coolguyrko]

If the light is more intense than then there's more potential energy ..

Exporting energy between country's is just adding another inefficiency to an already inefficient source.

Yes but so ur saying every country shud depend on there own nuclear power yet most countires are to small to have nuclear plants due to high population with no "safe area" to build the plant so they would have to import the energy anyway.

 

[GodCubed]

So they say but they are still fairly worried about it.Most people dont like the fact that a refinery for natural gas is built near them so I dont understand why people think that these people would feel safer with what is practically a nuclear bomb beside them.

It's not "practically a nuclear bomb" by any stretch of the word. Harnessing energy and blowing things up are different things.

Also, if people feel that way they need to be educated otherwise. Better than living next to a coal power station belching out smog onto your house.

Yes but so ur saying every country shud depend on there own nuclear power yet most countires are to small to have nuclear plants due to high population with no "safe area" to build the plant so they would have to import the energy anyway.

Well then they don't need a safe area. They can't pick and choose.

 

[Jak]

So they say but they are still fairly worried about it.Most people dont like the fact that a refinery for natural gas is built near them so I dont understand why people think that these people would feel safer with what is practically a nuclear bomb beside them.

But it's not practically a nuclear bomb. As I've said they make nuclear reactors go through rigorous levels of safety checks to make sure melt downs dont happen. Even Japan's hadsn't had a meltdown yet and it has taken more punishment than it was built to withstand.

Will be an issue if there is to much considering as high level can take up to hundreds of years to become safe. Been to a site before.

It is an issue how long it takes for it to decay. Swear I read somewhere (may have been someone on this forum) saying that they are developing ways that the nuclear waste can be disposed of/ used in other processes.

 

[Joel`]

Yes but so ur saying every country shud depend on there own nuclear power yet most countires are to small to have nuclear plants due to high population with no "safe area" to build the plant so they would have to import the energy anyway.

Which country is so full they don't have spare capacity for a nuclear plant? If there was such country, it's likely to be so small that they don't need the mammoth nuclear energy generation, and could survive from a few wind farms/tidal resources. (Which take up tons of space, too.)