Nuclear Energy - Yay or Nay.

[GodCubed]

Looks like Jake just ended the thread.

 

[Mike.]

Looks like Jake just ended the thread.

pretty much, and on that note, im out to play FM

 

[Tharros]

Defiantly yay. Especially in my country's position (Australia) - huge area and lots of uranium. But at the moment we only have one reactor, and that is just for nuclear medicine. I hope in the future we take the nuclear path as it makes a lot of sense.

And great post there Jake.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

Nuclear power - **** straight.

Norway's got loads of Thorium (aptly named!) which is considered the "new" uranium/plutonium. It's nowhere near as dangerous after it's been depleted.

Besides, "renewable" energy is a big hoax. We spend more energy on erecting (lulz) a windmill than it ever will produce. And where does that energy come from? Fossil fuels and nuclear power. It's much the same with hybrid cars - the net emissions are higher than for normal cars these days due to massive construction emissions.

 

[coolguyrko]

The argument against nuclear energy is always safety, safety, safety. But for a handful of well publicised accidents, Nuclear power is incredibly safe.

Chernobyl is obviously the most famous, and is widely regarded as being the result of a combination of:

Poor reactor design (design would not have been certified anywhere but the Soviet Bloc)
Poor maintenance of said reactor
Little to no safety measures/backup plans/emergency evacuation procedures

3 Mile Island is often cited as the next most famous disaster. However it was not a disaster at all. It was a near miss. Gases and small amounts of other radioactive material were vented into the atmosphere (much like what is happening now in Japan) after an accidental core meltdown. The reactor was cooled, stabilised and then closed down permenantly. However compared to the disaster zone that is Chernobyls legacy; the ghost town, thousands of lives affected by radiation, major environmental damage etc, 3 Mile Island was minor.

The facts surrounding safety of nuclear energy speak for themselves.
Despite being the second most famous nuclear energy 'disaster' in history, 3 Mile Island nuclear facility is still in operation to this day, with the sister reactor to the one that failed operating a few hundred feet away from the decomissioned one. There has been no lasting damamge to the environment, and no quantifiable health effects on the residents who still live close to the site.

Nuclear energy is policed strictly by National and International safety organisations, and as we are seeing in Japan right now, even when an Earthquake and Tsunami destroy/break all the safety features of a reactor, skilled engineers can still keep things under relative control. As of yet there has been no major meltdown crisis, despite using what could be considered medieival technology compared to the advanced features of a reactor; pumping it full of seawater and boric acid in an attempt to cool the fuel rods.

The media likes to create a lot of hype about radioactive hydrogen being vented, but it breaks down to normal Oxygen within seconds. The explosions seen were the result of hydrogen (a flammable gas) exploding after leaving the reactor.

Obviously Japan's not out of the woods yet, but in what situation could an Earthquake and a Tsunami simultaneously hit Switzerland? The Swiss today decided to close their nuclear plants when they reach the end of their current licensed periods to operate, citing the risks exposed by the Japanese crisis. OVER REACTION OF THE CENTURY.



The spent fuel rods can be stored safely and securely in various facilities until they break down enough to be considered safe. They aren't just dumped at sea as some activists would have people believe.
I appreciate we don't have a sufficient answer to the problem of nuclear waste, but our current solution of long term secure storage is not only adequate, but most importantly, safe.

I appreciate the arguments for other energy sources, like wave, wind and solar. The problem is, these are very costly to set up, cannot be supplied constantly, ie it's not always windy, and produce far less energy than a nuclear reactor can.

Nuclear power is comparitively cheaper than the other solutions too. It would take an incredibly large field of wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy that a nuclear reactor can, even more so if fusion reactors are developed. I believe the best solution is a combination of both nuclear and wind/wave/solar. Nations that experience little wind, or are landlocked can't benefit from certain sources of energy for obvious reasons, this is where nuclear power can come in.
I also believe nuclear is our only short term solution to the impending energy crisis, its already widely used, provides a steady, stable amount of energy, is cheap compared to some of the methods which are essentially still experimental and can be adopted by most of the worlds nations tommorow if all the coal and gas suddenly ran out.

Solar and wind in particular are very costly, and take up a large amount of space, which the Earth is quickly running out of, whereas a nuclear plant can be housed on a comparitively small piece of land.

Sorry if i seem like some sort of pro nuclear nutter, forcing stuff down your throat, but I'm just stating what i feel to be facts, i haven't given any real opinion here, all points are based on facts.

Thats fair.
I do believe nuclear energy is they way forward for the larger countries but I also believe the smaller countires that have the resoucres available to them shud use rewneable energy.Im sorry if I did seem pro rewnewable but thats just what I believe.Since Ireland is a relativley small country with these resources available I kind of got stuck in the ways of think renewable is the way forward and thats why I tried to argue with everyone.Soz guys.Still firneds.

 

[Joel`]

Nuclear power - **** straight.

Norway's got loads of Thorium (aptly named!) which is considered the "new" uranium/plutonium. It's nowhere near as dangerous after it's been depleted.

Besides, "renewable" energy is a big hoax. We spend more energy on erecting (lulz) a windmill than it ever will produce. And where does that energy come from? Fossil fuels and nuclear power. It's much the same with hybrid cars - the net emissions are higher than for normal cars these days due to massive construction emissions.

I thought you converted Thorium to Uranium and then did the regular fission process?

 

[Chaz Sexington]

I thought you converted Thorium to Uranium and then did the regular fission process?

It's not being used yet, as we still don't know how to extract it without massive radiation. Norway, who afaik have the largest resources, have banned nuclear power (sounds nasty!) so no research, so no progress in finding out how to use it. God **** socialist hippy **** is what it is.

 

[ajt09]

Thats fair.
I do believe nuclear energy is they way forward for the larger countries but I also believe the smaller countires that have the resoucres available to them shud use rewneable energy.Im sorry if I did seem pro rewnewable but thats just what I believe.Since Ireland is a relativley small country with these resources available I kind of got stuck in the ways of think renewable is the way forward and thats why I tried to argue with everyone.Soz guys.Still firneds.

Why apologise mate? It's your view, and you're entitled to it. Thats why there's a forum. Get a point of view across

 

[Joel`]

It's not being used yet, as we still don't know how to extract it without massive radiation. Norway, who afaik have the largest resources, have banned nuclear power (sounds nasty!) so no research, so no progress in finding out how to use it. God **** socialist hippy **** is what it is.

AFAIK Uranium and Plutonium are the only fissile materials. A quick Google said that you can turn Thorium to Uranium via neutron capture, so I put two and two together.

Idd, **** socialist hippies!

 

[Shakhtardfc1]

With the obvious exception being Chernobyl, which as Jake said was due to a poor reactor design among other things, nuclear energy is as safe (if not more so, due to the extremely strict regulations) as the next thing we have.

It also produces an immense amount of power in comparison to so-called renewable energy (besides the fact renewable energy costs a hellova lot to set up, same with the hybrid cars).

So yeah.. Nuclear energy ftw. And when we get Nuclear Fusion, thats pretty much it. Nothing else will be needed.

 

[Athe~]

I live a couple miles away from a nuclear plant, and I have 2 eyes, a nose, 2 ears and one ****, so as far as I'm concerned, it's safe. And if it blows up, I'm gonna die so quickly I won't even have time to give a ****!

Joking aside, I'm all for nuclear energy.

 

[Mike.]

Thats fair.
I do believe nuclear energy is they way forward for the larger countries but I also believe the smaller countires that have the resoucres available to them shud use rewneable energy.Im sorry if I did seem pro rewnewable but thats just what I believe.Since Ireland is a relativley small country with these resources available I kind of got stuck in the ways of think renewable is the way forward and thats why I tried to argue with everyone.Soz guys.Still firneds.

dont apologise for your own views, you put your case forward much better than 80% of members on here, politely and consistently. |)

 

[Montanaro]

Nuclear Fusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nuclear Fission

Problem is we don't quite have the technology yet. Although a few universities through the world are currently working on this problem.

Essentially we would have highly stable energy source much much more powerful than fission (i.e. powering multiple cities). Just a couple difficulties with building a suitable reactor and reaching the energy levels needed to start fusion.

 

[Nespresco]

The development of nuclear power is huge, its potential extends beyond the energy problem. Nuclear fusion, as well as having no harmful plutonium by-product with a half life of hundreds of years ~500 I think. Is actually incredibly safe, nucelar engineering is a massivley developing area, which will inveitably lead to safer plants and the development of the first self sufficient nuclear fusion reactor. Im not an expert on Interstellar transport but nucelar power has been considered as an alternative propulsion method to power a inter stellar craft at about 1/10th the speed of light. Simply put 99% of people who think bad of nuclear power are misinformed

 

[Zebedee]

Nuclear Fusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nuclear Fission

Problem is we don't quite have the technology yet. Although a few universities through the world are currently working on this problem.

Essentially we would have highly stable energy source much much more powerful than fission (i.e. powering multiple cities). Just a couple difficulties with building a suitable reactor and reaching the energy levels needed to start fusion.

Have a couple of friends involved in the research for fusion. Their toy reactor is designed to withstand internal temperatures of 23 million Celsius - essentially they make man-made stars inside it.

The main problem at the moment is to take that technology and turn it into something which can be used commercially - the first proof of concept 'commercial' design is being built in France at the moment and is due to open in six or seven years time. (Project is called ITER).

 

[Montanaro]

Have a couple of friends involved in the research for fusion. Their toy reactor is designed to withstand internal temperatures of 23 million Celsius - essentially they make man-made stars inside it.

The main problem at the moment is to take that technology and turn it into something which can be used commercially - the first proof of concept 'commercial' design is being built in France at the moment and is due to open in six or seven years time. (Project is called ITER).

I wish fusion would catch on like green resources have. I think it's a serious world changing endeavour.

 

[Zebedee]

I wish fusion would catch on like green resources have. I think it's a serious world changing endeavour.

All the major players are funding ITER - EU, China, Japan, Soviets, US etc. Currently, they reckon it'll be 40 years or so before we start seeing fusion power plants being built in numbers but it's definitely being pursued as fast as possible.

 

[Dynamo_ZahnZee]

I'm all for Nuclear power as long as it meet two criteria
a) it is a cost effective solution to the countries energy needs.
b) the people in charge are educated on how it works (ignorance kills people.)

"A nuclear reaction is just nature in practice. Nuclear accidents on the other hand are caused by people. But its easier to blame nature becasue people don't want to be blamed for their mistakes"

 

[Joel`]

Have a couple of friends involved in the research for fusion. Their toy reactor is designed to withstand internal temperatures of 23 million Celsius - essentially they make man-made stars inside it.

The main problem at the moment is to take that technology and turn it into something which can be used commercially - the first proof of concept 'commercial' design is being built in France at the moment and is due to open in six or seven years time. (Project is called ITER).

That sounds awesome. They expect to finish the project in @30 years don't they?

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

I'm all for Nuclear power as long as it meet two criteria
a) it is a cost effective solution to the countries energy needs.
b) the people in charge are educated on how it works (ignorance kills people.)

"A nuclear reaction is just nature in practice. Nuclear accidents on the other hand are caused by people. But its easier to blame nature becasue people don't want to be blamed for their mistakes"

a) It is.
b) Why on Earth would they put an un-educated person in charge of a nuclear plant?

 

[coolguyrko]

That sounds awesome. They expect to finish the project in @30 years don't they?

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------



a) It is.
b) Why on Earth would they put an un-educated person in charge of a nuclear plant?

Its not uneducated as such.Human error cannot be stopped.Of course its unlikley but no matter how smart you are you can still make a mistake.