Nuclear Power - your thoughts? (survey)

Most definitely. Nuclear energy, along with wind and solar, is the kind of energy that can responsibly power mankind for millennia. Unlike wind, however, it can be produced in huge quantities in proximity to major population centers, thereby decreasing the intricacy of the grid and providing a more stable source than wind (depending on geographic location, of course). Solar, which is probably one of the best immediate solutions (in the form of universal rooftop collectors) probably needs more new research than either other source before it can match their efficiency.

Obviously if we go about it the wrong way we can cause massive damage in the form of spent fuel leaks, meltdowns, etc.

Nuclear power is, without a doubt, a better, cleaner source of fuel than fossil fuels. In case anyone hasn't noticed, coal power and its chemical cousins are setting the world up for an environmental apocalypse.

If it is given a proper amount of research, funding, and safety overwatch - next to nothing.

Chernobyl did for nuclear power what Jaws did for the beach vacation. Fear of the negative effects of nuclear power is vastly disproportionate to the actual danger presented by modern reactors. Around 14% of the world's power is currently being generated by nuclear reactors, and countries like France (which generates almost 80% of its power in reactors) have wholly embraced it as a solution to fossil fuels.
The accidents that occasionally occurred during nuclear's infancy are a thing of the past. Modern reactors are clean, efficient, and so well safeguarded against collapse that events even on the magnitude of Three-Mile Island are simply a thing of the past.
Wind and solar should take priority, but, unlike nuclear, both will require massive amounts of time and money for research and implementation. Nuclear power requires no major overhauls to our energy infrastructure and could be used to completely replace coal as soon as we start building plants.

The mining and disposal of fuel are 2 of the biggest concerns. Given our approach to mining in general the process for obtaining uranium should itself be refined, but the motivation for this kind of research will come when the energy sector (which is interested in $$, not in destroying the environment) sees the benefit.
Disposing of spent fuel has become an issue that's often flung against nuclear power, and the argument has merit. I believe, however, that with responsible monitoring it's entirely possible. The main cause of our woes is that for over a hundred years the biproduct of our energy generation has floated poisonously out of our coal plants, 'saving' us from dealing with its disposal directly. In order to take advantage of nuclear power we have to get used to the idea that disposing of the leavings has to be as carefully done as acquiring the electricity.

As everyone knows, we have the technology to completely eliminate fossil fuel use. A think a balance of nuclear, wind, and solar is called for.

 

This isn't entirely far-fetched. Several countries are already planning to build space elevators and I'm waiting for the planners to realize that orbiting solar stations could be a reality.
Still a long way off, though.

 

Chernobal...Do a google search on that theres lots of pictures..But it wasnt just Russia it effected it drifted over into an adjacent country as well..

What I saw on the History channel last winter for waste storage in the USA..They have been building on this thing for years...But, its not done, they dont know when it will be done and they dont know if it will pass when/if its completed. I got the impresion our tax money was just going into somebodys pocket..gee, nothing new there.

The best storage solution for haserdous waste is to not have haserdous waste..
We need to go with wind and solar power and then figure out some kind of storage system for periods when we make more than we use..Some kind of a big assed battery. I f I remember correctly Obama did put some money into battery research.

 

If people would actually take the time to read up on the sequence of events that led up to the chernobyl disaster then they would be far less inclined to cite it as an argument against nuclear power. Well along with the fact that plants and wild life in the surrounding area have pretty much 100% recovered in a mere 2 1/2 decades as well.

 

Nuclear power: way too expensive, way too dangrous and no way to get rid of all the nuclear waste.

 

Perhaps. But unlikely.
What ever the reason for the disaster, people will say the same mistakes could be made. There really isn't an answer to: "Yeah, but what if?"
You can say that the human element has largely been removed, and the track record is pretty darned impressive, but human error and the consequences can't be ignored entirely. It is a fairly weak argument, though.

Would you build a house for yourself in the surrounding area?
It would take more than some type of life can survive in most conditions to convince me it is safe for humans to live there now.


Google:
"It can be said that the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities."
"It is true that the Chernobyl region gives the appearance of a thriving ecosystem because of its protection from other human activities.
"However, when you do controlled ecological studies, what we see is a very clear signature of negative effects of contamination on diversity and abundance of organisms. "We clearly need to be applying scientific method to ecological studies before we can conclude, based on anecdotal observations, that there are no consequences."


http://www.google.co.uk/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1003&bih=567&q=chernobyl+wildlife&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

 

Chernobyl literally by the laws of physics not happen in the US. A Chernobyl style plant both then and now would've been illegal to build in any western nation. It was a god awful design.

 

There is no 100% safety, many scenarios are possible:
-civil war
-meteorite hit
-air plane crash, military or civil
-sabotage
-war
-big earthquake
-asteroide crash
-violent solar eruption
-big flood
-drought
-fire
-terrorist attac
-technical or human failure
just to name a few out of many possible scenarios

 

8 people were killed just in Connecticut when a line on a new gas plant being constructed exploded. I was 20 miles away and could feel the explosion. Why is nuclear power the only industry where the 1 in 100 billion chance of something going wrong is what is planned for when other sources of power are killing people in more common types of accidents.

 

I removed the ones that would never happen or there are contigency plans for and, therefore, would not be any further issue...

Seriously?

 

One violent solar eruption, well directed towards us.

The nuclear waste will kill enough people with the time anyway. No way to hide and protect that stuff forever, especially with the financial, economical and civil disaster to come.

 

Nuclear power is way way way more safe than people even understand. They hear 'nuclear' and assume it's dangerous and toxic.

Nuclear power is probably one of the best sources of power right now, as wind/solar farms take up a looot of space to come close to the power that one nuclear plant produces.

 

...are you just talking about wide spread death in general?
I wondered how a solar eruption - I assumed from the sun - would harm a nuclear reactor, that's all.

Nagh...

We've just had the worst economic crisis in countless years and we are recovering. And "civil disaster"? not even sure what you mean by that.
Do you mean widespread civil unrest etc etc etc?
Well, I guess that could happen and it would matter if enough people joined in, I can't see it happening any time soon, though.
I'm not sure what that has to do with potential nuclear disasters.

 

All the future generations of surviving humans will hate us forever for the nuclear waste we left all over the world, no way to hide all that stuff.

 

Its like this german storage facility for nuclear waste which has flooded and needs to be emptied again now. It was suppused to be safe...
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3618649,00.html

 

There are nuclear waste crimes all over the world- we sell the waste to poor countries, the mafia dumps it into the mediterranean and so on...
http://www.google.de/search?q=nucle...&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a

 

Legacy waste is a big problem, true. That's fair.

 

Your just one happy fucking thought after another. :sunny:
Damn, I feel sorry for you too live such a miserable life seeing conspiracy and doom around every corner.
Maybe they should adjust your medication?

 

Just glassify what's left of nuclear waste after reprocessing and using of the plutonium, mix it into sand and make it dilute enough that it's at the level of normal natural backround radiation, and if you still don't feel safe enough, seal it into nuclear safe drums.

 

lol...I thought that too.