Nuclear Power - your thoughts? (survey)

Discussion in 'Alternative Technologies' started by Gypsy_girl, Jun 5, 2006.

  1. Gypsy_girl

    Gypsy_girl Member

    Hi all,

    As the subject suggests, I'm looking at doing an article on Nuclear power and it's viability as a sustainable and non-environmental damaging power source longterm and was wondering what your thoughts are on the issue. Here are some questions:

    1. Do you believe Nuclear power is a viable source of power longterm? why / why not?

    2. What environmental side affects could we see as a result of using it, both in the short and longterm?

    3. Do you believe those affects are worth it considering the replenishment of other fossal fuels due to no lo them no longer being used? Is it a trade off of sorts?

    4. What are the health risks involved with using Nuclear power; (fall-out, radiation, etc)?

    Any other comments / thoughts?

    If you could get back to me ASAP with replies, I'd really appreciate it as I want to start this article as soon as I can.

    Note also: I will be sending it off for possible publication in the Gecko (Gold Coast and Hinterland Environmental Councils) newsletter here in Australia, so if you doon't wish to be quoted, or for your username to be used, simply let me know in your reply. I'll also look into submitting it to other environmental publications over here, and will get back to you with more info on that, so if you do'nt wish to be quoted on a nation-wide scale let me know.

    Thanks,

    Jess.
     
  2. Gypsy_girl

    Gypsy_girl Member

    bump.

    Any thoughts?
     
  3. dhs

    dhs Senior Member

    I don't have a whole lot to say other than I think that the risks are very high and nuclear should be the last resort. If other 'safer' forms of power were tapped out, most specifically wind power, than I could understand nuclear development, but as things currently stand I do not.

    There are only a couple of risks associated with wind turbines. 1. they are an eyesore and 2. They do kill birds, but that one is a pretty weak arguement because plenty of birds die as it is flying into windows on buildings. Its sad, but not a worthy arguement to not pursue wind power.

    Nuclear, the risks are fall out and storage of containmanated waste. Both could result in a real eye sore, as in no eyesight on a child and far greater loss of life.

    I probably haven't answered your question, guess I just took this thread as a place to state that I thing its a darn shame that wind power is so underutilized in this world.
     
  4. AfricaUnite

    AfricaUnite Member

    1. Do you believe Nuclear power is a viable source of power longterm? why / why not?

    Yes as long as we can find safe and spacious placed to deposit the waste, or better yet find some way to reduce the half life, im sure there some herb or combination of natural things that can speed up the decomosition of the waste. But i mean worst case you build a bunch of underground chambers with 16 foot thick cement on all sides and you should be good to go.

    2. What environmental side affects could we see as a result of using it, both in the short and longterm?

    very few compared to what we have now, as long as the waste is disposed of safely.

    3. Do you believe those affects are worth it considering the replenishment of other fossal fuels due to no lo them no longer being used? Is it a trade off of sorts?

    Not a trade off, a logical step until we put serious money into renewable power.

    4. What are the health risks involved with using Nuclear power; (fall-out, radiation, etc)?

    Fall out and radiation if god forbig there was a catasrophe, as long as those genius's who graduate univeristy examine all the posibility's and ensure our safety i feel fine.

    Any other comments / thoughts?

    Hydro's too expensive more nuclear now! While investing heavily on renewable.
     
  5. satch

    satch Member

    1. Do you believe Nuclear power is a viable source of power longterm? why / why not?
    No, I don't believe so - because of the health and environmental risks involved.

    2. What environmental side affects could we see as a result of using it, both in the short and longterm?
    Would you want to live near Chernobyl? There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear power plant!

    3. Do you believe those affects are worth it considering the replenishment of other fossal fuels due to no lo them no longer being used? Is it a trade off of sorts?
    Definitely not - far better for individual homes to sort themselves out using a combination of solar and wind generation.

    4. What are the health risks involved with using Nuclear power; (fall-out, radiation, etc)?
    There are huge health risks associated with nuclear power stations which have been suppressed and under-reported thanks to the nuclear industry and governmental lobbying groups. In the UK there are many reports and scientific studies of cancer and leukemia clusters around nuclear plants.

    Any other comments / thoughts?
    The nuclear industry is all about making money at any cost. They do not care about the health of the people who happen to live near nuclear power stations, and they do not care about the environment - all they care about is making money. So many people, when you talk to them about nuclear power, say "it's okay, but I wouldn't live near one"... which about sums it up - people are blinkered in their attitudes to nuclear power.
     
  6. Gypsy_girl

    Gypsy_girl Member

    Thanks a lot, everyone! :D , much appreciated :)

    Thanks again,

    Cheers,

    Jess.
     
  7. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    nukes have a SMALL roll to play in meeting future energy needs. they are not a long term solution on a large scale and it is unlikely that will ever be a signifigant large scale solution. none of the current ways of turning nuclear fuel into electrical energy are all that efficient. they have really only one advantage and that is that they don't dump carbon into the atmosphere. and they have LOTS of problems. the two biggest being the threat of nuclear security infrastructure to the democratic proccess, and what to do with the spent fuel. i've yet to see a viable answer to the latter implimented nor the former even addressed.

    there ARE alternatives to oil and coal that are viable and sustainable. no single one being total, but wind and solar in combination can and all but inevitably at some point will, produce roughly twice the most i ever expect to see out of nuclear. and hydro even more then that.

    wind, solar, hydro, and nuke, WILL replace most of the energy currently being produced by oil and coal, with nuke by far producing the smallest share compared to wind solar and hydro IN COMBINATION.

    don't let anyone discredit wind solar and hydro IN COMBINATION because each alone is inadiquite. nuke ALONE is also just as inadiquite and always will be.

    but CAN suppliment and help to make up PART OF the difference of what wind solar and hydro IN COMBINATION won't quite cover. (as can and will the other odds and ends like geothermal, tidal forces, biomass, and of course 'conservation', i.e. just not using so stinking much (easier said then done as long as it's cheaply available, but that isn't forever either))

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  8. Columbo

    Columbo Senior Member

    Since the last decline of nuclear fuel a great advance has been made with the design and ethos and implementation of fuel from nuclear reactors. They are, IMHO, the only viable alternative. Though I just know someones gonna thump my nads for saying that anytime soon - here
     
  9. pctec

    pctec Member

    Apparent we as humans havent learned our lesson with nuclear power. We need to get rid of it and concentrate on solar and wind.

    I always get a kick out of the dummies who say they dont want to see a field of windmills when they look out the window. TOUGH!

    It seems they would rather see a reactor...

    Sad...
     
  10. Rebel_1

    Rebel_1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    The storage of contaminated waste scares me with nuclear power, I would go more with Wind, solar, and water.
     
  11. streamlight2

    streamlight2 Member

    Unfortunately, wind, solar, and hydro, aren't very viable for today...They will work for small communities with small power needs, but for cities and such, its more viable to have a nuclear plant.
     
  12. shedtroll

    shedtroll Peace, Love & Linux

    Nuclear power is dangerous. Sure, it brings power to the many, But the effect on the enviroment is too great.

    Selafield is a good example, with waste affectin ireland, and even norway. If we have smaller areas producing their own power then atleast it would cause less damage that nuclear.
     
  13. soaringeagle

    soaringeagle Senior Member

    the risks are way way way too great

    that depends on wether or not we have major disasters
    but either way the environmental impact is so toxic that nuclear power should have never even been concidered for power or weapons

    hell no, theres somany other cheap safe options
    for instance turn all gm food crops into fuel oil
    veggy powered diesel generators would safely give us all the power we need, without any impact on food supply, especialy if worldwide meat consumption was reduced by about 15% the food & fuel oil supply globaly would increase
    solar & wind power also has huge potential, far more then nuclear or fossil fuels if only we'd put alittle more $ into its development

    the ones u mentioned as well as species dying off from the coolant run off intolocal waerways & the temperature changes, not tomention the possibility of severely destructive consequences of even just 1 meltdown or major nuclear waste spill, also, we are constantly creating more nuclear waste without even having a single safe disposal method in place theres only somuch we canb get away with, & we're playing with utter destruction
     
  14. Weetie

    Weetie Member

    There was an article in Scientific American last December about developments with a particular type of nulear reactor, called a Fast Neutron Reactor.

    Basically the article said that this kind of reactor can reburn the radioactive waste from conventional reactors, especially plutonium. The main advantages of this reactor is that it can eliminate 90% of the nuclear waste from conventional reactors, and the half-life of the waste produces is only about 500 years, rather that 10,000 years for coventional reactor waste. We should definitely be able to build containment facilities to last that long. Also, because it can use plutonium as a fuel, we could eliminate all the weapons-grade plutonium that's been produced. It's also much safer than a conventional reactor - it's not a risk for meltdowns like Chernobyl or release of radioactive steam like Three Mile Island. Another advantage is that it can actually create more radioactive fuel than it consumes (that's why it's sometimes called a Fast Breeder Reactor), so we wouldn't need to mine uranium ore anymore.

    I don't understand why there hasn't been more talk about this. It sounds like a really workable soloution to a lot of our energy & environmental problems, and the article makes it sound like they could start building these things tomorrow. I'd rather go with technologies like wind, solar, & geotherm but, shit, if we can build these things to get us by over the next few decades until we can pull our heads out of our asses & go green, then I'm for it.

    Here's the article & a couple of other things about it I found while surfing:

    http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000

    http://www.rssi.ru/IPPE/General/bn.html

    http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
     
  15. salmon4me

    salmon4me Senior Member

    I agree.
     
  16. I've read a little about this. For the most part, it is an unproven technology that is very dangerous. For this reason, it was banned in the US during the Carter Administration. GW wants to bring it back. From what I understand, the timing of the reactions has to be very synchronous, otherwise it gets out of hand quickly. Also, the leftover radioactive components are very unstable.

    BTW, I'm against Nukes in any format - energy or weapons. It's immoral for us to leave our Highly Radioactive garbage to future generations. All for the sake of our little time slice of human history. Also, if all the power in the world was generated by Nuclear, at current estimates, there would only be about a 35-year supply of Uranium fuel.
     
  17. Weetie

    Weetie Member

    I'm with you! The fast reactors sounded from the artilcles like they might be a possible option, but I'd sure as hell rather have wind/solar/geotherm - pretty much anything clean & renewable. Keep your fingers crossed for Tuesday. If we can get a little movement in Congress away from the Right Wing, it'll be a (very small) step in the right direction.
     
  18. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    yes, because the only thing really GOOD that can be said for nuclear is that it doesn't dump carbon. and there are many and seriously bodacious downsides to it.

    almost as much and as many (if not more) as the use of fossle fuel combustion itself.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  19. Piney

    Piney Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    I live & work bout a mile from a nuke here in The Barrens.
    Its been there since 1968 and is under intense scrunity.
    If anything terrible hasn't been found yet, well then it might be OK.

    It doesnt make any smoke or carbon.
    So far no cancer clusters round here.
    People check out the baby teeth that adolescents loose for evidence of threat. Nothing yet.

    It does make heat, a ton of it, which is disapated into the salt water of Barnegat Bay. A shallow body of water where rapid tempature and salinity fluxiations are normal in nature.

    The outflow did induce a colony of shipworms normally found
    way further south.They chewed up some wooden docks & bulkheads.

    When The Northeast had huge power blackouts, we were cool, we had juice.
    It was amusing to see how snug people were that Our juice kept flowing.

    Also it keeps away commercial airline flights by regulations. A 10 mile flight free radius for The Plant.
    So it seems way quieter here than up north.

    When we do get a plane, I feel like a country bumpkin looking up in the sky to see, its usaually a military flight.

    After 911 we got a military guard and lots of concrete barricades.


    :cool:
     
  20. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    does that military guard make you feel safer? it would make my skin crawl. and i wouldn't put too much trust in the news you get from corporate media either. you also didn't mention the fueling and disposal of spent fuel. which, along with the politics, are a couple of the biggest issues.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice