Nuclear Power - your thoughts? (survey)

Care to unpick my argument then rather than say "nu-uh, your wrong"

 

nuclear power is still only as efficient as the existing steam engines that exist today, we are using uranium rather than coal.

just like coal we have to go digging for uranium

just like coal we still have to turn water into steam

just like coal we still have a highly dangerous waste product that has long term consequences. if the romans had nuclear power we would still be guarding their radioactive waste.

solar energy has much less problems, any waste product can be contained. a solar thermal plant would have few if any long lasting waste product, you don't need to go diggging for the fuel, it uses the largest source of energy for the next x light years.

 

People who say that we need to forget nuclear and focus solely on solar and wind do not realize how far we are from turning it into a source that can replace fossil fuels. It can be argued, however, that more research money is put into fossil fuels each year than has ever been put into the greener technologies, and that could be part of the problem. Fossil fuel industries have a strong hold on the government and on the media, so it's unlikely that that will change any time soon. You will note that it only took one nuclear plant explosion to scare people from nuclear, but fossil fuel plants have explosions all the time. Most of them are unreported. Even the people living nearby do not get to hear about them, unless they are deemed especially hazardous.

v1. Do you believe Nuclear power is a viable source of power longterm? why / why not?
Yes. It is a lot cleaner than fossil fuels and it will last a lot longer. It is also currently a lot more efficient than wind and solar.

2. What environmental side affects could we see as a result of using it, both in the short and longterm?
Nuclear waste disposal is still a problem, but I believe we can overcome it eventually.

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?
It will takes millions of years to "replenish" other fossil fuels. I believe it is worth it to use nuclear. It is a trade off, but I believe it would be a trade off for the better.

4. What are the health risks involved with using Nuclear power; (fall-out, radiation, etc)?
Nothing is completely safe. There are health risks involved with everything. When nuclear plants fail it is disastrous, but living as I do, right next to the site of the largest fossil fuel refineries in the United States, I can tell you that they are very, very dangerous, too. There are problems all the time. I can't tell you how many times I have gone outside and seen the sky full of smoke because something blew up (these incidents are never mentioned in the news). They have parties when several months go by without injuring any employees. It's incredibly bad for your health to live here. Compared to fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants are a lot safer.

Of course, I'd prefer if we could use wind, solar, and geothermal for all our power problems. However, they are not as efficient, don't provide enough power, and have a slew of other problems before they are really viable as a replacement for fossil fuels. The biggest is perhaps storing the power for use when there is no wind or sun, and while there is a lot of work being done on it we are still a long way off. If we want to replace fossil fuels any time soon I believe the answer is nuclear power, and I wouldn't be afraid to live next to a nuclear power plant. As greener energy sources become viable we would switch to them until that's all we use.

When you drive past a refinery you sometimes see a very, very tall stack. It towers over everything else in the plant. This is where they release the chemicals that are toxic to human health. The idea is that by the time they fall to the earth they have dispersed in the atmosphere enough that they are no longer in dangerous concentrations. Oftentimes you see these right next to neighborhoods. They can be, and often is, a school down the street and around the corner (my high school was). This is what we use for power today. How is this any better than nuclear? A switch over to solar, wind, and water completely is not currently feasible. The technology is definitely progressing, but it's not there yet and won't be for awhile. However, the only thing keeping us from a switch to nuclear is the cost of building the plants.

 

the energy falling on the face of the planet is enormous. even if a fraction of it were able to be used it would power the planet many times, in our terms - forever.

if we can't use energy from something as powerful as a star we really are in trouble.

 

We do.... it's calling burning wood to fuel an engine.

 

Efficiency is a bogus thing to talk about when comparing radically different energy sources. If fusion were ever made practical, it might be only 2% efficient, but, so what? As long as the economics were good, it would be the best energy source.

People have been saying this for fifty years. Why do you still believe it? Even without solving this extremely grave problem, nuclear is the most expensive and risky to generate electricity.

This bogus argument was disproven long ago. There is no need for storage. All you need is a diverse mix of renewable energy sources and a backup system, perhaps natural gas driven, for the rare bad day.

 

Just imagine how cheap energy would be if we had unlimited electricity being pumped from nuclear plants. It was a mistake to shut down nuclear plant production. We'd have electric cars by now if we'd continued down the nuclear energy path. Coal would be done, as well.

I'm not too concerned about using up fossil fuels...I mean really, what else are we going to use them for? That said, nuclear energy is the answer.

 

Nuts. You sound like a time-traveller from the 1950's. Back then, they said, "Nuclear energy -- too cheap to meter."

There is nothing cheap about nuclear. It is the most expensive, most risky way to generate electricity.

 

as i said before if we can't harness the energy from the largest , hottest energy source in our area of the galaxy we have serious problems.

why do you need to split the atom to make hot water when the sun can do it already?

 

Technology doesn't exist yet to produce the amounts of electricity that are used in modern society in any efficient level for solar power to work. For homes and such solar can be great, but most electricity is used up by factories, giant buildings, ect. Problem is we're not looking for plans for the future, we have a severe energy/environmental crisis right now.

 

Nuclear is the answer both.

In the long run cheaper and more efficient. There is no way I can believe that an amount of power that can be produced by a nuclear plant can be met by, and be as consistent, more traditional methods, such as wind and solar. I bet the cost to produce a watt of electricity using nuclear is much lower than for wind or solar. I could be wrong but I doubt it. And if one of the other methods is a bit cheaper, do they have the consistency of nuclear power?

Nuclear power can provide unlimited energy. If we had unlimited energy don't you think that electric cars would be viable by now?.

 

You really need to read more. Your ideas are sixty years old and discredited.

A diverse mix of renewable energy sources is more sustainable, safer, reliable, and cheaper than nuclear energy, which is the most expensive way to produce electricity if you take everything into account, which you obviously aren't.

Haven't you thought about cancer rates? Expanded use of nuclear energy combined with predictable human errors in the storage of radioactive waste will mean an environment that causes cancer at higher rates for 10,000 years. Is that OK with you?

 

My ideas may be old and discredited, but they are my ideas and I like them!

Really though...the cost of nuclear energy wouldn't be as high if we had continued to develop technologies to make it cheapher in the past 40 years.

There are pollution risks with nuclear energy...but as our technology gets better and better our ability to safely minimize those risks grows with it.

I just don't think it's smart energy strategy to completely abandon ANY means of energy production, not just nuclear. I'd say the same if we tried to completely abandon wind and solar as well.

 

Clinging to discredited ideas is not sane. Until we have a way to ensure that nuclear waste won't get into the biosphere, we should not encourage it. If it has to compete in a free market, it will not grow.

 

Lmao. And you wanted to start a thread to debate honest opinions? Lolol.

 

I am a professional solar contractor but I see the benefits of nuclear power. It will have to be a part of our energy pie until the cost of solar drops competitively (it has been dropping for some time due to advances and economies of scale). Nuclear power is cheap and relatively non-polluting...the only problem is handling the waste.

Here's more comprehensive guide to pricing and benefits of solar power vs nuclear:

http://www.solarpanelnexus.com/environment/

 

Stop saying nuclear power is cheap. You must be looking only at the running cost, not the total cost.

From Rocky Mountain Institute, an objective research firm:

 

Here is the data showing that nuclear energy is the most expensive way to obtain new sources of electricity.

 

And those figures don't take into account hidden and/or undefinable future costs such as long-term radioactive waste storage, environmental impact from accidents, or medical costs to the public resulting from accidents of unknown magnitude.

Excellent points, Sunfighter, over the last several posts.

 

ten years ago britain was already spending billions trying to deal with nuclear waste.

it is difficult to tax the sun as much as fossil fuels