Nuclear Power - your thoughts? (survey)

The fact is nuclear power is just about the cleanest around by far, especially considering the amount of electricity it produces. It does produce spent fuel, but at least it's something physical we can try to put somewhere vs greenhouse gasses flooding into the atmosphere.

It'd be great if we could just suddenly switch over too all renewable energy, but we can't, in fact it's not practical right now, the technology isn't advanced enough to produce the amounts of electricity we require. Nuclear is by far the best option for the current state in time. We need more electricity now, the power grids of nearly every western nation are straining to the max to meet the demand, and as the second and third world industrializes they're either going to build plants that pollute like hell, or if we have excess electricity from cleaner sources we can sell it to them.

 

That's very true. But those aren't the only choices. It shouldn't be a matter of having to choose between high-level nuclear waste and greenhouse gases ... damned if you do and damned if you don't. Apparently this is the position of the Brits, and it sounds fishy to me. There's some lobbying going on there, I'd wager.

I wasn't suggesting that "suddenly switching" was possible. But building and licensing a nuclear plant takes well over a decade. That's not exactly a lightning response.

In the first place, this is false. There are alternative electricity plants all over the world. In the case of the United States, alternative sources will not provide 100% of the demand, but it doesn't have to.

And in the second place, this has been bandied around as an excuse for not investing in alternative energy since the first OPEC embargo in 1973. We were actually well on the way toward energy independence back then, but it was thrown away by a certain former Hollywood actor ... err ... president.

If we'd just get off our asses and do it instead of constantly saying "it's not practical", we could have had the problem solved by now.

Well, you're not going to get it now from nuclear, given the lead times for building the plants.

 

Nuclear power is the ideal power source for those who completely trust the government to separate spent fuel from the biosphere for 10,000 years without making any mistakes. Or, it is ideal for those who really don't give a damn about the health of future generations.

I do wish it were feasible to rocket the waste into the sun. If that could be done safely, that would be a great solution.

 

I'm not arguing against building renewable sources but the fact is unless we had a wind turbine field the size of Kansas it's just not enough power at the current technology. All power plants take years to build and get online, if we want to not have rolling blackouts come 2020-25 we're either going to need to build nuclear plants or more fossil fuel plants

 

nuclear power is some of the cleanest and safest energy known.

it is an extremely viable source of energy and the risks are small. there have been only a couple catastrophic meltdowns (Chernobyl and three mile) and there are TONS of nuclear power plants running safely in the world.

the waste, when properly disposed, has no effect to the environment.

people who are against nuclear power often have huge misconceptions about it. it isnt like the simpson's portrayal...it is a high tech energy field that hires people based on safety and intelligence qualifications

not ANY truck driver can transport the waste, not ANY engineer can create transportation vessels, not ANY factory worker can handle the minerals...

 

How can you continue to say that after reading the posts in this thread? Many of us who are opposed do NOT have huge misconceptions. You need to realize that.

 

...

Just sayin'.

 

I get your point but your facts aren't really any better. And to say almost none is a slap on the face, that's like saying somebody who throws a piece of plastic on the ground could be compared to the waste product a nuclear power plant produces, which will only make me LOL and not take you seriously. I know it produces radioactive waste hence my initial generalization. But all it took was 3 seconds researching online to come with these facts from government websites:

Really sounds like nuclear powerplants are "no big deal" and "all sunshine" and that the waste is merely pertained to the gunk on the workers shoes. Yeahhhh.
Basically your position comes down to whether you support polluting the planet to power our us for today or not, which to me is just using the means to justify the end. It's just a slowly self-destructive cycle that will eventually back fire whether it's today or 1000 years from now unless better management or other resources are thought out. I personally don't care what your position is on the matter but at least be realistic before you say things like "Almost none, in fact.."

 

Where is the data on Nuclear power stations?
You seem to be providing evidence for coal-fired power plants (...and ironically not making them look very good).

I think caliente was suggesting Nuclear power plants do not emit " Almost no" CO2 pollution.
They obviously produce another type of pollution but that is contained...and doesn't really count as ongoing daily pollution.

I think you were initially talking about the radioactive pollution not the pollution through emissions.

Here is what a quick google search produced:



http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html


Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic.[62] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal.
Recent reports claim that coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power, and that the population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.[79] Indeed, coal ash is not more radioactive than nuclear waste, but nuclear plants use shielding to protect the environment from the irradiated reactor vessel, fuel rods, and any radioactive waste on site.[80]

(I left in the No.s so you can track back their sources)

When I mentioned the fact Nuclear is low on pollution I was talking about it's CO2 emissions.

 

When I say pollution, I mean pollution. Which and what ever form the plant causes pollution, should be dealt with by the people who can fix it simply so we are not slowly contaminating the Earth; we already are, but it's a problem that needs to be dealt with sooner or later. Based on the amount of people who try to come up with convincing arguments that basically boil down to (make things convenient for now, worry about the catastrophic issues when they happen), I doubt anything will actually be done. Lol

 

The trouble is, you can proclaim: "When I say pollution, I mean pollution", but you were berating caliente for saying that Nuclear created low pollution, then you posted something about fossil fuel-fired power plants.
I didn't really see your point or how it challenged what caliente had said.
Perhaps I missed something.

People are thinking about the possibility of "catastrophic issues" in the future (you can read thousands of pages of it if you want, I'll happily post some of it). Everything that produces energy leaves a legacy.
If you are advocating we do not produce any energy, fair enough.

 

Yeah I wanna hear what more advanced people in the subject have to say about predicted catastrophic issues, show me moar

 

Only if you retract "moar" and use English.

 

Oh jeez you're no fun. Considering now that I can write define:moar in Google and see the definition "an alternate form of more", I think I'm in the white.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

The point was, I don't particularly like Internet slang.
But, I was only joking.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37483.aspx


Friends of the Earth Consultation Response to Managing Nuclear Waste

You'll probably like this one moar (happy now? )

 

Hahaha I was just joking anyways man. And nice sources, I'ma have to get reading

 

I wasn't exactly throwing my computer at the wall either.

See you in 4 days.

 

3 out of 7 links worked. Somethings coincidentally wrong with all the ones that stem from hipforums.

 

fixed