nucular energy

It's the best kind of energy source we've got going right now. It's clean, safe, and less expensive than solar or wind. I hope there aren't anyone out there that still thinks that a power plant can blow up. There's not enough of the right kind of uranium or pressure for that. The biggest disaster from nucular energy in America was three mile island, and no one got killed. Compare that to all the people who get killed in coal mines getting the coal for coal plants. And no pollution is emmited from the nucular reactor.

 

You still have to mine uranium. Of course we'd likely import that from places like Niger, which completly fell apart after the demand for uranium dropped.

So assuming it's mined with some human rights conditions, that is a very large benifit for Niger.

Solar and Wind plants are no where near effective enough to use on mass scale in the US.

I am very strongly supportive of nuclear power. I'm sure in the next couple decades we can start building fusion plants and not have to
even argue about whether nuclear power is good or bad, but in the mean time, nuclear plants are certainly better then what we have been doing since three mile island, which is burning a lot more coal.

 

Nuclear power is the new oil. It is meant to make people energy dependent not independent. When people are energy independent you cannot profit.

Better alternatives exist, the only problem is they are undermined and under researched in the interest of keeping people energy dependent and under control.

 

What, are you serious? I'm all for nuclear, say it like that, nuclear, power, but there are still problems. They won't blow up, but yes meltdowns can happen, and you obviously don't know what causes a meltdown, and you can research, but it has nothing to do with pressure or type of uranium. There is pollution, but it is containable.

 

What do you do with Nuclear waste?

 

Meltdowns aren't likely. Not likely at all. Meltdwns are caused by loss of coolant, which cannot happen if this is properly monitered and is much much easier to monitor in the digital age.

In fact during the time of three mile island, most nuclear reactors were only run at 50% capacity (50% of the day) Now we can run them much safer at over 90% capacity.

Sabatoge can be prevented by securing them properly. A meltdown doesn't cause a runaway nuclear reaction.

 

Reuse what we can, and then store the rest in a bunker untill we have the technology to dispose of it properly. Much bettter then dumping our radioactive waste in the air like carbon plants.

 

The waste lasts for thousands of years, and we don't have containers that last that long without deterioration. When that waste enters underground water and other water sources that is more harmful and destructive than carbon. Also accidents happen, Nuclear technology is not a 100% safe.

 

NT is not worse the risks and consequences.

 

I dont think a nuclear reactor would ever explode id have thought that the uranium would be too diffuse to make a bomb. Though a melt down is the next thing this shouldnt be able to happen anymore, these days reactors can be flooded with gas (Boron I think) which efficiently ends the nuclear reaction. Of course with radioactive material theres always a chance of an accident. I think the biggest issue with nuclear energy is the waste, although here there remains the possibility of artificially being able to speed up the process so that storage is not required.

 

A well run nuclear power plant (including waste management) can be a good clean power source, relative to the other options. There are two problems however.

First, "well run" implies that the people in charge are concerned with making safe electricity. The people in charge of nuclear plants are corporations that are concerned with making money. The health industry is an example of money people being put in charge of important stuff.

The other problem is that the decision to use nuclear now makes a commitment for the next thousand years. It is an irrevocable decision.

 

.

 

That's a good article shaggie.

Are you involved in the science community? Your responces seem to be pretty well thought out, and you mostly seem to stick to the science forums.

 

i don't think nuclear energy is the way to go either. it's the best we got right now, but it has it's own share of problems. mainly, actually mining the uranium is a very unclean process, and, theres only so much uranium out there. also, nuclear waste presents a huge problem. where are we going to store all this material? right now, there isn't all that much waste being created. but if all our energy comes from radiation, you've got to take that into consideration. in the end, we'll need to move onto hydrogen power. if we could replicate nuclear fusion on a smaller level, with hydrogen, as one company is actually doing, that would be the best.

 

Mining isn't a particularly ecologically damaging process if done properly.

And the U235 is a limited substance. We have enough U238 which can be used for nuclear fuel though breeder reactors to last thounsands of years.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html

And as I mentioned, we will have fusion plants in 50 years, which is almost perfect energy. No meltdowns, no waste, fuel for longer then the planet will last before it gets engulfed by the sun.

 

.

 

I guess its possible that Fusion will be commerical in 50 years, if ITER works well then id say in about 40 years fusion will be on the up. Though of course if ITER is not a huge success then 50 years looks distinctly optimistic. Essentially we're gambling on the Tokamak design paying off which seems a reasonable approach and long term success seems dependant on ITER.

 

I did a report on Nuclear Power in high school. Even though it's clean and all that, there still is a small chance of a major meltdown. A pure example is the disaster in Chernobyl that happened about 20 years ago. That area is still radioactive, and will be for at least a hundred years. People got cancer, gave birth to undeveloped babies. I just don't think that the world can afford to let something like that happen again. What about nuclear wastes? I personally think that Wind and Solar power are our future.

 

Wow, more uninformed people every day. A Chernobyl type accident isn't going to happen. Chernobyl was poorly designed and that allowed the release of radiation. And unfortunately you don't see the cost and maintenance of wind and solar is outrageous.

 

She's a kid streamlight, no reason to be hostile.

Theres nothing wrong with solar and wind research. But for right now, they don't meet the needs of an increasingly energy hungry world. As more parts of the world improve their quality of life and become industiralized, the global demand for energy will increase.

The demand for energy will increase for the next 200 years. We have the reality of letting the planets demands fall short which can lead to horrible consequences, or come up with sources for energy.

Fission energy can be completly safe if it's monitered properly. Much much safer then burning other carbon fuels.