View Poll Results: Where do you stand on the Nuclear question?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • I oppose Nucler Power at any time

    8 16.00%
  • I support Nuclear Power Now

    19 38.00%
  • I am unsure and need to know more

    8 16.00%
  • Humanity is not yet ready for Nuclear power

    15 30.00%
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 86
  1. #21
    Senior Member Advocat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    580
    It's all a great idea until something goes wrong and a million people die. Go build some nuclear reactors in the middle of nowhere and use a lot of powerlines and I'll get on board with the idea.

    I'm much more interested in Solar, Geothermal, and Wind energy.

  2. #22
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Advocat View Post
    It's all a great idea until something goes wrong and a million people die. Go build some nuclear reactors in the middle of nowhere and use a lot of powerlines and I'll get on board with the idea.

    I'm much more interested in Solar, Geothermal, and Wind energy.
    Nobody wants to see millions of people die. Not even in the worst Nuclear accident so far (Chernobyl) which used antiquated technology and poorly trained workers did anything close to that happen.

    One reason I started this thread is to help disperse some of the religiously fervent ant-nuclear dogma that has been built up through the years. In any case I actually wouldn't mind us building them in the middle of nowhere as you suggest, if that is what it takes.


    Third and fourth generation plants will use passive safety. In other words, the plants will be designed to stop nuclear reactions and generating heat automatically if something went wrong.

    Researchers are also working on Thorium based Nuclear Power. The cool thing about Thorium is that It naturally by itself won't start a Nuclear reaction. We have to force it to. It also can't be made to explode as a bomb. Best of all Thorium is extremely abundant compared to Uranium.


    Nuclear power is important for humanity because it's the only power source we know about thus far that will provide humanity energy for our survival, regardless of Nature's whims.

    Eventually earth will be struck by an asteroid, eventually the earth's core will cool, eventually the sun will dim. If we are to continue existing, we need to master providing energy for ourselves without dependence on the Sun, the wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, And that to me means Nuclear Power.

    I am not perfect and I defy you to prove otherwise
    Growing Old Gracefully is an Oxymoron ... Mostly Moron !

  3. #23
    Senior Member kuroihikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,622
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbee View Post
    Nuclear power is important for humanity because it's the only power source we know about thus far that will provide humanity energy for our survival, regardless of Nature's whims.

    Eventually earth will be struck by an asteroid, eventually the earth's core will cool, eventually the sun will dim. If we are to continue existing, we need to master providing energy for ourselves without dependence on the Sun, the wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, And that to me means Nuclear Power.
    Unless Nuclear Power can be used for space propulsion (which it cannot at the moment), it's always going to be riskier than any other source of energy if we're somehow forced away from the Sun.

    So until research for that culminates, I'd rather not take the risk as long as we have renewable, far safer, alternatives.

    Besides, I don't think that the Sun will run out of us any time soon. Not in the next million years.

  4. #24
    Senior Member ydoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    VA carrollton
    Posts
    857
    i am too lazy to read the whole thread but i do have something to add. Nuclear power plants create plutonium as a byproduct which can be used in turn to fuel more nuclear power plants. however plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. one of the main reasons third world and second world countries dont have nuclear power is that they can't be trusted with a source of power that refines uranium into a material that can be used for nukes. Nuclear plant grade uranium refined into Weapons grade Plutonium. The hardest part of making a nuke is getting the plutonium. The shell caseing detonator ect is makable by a highschool student.


    Yes i know it is silly but uranium refines into plutonium in a nuclear plant. plutonium can then be used to enrich bad uranium into power plant or weapons grade uranium and the cycle continues.
    Last edited by ydoc; 03-31-2009 at 10:25 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by kuroihikari View Post
    Unless Nuclear Power can be used for space propulsion (which it cannot at the moment), it's always going to be riskier than any other source of energy if we're somehow forced away from the Sun.

    So until research for that culminates, I'd rather not take the risk as long as we have renewable, far safer, alternatives.

    Besides, I don't think that the Sun will run out of us any time soon. Not in the next million years.
    Actually there is research by Nasa to create a Nuclear Powered Ion Drive.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NIMPA.561..331M

    And yes the sun won't go dim anytime soon, but if climate change is happening, we might not have the sunshine we think we will for solar, and also direct solar to electricity might never become efficient enough for use commercially.

    As to safer alternatives, I am afraid that they may not be adequate if we were to stop all carbon based power and expect steady and plentiful energy.

    I feel we should continue with wind, and solar, and only if we do so can we truly learn whether those technologies will in fact provide the energy the word needs.

    We should speed up research into so called IV (fourth) generation nuclear power. in the meanwhile we already have 103 nuclear plants crank out a fifth of the nation (USA) electric power, and 80% in France.

    Currently I feel the US and European countries know how to run Nuclear plants safely. In the US we need to allow reprocessing of unused fissionable material (waste) so that it can be re-used in Nuclear plants, thus reducing the amount of Waste needed to be stored.

    I think better good will be done if we embrace nuclear power, and employ already existing technology for dealing with nuclear waste, while seeking to improve the technology by research.
    Last edited by paulbee; 03-31-2009 at 11:33 PM.

    I am not perfect and I defy you to prove otherwise
    Growing Old Gracefully is an Oxymoron ... Mostly Moron !

  6. #26
    Senior Member ydoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    VA carrollton
    Posts
    857
    Paulbee making a nuclear powered propulsion system is a little bit ludicrous in its idea. for all intents and purposes nuclear power = steam power. which means you need water to generate electricy and a huge amount of coolant to keep the plant from having a meltdown or blowing up(yes they are 2 different things)

  7. #27
    Senior Member kuroihikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,622
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbee View Post
    Actually there is research by Nasa to create a Nuclear Powered Ion Drive.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NIMPA.561..331M

    And yes the sun won't go dim anytime soon, but if climate change is happening, we might not have the sunshine we think we will for solar, and also direct solar to electricity might never become efficient enough for use commercially.

    As to safer alternatives, I am afraid that they may not be adequate if we were to stop all carbon based power and expect steady and plentiful energy.

    I feel we should continue with wind, and solar, and only if we do so can we truly learn whether those technologies will in fact provide the energy the word needs.

    We should speed up research into so called IV (fourth) generation nuclear power. in the meanwhile we already have 103 <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-nuclear-option">nuclear plants</a> crank out a fifth of the nation (USA) electric power, and 80% in France.

    Currently I feel the US and European countries know how to run Nuclear plants safely. In the US we need to allow reprocessing of unused fissionable material (waste) so that it can be re-used in Nuclear plants, thus reducing the amount of Waste needed to be stored.

    I think better good will be done if we embrace nuclear power, and employ already existing technology for dealing with nuclear waste, while seeking to improve the technology by research.
    You may be underestimating the efficiency of the renewable sources of power.

    Iceland's homes run almost entirely on geothermal, for example, and geothermal energy can supply world's total energy for several millenia and currently supplies up to 20% of the power of European countries. My country (the Philippines) uses geothermal for 27% of its energy needs.

    Ocean energy (a combination of solar + tidal + wave energy) can potentially produce power several times that of global electricity demand.

    Wind energy produces up to 20% of power consumption in European countries such as Denmark, for example.

    Brazil and Norway both use hydroelectric for upwards of 80% of its power use.

    Yes, I agree that nuclear energy has great potential. However, we as a race don't have the maturity or need to harness the power at this point.

  8. #28
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,876
    I know about Iceland, a very inteligent solution. However Iceland sits on top of Volcanic land where lava sources make Geothermal sensible.

    So far Ocean energy systems are yet to produce any significant power, maybe they will in the future?

    Hydroelectric has been around forever, and it's great, but we only have only so many rivers to dam. In fact it wasn't too long ago that environmentalists were campaigning for removal of Dams so as to restore the natural ecology of rivers.

    As for wind power, once again, like Iceland, some countries have it some don't. Furthermore, the European countries you mentioned have low populations and low energy demands. Obviously coastal countries would do better.

    The end question is whether these alternate renewable sources amount to much, if you don't include hydroelectricity which while being renewable is not subject to growth and expansion.

    I am not opposed to development of these energy sources, but I am opposed to a fear based opposition to nuclear power.

    I am not perfect and I defy you to prove otherwise
    Growing Old Gracefully is an Oxymoron ... Mostly Moron !

  9. #29
    LOL, U MAD? Arbitrary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,177
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbee View Post
    I am not opposed to development of these energy sources, but I am opposed to a fear based opposition to nuclear power.
    This is my sentiment too.

  10. #30
    Senior Member kuroihikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,622
    Quote Originally Posted by paulbee View Post
    I am not opposed to development of these energy sources, but I am opposed to a fear based opposition to nuclear power.
    I myself don't "fear" the risks associated with built Nuclear plants, but what's wrong with fearing Nuclear Power technology would end up in the wrong hands?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •