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 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86
  1. #1
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,849

    Nuclear Power PLEASE

    I believe that the future of Humanity depends on our ability to use Technology, and not on dependence on what Nature can provide alone. And this includes the adoption of Nuclear power.

    Since this could be a long discussion, I'll limit my stated views, and give you guys an opportunity to chime in with your views.

    Please vote in the poll, and post your reasons below, Thanks.

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

  2. #2
    GAI SENSEI 4 HOKAGE bankai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    doing your mom
    Posts
    3,188
    i though we had been using nuclear power already... but i kinda dont care, as long as the keep it safe and make if safer to use. the waste it make it just to much and you can get rid of nuclear waste..
    Spoiler!

  3. #3
    [̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅] guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    in your hearts
    Posts
    2,658
    i guess id be nice if someone learned how to convert radioactive waste into something harmless.

    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

  4. #4
    GAI SENSEI 4 HOKAGE bankai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    doing your mom
    Posts
    3,188
    @guy: or convert it back it energy
    Spoiler!

  5. #5
    [̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅] guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    in your hearts
    Posts
    2,658
    but that would mean its a renewable energy.. and spiderman said thats impossible. all energy stops at some point. and at some point we are going to have to make the energy "waste"

    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

  6. #6
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,849
    Quote Originally Posted by bankai View Post
    i though we had been using nuclear power already... but i kinda dont care, as long as the keep it safe and make if safer to use. the waste it make it just to much and you can get rid of nuclear waste..
    Quote Originally Posted by guy View Post
    i guess id be nice if someone learned how to convert radioactive waste into something harmless.
    Quote Originally Posted by bankai View Post
    @guy: or convert it back it energy

    Good thoughts. Nuclear waste from Uranium can be reprocessed, in in fact is being reprocessed in so-called fast breeder reactors. When reprocessed into Plutonium, the Plutonium is then re-used to generate even more energy.

    The thing is that in The United States, re-processing of spent Uranium is not pernitted by law, that is why we are accumulating lots of nuclear waste, whereas in France, the reprocess their waste and generate more energy, and produce less final waste.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor


    Quote Originally Posted by guy View Post
    but that would mean its a renewable energy.. and spiderman said thats impossible. all energy stops at some point. and at some point we are going to have to make the energy "waste"
    Well Guy, as long as Einstein's E=Mc^2 is obeyed, we can keep getting energy.

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

  7. #7
    Music With Rocks In Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    623
    Looking at the renewable sources available, theoretically, Nuclear still holds an important place, but an issue is that it is only a base power source, nuclear plants essentially run at almost full operational capacity around the clock (Less repairs and so on), and can only be changed by small increments of output once built, so either you have them set to provide base level power with other sources dealing with peak, or you set them to peak and end up with massive surplus and needless expense. Of the renewable sources, only pumped-storage hydro stations are fully capable of adjusting to varying energy requirements, so nuclear power will never be the be-all end-all solution.

    Of course there are the famous issues. It takes an estimated 10,000 years of decay before the spent fuel no longer poses a public safety risk. There is also, of course, the issue of nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran and Libya were all signatories to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which allowed them to access nuclear power for internal, non-military use, all of whom then went on to develop clandestine weapon research programs (Libya have since abandoned theirs). You talk about nuclear power benefiting humanity as a whole, but both of us are speaking from legally nuclear weapons capable nations who are fully permitted to freely use nuclear energy as they see fit, other nations have legal restrictions, which I expect may be enforced more strictly in future given past breaches.

  8. #8
    Senior Member kuroihikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,622
    We should save our nuclear fuel for blasting those asteroids falling out of the sky.

    Seriously, though, there are other better, less-riskier sources of renewable energy, I don't think Nuclear Power is a necessity.

  9. #9
    Senior Member paulbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fargo, North Dakota USA
    Posts
    6,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Binky View Post
    Looking at the renewable sources available, theoretically, Nuclear still holds an important place, but an issue is that it is only a base power source, nuclear plants essentially run at almost full operational capacity around the clock (Less repairs and so on), and can only be changed by small increments of output once built, so either you have them set to provide base level power with other sources dealing with peak, or you set them to peak and end up with massive surplus and needless expense. Of the renewable sources, only pumped-storage hydro stations are fully capable of adjusting to varying energy requirements, so nuclear power will never be the be-all end-all solution.

    Of course there are the famous issues. It takes an estimated 10,000 years of decay before the spent fuel no longer poses a public safety risk. There is also, of course, the issue of nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran and Libya were all signatories to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which allowed them to access nuclear power for internal, non-military use, all of whom then went on to develop clandestine weapon research programs (Libya have since abandoned theirs). You talk about nuclear power benefiting humanity as a whole, but both of us are speaking from legally nuclear weapons capable nations who are fully permitted to freely use nuclear energy as they see fit, other nations have legal restrictions, which I expect may be enforced more strictly in future given past breaches.
    Talking about PUMPED Hydo-power, there is no reason why excess energy generated from Nuclear cannot be Stored in the self-same Pumped hydo-power you mentioned. In other words Nuclear generated electricity which is not being used up can be directed to pump water upstream into a lake and hold it there for later use by turning turbines. So Problem solved.

    Now Nuclear waste. The fear of nuclear waste has been used by opponents on Nuclear power for too long, and some of that fear is unjustified. A Fast-breeder reactor alters most of the waste to that it can be re-used to generate more energy in nuclear reactors. In effect as the mass of the waste is converted to energy, there is less and less waste to worry about. In the end, what waste remains has a smaller amount, and potentially remains radio-active for a smaller amount of time.

    Now what should we do with waste that's left over. Answer deep deep burial, Tens of miles deep (my solution). Because the amount of unusable radioactive material left behind is small, it is feasible to bury it in deep enough geologically stable areas where it would not harm anything for tens of thousands of years. Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon, and should not be feared.

    Finally the fear of proliferation.
    To me this is the most laughable false reason to not have Nuclear power. I note that the rogue nations we want to keep from having nuclear power have developed it anyway, so why are we using this fake reason to not provide energy we need. While some countries keep on finding reasons to not advance nuclear technology. The French are happily forging ahead, and because they re-use their waste:-

    "France, in contrast, now reprocesses well over 1000 metric tons of spent fuel every year without incident at the La Hague chemical complex, at the head of Normandy’s wind-blasted Cotentin peninsula. La Hague receives all the spent fuel rods from France’s 59 reactors. "

    SEE: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891

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

  10. #10
    ɹǝʎʍɐן Я I Hand Banana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hall of fame
    Posts
    5,359
    I think we should take nuclear power, and make it into a weapon. And threaten smaller countries to listen to you. Once they learn how to manufacture them, we nuke them to make an example. Nuclear power only belongs to the strongest. Its not something anyone should be able to use.

Posting Permissions

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