Are you for or against nuclear power?

[Sammael]

Feel free to explain why, and please tell your country of origin, curious to know the location of the attitudes.

 

 

PS, I am for nuclear power, US

[Vacsol]

Why do you create controversial topics all the time?

[Clyne]

Can you put,"I don't really mind" option.

[Trik'Stari]

Ahh something I know about. I recently wrote a college paper against it.

 

Everyone should be for it, and in fact I would invest heavily in it (If I had that kind of money) with the new fast reactors coming in 2050. These reactors will be more efficient, and burn the fuel completely out, rendering it radioactively safe. An in fact, can use old waste from the older generations of reactors as fuel. So there really is no reason not to be for it other than not knowing about this upcoming generation of reactors.

 

 

Why do you create controversial topics all the time?

Because their more interesting that "hey lets all blow sunshine up each others asses all day" topics.

[flibberdipper]

Against, US. I don't want to have a meltdown and fuck shit up (Chernobyl? That one in Japan?). I want to see more in the renewable resources area.

[Fulgrim]

Better use it for energy rather than blowing each other up.

 

However, dropping a nuke on Mecca would do the world a favor imo.

[Sammael]

Can you put,"I don't really mind" option.

 

 

Done.

[Trik'Stari]

Against, US. I don't want to have a meltdown and fuck shit up (Chernobyl? That one in Japan?). I want to see more in the renewable resources area.

See my above post. The new generation that's being developed won't have the problems of the current gens.

[Sammael]

Why do you create controversial topics all the time?

 

 

This is pretty tame.  Just curious what people think of nuclear power, if THAT's too much to handle for people... they need to be shut off the internet and locked in a cage so their brittle little minds can be protected.

[flibberdipper]

See my above post. The new generation that's being developed won't have the problems of the current gens.

So basically, the risk of a meltdown (significant or otherwise) is almost or completely non-existent?

[beebskadoo]

I am for the advancement of nuclear power, our environment is slowly being destroyed by oil and coal.

[Sammael]

So basically, the risk of a meltdown (significant or otherwise) is almost or completely non-existent?

 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste

 

The new reactors being developed won't have those issues.  Take a look at the link above, if power is lost and fission runs out of control and starts heating up the system, the salt will expand and slow the reactions to the point where it can't melt down.  If this reactor was running in Fukushima, there would not have been an issue with the lost power.

[helping]

Why do you create controversial topics all the time?

I expect this to be pretty one sided to the point of boredom.

 

I would say against, but I can't come up with a reasonable argument beyond "look at Japan and Russia"

 

jesus OP, try and spice this up a little bit.

[antoainb]

Like EVERY energy production method it has it's advantages (cheap and better than coal and oil) and disadvantages (the H20 steam is still a greenhouse gas and they can have pretty bad impacts when something goes wrong [even though disasters with them are rather rare]).

[wng_kingsley7]

Against, US. I don't want to have a meltdown and fuck shit up (Chernobyl? That one in Japan?). I want to see more in the renewable resources area.

wasn't that cause by a tsunami? I guess even if you were for it tmc it'd be a low percentage. Personally I would like to see more nuclear plants with better economical benefits. Maybe smaller in size but larger in the number of plants producing this sort of energy.

[Trik'Stari]

So basically, the risk of a meltdown (significant or otherwise) is almost or completely non-existent?

See below.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste

 

The new reactors being developed won't have those issues.  Take a look at the link above, if power is lost and fission runs out of control and starts heating up the system, the salt will expand and slow the reactions to the point where it can't melt down.  If this reactor was running in Fukushima, there would not have been an issue with the lost power.

This is why (I think) my native virginia government decided not to take advantage of our local uranium source (in an around Danville Virginia). It is the 7TH LARGEST DEPOSIT OF URANIUM KNOWN TO MAN. And yet they claim they won't mine it out of fear of safety, which I argue is a lie, because this is the US, if there's one thing we do right it's safety for the most part. Right now this fuel deposit is worth billions, I would estimate when the new gen of reactors comes online and the safety is established that it will be worth trillions. Especially when the waste fuel from the older gen runs out.

 

 

 

Like EVERY energy production method it has it's advantages (cheap and better than coal and oil) and disadvantages (the H20 steam is still a greenhouse gas and they can have pretty bad impacts when something goes wrong [even though disasters with them are rather rare]).

H20 steam is not a greenhouse gas, what moron told you that? It's WATER VAPOR. It will condense and turn into rain. That's not a greenhouse gas, that's RAIN.

 

 

wasn't that cause by a tsunami? I guess even if you were for it tmc it'd be a low percentage. Personally I would like to see more nuclear plants with better economical benefits. Maybe smaller in size but larger in the number of plants producing this sort of energy.

That's what the next gen will be, the so called "fast reactors"

 

 

I did a seven page paper on this, I remember most of it, but at this point If I had the money I would invest in it like hell before the boom starts.

[antoainb]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste

 

The new reactors being developed won't have those issues.  Take a look at the link above, if power is lost and fission runs out of control and starts heating up the system, the salt will expand and slow the reactions to the point where it can't melt down.  If this reactor was running in Fukushima, there would not have been an issue with the lost power.

 

That is extremely interesting... This would have been great for discussion in my science classes.

[helping]

Like EVERY energy production method it has it's advantages (cheap and better than coal and oil) and disadvantages (the H20 steam is still a greenhouse gas and they can have pretty bad impacts when something goes wrong [even though disasters with them are rather rare]).

Yes, but water vapor is much easier to deal with, ignoring the slew out other emissions from coal and atrocities of shale fracking.

 

It's WATER VAPOR. It will condense and turn into rain. That's not a greenhouse gas, that's RAIN.

Water vapor still behaves like gas, and is does behave like a "greenhouse" gas

it has a greater effect than actual true gasses.

[SeanBond]

Against, US. I don't want to have a meltdown and fuck shit up (Chernobyl? That one in Japan?). I want to see more in the renewable resources area.

last I checked there is about 430 active nuclear power plants. 2 bad accidents in the last 30 years is such a small amount. Yes those events were terrible but once the nuclear rods become waste they bury them into the earth in a way that by the time erosion brings those rods back to the surface or into an aquifer the material will be inert. I am for it. 

[Trik'Stari]

That is extremely interesting... This would have been great for discussion in my science classes.

Indeed. Think of it as a more dynamic cooling system that reacts based on it's own temperature than input from a control device.

 

Also, without chernobyl we wouldn't have the STALKER series. A tasteless argument yes, but a valid one I think lol.

 

Then again I am probably one of the very few people that would be semi-ok with a radioactive apocalypse.

[sirtoby]

I'm against it in its current form, but I hate these "Nuclear free peace sandals". I voted yes, because of the potential there is in that technology, especially in nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, the funding for that kind of stuff gets cut since the german gouvernment got rid of the nuclear power plants

[SeanBond]

I am absolutely for it. At the current rate of nuclear power consumption we can last 200 years on a power than generates only radiation pollution.  We take the radioactive rods from these plants and put them feet beneath concrete where the radiation cannot get through. Radiation has a half life. Eventually the material becomes inert. In 200 years time I have absolute faith we will have come up with a fuel that is completely pollution free and a renewable resource. I am all for nuclear. I think that power plants should be more strict because as rare as accidents like Chernobyl and japan are. That is too many. There should be none. 

[Enderman]

"YES" if it wasn't clear enough.

[antoainb]

H20 steam is not a greenhouse gas, what moron told you that? It's WATER VAPOR. It will condense and turn into rain. That's not a greenhouse gas, that's RAIN.

 

It is, it behaves like one, it's easier to deal with than CO2 and stuff but it's still a greenhouse gas.

[flibberdipper]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste

 

The new reactors being developed won't have those issues.  Take a look at the link above, if power is lost and fission runs out of control and starts heating up the system, the salt will expand and slow the reactions to the point where it can't melt down.  If this reactor was running in Fukushima, there would not have been an issue with the lost power.

 

wasn't that cause by a tsunami? I guess even if you were for it tmc it'd be a low percentage. Personally I would like to see more nuclear plants with better economical benefits. Maybe smaller in size but larger in the number of plants producing this sort of energy.

Either way, when they do have a meltdown, it's devastating.

 

last I checked there is about 430 active nuclear power plants. 2 bad accidents in the last 30 years is such a small amount. Yes those events were terrible but once the nuclear rods become waste they bury them into the earth in a way that by the time erosion brings those rods back to the surface or into an aquifer the material will be inert. I am for it. 

It's obvious I don't know too much about the inner workings of nuclear power.