Nuclear Power *Poll*

[connorpiper]

So for English we have to write an essay, and because our science teachers wanted to be a part of it. The topic is "Nuclear power; A yes, or a no?"

 

I just wanted to see your opinion. Even if you are not educated on the topic. (As most are not)

If we keep upgrade our funding, Gen V+ Reactors could be completely renewable. (Cold, Pressurized, and Molten Fission) 

 

Sorry about the amount of options. 

 

Fun Fact: When Greenpeace forced the Sweedish government to shut down their main Nuclear powerplant, the backup generators exploded, causing massive power outages. The power plant was back up within an hour. 

 

 

Current power generation. The least efficient is Coal. The most pollution is coal. 

And it powers 45% of the world. 

 

UPDATE: 80% of our school was for nuclear. I wrote about 5 pages. 

[DigitalHermit]

Nuke power is one of the cleaner more efficient forms of nonrenewable energy sources that we have right now... sure the maintenance and operations are bothersome and delicate, but the power that in can produce is massive enough to justify the costs...

 

All that remains right now is to remove the negative image of nuclear power...

[terrytek]

Well, after the disaster in Japan almost 4 years ago, California shut down their nuclear plants near San Diego. We almost had a meltdown in 1979 in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, as you know, had a meltdown.

[connorpiper]

Nuke power is one of the cleaner more efficient forms of nonrenewable energy sources that we have right now... sure the maintenance and operations are bothersome and delicate, but the power that in can produce is massive enough to justify the costs...

 

All that remains right now is to remove the negative image of nuclear power...

 

Uranium is cheaper than coal per MW. 

[Fred Castellum]

I say allocate money to renewable power sources while pushing for Fusion Power. 

 

Check out the multination project ITER!

http://www.iter.org/

[Decon]

My dad works on such projects, therefore nuclear pls 

[Flight1sim]

My opinion is that Nuclear Energy is the best form of energy we have. 

If we can get rid of the bad press (as @DigitalHemit said) it could become a viable solution.

If there's any way to make the Nuclear Plants safer, then it'd be the best form of energy the Human Race has ever created.  (already quite safe, in reality only a few major accidents happen in comparison to how many plants there are)

Look at all them submarines, they run on Nuclear Reactors don't they

[connorpiper]

I say allocate money to renewable power sources while pushing for Fusion Power. 

 

Check out the multination project ITER!

http://www.iter.org/

 

Fusion can be used in FBR Reactors (Fast Breeder Reactors) to re-enrich the waste for another loop through the Fission reactor.

But as said on Wikipedia, Fusion just does not produce as much heat. (Well, what we can do within the next 100 years) 

[Speedyv]

Really why not?

 

It's about better implementation and precautions. 

[Wferr]

Well, after the disaster in Japan almost 4 years ago, California shut down their nuclear plants near San Diego. We almost had a meltdown in 1979 in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, as you know, had a meltdown.

You mean the nuclear boobies? (Drive past them alot)

[terrytek]

I don't know if I like the idea of nuclear. Sure, used properly, it creates a fuck ton of power and it's clean, but if not maintained right, a whole city could be gone. I've seen the results. It's not pretty. I don't want to die a deadly death.

[connorpiper]

I don't know if I like the idea of nuclear. Sure, used properly, it creates a fuck ton of power and it's clean, but if not maintained right, a whole city could be gone. I've seen the results. It's not pretty. I don't want to die a deadly death.

 

Because of radiation. A reactor cannot explode like a Nuclear bomb. 

But if we continue Coal power generation, same fate. 

[Fred Castellum]

I don't know if I like the idea of nuclear. Sure, used properly, it creates a fuck ton of power and it's clean, but if not maintained right, a whole city could be gone. I've seen the results. It's not pretty. I don't want to die a deadly death.

It's the next step to energy production for our race really. Solar and Wind can only go so far compared to Nuclear or Fusion(hopefully soon). 

 

Because of radiation. A reactor cannot explode like a Nuclear bomb. 

But if we continue Coal power generation, same fate. 

I really like the experimental take on Fusion Power at the moment, three or four times the power of Fission(Nuclear) and it produces less radioactive waste... Plus in the case of a catastrophic failure a Fusion reactor would only vaporize everything within the vicinity of the reaction, where as a nuclear fission meltdown would send highly radioactive particles into the atmosphere. 

 

Fusion is safer and produces far more power at the cost of needing tons of power to start. 

[Mujteba]

Nuclear power is the cleanest energy source when done right.

[Enderman]

The only reason against nuclear power is that humans are stupid and make errors. If nuclear fusion could function perfectly we would have almost infinite renewable energy with 0 maintenance.

Now we just need to continue innovating the technology until it becomes perfect. It is the most efficient and cleanest way of creating power.

[DigitalHermit]

Fusion can be used in FBR Reactors (Fast Breeder Reactors) to re-enrich the waste for another loop through the Fission reactor.

But as said on Wikipedia, Fusion just does not produce as much heat. (Well, what we can do within the next 100 years) 

 

The problem with fusion is the heat needed to initiate and sustain it... With current developments, it's still at a net loss of power generated...

 

The main problem that I see with fission is the fear of the people... With proper planning and execution, it's safe...

 

Japan was an unprecendented natural disaster, but the plant withheld before that big one... Chernobyl and Three Mile are cases of old tech...

Lessons have already been learned and countermeasures are ready to be implemented... All that remains is to change the outlook...

[Yummychickenblue]

I don't know if I like the idea of nuclear. Sure, used properly, it creates a fuck ton of power and it's clean, but if not maintained right, a whole city could be gone. I've seen the results. It's not pretty. I don't want to die a deadly death.

Most Nuclear power plants aren't place near heavily populated areas. At least here anyway.

[connorpiper]

The problem with fusion is the heat needed to initiate and sustain it... With current developments, it's still at a net loss of power generated...

 

The main problem that I see with fission is the fear of the people... With proper planning and execution, it's safe...

 

Japan was an unprecendented natural disaster, but the plant withheld before that big one... Chernobyl and Three Mile are cases of old tech...

Lessons have already been learned and countermeasures are ready to be implemented... All that remains is to change the outlook...

 

And if we can get molten salt cooled fast reactors that can recycle water from a water tank (Or lead or sodium). We can move Nuclear Power Plants from water sources.

And away from dangerous places. 

[Daegun]

Nuclear energy is really great. A bigger problem than the possibility of meltdowns is things like this, where I live, we've had problems with improper disposal of nuclear rods, which is contaminating groundwater.

 

Well, after the disaster in Japan almost 4 years ago, California shut down their nuclear plants near San Diego. We almost had a meltdown in 1979 in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, as you know, had a meltdown.

 

The three mile island meltdown released as much radiation as 3 x-ray scans at a doctors office would, it takes 50 times the radiation of an average x-ray to be deadly.

 

The reason Chernobyl was as bad as it was is because while most nuclear reactors have some kind of housing around them that contains any kind of radiation that leaks out during operation, Chernobyl had none at all. So when things went bad, there was nothing to stop the radiation from going everywhere.

 

Japan's meltdown was a lot worse on the news than it was in actuality. Not that it wasn't bad, but it was much better than it could have been. They were hit by a 9.1 earthquake, then more than 10 aftershocks over 8.0, and then a tsunami twice as high as what they had expected the plant might have to deal with. That isn't exactly something that happens everyday, and the fact that the plant was still functioning properly until the tsunami hit is more shocking/amazing than the fact that it had a meltdown. It was dealt with very well for the circumstances.

 

As long as they're built and operated properly, there's no danger.

[connorpiper]

Nuclear energy is really great. A bigger problem than the possibility of meltdowns is things like this, where I live, we've had problems with improper disposal of nuclear rods, which is contaminating groundwater.

 

 

The three mile island meltdown released as much radiation as 3 x-ray scans at a doctors office would, it takes 50 times the radiation of an average x-ray to be deadly.

 

The reason Chernobyl was as bad as it was is because while most nuclear reactors have some kind of housing around them that contains any kind of radiation that leaks out during operation, Chernobyl had none at all. So when things went bad, there was nothing to stop the radiation from going everywhere.

 

Japan's meltdown was a lot worse on the news than it was in actuality. Not that it wasn't bad, but it was much better than it could have been. They were hit by a 9.1 earthquake, then more than 10 aftershocks over 8.0, and then a tsunami twice as high as what they had expected the plant might have to deal with. That isn't exactly something that happens everyday, and the fact that the plant was still functioning properly until the tsunami hit is more shocking/amazing than the fact that it had a meltdown. It was dealt with very well for the circumstances.

 

As long as they're built and operated properly, there's no danger.

 

The only fail they had there was the casing was cracked in the earthquake, and they had to cool the reactor for 14 hours in the ocean. 

[Pyromaniac225]

Let's keep away from Solar and Wind. They take up land that could otherwise be used for something like farming.

 

Nuclear fusion is the future for power, or Geothermal.

[DigitalHermit]

And if we can get molten salt cooled fast reactors that can recycle water from a water tank (Or lead or sodium). We can move Nuclear Power Plants from water sources.

And away from dangerous places. 

 

Yep...

 

There's an abandoned nuclear power plant in our country... It never saw action because of the administration that got it built and the recent nuclear disasters that kept the people in fear... I frequent a research facility that we have and luckily, they allowed the use of different isotopes for research purposes...

 

 

 

Let's keep away from Solar and Wind. They take up land that could otherwise be used for something like farming.

 

Nuclear fusion is the future for power, or Geothermal.

 

Wind farms can double as cattle farms you know? also there's the feasibility of building the wind farms close to shore... as for solar, urban solar farming is an option...

[terrytek]

Let's keep away from Solar and Wind. They take up land that could otherwise be used for something like farming.

 

Nuclear fusion is the future for power, or Geothermal.

There are solar panels on pretty much every house on my block including mine. They do save space while having something to do, provide electricity.

[Fred Castellum]

Let's keep away from Solar and Wind. They take up land that could otherwise be used for something like farming.

 

Nuclear fusion is the future for power, or Geothermal.

Commercial solar energy options are very viable though. Residential set ups stand to benefit greatly from such options. 

[EmeraldKiwi]

Nuclear power is seemingly efficient, but it produces hazardous waste material that will remain hazardous for thousands if not millions of years. I don't think nuclear power is as clean as we think it is. It may be useful now, but we have to think of future consequences. Other power sources may be more expensive or inefficient, but at least they are unlimited.