Nuclear Power *Poll*

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

No to nuclear fission, yes to nuclear fusion. I voted no, because people usually mean fission when they talk about nuclear power.

[connorpiper]

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.

 

Coal is not unlimited. Oil is not unlimited. Gas is not unlimited. 

[connorpiper]

No to nuclear fission, yes to nuclear fusion. I voted no, because people usually mean fission when they talk about nuclear power.

 

That is the only type of nuclear power generation right now. 

[Pyromaniac225]

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

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.

 

Yes, solar panels on already existing buildings are viable and I 100% support that. What I do not support is the clearing of land for arrays of Solar panels to be built. Wind power built out in the ocean is fine though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

For now nuclear power is the only viable option.  However that doesn't mean it's a good one, especially with governments not knowing what they're doing and companies trying to maximize their profits. 

 

I live about less than 10 miles from the Doel nuclear plant, one that has recently become famous for the hairline cracks in one of the reactor vessels and the sabotage that shut down the one of the turbines (and the reactor it was connected to) for months. 

The 2 oldest reactors were originally intended to be decommissioned in 2005 because they reached the end of their projected 30 year lifespan, but because our former governments "forgot" to look for alternative solutions, they prolonged their operation to 2015.  And because the new governments then forgot all about it again, they now plan to keep them open until 2025.

The lack of proper decision making also means that nobody wants to invest in alternative energy here.

 

Sure, the FANC (Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, basically the guys who make the final decision on anything nuclear) has ordered some upgrades before they allow the reactors to be used past 2015, but we're still dealing with materials and infrastructure that were never intended to be used for all those extra years.

 

FYI : As for population, there are over 900.000 people in a 20km (12 mile) radius around the plant and 9 million in a 75km (47 mile) radius, putting it in one of the most densely populated areas in Europe.  If that thing goes into meltdown, we're probably talking about one of the greatest disaster-related relocations in the history of mankind.

[harrynowl]

Nuclear is cheaper, more efficient and cleaner.

Until it goes wrong.

I think fission reactors are necessary but a lot of funds should be set aside for the development of fusion... Which is easier said than done.

[ZacDaMan72]

In New Zealand, 75% of our energy is made from renewable sources. In fact, basically the whole of the South Island's electricity was generated by Hydroelectricity.

[Nup]

In New Zealand, 75% of our energy is made from renewable sources. In fact, basically the whole of the South Island's electricity was generated by Hydroelectricity

 

Damn thats cool. 

 

I do think that nuclear power should be reverencing much more funding. It, in tangent with renewable energy (especially solar power) is the way forward. 

[EmeraldKiwi]

Coal is not unlimited. Oil is not unlimited. Gas is not unlimited. 

I'm not talking about coal and oil and whatnot. I'm talking about wind turbines and solar panels and hydro-electric dams and stuff like that. Of course oil is not unlimited.

[tobben]

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

 

Check out the multination project ITER!

http://www.iter.org/

Fusion is more of a long term elusive goal though,

achieving sustained controlled fusion would truly

be revolutionary. But probably wont be achieved 

soon, implemented even less so.

 

Definitely deserves funding and is exciting stuff.

[KE2012]

When you talk nuclear, are you classing fusion and fission under the same categorie or not? Anyway my penny is this. Fusion is the key, pour trillions more into it, crack it and then boom, energy is clean and in unlimited supply for aslong as we need it.

[xox]

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

Unless you live in England that is, where the sun is just never present.

[spwath]

Pro- we just need to figure out what to do with the waste

[skywake]

From an Australian perspective I support Nuclear I just don't see it as a viable option. There's nothing running here ATM, it would be political suicide to push and we have amazing renewable resources. For us I reckon the best option in terms of nuclear is to export nuclear fuel to other countries (provided we can trust they're using it for power!). In general though what's more important to us is to start speeding up with the transition away from coal. Because it really is a dying industry, even without the environmental stuff there's nowhere near the demand there once was. And with the push for green tech renewables are really starting to become competitive.

[Trik'Stari]

Pro- we just need to figure out what to do with the waste

They have reactors being designed that "burn more completely" and have less of that....10000 year life span waste.

 

I am totally pro nuclear power. Mainly because I fully expect society to collapse within my lifetime, and have no qualms about living in something similar to the fallout universe.

[dragoon20005]

for my country which is small and depends on oil and gas to power our power stations

 

going nuclear seem to be the way forward for us to rid ourselves from the mercy of rising oil prices

 

of course my govt is sending a team of nuclear experts overseas to the US and Germany to study the feasibility and also how to design a safe reactor that could withstand natural disasters.

 

Japan Fukushima disaster is because they were using the older generations of reactors and it was hit by two disasters at the same time.

 

 

 

Another advantage of going nuclear will mean we may also be able to refine the nuclear waste into weapon grade stuffs and we can have Nuclear weapons

 

We all know "The Interview" movie is considered to be a joke but the real fact is we do not know know if North Korea actually have Nuclear weapons which are able to strike any countries within the range of its ICBM.

 

Better to be safe than sorry I guess before a possible World War 3 breaks out

[frostin1990]

 

We all know "The Interview" movie is considered to be a joke but the real fact is we do not know know if North Korea actually have Nuclear weapons which are able to strike any countries within the range of its ICBM.

 

Better to be safe than sorry I guess before a possible World War 3 breaks out

Oh we all know how it went down in libya for giving up their nukes and showcasing the policy of peaceful non proliferation. <_< I doubt any country would still fall for that SCAM...

[shiftberry]

Nuclear power is infinite, but if employed properly unlike the grave incident in Chernobyl and Pripyat.

 

Yes, why not. People should be a bit encouraged to allow this happening.

[Techteen14]

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

In the US, 111,000,000 people (roughly a third of the population) live within 50 miles (the range of radiation after a meltdown) of a nuclear reactor.

I'm not against nuclear, but rather the operator of my nearest nuclear power plant (Peach Bottom), Exelon. Three Mile Island (which I also don't live far from) was owned by Exelon, and you know how that went. Exelon seems to have most of Maryland under their thumb when it comes to energy, though, whether nuclear (Peach Bottom), Hydroelectric (Conowingo) or other (they own Baltimore Gas & Electric, which services most of Maryland IIRC).

Yay for energy monopolies!

[Victorious Secret]

Nuclear is the only real option for a lot of areas to replace coal fired plants. 

The issue is that it becomes a "not in my backyard" problem and its just as expensive to have transmission lines that go across half a state much less half a country, otherwise I say shove all the nuclear plants into the deserts of Nevada and have at it. 

 Then again, the same "not in my backyard" nonsense is killing what Yucca Mountain could've been.

[Recon97]

One day I would expose myself to gamma rays! Yay!

[Thorium19]

I agree that nuclear power is the best option for continuous large scale power at the moment, however we've no real understanding of what will happen to the waste over time, heck we've not even had nuclear power stations for even a century yet, so who knows what will happen to all that high level waste after 100 years or so. And all that medium level waste buried underground ain't gonna help anyone I reckon. I've been apprehensious of nuclear power when I learnt the whole north of England was nearly turned into a chenobyl repeat in the 50's thanks to sellafield.

Personally, tidal and wave power is the way I believe, especially in the UK as we're surrounded by water on all sides, but it will be a while before we get that all set up, no thanks to the government making a complete cock-up of wave energy data in the 80's and then investing heavily in new nuclear power plants that are just being started construction of now.

One day I would expose myself to gamma rays! Yay!

Done that already, my physics teacher is far too relaxed to be bothered with safety   

[connorpiper]

I'm not talking about coal and oil and whatnot. I'm talking about wind turbines and solar panels and hydro-electric dams and stuff like that. Of course oil is not unlimited.

 

That cannot provide the power that we need. Solely. 

[xox]

Another advantage of going nuclear will mean we may also be able to refine the nuclear waste into weapon grade stuffs and we can have Nuclear weapons

Countries cannot develop nuclear weapons that don't have them already without serious diplomatic problems. For example, Iran probably had at some point a nuclear program, which it got in shit for from a UN force.

Countries like Israel may also have a nuclear programme, but they are immune pretty much because the UN security council will always vote down on intervening as Britain and the US are fearful of being accused of anti Semitism.

 

Current nuclear powers off the top of my head:

• United States
• France
• The UK
• Russia
• China

Of course, there are others likely to have an arsenal like India, Pakistan and North Korea, but somewhat unlikely. Despite the fact that they all publicly declared it.

[Yoann Craniumz]

Tutorial on nuclear plant safety:

Step 1: look at France.

Step 2: Repeat step 1.

Step 3: profit