Nuclear Power *Poll*

[connorpiper]

Tutorial on nuclear plant safety:

Step 1: look at France.

Step 2: Repeat step 1.

Step 3: profit

 

Sweden is also a good example.

[terrytek]

I think we should look into other options. We actually talked about energy sources in physics class today. There are other options like hydroelectric and tidal waves.

[connorpiper]

I think we should look into other options. We actually talked about energy sources in physics class today. There are other options like hydroelectric and tidal waves.

 

California has no water...

Hydroelectric is not reliable enough for baseline power. 

[terrytek]

California has no water...

Hydroelectric is not reliable enough for baseline power. 

What do you mean no water? We have a coastline. Use the tides as a source of power.

[connorpiper]

What do you mean no water? We have a coastline. Use the tides as a source of power.

 

Hydroelectric. Tidal has proved to be hard to service. 

Hydroelectric cannot be baseline. 

 

Tidal still needs to implemented properly. 

[cae]

Power is good. It allows for growth. I don't want to say only this or no more that. Developing populations will continue to rely on resources at their disposal. Seen some nuclear expansion (from Canada, iirc?) for developing countries, which sounds good, just not sure how sustainable it'd be. Definitely do not want an energy monopoly, whether nuclear, fossil fuels, or renewables.

[LAwLz]

Nuclear power has gotten a bad rep because of a few accidents (some where caused by stupid people, like in Chernobyl, some some by being extremely extremely unlucky like in Fukushima) and ignorance.

 

It is very clean and produces a buttload of power. I am not sure how accurate the numbers are (I am taking them from a report I wrote many many years ago) but 3kg of uranium will produce as much power as ~7,000,000 liters of gasoline.

If we closed our 3 nuclear power plants in Sweden we would have to build over 1000 new water power plants, some more wind power plants as well as import more electricity from countries which produces it with for example coal power.

 

Fusion power is the obvious future though. I guess you could say that's nuclear power as well although probably not the kind of nuclear power you are going to debate about.

[Art Vandelay]

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.

When a nuclear power plant melts down, the building is destroyed and the city has to be evacuated, but no one who isn't inside the plant is gonna die. 

 

Only 31 people died as a result of chernobyl, and it's doubtful we'll ever have a disaster that bad again. I think they learned after 3 mile island that literally everything needs redundancies.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I have to say no here, for one reason in particular: waste management. The energy produced by nuclear fission is efficient and plentiful, but what exactly happens to the byproduct at the end of the day? The half-life of radioactive waste is extraordinarily long, which renders the old "lead containment" concept somewhat impractical. If the seal breaks at any point, we could be in some trouble. This greatly limits the options for safely storing the materials. We could put it somewhere on the premise that it will not affect us (or the planet we live in), but chances are good that it will simply be a repeat of the old days of fossil fuels. It may be just fine and my worries could very well be moot, but it could instead be harming aspects of Earth without anybody noticing until the damage has been done.

I may look really down on nuclear energy, but here is the thing; there is still so much we do not know about atomic physics, and while it is a good stepping stone, more extensive research needs to be done on other potential sources of continuous power. As good as it may be, I do not expect fission to be a permanent solution.

[TetraSky]

Get rid of coal power first(and/or other highly poluting form of power generation), then think about getting rid of nuclear.

[ionbasa]

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

-snip-

Ahh, San Onofre. I occasionally go the state beach over there. Everyone calls them them that .

[Fred Castellum]

I think we should look into other options. We actually talked about energy sources in physics class today. There are other options like hydroelectric and tidal waves.

The amount of power that produces compared to Nuclear in the cost efficiency scale is quite big. 

 

What do you mean no water? We have a coastline. Use the tides as a source of power.

Belowwww

 

Hydroelectric. Tidal has proved to be hard to service. 

Hydroelectric cannot be baseline. 

 

Tidal still needs to implemented properly. 

^This...

 

Nuclear power has gotten a bad rep because of a few accidents (some where caused by stupid people, like in Chernobyl, some some by being extremely extremely unlucky like in Fukushima) and ignorance.

 

It is very clean and produces a buttload of power. I am not sure how accurate the numbers are (I am taking them from a report I wrote many many years ago) but 3kg of uranium will produce as much power as ~7,000,000 liters of gasoline.

If we closed our 3 nuclear power plants in Sweden we would have to build over 1000 new water power plants, some more wind power plants as well as import more electricity from countries which produces it with for example coal power.

 

Fusion power is the obvious future though. I guess you could say that's nuclear power as well although probably not the kind of nuclear power you are going to debate about.

@terrytek I know it's not hydroelectricity but this^ is a good example of the efficiency differences between the two power sources. 

 

Really though fusion power should be the nuclear power we should be debating about. 

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

 

Really though fusion power should be the nuclear power we should be debating about. 

I really want nuclear power through the harvesting of high energy radioactive decay as a power source.

So the material naturally gives off energy to heat water for turbines (still ancient tech).

 

or better yet catalyzed decay of baryonic matter = high energy wavelengths.