Depending on Nuclear Energy: Yes or no?

[ChocolateVillain]

Word of today: Absurd~!

Yeah, I know, it sounds completely radicalistic but I've been thinking about the possibilities of it for the past 3 years. We could mix technology with old ways of living and finding food and it would be awesome and balanced. I'd say that's much more advanced than where we are at now.

Living and finding(foraging) food in a city would be impossible. The shift from people living in the country side to living in huge metropolitan has been happening for years now.

If solar power could improve on its technology to provide more power it could be a substitute... But just like Shadow said it's not always sunny. Well advancement in technology could lead to improvements but what you were saying earlier. We should stop trying to make technological improvements to our society...

Have you ever been next to a wind farm? There loud as hell and people who live anywhere near them complain about how loud they are.

Guess this discussion is irrelevant now... I'll take that as my cue to leave.

 

[LadyFace]

Living and finding(foraging) food in a city would be impossible. The shift from people living in the country side to living in huge metropolitan has been happening for years now.

If solar power could improve on its technology to provide more power it could be a substitute... But just like Shadow said it's not always sunny. Well advancement in technology could lead to improvements but what you were saying earlier. We should stop trying to make technological improvements to our society...

Have you ever been next to a wind farm? There loud as hell and people who live anywhere near them complain about how loud they are.

Guess this discussion is irrelevant now... I'll take that as my cue to leave.

Nah, This discussion is still on like Donkey Kong. I was just being silleh.
I'd like to visit one. I've seen footage of one breaking...It's hardcore. And also, those things are SO friggin' huge. It's crazy. It makes me smile for some reason. And yes! Someone gets me. Wheeeee!

 

[Winston]

Don't leave this thread!

I would instead like to give a moments pause to the 50 workers who stayed behind after 750 of their coworkers left, and at least tried to help the situation.

As for the "The media is blowing this way out of proportion", I kind of agree with that. I also think that the possibility of the Japanese tactic of flooding the three reactors with active fuel rods with seawater failing, thus letting the fuel rods be exposed and crack, releasing tons of basically toxic gases. Also, the amount of information ACTUALLY coming out of Japan is quite small. We aren't even sure exactly what kind of chemicals were being used.

The actual fuel rods were stored on top of a reactor. The plant was built in the 1970's. The company has a large history of lying about safety regulations being met.

To be short, there is a lot to worry about, not necessarily for those in the U.S., but for the thousands of Japanese people who already need food, and aren't being allowed to leave their houses because of the radioactive materials.

As for the Solar/Wind/Nuclear power discussion, I feel they are mostly. . opinionated. It's probably best not to continue that discussion.

And for the "Liquidators", they were indeed heroes. I do encourage you to seek out more information in the actual severity of the Chernobyl incident though.

 

[LadyFace]

And for the "Liquidators", they were indeed heroes. I do encourage you to seek out more information in the actual severity of the Chernobyl incident though.

Me? Because I do know more than that, I was just, you know, summarizing? There's a lot I know now. And it made me so upset, that I almost started crying. Haha. But that's probably cause I'm girl. Hurr hurr.

 

[RustyPwns!]

Nuclear energy is the future, and nothing about it is cheap or easy. People protest nuclear power plants and say "not in my backyard" but they will get in a car everyday, or smoke a cigarette everyday, and these things are a thousand times more dangerous. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is and yet there's no one protesting the local coal mine. I understand the horror and the devastation over the situation in Japan, but to say we should scrap something because it poses a danger to us (I'm not implying you are) is illogical. Its like when a plane crashes, there's shock and panic, people no longer want to fly, but the general public turns a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in automobile accidents each year. Its not fair to say that because something is not 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami proof, it should not be built. You don't have to be a treehugger to see the evidence for the effects that the burning of fossil fuels has on the environment. Even more important is that our natural resources are called nonrenewable for a reason. It may seem far off, but to be able to create a source of power equal to the sun to power an entire planet, that is nuclear fission, something scientists are working on as we speak. Wind farms and solar panels may seem like prospective alternatives for now, but if we want to continue running our societies, as well as support the growth of countries that will double the amount of resources used now (China, India), nuclear energy is the way to go.

That was beautiful. You are a very intelligent man.

 

[gibso]

I 100% back nuclear power in every way. Why isn't New Orleans run on nuclear? We only have the biggest damn river in the country. I think it is because of the price of a nuclear power plant is astronomically insane lol. Although they would definitely get a return on investment. I don't care for the nuclear waste all that much, most of it is "recycled" or w/e and depleted uranium can be used in tank buster munitions. I say anywhere there is ample water, we build ourselves a nice nuclear plant.

 

[iEye Captain]

Wind and solar are extremely expensive options.

The energy they produce per dollar cost of operating them, is much lower than nuclear energy.

I agree with much of what Shadow said. The reactor was built in the 70s. And it's in Japan (earthquake zone). Technology WILL keep on advancing, whether you like it or not. Nuclear energy will become safer and safer.

As for nuclear waste, well, better to bury it in a desert nobody will ever live in than spewing it into the atmosphere like what coal and oil does.

There is no turning back on nuclear energy now.

Btw, aren't they researching nuclear fusion as the next generation of nuclear power? Back when I was in high school, they talked about how nuclear fusion is much safer. They'd fuse hydrogen and oxygen, use the power, and the output is water? Not sure if all my facts are correct. However, apparently, it's very hard to do.

 

[LadyFace]

Wind and solar are extremely expensive options.

The energy they produce per dollar cost of operating them, is much lower than nuclear energy.

I agree with much of what Shadow said. The reactor was built in the 70s. And it's in Japan (earthquake zone). Technology WILL keep on advancing, whether you like it or not. Nuclear energy will become safer and safer.

As for nuclear waste, well, better to bury it in a desert nobody will ever live in than spewing it into the atmosphere like what coal and oil does.

There is no turning back on nuclear energy now.

Btw, aren't they researching nuclear fusion as the next generation of nuclear power? Back when I was in high school, they talked about how nuclear fusion is much safer. They'd fuse hydrogen and oxygen, use the power, and the output is water? Not sure if all my facts are correct. However, apparently, it's very hard to do.

Nooo, it's fission. Fusion is what we do and it causes waste! And no! It's certainly not okay to bury anything toxic anywhere, deserted desert or not. It's just wrong, we shouldn't be putting our human wastes into the earth! It's so disrespectful and it harms the environment more than you realize. Just cause people do it doesn't make it okay.

Also, no, We don't HAVE to rely on Nuclear Fusion. It's not the only way of the future, I wish people would stop saying that. There are other options, people just don't like making sacrifices. I'm gonna find away to show this one day. I dunno how, but I'm going to do it...

 

[iEye Captain]

Nooo, it's fission. Fusion is what we do and it causes waste! And no! It's certainly not okay to bury anything toxic anywhere, deserted desert or not. It's just wrong, we shouldn't be putting our human wastes into the earth! It's so disrespectful and it harms the environment more than you realize. Just cause people do it doesn't make it okay.

Also, no, We don't HAVE to rely on Nuclear Fusion. It's not the only way of the future, I wish people would stop saying that. There are other options, people just don't like making sacrifices. I'm gonna find away to show this one day. I dunno how, but I'm going to do it...

Fission is what we're doing now. That involves splitting atoms, which generates waste. Fusion involves combining atoms.

Japan and France generate very little nuclear waste because they reuse their nuclear fuel.

The fact of the matter is that there is no non-fossil based method of generating electricity that produces anywhere near what nuclear does. In the future, at best, 20% of what the US consumes will come from non-fossil based sources.

Also, on the topic of "renewable" energy:

Wind = massive wind turbines = noise pollution + habitat intrusion (e.g. birds flying into the windmills).

Water = look at the Hoover dam.

Biomass = comes from natural fuel sources. Generating enough of it will require major impacts on the respective environments they come from.

Solar = Very expensive for a tiny, weeny bit of electricity.

tl;dr version: all energy sources impact the environment in some way.

 

[LadyFace]

Fission is what we're doing now. That involves splitting atoms, which generates waste. Fusion involves combining atoms.

Japan and France generate very little nuclear waste because they reuse their nuclear fuel.

The fact of the matter is that there is no non-fossil based method of generating electricity that produces anywhere near what nuclear does. In the future, at best, 20% of what the US consumes will come from non-fossil based sources.

Also, on the topic of "renewable" energy:

Wind = massive wind turbines = noise pollution + habitat intrusion (e.g. birds flying into the windmills).

Water = look at the Hoover dam.

Biomass = comes from natural fuel sources. Generating enough of it will require major impacts on the respective environments they come from.

Solar = Very expensive for a tiny, weeny bit of electricity.

tl;dr version: all energy sources impact the environment in some way.

No, you've got it confused. What we are working on trying to create is Nuclear FISSION. The process we do now is Nuclear FUSION. That creates waste. Fission, does not.

I think most energy sources are bad and I feel like we should depend on it less.

 

[OSVG]

No, you've got it confused. What we are working on trying to create is Nuclear FISSION. The process we do now is Nuclear FUSION. That creates waste. Fission, does not.

I think most energy sources are bad and I feel like we should depend on it less.

nope we do fission now. Fusion is what we are working on

Nuclear power is produced by controlled (i.e., non-explosive) nuclear reactions. Commercial and utility plants currently use nuclear fission reactions to heat water to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity.

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

But I agree wasteless nuclear energy would be preferred.

 

[Sexy Beast]

No, you've got it confused. What we are working on trying to create is Nuclear FISSION. The process we do now is Nuclear FUSION. That creates waste. Fission, does not.

I think most energy sources are bad and I feel like we should depend on it less.

I hate to correct, but we are currently using Fission. We're tying to develop fusion, which is the same process that powers the sun.

But here is the issue with fusion, right now the compound that scientists are looking to utilized in the future to create Nuclear fusion is a compound called Helium-3...and it makes sense to use He-3. It's a non-radioactive compound and as such it's remarkably safe to use also it is the waste compound that sun throws off after it completes its fusion reaction. But there is one problem with He-3, it's pretty rare on earth and most of what we have goes towards medical use. Fortunately we have a source that has a lot of He-3 nearby...the moon, which is why Bush Jr. wanted to go back to the moon. So once we have a base on the moon, drilling equipment on the moon, and a couple of space elevators...we can start using fusion.

A link to the U.S Department of Energy site discussing how they plan implementing nuclear fusion: http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/

 

[LadyFace]

I hate to correct, but we are currently using Fission. We're tying to develop fusion, which is the same process that powers the sun.

But here is the issue with fusion, right now the compound that scientists are looking to utilized in the future to create Nuclear fusion is a compound called Helium-3...and it makes sense to use He-3. It's a non-radioactive compound and as such it's remarkably safe to use also it is the waste compound that sun throws off after it completes its fusion reaction. But there is one problem with He-3, it's pretty rare on earth and most of what we have goes towards medical use. Fortunately we have a source that has a lot of He-3 nearby...the moon, which is why Bush Jr. wanted to go back to the moon. So once we have a base on the moon, drilling equipment on the moon, and a couple of space elevators...we can start using fusion.

A link to the U.S Department of Energy site discussing how they plan implementing nuclear fusion: http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/

Ugh, I am so sorry, guys! My bad. Lol. I'm dumb today apparently. I got them all mixed up and stuff. Thanks for reminding me with a wikipedia article u.u

And Oh noooo. Drilling on the moon seems like a really bad idea in my opinion.
Now I feel super dumb >.< Hahaha. Thanks for the correction though.

nope we do fission now. Fusion is what we are working on

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

But I agree wasteless nuclear energy would be preferred.

And yeah, thank you for the correction. Ugh, my baaaaad. >.<

 

[gibso]

The irony of the last 2 pages is extremely funny.

 

[Darth]

I don't care for the nuclear waste all that much, most of it is "recycled"

Ok, I will get all the nuclear power plants to send you the used up uranium rods shall I? Disposing of nuclear waste is a very serious problem. Its probably the only main disadvantage of nuclear power.

You need to store it deep underground for thousands of years. Make sure it doesn't leak. It could fall into the wrong hands.

 

[gibso]

Ok, I will get all the nuclear power plants to send you the used up uranium rods shall I? Disposing of nuclear waste is a very serious problem. Its probably the only main disadvantage of nuclear power.

You need to store it deep underground for thousands of years. Make sure it doesn't leak. It could fall into the wrong hands.

"A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel each year (but only 3 cubic meters of vitrified volume if reprocessed)"

Source

By "recycled" I meant reprocessed. 3 cubic meter per yea is NOTHING.

 

[Darth]

"A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces approximately 20 cubic meters (about 27 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel each year (but only 3 cubic meters of vitrified volume if reprocessed)"

Source

By "recycled" I meant reprocessed. 3 cubic meter per yea is NOTHING.

if reprocessed

This comes into transportation of it getting reprocessed. Like I said, it could fall into the wrong hands, leaks, safety, transportation of it safely...

Also America (Obama) point blank refuses to reprocess uranium rods in the USA which means they need to be shipped to the UK, France or China

 

[Sexy Beast]

This comes into transportation of it getting reprocessed. Like I said, it could fall into the wrong hands, leaks, safety, transportation of it safely...

Also America (Obama) point blank refuses to reprocess uranium rods in the USA which means they need to be shipped to the UK, France or China

The U.S has always been a bit touchy on the concept of reprocessing Uranium. Both Ford and Carter banned it and though Reagan attempted to resurrect, but it never took hold. It was banned again in the 90s and was only brought back under Bush Jr. administration. So it is a bit unfair to single out Obama for killing U.S reprocessing of Uranium.

You can read about it's history in a CRS report on reprocessing here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf

 

[gibso]

I know we are too large of country to "pull a France" with nuclear energy, but I know we can try a little harder than this.

Why not take the money we are saving an put it towards building a rocket. Put the waste it, and shot it out into space. Maybe the sun and it will all be vaporized? Or maybe just random, who cares?

 

[iEye Captain]

I know we are too large of country to "pull a France" with nuclear energy, but I know we can try a little harder than this.

Why not take the money we are saving an put it towards building a rocket. Put the waste it, and shot it out into space. Maybe the sun and it will all be vaporized? Or maybe just random, who cares?

The stuff is heavy.

Shooting it into space will require a rocket humans don't have.