I voted no, but that's only because I don't support nuclear fission. If and when we figure out fusion, I'd be all for it. I'm mostly against fissions simply for the amount of waste it makes. I just don't think a half-life of several hundred thousand years is acceptable.
Relative to other forms of energy, NPPs produce little waste, and the half-life of the waste is actually closer to about 10,000 years (on average). Plus, in the future we can reuse the waste for other means of energy creation.
I voted no, but that's only because I don't support nuclear fission. If and when we figure out fusion, I'd be all for it. I'm mostly against fissions simply for the amount of waste it makes. I just don't think a half-life of several hundred thousand years is acceptable. Besides, there are better forms of energy.
Nope, nuclear is the better form of energy. We just have to deal with the waste until space travel becomes better. Then we can just dump it on one of Jupiter's moons, or just hurl it at the sun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
join off topic IRC at #otter on esper.net, there is cake*
*there may or may not be cake
I voted no, but that's only because I don't support nuclear fission. If and when we figure out fusion, I'd be all for it. I'm mostly against fissions simply for the amount of waste it makes. I just don't think a half-life of several hundred thousand years is acceptable. Besides, there are better forms of energy.
And guess how long half-lives of most other chemicals that are disposed into open lakes and streams from fossil fuel factories are?
That's right, infinity.
I'm sorry, but all purely green power generators fail at making sufficient power for big countries, so nuclear fission is our best bet for now.
I am all for nuclear energy, and not just because my wife is an operator at Three-mile Island. As for the waste, it can be recycled already, and a most countries that have reactors (if not all) do it. Unfortunately the US isn't really on the ball with only one site that recycles and it is a military site that is mostly decommissioned.
There is a really cool idea my wife heard about, called "pebble-bed". Check it out: here
I agree with whoever said that we need to diversify our energy production. It's irritating when people say that we shouldn't use wind because it couldn't power the country. No crap, but it can be used in certain areas, just like solar, geothermal, tidal etc.
FYI New wind turbine designs are no more detrimental to birds than any building with glass windows. The study that is often quoted about how they kill umpteen billion birds was done on a very out of date wind farm located in a valley where birds migrate. They are low, fast spinning turbines. THOSE kill a crap load of birds, not the new ones.
Why is no one talking about the start up costs? I mean, A new plant can cost a few billion bucks. When you factor that in, it costs a round 15-20 cent a Kw, compared to 7 cent for coal and 10-12 for wind. Also, didn't they say Nuclear was the way forward... in 1950. Just saying.
Here's a source: http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
Well, yes and no, I think the government should allow more NPP'S to be built, but shouldn't fund it directly.
My father worked in the industry for many years of his life, and I turned out fine, trust me, nuclear power isn't as dangerous as people hype it up to be, I mean, look at 3-mile island, there was a complete meltdown, no one died.
Chernobyl was a mistake, they were using liquid graphite as the insulator for there fuel rods, we use water, with chemicals in them, plus, we have nine feet thick concrete, trust me, we are much safer off using it, plus, it only produces steam, and I'm sure we'll find a use for the waste, I don't endorse dumping it anywhere, I think we should send it to space, but it's costly to do so.
Plus, look at Japan, they had an earthquake, and they're fine, nobodys dead from the NPP's, more deaths from the earthquakes and tsunamis then anything else.
I completely endorse Nuclear power, it's a reliable source of energy, though, fusion would be MUCH better, and I hope we can have it by 2020.
I did a report on nuclear energy for a research paper in my senior year high school English class. Some of the points I made were:
Nuclear waste is much easier to contain than the pollutants created by fossil fuels.
The nuclear waste we have can be reprocessed to more fuel, it's just more expensive than acquiring new fuel.
Intermitant power sources (wind and solar) require other power sources as a backup for when they have down time. The backup power (most likely fossil fuels) is kept running anyway without generating power because it is a pain to start it back up again.
Wind turbines make the landscape ugly and kill birds.
Solar panel manufacturing creates pollution.
Hydroelectric power requires damming of rivers.
A nuclear power plant can withstand a commercial jet aircraft impact with the reactor completely unharmed.
The only catch about nuclear fission power is that setup and maintenance of the plant is somewhat expensive due to the cost of concrete. The only reason the power is cheap is because the government subsidizes it.
While doing the research I came across some other alternatives -- tidal power (from the motion of waves) and geothermal -- which look pretty promising. I'm hopeful that we can improve nuclear fusion to the point where we get more power than we put in (what can better than the type of power that the sun runs on?) I think that the government should fund nuclear fission in the meantime as we work towards more efficient energy.
It's hard to match the energy output of nuclear power, but I think geothermal and tidal power are better alternatives until we can better manage nuclear power. Emulating the power of a star is no small feat. Harnessing natural energy from the planet is more efficient and cleaner though. We could power the entire planet for a LONG time with geothermal energy alone.
You also can't forget about ones of nature's best energy resources. Hemp.
Relative to other forms of energy, NPPs produce little waste, and the half-life of the waste is actually closer to about 10,000 years (on average). Plus, in the future we can reuse the waste for other means of energy creation.
Like?
Nope, nuclear is the better form of energy. We just have to deal with the waste until space travel becomes better. Then we can just dump it on one of Jupiter's moons, or just hurl it at the sun.
*there may or may not be cake
And guess how long half-lives of most other chemicals that are disposed into open lakes and streams from fossil fuel factories are?
That's right, infinity.
I'm sorry, but all purely green power generators fail at making sufficient power for big countries, so nuclear fission is our best bet for now.
There is a really cool idea my wife heard about, called "pebble-bed". Check it out: here
I agree with whoever said that we need to diversify our energy production. It's irritating when people say that we shouldn't use wind because it couldn't power the country. No crap, but it can be used in certain areas, just like solar, geothermal, tidal etc.
FYI New wind turbine designs are no more detrimental to birds than any building with glass windows. The study that is often quoted about how they kill umpteen billion birds was done on a very out of date wind farm located in a valley where birds migrate. They are low, fast spinning turbines. THOSE kill a crap load of birds, not the new ones.
Here's a source: http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm
My father worked in the industry for many years of his life, and I turned out fine, trust me, nuclear power isn't as dangerous as people hype it up to be, I mean, look at 3-mile island, there was a complete meltdown, no one died.
Chernobyl was a mistake, they were using liquid graphite as the insulator for there fuel rods, we use water, with chemicals in them, plus, we have nine feet thick concrete, trust me, we are much safer off using it, plus, it only produces steam, and I'm sure we'll find a use for the waste, I don't endorse dumping it anywhere, I think we should send it to space, but it's costly to do so.
Plus, look at Japan, they had an earthquake, and they're fine, nobodys dead from the NPP's, more deaths from the earthquakes and tsunamis then anything else.
I completely endorse Nuclear power, it's a reliable source of energy, though, fusion would be MUCH better, and I hope we can have it by 2020.
The problem is misinformation.
Because they can cause mental issues.
- Nuclear waste is much easier to contain than the pollutants created by fossil fuels.
- The nuclear waste we have can be reprocessed to more fuel, it's just more expensive than acquiring new fuel.
- Intermitant power sources (wind and solar) require other power sources as a backup for when they have down time. The backup power (most likely fossil fuels) is kept running anyway without generating power because it is a pain to start it back up again.
- Wind turbines make the landscape ugly and kill birds.
- Solar panel manufacturing creates pollution.
- Hydroelectric power requires damming of rivers.
- A nuclear power plant can withstand a commercial jet aircraft impact with the reactor completely unharmed.
The only catch about nuclear fission power is that setup and maintenance of the plant is somewhat expensive due to the cost of concrete. The only reason the power is cheap is because the government subsidizes it.While doing the research I came across some other alternatives -- tidal power (from the motion of waves) and geothermal -- which look pretty promising. I'm hopeful that we can improve nuclear fusion to the point where we get more power than we put in (what can better than the type of power that the sun runs on?) I think that the government should fund nuclear fission in the meantime as we work towards more efficient energy.
Mostly moved on. May check back a few times a year.
You also can't forget about ones of nature's best energy resources. Hemp.