PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Power


Mad Tony
24-08-08, 23:37
Obviously in the future we're gonna need other sources of energy. I don't know when that time will come, but that's not what I want this thread to be about anyway. Probably one of the best options (IMO) is nuclear power.

However, there's a lot of controversy surrounding it and I know a lot of people oppose it. What I wanna know is, do you support it or do you oppose it?

rowanlim
24-08-08, 23:40
I don't support it. I think it's better to use renewable energy sources like biofuels. Nuclear energy aka uranium isn't renewable.

Encore
25-08-08, 00:02
I don't support it. People think it's all good since at first it seems like the best and most economic option (specially politicians who only have to answer in short-term periods); but long term, it becomes way too expensive due to maintenance. And a nuclear powerplant has a limited life span.

Plus no one knows how to get properly rid of the toxic waste (if this becomes more generalized I foresee a lot more "pay the 3rd world countries to receive it and hide it"); and there have been way too many accidents, small or big, in the past, for me to even begin to trust it's "safe and clean" energy as only wind or solar can be. Besides uranium isn't a renewable source.

Basically, it poses a lot more problems than the ones it solves.
Just my 2 cents anyway. :wve:

Ward Dragon
25-08-08, 00:08
I'm against using fission as a power source for the reasons Encore posted.

I think that fusion is a good idea, however. We should be researching how to make it happen.

Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 00:28
Nuclear is non-renewable, so switching to nuclear as our primary source of energy will only push the energy problem on to future generations to deal with, whilst burying them under mountains of radioactive waste.

But I don't really see what other choice we have, if our leaders continue to refuse to focus on finding new sources of energy.

I want someone to come up with a perpetual motion machine sometime soon. :p

irjudd
25-08-08, 00:58
Got to love nuclear power. Everybody wins!
http://ui24.gamespot.com/535/blinky_4.jpg

Draco
25-08-08, 01:19
Nuclear Fission isnt the best use of atomic energy, but it is one of the better options we have.

Certainly beats burning oil or coal.

xMiSsCrOfTx
25-08-08, 01:21
Got to love nuclear power. Everybody wins!
http://ui24.gamespot.com/535/blinky_4.jpg

:vlol:

Yeah... I'm not sure if I'm too keen on it (NF).

Dakaruch
25-08-08, 01:48
Firstly Uranium isn't renewable, but there is a much larger amount of it than there is of Oil. If we continue to rely on oil, soon enough we will be out of it, and then life as we know it will be impossible. And about it not being economical, that's not entirely true. A small portion of Uranium can produce energy to a large city for a long time, while the same amount of fuel produces energy for a short time.
It is obvious that there are costs to maintain it, and the toxic waste is indeed a problem. But then again there are lots of countries that already use nuclear power, and i never heard about any of those exploding, or contaminating people with it's waste. ;)

Then it is funny to see how many of you seem to support energy from the sun, wind, etc. The price of the electricity in the countries that are using the wind power, risen, or will rise about 30%. Sincerely i'm not very fond of paying for such an energy, especially because this wind power generators do produce more problems than those that they solve. With heavy wind those need to be shut down, they produce an high amount of harmonics, which makes the electricity highly unstable. And then again it has enormous losses on the transport to the consumer houses. It does have much more costs than a nuclear power plant.

And then again, about the accidents, many of the stories that we heard about are not true. Chernobyl accident didn't happened out of nothing. Chernobyl accident was waiting to happen for a long time. Their power plant was full of leaks, lack of personnel, and many of the security systems were shut down to save costs. Besides there are a lot more security regarding those nowadays. No one is saying that it's maintenance is cheap, but neither the so called clean energy is.

Now about fusion idea, that surely is the best option. Energy made out of hydrogen, helium, and other elements, pretty much as the Sun works. As far as i know, it was being developed some years ago, although it was highly unstable. Surely that is still being researched.

After all this, answering to your question Mad Tony, i support the nuclear energy, until we get a cheaper, and more efficient alternative. :)

Endow
25-08-08, 01:57
I generally agree with Dakaruch. I support it as a kind of necessity due to oil problems. Which doesn't mean I think we shouldn't start investing big-time on renewable energies. Yep it can be more costly in some cases, but it will be a necessity in the future. We can't pin our hopes on stuff like oil or uranium that will someday all but disappear.

However I do think it's dangerous business and should be dealt with care. Powerplants should be built in isolated areas and controlled via strict laws.

Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 12:31
Now about fusion idea, that surely is the best option. Energy made out of hydrogen, helium, and other elements, pretty much as the Sun works. As far as i know, it was being developed some years ago, although it was highly unstable. Surely that is still being researched.

The big problem with fusion is that it takes so much energy to make it happen that it uses more power than it produces. Cold fusion, ie. fusion that works at lower temperatures and requires little energy to work, is about as elusive as true perpetual motion machines and flying pigs.

Drone
25-08-08, 12:35
Japan works hard on hydroenergetics. Very reasonable solution I admit.

dream raider
25-08-08, 12:39
Renewable energy is the way forward. If we, as humans, want to progress, then renewable energy is the only solution.

MiCkiZ88
25-08-08, 13:01
Don't really support it because of the waste, but I think it's better than coal or oil. We use a lot of renewable energy sources though: Wind, water, soil (don't know what the correct word for that soil material is), waste and solar power.

Yes the electricity costs a lot here, but I honestly don't care. Everything is expensive here anyways.

Paul H
25-08-08, 14:52
My objection to nuclear power stations is that they are likely to become targets for false flag terror operations.

In the future, when governments (particularly in the US and UK) need public support for a big new war and/or another major attack on civil liberties, nuclear installations are likely to be what they will hit, before confidently sitting back and waiting for the inevitable demands for tough action against whoever they have set up to pin the blame on

Tomb Raider Master
25-08-08, 14:55
I'm totally against it. I think we're intelligent enough to find other types of energy...are we?

Got to love nuclear power. Everybody wins!
http://ui24.gamespot.com/535/blinky_4.jpg
:vlol:

Mad Tony
25-08-08, 14:57
My objection to nuclear power stations is that they are likely to become targets for false flag terror operations.

In the future, when governments (particularly in the US and UK) need public support for a big new war and/or another major attack on civil liberties, nuclear installations are likely to be what they will hit, before confidently sitting back and waiting for the inevitable demands for tough action against whoever they have set up to pin the blame onCan you please leave this sort of thing out of the thread? I made this thread so that people could discuss their opinions on nuclear power and whether they think it will supply our future energy needs, not silly conspiracy theories.

@Endow: Yeah, I agree. Nuclear Power plants need to be built in totally isolated areas if possible.

Paul H
25-08-08, 15:00
Can you please leave this sort of thing out of the thread? I made this thread so that people could discuss their opinions on nuclear power and whether they think it will supply our future energy needs, not silly conspiracy theories.

If you think it is off topic (which it clearly isn't) and/or against the forum rules, then report it. Otherwise don't waste your time telling me what I can and can't post.

Crimson Tears
25-08-08, 15:22
I don't support it. I think it's better to use renewable energy sources like biofuels. Nuclear energy aka uranium isn't renewable.

Agree.
Speaking of Nuclear, I just heard from the News that there are terriosts in the US trying to bomb the Nuclear Power Plants. :eek: And now...I'm scared. Because they said that they can go any place in the US with Nuclear power plants and explode them, and it might kill 5 cities. :eek: :(

Catapharact
25-08-08, 15:25
Agree.
Speaking of Nuclear, I just heard from the News that there are terriosts in the US trying to bomb the Nuclear Power Plants. :eek: And now...I'm scared. Because they said that they can go any place in the US with Nuclear power plants and explode them, and it might kill 5 cities. :eek: :(


Unlikely. In order for a reactor to overload and go boom, you need to overload the core. The only to do that is to overheat the fuel rods and if the facility is bombed and the power is cut off, the reaction doesn't happens, and the reactor doesn't overheats. Ergo, no big boom.

Crimson Tears
25-08-08, 15:26
Unlikely. In order for a reactor to overload and go boom, you need to overload the core. The only to do that is to overheat the fuel rods and if the facility is bombed and the power is cut off, the reaction doesn't happens, and the reactor doesn't overheats. Ergo, no big boom.

Finally! Someone that helped me calm down! :D I need a chill pill lol. xD
So...no big boom? Good. This is exactly why I hate watching the news. -_-; lol.

Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 15:53
Unlikely. In order for a reactor to overload and go boom, you need to overload the core. The only to do that is to overheat the fuel rods and if the facility is bombed and the power is cut off, the reaction doesn't happens, and the reactor doesn't overheats. Ergo, no big boom.

Fission isn't powered by electricity. If the power gets cut off completely and all the backup generators are wiped out too so the automated emergency systems can't function, water will stop being pumped through the cooling system and you won't be able to move the control rods (graphite rods that control speed of reaction). If the control rods are in the retracted position when the power goes out, the core reaction will continue and increase, and the trapped coolant water will turn to steam and explode. If the facility is bombed and goes totally unresponsive, BIG BOOM.

Catapharact
25-08-08, 15:56
Fission isn't powered by electricity. If the power gets cut off completely and all the backup generators are wiped out too so the automated emergency systems can't function, water will stop being pumped through the cooling system and you won't be able to move the control rods (graphite rods that control speed of reaction). If the control rods are in the retracted position when the power goes out, the core reaction will continue and increase, and the trapped coolant water will turn to steam and explode. If the facility is bombed and goes totally unresponsive, BIG BOOM.

Yes but in order to hit ALL the necessary generators; Back up an on wards, you have to find a VERY big gap in security. So either all the patrol guards around the facility are incompetent at their job or the city does wants the reactor in question to go boom.

Racoon city much? Lol!

kthnxbai
25-08-08, 15:56
I think nuclear power is definitely the most practical solution to the energy crisis at the moment.

I think more research needs to be done in the area and it's definitely not without it's downsides

But there's no renewable type of energy that can actually sustain the planet as it is and until that happens I think nuclear energy, if managed properly, is the best stop-gap solution

Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 15:57
Yes but in order to hit ALL the necessary generators; Back up an on wards, you have to find a VERY big gap in security. So either all the patrol guards around the facility are incompetent at their job or the city does wants the reactor in question to go boom.

If you've hijacked some big military equipment, or stolen a plane and filled it with explosives, I can see it happening...

Catapharact
25-08-08, 16:00
If you've hijacked some big military equipment, or stolen a plane and filled it with explosives, I can see it happening...

All reactors have to be sanctioned by the city. Thereby they do have an emergency shutoff system away from the facility. If worst comes to worse, the reactors themselves can be blown down (thinking outside the box here.)

Forwen
25-08-08, 16:06
Let's just fire all nuclear waste into space!

kthnxbai
25-08-08, 16:07
Or put in big lead boxes at the bottom of the ocean


get the irony people
please

Cochrane
25-08-08, 16:21
It's a difficult question. First of all, I don't agree with the decision by german politicians to shut down all our nuclear power plants, as there is nothing to replace these things (which produce one third of Germany's electricity).

In the long term, though, it's a difficult decision whether more of them should be built. They are the most clean in terms of emission, but waste management is a problem that hasn't been solved yet, and it doesn't look like it will be any time soon. Uranium supply is a tough question, as far as we know they will last for another fifty years, but if the big nuclear powers open their stockpiles and no longer needed nuclear weapons to the power production area, this would be significantly increased. Finally, there's the safety issue. Yes, extreme care is taken, but it's like flying: Statistically the safest thing there is, but if something does go wrong, the results are far more devastating.

So, in conclusion: I don't support shutting down the german nuclear power plants before their life time is over, and I don't see a good alternative on the horizon at the moment, but on the other hand I'm not convinced it's a good idea to build new ones.

Fission isn't powered by electricity. If the power gets cut off completely and all the backup generators are wiped out too so the automated emergency systems can't function, water will stop being pumped through the cooling system and you won't be able to move the control rods (graphite rods that control speed of reaction). If the control rods are in the retracted position when the power goes out, the core reaction will continue and increase, and the trapped coolant water will turn to steam and explode. If the facility is bombed and goes totally unresponsive, BIG BOOM.

That depends on the kind of reactor used. A reactor that uses heavy water as moderator will simply stop reacting once the cooling water is gone, no matter where the control rods are. In a reactor with graphite moderator, you're right, a cooling system shutdown will lead more or less directly to a catastrophe like Chernobyl (exactly like Chernobyl, in fact, that's what happened there).