commercial nuclear power reactors

there are roughly 430 nuclear power reactors currently in operation

over 60 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, while over 150 are firmly planned

good or bad move for humanity?

Good.Inconsistancy

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

Gen007

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]Good.BiancaDK

... That is absolutely NOTHING.. You can safely store that in one location on the planet.. And it wouldn't be very big.. The only thing I hope is that government agencies properly police the system.. But I don't see that happening when you have people like the Koch Brothers who have basically crusaded against agencies like the EPA to the point that its pretty much toothless and can't even keep up with enforcing things like the Clean Water Act..

Yes. Why is that necessarily a bad thing? thegerg

.. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..BiancaDK

... Do I have to break down the definition? The fact of the matter is the waste it prevents can be easily contained and we have already developed effective means to store it.. If you have a problem with it, please find us a cleaner and just as a effective energy source.. Because we haven't gotten one yet.. Its far more effective and cleaner than fossil fuels.. And its WAY more effective than currently where our green energy inititives are at.. Until we do develope a better system nuclear energy is the best option..

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. You can safely store that in one location on the planet..sSubZerOo

... Do I have to break down the definition? The fact of the matter is the waste it prevents can be easily contained and we have already developed effective means to store it.. If you have a problem with it, please find us a cleaner and just as a effective energy source.. Because we haven't gotten one yet.. Its far more effective and cleaner than fossil fuels.. And its WAY more effective than currently where our green energy inititives are at.. Until we do develope a better system nuclear energy is the best option..

[QUOTE="thegerg"] No, it's not a global problem. Storage/disposal of nuclear waste is quite well regulated and doesn't really pose much of a problem to anyone. What energy solution do you feel would provide a better alternative?BiancaDK

.................. How safe do you think mankind will be when we have a ice age occuring to begin with? If you seriously think thats the top concern when a GLOBAL wide ice age occurs is whether nuclear waste will be safely secured.. Well I would say you have your prioities mixed up a bit..

................. How safe do you think mankind will be when we have a ice age occuring to begin with? If you seriously think thats the top concern when a GLOBAL wide ice age occurs is whether nuclear waste will be safely secured.. Well I would say you have your prioities mixed up a bit..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

BiancaDK

Thorium. Its also a relatively common element in the planet earth.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]................. How safe do you think mankind will be when we have a ice age occuring to begin with? If you seriously think thats the top concern when a GLOBAL wide ice age occurs is whether nuclear waste will be safely secured.. Well I would say you have your prioities mixed up a bit..BiancaDK

............... Yeah and cause a complete collapse of our food chain due to plants and animals being snuffed out due to drastic climate change.. Leading to mass starvation.. IF you seriously think THATS not as serious than the possibility of a few sites that aren't very big on the world to be compromised.. Well than I say we are about done here..

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Gen007"]

we really dont have a choice with the way energy demand is going up.

XaosII

Thorium. Its also a relatively common element in the planet earth.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]................. How safe do you think mankind will be when we have a ice age occuring to begin with? If you seriously think thats the top concern when a GLOBAL wide ice age occurs is whether nuclear waste will be safely secured.. Well I would say you have your prioities mixed up a bit..sSubZerOo

............... Yeah and cause a complete collapse of our food chain due to plants and animals being snuffed out due to drastic climate change.. Leading to mass starvation.. IF you seriously think THATS not as serious than the possibility of a few sites that aren't very big on the world to be compromised.. Well than I say we are about done here..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] an ice age will pass with relative haste, compared to radioactivity you never adressed the point of long-term safe storage by the way that's funny to meBiancaDK

............... Yeah and cause a complete collapse of our food chain due to plants and animals being snuffed out due to drastic climate change.. Leading to mass starvation.. IF you seriously think THATS not as serious than the possibility of a few sites that aren't very big on the world to be compromised.. Well than I say we are about done here..

Your right, lets start talking about our landfills.. What if a meteor struck us! Or no wait a solar flare shorted out everything.. Garbage would pile up and we wouldnt' be able to get rid of it.. Because quite CLEARLY those would the most important concerns when a meteor strikes or a immense solar flare shorts out everything..

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

............... Yeah and cause a complete collapse of our food chain due to plants and animals being snuffed out due to drastic climate change.. Leading to mass starvation.. IF you seriously think THATS not as serious than the possibility of a few sites that aren't very big on the world to be compromised.. Well than I say we are about done here..

sSubZerOo

Your right, lets start talking about our landfills.. What if a meteor struck us! Or no wait a solar flare shorted out everything.. Garbage would pile up and we wouldnt' be able to get rid of it.. Because quite CLEARLY those would the most important concerns when a meteor strikes or a immense solar flare shorts out everything..

if thorium is of finite supply, which it must be since it is confined to this planet, at least in terms of human accessability and commercial practicality, how does that respond to a rising curve of energy demand? and what about the subsequent waste issue once the energy is spent?BiancaDK

Frankly, your argument doesn't make much sense considering oil and coal are also limited. Something with a useable lifespan of 100+ years is a perfectly fine alternative for energy demands. No doubt by then, there will be better, alternative solutions.

Independant of that, Thorium reactors produce far "safer" waste than typical uranium reactors:

In theory, (Liquid-Floride Thorium Reactors) LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining) and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, so long-term storage of nuclear waste would no longer be needed.website

Your reasoning could apply to everything, "why breathe air if air is finite?" and its silly.

Claiming that it is a problem doesn't make it a problem, you know.thegerg

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] we cant do much about the ice age, now can weBiancaDK

Your right, lets start talking about our landfills.. What if a meteor struck us! Or no wait a solar flare shorted out everything.. Garbage would pile up and we wouldnt' be able to get rid of it.. Because quite CLEARLY those would the most important concerns when a meteor strikes or a immense solar flare shorts out everything..

Your the one that started it with a immense diseaster in which we wouldn't be able to guarentee anything to try to prove your point.. In such a event the said matter is trivial indeed when well over half the worlds population would die out from the event it self to begin with..

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] if thorium is of finite supply, which it must be since it is confined to this planet, at least in terms of human accessability and commercial practicality, how does that respond to a rising curve of energy demand? and what about the subsequent waste issue once the energy is spent?XaosII

Frankly, your argument doesn't make much sense considering oil and coal are also limited. Something with a useable lifespan of 100+ years is a perfectly fine alternative for energy demands. No doubt by then, there will be better, alternative solutions.

Independant of that, Thorium reactors produce far "safer" waste than typical uranium reactors:

In theory, (Liquid-Floride Thorium Reactors) LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining) and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, so long-term storage of nuclear waste would no longer be needed.website

Your reasoning could apply to everything, "why breathe air if air is finite?" and its silly.

Your the one that started it with a immense diseaster in which we wouldn't be able to guarentee anything to try to prove your point.. In such a event the said matter is trivial indeed when well over half the worlds population would die out from the event it self to begin with..

sSubZerOo

They work in our favour, so they're good.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Your the one that started it with a immense diseaster in which we wouldn't be able to guarentee anything to try to prove your point.. In such a event the said matter is trivial indeed when well over half the worlds population would die out from the event it self to begin with..

BiancaDK

i am not arguing against the use of finite resources where is your reading comprehension?BiancaDK

You aren't actually interested in discussing this; You just want someone to validate your flawed, unresearched opinion.

YOU JUST BROUGHT UP A ICE AGE hitting us in which then suddenly those nuclear storage sties are a big problem!sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]i am not arguing against the use of finite resources where is your reading comprehension?XaosII

You aren't actually interested in discussing this; You just want someone to validate your flawed, unresearched opinion.

Yes Bianca you are correct the storage of nuclear waste is a problemEmpCom

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]YOU JUST BROUGHT UP A ICE AGE hitting us in which then suddenly those nuclear storage sties are a big problem!BiancaDK

We might be able to use laser propulsion to send nuclear waste far from earth. As for nuclear power plants, well I'm not quite sure. Some people say that there are already green alternatives in place that would cost less than restoring a power plant and give the same amount of energy, but others say that those alternatives don't provide energy at a rate that is steady enough. I think it would be unwise to assume that nuclear waste will still be on earth in 100 000 years, which is what a lot of environmentalists are implying.

.. The waste is easier to control and store than fossil fuels..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]YOU JUST BROUGHT UP A ICE AGE hitting us in which then suddenly those nuclear storage sties are a big problem!sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. The waste is easier to control and store than fossil fuels..BiancaDK

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="BiancaDK"] i can bring up the ice age, without bringing in the point of us being unable to guarantee anything differentiate, pleaseBiancaDK

Not the nuclear plant though.. You claimed that the workers would have trouble accessing it due to the said ice age meaning it would be left out.. The nuclear plant would not be operating because no one is going to stick around when something like that hits.. It would be a global wide diseaster with rampant starvation in which government and society pretty much breaks down..

I'm fine with nuclear reactors considering at the moment there aren't much better alternatives, I just don't like looking at them cause they are creepy.