Nuclear Power - Yea or Nay?

With all this media coverage of Japan's nuclear problem that has arisen, nuclear power is once again getting its name run through the mud.

I just want to know where people stand on the issue. I'm a big fan of it personally. It has an extremely high power output compared to the little fuel that goes into it, the plants don't emit pollutants into the atmosphere and it has the potential to replace one of the greatest uses of fossil fuels which is electricity production.

The risks? Meltdowns, transportation and disposal of spent fuel rods.

What say you?

If we can get fusion powered reactors to give a proper payoff then im all for it. If not, then im neutral

I fully support nuclear power. They should probably be located out off earthquake zones though.

Mixed feelings on it. I'm for it but after seeing the problems Japan is having with it I say as long as it isn't on fault lines or earthquake prone areas, etc I'm for it.

Yes.

As I said in another thread, it's a lot like airplane travel. Statistically speaking, it's very safe, yet people imagine spectacular ways in which they could die from it and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that it's very dangerous. Events in which no one dies and in which little contamination occurs convince people that nuclear power must be simply abandoned. Yet, millions of people have died from the acquisition of coal and the operation of coal-burning power plants, and, strangely, that has not had the same effect on coal power.

If someone invents a power source whose net energy output is positive, which is cheap enough to be broadly commercially viable, which produces no pollution, and which is capable of meeting the energy needs of the world at large, then I am all for that. However, no such power source exists. And no, solar and wind energy are not that. People dreaming of a day when solar and wind power is responsible for 100% of the world's energy production are, at present, dreaming pleasant dreams - admirable, optimistic dreams, but dreams nonetheless. At present, nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Yes.

As I said in another thread, it's a lot like airplane travel. Statistically speaking, it's very safe, yet people imagine spectacular ways in which they could die from it and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that it's very dangerous. Events in which no one dies and in which little contamination occurs convince people that nuclear power must be simply abandoned. Yet, millions of people have died from the acquisition of coal and the operation of coal-burning power plants, and, strangely, that has not had the same effect on coal power.

If someone invents a power source whose net energy output is positive, which is cheap enough to be broadly commercially viable, which produces no pollution, and which is capable of meeting the energy needs of the world at large, then I am all for that. However, no such power source exists. And no, solar and wind energy are not that. People dreaming of a day when solar and wind power is responsible for 100% of the world's energy production are, at present, dreaming pleasant dreams - admirable, optimistic dreams, but dreams nonetheless. At present, nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

GabuEx

Well, here's one of the reasons I think nuclear energy is a bit overrated.You touched on it being economically viable, but isn't the reason that nuclear power isn't more prominent because it is so expensive to build and mantain plants? Similarly, the biggest knocks on wind and solar are that they are expensive to build and maintain, so if the problem is the same for all of them it would seem to me that wind and solar present fewer difficulties than nuclear power and should be preferred.

Anyways, I'm in the middle, not yes or no. I think nuclear power is a great source of power in that it's clean and efficient, but also presents problems in terms of potential disasters and disposal of waste. I think it should be part of an all-encopassing energy plan that includes solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, bioenergy, and other methods like recycling tires for energy. I think the most preferred methods should be the ones that present the leat problems, like solar, and nuclear should be used to supplement other power sources in areas where they may present problems.

New power plants have better safety features, so as far as a meltdown or anything of that nature I wouldn't be concerned. It's not going to even come close to solving our energy problems though. It's about 8% of our energy profile here in the US and our stock pile of uranium is at around 80-100 years; so any growth rate will drastically reduce that number. There is a ton of uranium in the ocean, but it is very costly to extract not to mention the environmental concerns. For me, safety isn't really a big issue at least not as much as everyone is making it out to be, but there just isn't much room for expansion. I'm all for maintaining and upgrading what we have though, possibly stretch out the lifetime. hockey73

Please end this scourge, it's yea not yay.

I fully support nuclear power. They should probably be located out off earthquake zones though.

Pirate700

Basically this. I support nuclear power, but don't think facilities should be built in places with a significant threat of natural disaster. this includes fault lines, areas that see frequent hurricane activity, etc.

the only qualms I have with nuclear power is the amount of water used in electricity production, but this can't really be avoided reasonably.

I think we're playing with something that we don't exactly know everything about. Maybe once our ability to control and manipulate it increases then sure. I am DEFINITELY against nuclear weapons though. If your country is spending money on nukes..... Thats just retarded. That is almost ensuring our destruction, If even one of those rockets gets launched, the world won't be in repairable condition after the retaliatory dust settles.Lost-Memory

At the end of the day, the energy problems are going to be solved by physics, not chemistry. If we abandon nuclear fission, we are basically cutting off physics based energy for the time being, and they may never be picked up again.

Well, here's one of the reasons I think nuclear energy is a bit overrated.You touched on it being economically viable, but isn't the reason that nuclear power isn't more prominent because it is so expensive to build and mantain plants? Similarly, the biggest knocks on wind and solar are that they are expensive to build and maintain, so if the problem is the same for all of them it would seem to me that wind and solar present fewer difficulties than nuclear power and should be preferred.

theone86

Those aren't the only knocks on wind and solar. There's also the fact that their energy output is directly connected to the weather, which makes their level of energy output unreliable, and that the amount of energy that they produce per square unit of land occupied is much, much less. The Roscoe Wind Farm is the world's largest, and yet it only creates enough power for 250,000 homes, which sounds like a lot, but really isn't in the grand scale of things. The largest nuclear power plant in the world, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, produces over ten times as much power. Wind farms also are not free of environmental impact, as well, given that they are quite a hazard for local avian wildlife.

I will say though that hydroelectric power is definitely a good alternative in places where the geography makes it viable. In BC, that's our primary source of energy, in fact. It, too, though, is not free of environmental impact.

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

DroidPhysX

Please end this scourge, it's yea not yay.

superfluidity

It is a step in the right direction. Cleaner and safer than oil and gas

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

DroidPhysX

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

It is a step in the right direction. Cleaner and safer than oil and gas

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Please end this scourge, it's yea not yay.

PS2_ROCKS

What do you mean they don't have an off switch? Reactors are routinely taken offline for maintenance, safety inspections, and other purposes.

Im still for it but how would you feel if it were built in your backyard? Obviously the best place would be in the deserts of Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona but more east in the US it gets much harder and more populated. Still i wouldnt mind if the government gave better tax incentives to equip homes with solar and wind power. I wouldnt mind a wind tower in the backyard that was big enough to power just the house and maybe some solar for off days. Still would need to be connected to the main line though for the winter or cloudy windless days.Kurushio

I wouldn't particularly like any form of power plant built in my backyard, which is why power plants are typically not built in areas zoned for residential use. :P

It is a step in the right direction. Cleaner and safer than oil and gas

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

Chaos_HL21

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

Breeder reactor? Not possible.

[QUOTE="Kurushio"]Im still for it but how would you feel if it were built in your backyard? Obviously the best place would be in the deserts of Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona but more east in the US it gets much harder and more populated. Still i wouldnt mind if the government gave better tax incentives to equip homes with solar and wind power. I wouldnt mind a wind tower in the backyard that was big enough to power just the house and maybe some solar for off days. Still would need to be connected to the main line though for the winter or cloudy windless days.GabuEx

I wouldn't particularly like any form of power plant built in my backyard, which is why power plants are typically not built in areas zoned for residential use. :P

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

DroidPhysX

It seems to fare better than other forms of power generation, all things considered. So, yeah.

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

It is a step in the right direction. Cleaner and safer than oil and gas

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

DroidPhysX

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

Breeder reactor? Not possible.

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

It is a step in the right direction. Cleaner and safer than oil and gas

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

We dont have enough uranium to make it a LONG TERM alternative.

DroidPhysX

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

Breeder reactor? Not possible.

You were saying?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

I remember reading that there is a way to reuse the fuel of the Nuclear power plants. I would have to do more research on it. But I am sure I heard it somewhere.

Choga

Breeder reactor? Not possible.

You were saying?

The reactor itself is possible, but the tech to last isnt.

I don't mind them as long as another Chernobyl happens.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Well, here's one of the reasons I think nuclear energy is a bit overrated.You touched on it being economically viable, but isn't the reason that nuclear power isn't more prominent because it is so expensive to build and mantain plants? Similarly, the biggest knocks on wind and solar are that they are expensive to build and maintain, so if the problem is the same for all of them it would seem to me that wind and solar present fewer difficulties than nuclear power and should be preferred.

GabuEx

Those aren't the only knocks on wind and solar. There's also the fact that their energy output is directly connected to the weather, which makes their level of energy output unreliable, and that the amount of energy that they produce per square unit of land occupied is much, much less. The Roscoe Wind Farm is the world's largest, and yet it only creates enough power for 250,000 homes, which sounds like a lot, but really isn't in the grand scale of things. The largest nuclear power plant in the world, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, produces over ten times as much power. Wind farms also are not free of environmental impact, as well, given that they are quite a hazard for local avian wildlife.

I will say though that hydroelectric power is definitely a good alternative in places where the geography makes it viable. In BC, that's our primary source of energy, in fact. It, too, though, is not free of environmental impact.

Yeah, I definitely know they have their drawbacks, but especially solar, doesn't it still draw some power on overcast days and don't they have systems that store excess power when a lot of energy is collected and have that excess power there for when there isn't enough? What especially interest me are these solar shingles, I wonder if every house in a given area (say within a large city, ignoring cost for the moment) could have them installed what the power requirements from outside sources such as nuclear plants would be? But anyways, I'm not toally against nuclear power, I just think it should be part of a comprehensive energy strategy.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I fully support nuclear power. They should probably be located out off earthquake zones though.

Beard_

Basically this. I support nuclear power, but don't think facilities should be built in places with a significant threat of natural disaster. this includes fault lines, areas that see frequent hurricane activity, etc.

the only qualms I have with nuclear power is the amount of water used in electricity production, but this can't really be avoided reasonably.

Absolutely. Problems with nuclear power happens once in a blue moon and the benefits greatly greatly outweigh the negatives.

It's a bit funny that so many say its safer and cleaner. What about the nuclear waste? What about the 'if'-factor, and I know it's a big if, the fact that if the plant blows up or whatever, there's a huge area that's contaminated with toxic waste and radiation and what not.Deihjan

Nuclear waste is stored at a government monitored dump site.... The new plants can't blow up like the Soviet dieaster did.. The one happening in Japan is a dated model for the plant..

It's a bit funny that so many say its safer and cleaner. What about the nuclear waste? What about the 'if'-factor, and I know it's a big if, the fact that if the plant blows up or whatever, there's a huge area that's contaminated with toxic waste and radiation and what not.Deihjan