Nuclear Power - Yea or Nay?

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

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

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

Person0

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

I'm more for wind, solar, and wave power. I'm for nuclear power also, but for me at least it's not my first choice. People can say the technology is safe statisitically much like airplanes. the problem is that when nuclear reactors do go down it effects loads and loads of people and it can effect the place it happened at for years.

I'm more for wind, solar, and wave power. I'm for nuclear power also, but for me at least it's not my first choice. People can say the technology is safe statisitically much like airplanes. the problem is that when nuclear reactors do go down it effects loads and loads of people and it can effect the place it happened at for years.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

I'm more for wind, solar, and wave power. I'm for nuclear power also, but for me at least it's not my first choice. People can say the technology is safe statisitically much like airplanes. the problem is that when nuclear reactors do go down it effects loads and loads of people and it can effect the place it happened at for years.

AutoPilotOn

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

No. I don't Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option.

rockerbikie

Not by much.

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"]

No. I don't Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option.

Not by much.

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

rockerbikie

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"]

No. I don't Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option.

rockerbikie

Not by much.

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="rockerbikie"]

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

rockerbikie

No it cannot.

Waste can be stored where it does not interact with anyone, also with new tech the waste can be reused.

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

rockerbikie

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="rockerbikie"]

No. I don't. Solar, wind and Thermal is a safer option. What's the point of money if there are Nuclear spillages and unnessacary life lost.

rockerbikie

Yeah, and a grand total of 50 people died as a result from those problems as of yet. (according to the U.N.) And nuclear weapons existed (and were used) before nuclear power. Not to mention the waste is generally stored elsewhere since power plants don't make weapons grade waste. So, irrelevant.

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not by much.

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

Yes. It's our best alternative right now.

Also, it is a renewable source of Energy. I mean how good would it be if we could harvest the sun's energy for all our electrical needs.rockerbikie

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"] Also, it is a renewable source of Energy. I mean how good would it be if we could harvest the sun's energy for all our electrical needs.rockerbikie

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

In the long run, we're all dead. The functionality of society requires electric power, and a lot of it. Nuclear power is without rival the most viable mid-term solution. It is clean, very safe, reliable, provides an ample supply of energy and is affordable. In the mean time, alternative technologies (solar, wind, etc.) can continue to be developed and refined, so that in the case in which a switch actually needs to be made, the transition would be a remotely practical endeavor. That would be the preferable scenario for future generations, reason being that solar power is hardly what one could refer to as a mature technology, and current infrastructure would be replaced anyway.

[QUOTE="rockerbikie"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Nuclear will last for quite a time yet. I think it would be nice to colonize other planets. But, well, reality is a b****. The cost, power production and reliability of those are far surpassed by other methods.

AutoPilotOn

A romantic sentiment, but wind turbines and solar panels generally have an effective lifespan of about 20-30 years.

I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.kuraimen

Natural disasters such as earthquakes are not becoming a trend. If anything, nuclear power is the only existing viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.

I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.kuraimen

It is a very good energy source. And the only way we can make it better for the world and more safe is by going through with it. In order to be better at it we have to keep moving forward with nuclear reactor technology.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.coolbeans90

Natural disasters such as earthquakes are not becoming a trend. If anything, nuclear power is the only existing viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"] I dont think its wise to judge world events over the past 10, 100, 1000 or even the history of mankind to be fair in judging world disasters over the history of the planet.AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't think it's wise to wait for a disaster to happen to say ooops.kuraimen

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't think it's wise to wait for a disaster to happen to say ooops.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"] I dont eigther but I don't think its smart to rule out a current affordable cleaner than most energy source for lots of what ifs. AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think we don't live in a world where we can rely on nuclear power anymore. The world, the climate is changing and natural disasters are going to become more frequent. With nuclear plants everywhere it is like living in a time bomb.kuraimen

Natural disasters such as earthquakes are not becoming a trend. If anything, nuclear power is the only existing viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.

Even if energy is rationed, solar, wind are going to provide an insufficient amount of power for the needs of society, at exorbitant costs, and in unreliable swings that vary by weather. Natural disasters can happen anywhere, but unless a plant is on a fault line, or low sea level, then the risk is virtually non-existent even in the scenario of climate change. A factor you seem to overlook is the carbon emission drops which would result from using nuclear power. In other words, the minor problems it faces could be alleviated by using more of it. If we do not risk it, then we are objectively analyzing the information given to us because of sensationalistic fear mongering.

I'm starting to sway my opinion on nuclear power with the past events. Perhaps a Safer alternative?bbkkristian

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't think it's wise to wait for a disaster to happen to say ooops.kuraimen

The what ifs are rather trivial when considering that these things aren't nuclear warheads and can withstand 8.9 magnitude earthquakes and not cause a major crises.

I'm starting to sway my opinion on nuclear power with the past events. Perhaps a Safer alternative?bbkkristian

Such as? Coal, no. Gas, no.

Even if energy is rationed, solar, wind are going to provide an insufficient amount of power for the needs of society, at exorbitant costs, and in unreliable swings that vary by weather. Natural disasters can happen anywhere, but unless a plant is on a fault line, or low sea level, then the risk is virtually non-existent even in the scenario of climate change. A factor you seem to overlook is the carbon emission drops which would result from using nuclear power. In other words, the minor problems it faces could be alleviated by using more of it. If we do not risk it, then we are objectively analyzing the information given to us because of sensationalistic fear mongering.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Even if energy is rationed, solar, wind are going to provide an insufficient amount of power for the needs of society, at exorbitant costs, and in unreliable swings that vary by weather. Natural disasters can happen anywhere, but unless a plant is on a fault line, or low sea level, then the risk is virtually non-existent even in the scenario of climate change. A factor you seem to overlook is the carbon emission drops which would result from using nuclear power. In other words, the minor problems it faces could be alleviated by using more of it. If we do not risk it, then we are objectively analyzing the information given to us because of sensationalistic fear mongering.

stanleycup98

Yep. And one which can be taken into account to avoid in the future by using a more robust design.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Natural disasters such as earthquakes are not becoming a trend. If anything, nuclear power is the only existing viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.

coolbeans90

Even if energy is rationed, solar, wind are going to provide an insufficient amount of power for the needs of society, at exorbitant costs, and in unreliable swings that vary by weather. Natural disasters can happen anywhere, but unless a plant is on a fault line, or low sea level, then the risk is virtually non-existent even in the scenario of climate change. A factor you seem to overlook is the carbon emission drops which would result from using nuclear power. In other words, the minor problems it faces could be alleviated by using more of it. If we do not risk it, then we are objectively analyzing the information given to us because of sensationalistic fear mongering.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] When the what ifs involve such terrible consequences the wise thing is to err in the side of caution. But we humans are not used to being very wise IMO.kuraimen

Solar and wind are very marginally safer than nuclear. And the virtually non-existent safety benefits are surpassed by the cost of not using it.