Nuclear Power - Yea or Nay?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So your proposal to meet the world's energy needs is... what?

kuraimen

My proposal is that the world needs to reduce it's energy needs to the point where green power is enough. But of course humankind (myself included) is currently way too selfish and caught-up in their petty everyday affairs to consider such a sacrifice.

This is a bit like the budget conversations, if one can call them that, in the United States right now. Just as it's very easy to say "yes, we should reduce the deficit", it's similarly very easy to say "yes, we should go green". Then one gets confronted with reality and realizes why that hasn't happened. Civilization as a whole could not be sustained purely through solar, wind, and other "green" forms of energy, and it is positively sociopathic to consider that an acceptable cost.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"] We should not consider "sacrifices" that bring us backwards in terms of technology..kuraimen

Which isn't the case with nuclear energy. Rather relying solely on incapable sources of power would lead more to that affect.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My proposal is that the world needs to reduce it's energy needs to the point where green power is enough. But of course humankind (myself included) is currently way too selfish and caught-up in their petty everyday affairs to consider such a sacrifice.

GabuEx

This is a bit like the budget conversations, if one can call them that, in the United States right now. Just as it's very easy to say "yes, we should reduce the deficit", it's similarly very easy to say "yes, we should go green". Then one gets confronted with reality and realizes why that hasn't happened. Civilization as a whole could not be sustained purely through solar, wind, and other "green" forms of energy, and it is positively sociopathic to consider that an acceptable cost.

Why is it sociopathic? I'm just proposing that the solutions to the problems are reconsidered. If the problem changes the solution might change too (that's one of the principles of science, the way you formulate the problem can change the solution completely). So what if instead of focusing on the problem of energy demand only we focus on the problem of overpopulation and work that parallel to the demand problem? what if educating people on being more frugal since they are kids is also included in the mix? Of course some of these issues wouldn't even be considered because it will affect the powers that be and their dogma of progress. They have no interest on fixing those problems, they would rather just keep growing and growing and coming up with ad hoc solutions to desperate situations like creating more and more and more resources.

If that's sociopathic then I don't wanna know what is what we have now.

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

Nuclear disaster entire world affected

:P

Air plane crash 250 people dead

Nuclear disaster entire world affected

:P

MFDOOM1983

Air plane crash 250 people dead

Nuclear disaster entire world affected

:P

MFDOOM1983

Yes, we're all living in a nuclear wasteland because of Chernobyl.

Really now?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You and I think alike. Still I have faith that in the wake of this tragedy Japan will show the world how an industrialized first-world nation can go all the way green. If anyone can do it leave it to the japanese not that others will listen though :Pkuraimen

This is a bit like the budget conversations, if one can call them that, in the United States right now. Just as it's very easy to say "yes, we should reduce the deficit", it's similarly very easy to say "yes, we should go green". Then one gets confronted with reality and realizes why that hasn't happened. Civilization as a whole could not be sustained purely through solar, wind, and other "green" forms of energy, and it is positively sociopathic to consider that an acceptable cost.

Why is it sociopathic? I'm just proposing that the solutions to the problems are reconsidered. If the problem changes the solution might change too (that's one of the principles of science, the way you formulate the problem can change the solution completely). So what if instead of focusing on the problem of energy demand only we focus on the problem of overpopulation and work that parallel to the demand problem? what if educating people on being more frugal since they are kids is also included in the mix? Of course some of these issues wouldn't even be considered because it will affect the powers that be and their dogma of progress. They have no interest on fixing those problems, they would rather just keep growing and growing and coming up with ad hoc solutions to desperate situations like creating more and more and more resources.

If that's sociopathic then I don't wanna know what is what we have now.

Unless the global population were drastically cut, which would result in a complete meltdown of the entire global economy, and unless the very foundations of modern civilization were abandoned, we could not survive solely on current "green" forms of electrical production. Being in favor of a full turnover to those forms of electrical production at this point in time implies either that one is ignorant of this fact, which is bad enough, or that one considers this acceptable, which is, as I said, positively sociopathic.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This is a bit like the budget conversations, if one can call them that, in the United States right now. Just as it's very easy to say "yes, we should reduce the deficit", it's similarly very easy to say "yes, we should go green". Then one gets confronted with reality and realizes why that hasn't happened. Civilization as a whole could not be sustained purely through solar, wind, and other "green" forms of energy, and it is positively sociopathic to consider that an acceptable cost.

GabuEx

Why is it sociopathic? I'm just proposing that the solutions to the problems are reconsidered. If the problem changes the solution might change too (that's one of the principles of science, the way you formulate the problem can change the solution completely). So what if instead of focusing on the problem of energy demand only we focus on the problem of overpopulation and work that parallel to the demand problem? what if educating people on being more frugal since they are kids is also included in the mix? Of course some of these issues wouldn't even be considered because it will affect the powers that be and their dogma of progress. They have no interest on fixing those problems, they would rather just keep growing and growing and coming up with ad hoc solutions to desperate situations like creating more and more and more resources.

If that's sociopathic then I don't wanna know what is what we have now.

Unless the global population were drastically cut, which would result in a complete meltdown of the entire global economy, and unless the very foundations of modern civilization were abandoned, we could not survive solely on current "green" forms of electrical production. Being in favor of a full turnover to those forms of electrical production at this point in time implies either that one is ignorant of this fact, which is bad enough, or that one considers this acceptable, which is, as I said, positively sociopathic.

I think we shuld use nuclear power until we develop sources of energy that produces less blowback. I think those alternative energy sources should be developed with funds currently being used tosubsidize the oil companies.

When it's handled properly, it's a clean, cheap, and incredibly abundant source of energy.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Why is it sociopathic? I'm just proposing that the solutions to the problems are reconsidered. If the problem changes the solution might change too (that's one of the principles of science, the way you formulate the problem can change the solution completely). So what if instead of focusing on the problem of energy demand only we focus on the problem of overpopulation and work that parallel to the demand problem? what if educating people on being more frugal since they are kids is also included in the mix? Of course some of these issues wouldn't even be considered because it will affect the powers that be and their dogma of progress. They have no interest on fixing those problems, they would rather just keep growing and growing and coming up with ad hoc solutions to desperate situations like creating more and more and more resources.

If that's sociopathic then I don't wanna know what is what we have now.

kuraimen

Unless the global population were drastically cut, which would result in a complete meltdown of the entire global economy, and unless the very foundations of modern civilization were abandoned, we could not survive solely on current "green" forms of electrical production. Being in favor of a full turnover to those forms of electrical production at this point in time implies either that one is ignorant of this fact, which is bad enough, or that one considers this acceptable, which is, as I said, positively sociopathic.

Considered how? That's the question - considered how? As I already outlined, we can't just say "OK, let's cut the population down to 10 million, keep it there forever, and make sure we only use enough electricity that can be delivered through green energy sources"? Unless we start the mass-murder of our population and unplug all of the hallmarks of modern society, anything else would just be futilely chipping away at the edges.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Unless the global population were drastically cut, which would result in a complete meltdown of the entire global economy, and unless the very foundations of modern civilization were abandoned, we could not survive solely on current "green" forms of electrical production. Being in favor of a full turnover to those forms of electrical production at this point in time implies either that one is ignorant of this fact, which is bad enough, or that one considers this acceptable, which is, as I said, positively sociopathic.

GabuEx

Considered how? That's the question - considered how? As I already outlined, we can't just say "OK, let's cut the population down to 10 million, keep it there forever, and make sure we only use enough electricity that can be delivered through green energy sources"? Unless we start the mass-murder of our population and unplug all of the hallmarks of modern society, anything else would just be futilely chipping away at the edges.

When it's handled properly, it's a clean, cheap, and incredibly abundant source of energy.

cmdrmonkey45

Anyone who votes no, or unsure isn't thinking this through.

We would be paying a lot more money on our electrical bills if we didn't have nuclear power.

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

Diablo-B

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

GabuEx

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

sonicare

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

There and Detroit. Explains so much.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

sonicare

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

Like I said, safely disposed of.

It all depends of your definition of "safely".

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

sonicare

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

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?

PS2_ROCKS

And you forgot about the radiation :)
Which can Fk up your DNA. :)

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

Pirate700

Almost every part of the world is at risk for some kind of natural disaster, which is why finding an appropriate place for nuclear power is not as easy as one might think.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

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

TacticalDesire

Almost every part of the world is at risk for some kind of natural disaster, which is why finding an appropriate place for nuclear power is not as easy as one might think.

Yeah, but earthquakes generally are the ones that cause events of this magnitude. The plant in Japan was built to withstand earthquakes the magnitude of 8.2 on the Richter scale when it was built forty years ago. Improvements can be made.

[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.

Person0

That's the thing people don't understand about nuclear disasters, it doesn't end at the explosion or even immediate after effects, the radiation and waste can have a profound effect on an area for years to come.

By the way, out of curiosity I did a calculation on the topic of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewable resources. For the sake of this argument, I went with wind power, mainly because the numbers are easier to find. We'll assume for the sake of argument that the amount of power that comes from Roscoe Wind Farm would be the same anywhere in the country (i.e., discounting any weather patterns that result in more or less wind).

First, here are the numbers.

Roscoe Wind Farm:

- Is in total a 781.5 MW generator, which means in one year (8,765.8 h), it generates 6.85 × 10^12 W-h of energy.

- Takes up 100,000 acres of space, which is about 156.25 sq mi.

The United States:

- Uses a total of 2.9 x 10^16 W-h of energy per year.

- Has a total land mass of 3.79 x 10^6 sq mi.

Assuming that increasing the size of a wind farm proportionally increases the amount of energy it generates, in order for a wind farm to generate enough energy to meet the total energy needs of the United States, its size would need to be

(156.25 sq mi) (2.9 x 10^16 W-h) / (6.85 × 10^12 W-h) = 661,496 sq mi

Taken as a percentage of the total land mass of the United States:

(661,496 sq mi) / (3.79 x 10^6 sq mi) = 17.4%

In other words, for wind power to meet the total energy needs of the United States, 17.4% of the entire landmass of the United States would need to be occupied by wind farms.

That's a lotta wind farms.

[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.

TacticalDesire

That's the thing people don't understand about nuclear disasters, it doesn't end at the explosion or even immediate after effects, the radiation and waste can have a profound effect on an area for years to come.

fear of nuclear power is driven solely by media sensationlism, paranoia, and fear.

Nuclear power is, as of right now, the absolute best form of bringing power to large areas. True, there are downsides, but the positives greatly outweigh them.

As for safety, lets look at the past six or so decades:

1. Chernobyl. A handful of people died due to the immediate blast, 1000 people got sick, 999 people got cured. Not as b ad as everyone thinks.

2. Three Mile Island. Nothing happened

3. Japan. We shall wait and see, but as of right now nothing catastrophic seems to have happened.

Nuclear power is great. I think people just get scared when they see "nuclear" and "danger/accident/etc" in the same sentence. Nuclear paranoia is like cuties, only for adults.

In other words, for wind power to meet the total energy needs of the United States, 17.4% of the entire landmass of the United States would need to be occupied by wind farms.

That's a lotta wind farms.

GabuEx

The cost would be astronomical.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]

Im against nuclear energy. Meltdowns are always a very dangerous risk, and since plants are usually placed around water sources there is always the risk of it contaminating drinking water. Thats not my main concern though. There is still no gooddisposalsolution for nuclear waste. If they could find a safe way to dispose of it that doesn't put us at risk of cancer then I would have no problem with it.

GabuEx

Nuclear waste has been safely disposed of for decades...

Nothing else to go to. But tohugh we need the power, we should still always put thes best saftey tech in our reactors, and maybe consider putting them in places with low risk of strong earthquakes