PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Power: Friend or Foe?


PlasmaHam
June 1st, 2017, 08:06 PM
The subject of nuclear power was brought up in the Paris Agreement thread, and I thought it was an interesting enough subject to warrant its own thread.

So, do you support or disapprove of the use of nuclear power plants? Is it a safe, clean energy that heralds the future of mankind? Or is it a nuclear accident waiting to happen? Discuss, debate, and learn down below.

Bmble_B
June 1st, 2017, 08:14 PM
Nuclear Accident waiting to happen. Just Nuclear energy in general is very dangerous in my opinion, I'm sure if people worked hard enough. There would have to be a better alternative.

PlasmaHam
June 1st, 2017, 08:24 PM
Nuclear Accident waiting to happen. Just Nuclear energy in general is very dangerous in my opinion, I'm sure if people worked hard enough. There would have to be a better alternative.

There are over 450 nuclear plants worldwide, with historically (around a 60 year range) there have been only around 30 significant accidents. Even of that handful, very few resulted in a large fatality. Do you think those odds are acceptable, given that with the current state of technology there is no other clean energy comparable to nuclear?

Bmble_B
June 1st, 2017, 08:32 PM
I admit that I may be biased since constantly all I learn about in school are nuclear accidents/nuclear bombings and their devastating effects. But I may be willing to reconsider once I do more research.

PlasmaHam
June 1st, 2017, 08:40 PM
I admit that I may be biased since constantly all I learn about in school are nuclear accidents/nuclear bombings and their devastating effects. But I may be willing to reconsider once I do more research.

Understood. That is where I feel a lot of people get anti-nuclear bias. Schools and the media only ever talks about nuclear energy whenever it goes bad. That gives the impression that nuclear power plant's only purpose in life is to blow up and kill people. But please, do some research, you might learn something.

mattsmith48
June 1st, 2017, 11:21 PM
Nuclear power when everything works properly is the best option, but it only takes smallest mistake or malfunction for everything to go to shit very quickly. Nuclear Power is like hybrid cars they are a temporary cleaner alternative, until we improve the real solution and make it cheaper and more efficient.

ShineintheDark
June 2nd, 2017, 06:01 AM
Nuclear power is very controversial for a reason. It provides a hell of a lot of energy in a cleaner way than fossil fuels but we also have to deal with the occasional accident (rare) or the constantly building nuclear waste (inevitable). Even after the plants have served their purpose, the ground around it would have to be quarentined for hundreds of years due to the decay. It's not a permanent solution but I'd support it on a short-term basis.

lliam
June 2nd, 2017, 08:20 AM
At home, we generate our own electricity by using our own photovoltaic system on the roofs of our buildings. All the electrical stuff etc. in our house is efficient and energy saving at the state of 2016/17.

12 apartments are supplied with electricity. In 2016, just about 46% of the consumed energy/year was used from an external electricity supplier by all households, normally about 70% in the winter period.

Apart from 10 normal cars, we have 5 cars with hybrid drive and 3 eCars as a part of a local car-sharing project, which is quite unusual for such a rather secluded rural region.

Most of our tenants are using this project.

All in all, our village is self-sufficient and supplies a lot of electricity to the public network.

Decentralizing power generation is part of our regional project of local and regional power producing. About 70% of the produced electrical energy is generated by photovoltaic and wind power plants and other green sources.

In short, I think, in this regard our region has been particularly well developed in the last 15 years . To me it's an example that we don't really need nuclear energy.



A few years ago in Germany, the Merkel administration decided not to use nuclear power plants anymore.

So far, so good. So, Germany can exist without nuclear power.

However, this is still a bit flimsy, since we are still obtain nuclear power from neighboring and other European countries, run coal-fired power plants and such.

We still have the technical know-how to rid ourselves of all this crap, at least as far as possible. Unfortunately, there's no sight of a new paradigm shift.

Snowfox
June 2nd, 2017, 09:56 AM
Nuclear power when everything works properly is the best option, but it only takes smallest mistake or malfunction for everything to go to shit very quickly. Nuclear Power is like hybrid cars they are a temporary cleaner alternative, until we improve the real solution and make it cheaper and more efficient.

It does actually need huge mistake or malfunction to go to shit. If I remember right Fukushima dai survived Tsunami blast in one pice and survived 8 hours until batteries that kept pumps pumping did run out. Problem was Japanese hierarchical leadership. People who worked there were sitting thumb in their ass because no one was giving any order to do something while you still had time to try to fix aggregates. My friends dad works in nuclear power plant he told all this while drunk. rest i read from Internet.

Nuclear power is very controversial for a reason. It provides a hell of a lot of energy in a cleaner way than fossil fuels but we also have to deal with the occasional accident (rare) or the constantly building nuclear waste (inevitable). Even after the plants have served their purpose, the ground around it would have to be quarentined for hundreds of years due to the decay. It's not a permanent solution but I'd support it on a short-term basis.

Nuclear waste i think you mean mostly used nuclear fuel rods right?
Those can be recycled many many times again to new nuclear fuel. Google MOX-fuel

Also when it comes to renewable energy term affordability should be considered. That is usually forgotten on purpose.

Posts merged. Please use the multiquote button or edit your post next time. ~Amethyst Rose

TaCoonaBiKe
June 3rd, 2017, 01:46 PM
I dont think uranium is the future, but thorium.. thoriums much more safer and even id say its more easilly accessible, and it needs "a lil helper" to get the reaction going.. nuclear energy is pretty safe, i got an uncle whos a nuclear physicist. Me myself live withing a 30km radius of one powerplant and 100km radius of another one, the radioactivity is normal. Even when we visited the plants it was sustainable as background, no leaks... its cleaner then fossil fuels, much cleaner tbh :D.. so i think its a progress.. and, the pole: questions are not written correctly.. they sound biased towards antinuclear ;)

Uniquemind
June 3rd, 2017, 01:48 PM
Nuclear power is a problem because of human nature not managing it well, and that includes cutting cost corners to go with sub-par nuclear power plant designs and fuels.


I'm not a fan of nuclear power in this context.

The political culture is also addicted to oil because the US dollar is backed in value by oil, so there's a conflict of interest when moving the culture forward in advancements in energy production and distribution.


Some small counterculture folks believe Zero Point Energy, is a thing, and is ideal, but scientists have yet to crack it, the same group of people claim that scientists who have discovered it have been literally killed off and their research funding abruptly stopped and research already done confiscated by the military industrial complex (a mix of private companies and government agencies, *think contractors*).

Devinsoccer
June 3rd, 2017, 08:27 PM
Id have to weigh the pros and cons. Right now we don't have the technology to get rid of it properly, the way we do it now isn't going to last. It is too big, and it erodes the concrete its in. right now, Nuclear energy would do more har, than good. Once we can get rid of it properly, then I would suport it 100%

nebula
June 4th, 2017, 10:22 AM
There's definitely loads of bias on nuclear power from people hearing about significant disasters like Chernobyl. Personally, I'm all for it and I think it's worth the risk. Especially with the lack of fossil fuels left.

However, I think some more research should be conducted on nuclear fusion and the likes until it can be actually profitable. I feel that fusion would be infinitely more useful in terms of energy rather than the current fission method that is used in nuclear power plants. And maybe a better way of disposing the waste?

ShineintheDark
June 4th, 2017, 04:49 PM
Well fusion is undoubtably betetr and more efficient as it uses far less radioactive ingredients and has more inert, less dangerous waste. The only real issue is that it takes a hell of a lot of energy and, unless we can invent cold fusion (when it takes less than the millions of degrees celcius to work) it's pretty much beyond outr ability to do on a mass scale.

Flapjack
July 3rd, 2017, 04:15 PM
I do support nuclear power and I believe that well regulated and maintained plants are safe and I am happy with how the radioactive waste is dealt with however I feel there is something people often overlook and that is that the uranium will run out too eventually!
(https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)
I think nuclear energy will help reduce toxic emissions and go some way into slowing down climate change whilst the technology needed for super capacitors and other tech needed for cheap, clean, renewable and convenient energy is developed. In short, today it is the lesser evil but we must continue to invest in clean energy and look towards the future.

Snowfox
July 4th, 2017, 02:54 AM
Flapjack when Uranium runs out.... term viable may change and has changed over other mined goods over time. Also Uranium is not only possible fuel Thorium is another good one and its plenty

Flapjack
July 4th, 2017, 04:15 AM
@Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060) when Uranium runs out.... term viable may change and has changed over other mined goods over time. Also Uranium is not only possible fuel Thorium is another good one and its plenty
Soooo you're saying put all our eggs in one basket.... a basket that cannot currently carry the eggs so we hope the basket gets better?

I am aware of other possible fuels, please read the article (https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)I linked before and my previous post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3540514&postcount=15) where I explained that I am not against nuclear energy, just that we should continue to look to the future and develop cheap clean renewable energy sources.

Snowfox
July 4th, 2017, 05:22 AM
Soooo you're saying put all our eggs in one basket.... a basket that cannot currently carry the eggs so we hope the basket gets better?

I am aware of other possible fuels, please read the article (https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)I linked before and my previous post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3540514&postcount=15) where I explained that I am not against nuclear energy, just that we should continue to look to the future and develop cheap clean renewable energy sources.

I like eggs. And that basket thing isn't that what we do with oil already?
I did read that article. It took some time.
Also what is in my mind is that if even US President says that climate change is hoax can we be really sure.
If it is not hoax it means that Trump is telling bullshit.

ShineintheDark
July 4th, 2017, 08:10 AM
I like eggs. And that basket thing isn't that what we do with oil already?
I did read that article. It took some time.
Also what is in my mind is that if even US President says that climate change is hoax can we be really sure.
If it is not hoax it means that Trump is telling bullshit.

I wouldn't use Trump as a legitimate source on climate science since his closest experience with that field is his oil tycoon buddies who'd encourage him to ignore scientists and allow them to make a quicker buck.

mattsmith48
July 4th, 2017, 11:04 AM
Also what is in my mind is that if even US President says that climate change is hoax can we be really sure.
If it is not hoax it means that Trump is telling bullshit.

Don't be stupid, every climate scientist in the world disagree with President Dementia on this and don't forget, we're talking about the guy who is constantly contradicting himself often in the same sentence.

randall
July 9th, 2017, 04:55 PM
friend, but can turn into a foe if not maintained/properly cared for, and made safe.