Nuclear Power

[XKS]

What's your take on the debate surrounding nuclear power and the government's intention to build new ones?

[Mrs Robinson]

What's your take on the debate surrounding nuclear power and the government's intention to build new ones?

In the short term nuclear power is the cleanest most dependable source of electricity.

It is only warlike men who make it bad.

[aboghosian]

the thing is
most of the current nuclear power plants are not safe security wise
and with more power plants
more waste will be produced
your going to have to put it somewhere
hydrogen power seems more promising to power homes

[baksteen]

erm good idea as long as it is no where near me, then im good.

[carpefile]

the thing is
most of the current nuclear power plants are not safe security wise
and with more power plants
more waste will be produced
your going to have to put it somewhere
hydrogen power seems more promising to power homes

Not safe security wise? I totally disagree. Some years ago, I did a small job inside the grounds of Fermi II. The job itself took less than an hour to do. It took three hours to get thru security to get in.
They completely emptied my truck and trailer, went thru it with bomb sniffing dogs, ran everything that would fit thru xray machines, including shit like wooden stakes, pens, sawblades, everything.
I also had to go thru a metal detector that was so sensitive the rivets in my shoes set it off, and then thru a bomb sniffer.
Once inside I was assigned an escort with an uzi, who was supposed to shoot me if I went out of his sight. Whenever I shut off the truck, I had to give him my keys.
Occasionally a truck would drive by with 2 guys in the back with mounted machine guns. If my escort didn't give them the ok signal, they were supposed to shoot me.

It only took 2 hours to get back out, they just did a visual search of everything and then scanned everything with a geiger counter to make sure I wasn't taking any radioactive material out with me.
I was just glad I left my stash home that day. On the up side, I did get to overcharge the shit out of them.

[aboghosian]

there are still lapses in security at these plants
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...nes-california
even though this particular one might be minor
there are a various others as well

[isus]

the thing is
most of the current nuclear power plants are not safe security wise
and with more power plants
more waste will be produced
your going to have to put it somewhere
hydrogen power seems more promising to power homes

Is it really necessary to make a new line after every phrase?

Nuclear power plants are safe. But beyond that, it's not like there is some big red button that says "NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST" that a terrorist could push. Nuclear power plants are almost completely autonomous, run by heavily secured computers. People are only there to ensure everything is working as it should.

Not to mention that I believe Stanford did a study comparing nuclear power to hydrogen power and found that hydrogen would cost almost twice as much per kwh. Not to mention the amount of hydrogen required to do anything useful thanks to it's low density. 15 gallons of gasoline weighs 90 lbs. To get the same amount of energy from hydrogen, you would need a 60 gallons, though it would weigh something like 30 lbs.

Not to mention that there is no significant amount of hydrogen available - it must be produced, usually by splitting H2O (water). There is no inherent energy in hydrogen because it must be produced, usually using nuclear or solar energy.

And while nuclear waste must be disposed of, there is no danger to any of us due to how it is stored. Trust me, brighter minds than yours have already figured out how to handle the problem. Even during transportation from reactor to disposal site, the waste is stored in a vessel that passes not only DOT requirements, but also the following requirements as mandated by the NRC:

Simulated rainfall
Temperature stresses from -40 to 100F
Compression (a weight 5 times as heavy sits on the container for 24 hours)
Free drops - a high-level radioactive waste container will be dropped from a height of 30 feet
Penetration - container is dropped from 40" onto a steel bar
Vibration (simulation of actual transportation)
Increased/decreased external pressures
30 minutes at 1475F
8 hours at 50' under water

However, the sad fact is that most people (as aboghosian proves) are too ignorant to actually learn anything about nuclear energy. It's safe and cheap. Problem solved.

[mountain_rage]

And while nuclear waste must be disposed of, there is no danger to any of us due to how it is stored. Trust me, brighter minds than yours have already figured out how to handle the problem. Even during transportation from reactor to disposal site, the waste is stored in a vessel that passes not only DOT requirements, but also the following requirements as mandated by the NRC

Although to some extent it is true that their are very strong measures to prevent any form of leakage its very hard to find a location that qualifies for the appropriate storage of the waste. Although many would like to think of it as a non issue their aren't all that many locations that fit the bill for the safe storage of depleted uranium. Not only that but their is an issue of what to do with the power plants once they are no longer deemed safe for use. The structure is contaminated and would have to be destroyed but thats a large cost and where to you store the now radioactive sections? Their are still many issues to be dealt with before more plants should be built. Once they deal with those issues then they can start to talk about building more.

[enter8]

400 new plants would completely remove America's reliance on coal and oil for electricity. Just imagine how much greenhouse gas could be prevented.

Facilities already exist for safe long term storage (i.e. miles below the ground in Nevada).

The faster they build these things the better. I'd be happy to live within a stone's throw of one if my area was chosen as a new site. That's how safe I feel they are.

Public skepticism has been good and bad for nuclear energy. It's been bad because it's prevented new reactors from being built but it's been good because it's forced the nuclear industry to bring on it's A game and make tremendous strides in safety, cost and efficiency.

I don't think it's the end all be all energy source, but, compared to oil and coal, it kicks some serious butt. If only the public could begin to remove it's collective foil hat.

[Fankysen]

More power plants !! It's safe, reliable and doesn't pollute, futher more the new plants produce less nuclear waste. As it is now there is also alot of reseach in how to use the waste. I wouldn't be supprised if they came up with something good :) ..

BTW doesn't making power from hydrogen make radiation to?

[XKS]

I personally think in the long-term the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the negatives. With the world's energy demand increasing all the time, nuclear power provides masses of energy, cleanly.

But I must say that Greenpeace and the like are making a huge fuss. Here we have a source of clean power that is very practical. They say we should look for alternatives such as wind power, but the truth is that they are not a constant and reliable source of power.

They forget the reason we use gas, coal and oil is because it gives a constant supply of power, cheaply. Nuclear is most likely the best alternative to succeed fossil fuels because it can actually claim to match these advantages.

Plus, the demand for nuclear power is always going to fuel the need for people with physics and maths qualifications.

[textrant]

BTW doesn't making power from hydrogen make radiation to?

If you read above, it states that hydrogen is not available in large quantities in its natural state on the Earth. Therefore we have to use Electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. People talk as Hydrogen as a possible 'Fuel' (i.e. to replace petrol.) not as a power source.
And when you use Hydrogen fuel, you burn it, which makes the most deadly product of them all...water!!!
The only way for Hydrogen fuel to indirectly produce radiation is if electricity derived from a Nuclear power station is used to split the water.
The only way for Hydrogen to directly produce radiation is in a tritium-deuterium nuclear fusion reactor...which at the moment is a hypothetical method of producing energy.
Bottom line, the only people who don't like Nuclear power are either uninformed on the topic or they are enviro-fascists who want us to live in the stoneage.

[Fankysen]

People talk as Hydrogen as a possible 'Fuel' (i.e. to replace petrol.) not as a power source.
The only way for Hydrogen to directly produce radiation is in a tritium-deuterium nuclear fusion reactor...which at the moment is a hypothetical method of producing energy.

I actually thourght the talked about hydrogen being a power source :/..

anyway the all knowing wikipedia says fusion power dosen't make any high-level radioactive waste, thats good :) ..
Haven't they actually made a reactor which makes abit more energy than it uses ?

[Gamer8585]

Personally, I'm all for using nuclear power. I have no concerns about the safety of the plants themselves (the only meltdown in history was Chernobyl, and that was mainly due to Soviet incompetence in both building and maintenance). It would be great for helping us get off our our dependence on oil (although cars will still need fuel), and it'll be completely clean.

However, I'm still a little uneasy about it due to the problem of nuclear waste. Although their are good sites to store it (they won't leak, and are monitored well), the fact that it keeps piling up is a problem for me. Eventually they're going to run out of space to store the stuff, especially if the nation moves to full nuclear power.

If their was a way to recycle, or at least get rid of, the nuclear waste then I would be a happy camper about nuclear power.

[carpefile]

Put the waste into rockets and fire'em into the sun.