Nuclear Power

W

wuluf

New member
I have a question and i respect the posters (most of you ;)) with whom i disagree politically. It seems obvious to me that the country needs to promote nuclear power as a way of reducing our dependence on oil. France now produces 80% of its electricity with nuclear power. I heard today that even increasing the number of electric cars on the road is counter-productive, since more electricity means more coal fired plants. So, why is the left, the party of global warming, still so anti-nuke? (note to Bush-haters, if typing "nukular" makes you happy, go for it!)
 
Basically in a nutshell they believe it will cost far more money to build and operate, and clean up the waste of new nuclear power plants than it would be to spend tax payers money to find other means of resources.
 
The waste from nuclear plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. Where do you want to put it? How about in a landfill near your hometown?
 
First I support wind and solar energy production... Now let me say this... Any one that has sailed a boat much has sat dead in the water with not so much as a "luff" to the sails and had to fire up the ol' dinosaur burner...
Also as anyone melted much glass/sand before? It takes a hell of alot of fossil fuel! To make a photo-voltaic cell is an expensive endeavor is a costly venture. It takes alot of energy production to recoup the investment. These green tree bunny kickers aren't too aware of how to operate a business... A nuke plant and supporting technology has come so far in advancement. We now have ways to make energy from the spent rods by recycling them... I see Nuclear power as the most/only viable way to detach our suckling lips from the mid eastern TIT. I also think the green freaks need to get off their ANTI-hydrogen power high horse. Hydrogen could be made safe enuff to power vehicles. We just need nuke and other power sources to make it cheaper than gasoline. Until than I think we need to drill the Alaskan and YES my Florida oil fields...
Brent
 
The nuclear waste is deadly for thousands of years.

What we have produced since the second World War will get into the ecosystem and will contaminate our great grandchilderen and beyond.

It's just a matter of time.

If there was a way to convert the radioactive waste to a different type of isotope that was'nt radioactive then I'd be on board.

I think that Fission reactors (self sustaining)would be a better idea.

But when will we ever see those?
 
The waste from nuclear plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. Where do you want to put it? How about in a landfill near your hometown?
Click to expand...

How about Yucca Mountain?

I think that Fission reactors (self sustaining)would be a better idea.

But when will we ever see those?
Click to expand...

I think you may mean fusion reactors.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
I think that Fission reactors (self sustaining)would be a better idea.

But when will we ever see those?
Click to expand...

We have Fission reactors, using Uranium rods.

I think you meant Fusion reactors, which combine 2 hydrogen atoms to create a helium atom and a heck of a lot of energy. And it takes a heck of a lot of energy to force those hydrogen atoms together. That's why the Sun burns, but Jupiter doesn't; both are pure Hydrogen, but Jupiter lacks sufficient gravity to begin the process.

To my knowledge (and I'm a liberal arts major, not a physicist), there isn't a structure on earth that has successfully contained and harnessed energy from a Fusion reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I like reading about new developments in nuclear energy.
 
The waste from nuclear plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. Where do you want to put it? How about in a landfill near your hometown?
Click to expand...

I am not a nuclear physicist. I've never even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. BUT, as mentioned above, France is on the bandwagon in a big way. How did they solve this? Are you saying it can't be done? I worry that the Left's position has evolved to that of naysayer: "We must reduce carbon output, but not using nukes." That doesn't leave a capitalist society many options, and that position is economically and ultimately politically unviable.
 
To my knowledge (and I'm a liberal arts major, not a physicist), there isn't a structure on earth that has successfully contained and harnessed energy from a Fusion reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I like reading about new developments in nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

Correct! Many years ago, there was a buzz about "cold fusion" but that was exposed as a hoax.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
I love nuclear power. It will always have a place, you can't uninvent it.

The waste issue is very nasty, though. When you look at history and the massive shifts that happen over thousands of years, you can not be sure that knowledge of the waste stockpiles will persist that far off. The burning of the library at Alexandria and all that. History repeats itself. We are setting up people far off in the future for disaster, and that's just not right.

That, and you need to burn huge amounts of fossil fuels to mine and refine your fuel.

Oil isn't going anywhere before the wells run dry.
 
We got a couple dead planets lying around, and NASA's not doing much lately, let's just blast the waste off to mars. Maybe then they'll be some life arise on the ole Red planet.

I'm in agreement though, I feel like we should have more nuclear energy. Just finding what to do with the wastes. . . . Where's Al Gore when you need him . . .
 
If you could safely get it off world, the best thing to do would be to "drop" it in the sun. The trick is to devise a safe economical way to do that. Far to often our rockets have a tendency to blow up. Not to mention very expensive.

We got a couple dead planets lying around, and NASA's not doing much lately, let's just blast the waste off to mars. Maybe then they'll be some life arise on the ole Red planet.

I'm in agreement though, I feel like we should have more nuclear energy. Just finding what to do with the wastes. . . . Where's Al Gore when you need him . . .
Click to expand...
 
Pop Quiz

1.How many Americans have died as a direct result of nuclear power?

2. How many workers have died working coal mines?

3. Who produces the most nuclear waste in the United States?
 
Last edited:
Nuclear is THE ONLY viable energy source that does not involve fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
The Greens have also killed off any new hydroelectric development. They managed to kill off most of Hydro-Quebec which would have sent huge amounts of extremely clean electricity to the US.

Face it, they're Luddites who think the rest of us should live like folks did in the 1700's.
 
To my knowledge (and I'm a liberal arts major, not a physicist), there isn't a structure on earth that has successfully contained and harnessed energy from a Fusion reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I like reading about new developments in nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

They are sloooowly and expensively getting there at the National Ignition Facility.
 
Nuke power produces radioactive waste, but so does coal fired plants. It is a little known fact that Every pond of carbon released in burning coal contains a large number of radioactive isotopes. these iso topes are then spread over millions of swuare miles in the wind.

One of the biggest expenses of nuke power is the legal fees and lobbying $ spent just to get the thing approved.

France has just a few standardized reactor designs that they basically mass produce. A worker trained at one plant can go to another and know exactly how to do his job there. A component at one plant can be removed and installed at another. Interchangability reduces the cost of construction, operation, and disposal.

Nuke waste is typically placed in incredibly durable barrels, then those barrels are filled with concrete, then the contaminated concrete is transported to a dry man made cave in an incredibly geologically stable place and secured. Remember that the ore that the fuel was made from came out of the ground too, and it is more secure and protected after being used and then sealed than it was in the ground before mining.
 
azredhawk44: Just google Nuclear Fusion. You'll get lots of hits.

iirc a fusion reactor produced more energy than it took to operate it about 5 years ago.
Still a viable fusion reactor is very far into the future.
Once there, the problem of waste still exists in fusion though in a different form and to a lesser degree than fission.

Some liberals oppose nuclear fission reactors some don't.
The long term problems of nuclear waste are a concern to just about everybody not just liberals.
There are many forms of energy generation that can be developed. Putting development money into one basket doesn't appeal to me. Especially when that means government funds going to an already developed industry such as nuclear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top