Thread: nuclear power
09-27-2004, 02:51 PM #1
thought i would change up a bit from the heated political debates. what do you guys think about the use of nuclear power? i know there are a number of scientists who have become advocates for a number of reasons. for example, it would reduce our need for fossil fuels, as well as eliminate the pollution that is created from the burning of these fuels. whada y'all think?
09-27-2004, 03:03 PM #2
its a dangerous yet potentially very reasonable alternative. I saw a special on TV saying that it is "coming back" because with current safegaurds there would be a 0% chance of meltdown. Of course they said that in pre-chernobyl russia and pre-three mile island here as well. And im not so sure that trading off air polution for water polution and possible to likely mutated animals in surrounding areas would be the best idea. I think that more research and development needs to be done in order to get the masses on the band wagon. Beside i dont think anyone would say ok to a nuclear power plant in their backyard.......
09-27-2004, 03:20 PM #3
Water, and the creatures which live in it are far too imporant to the Earths Cycle.
IF we were to resort to Necular Power then our waters would be highly radio active. This is the same water that is evaporated into the clouds, and comes back down upon the earth in rain. The rain would virtually kill off all wildlife over the course of time, including our Rain Forests... which is the primary element for all our medicines.
I just dont think its worth the risks at all.
09-27-2004, 04:41 PM #4
I would rather have a nuclera power plant in my backyard then some old fossile fuel electric plant...
Why would nuclera plants pollute the water?
The only downside I see is the storage of radioactive material....It have to go somewhere and the storage time is 100 000 years so they better store it where it will never ever ever have the chanse to leak out...
thats why I want more funding to fusion power. No risk for any kind of disaster like a meltdown, no large ammounts of radioactive materal(and the little that gets radioactive only has to be stored for 100 years), almost unlimited supply of fuel(water). Its just the nicest and cleanest option but as it looks now we wont have it in 30-40 years or so....
09-27-2004, 05:10 PM #5
Well, nuclear isn't much of an issue where I live... my province has almost unlimited hydroelectric potential, but I honestly think that the 2 main drawbacks of nuclear power (disposal of spent fuel and the significant warming of the streams used to cool it) are nothing compared to the drawbacks of fossil fuel or coal generated electricity.
All forms of power currently in use have drawbacks... some like coal and fossil fuel have massive drawbacks on many levels, others like solar, wind or even hydro have less drawbacks. I consider nuclear to be in the middle.
09-27-2004, 05:18 PM #6
solar would be awsome if we acctualy could harness any decent % of the energy in the light rays. As it is now its just so **** ineffective. Reasearchers is on its way to mimic photosynthesis(sp?), hope it will work out cause that has awsome potential.
another energy source totaly unused is tidal power!!!
09-27-2004, 05:36 PM #7
Breeder reactors should have been perfected years ago........fossil fuels are killing US geopolitically and physically through global warming and smog. We need to eliminate big oil from energy policy decisions......after all they won't cut their own throats for the good of the people. How about geostationary reactors in space beaming microwaves to land based power stations? Fusion research has been awfully quiet lately too. It's hard to fund basic research when all the money is going into medicare and military operations.......this budget deficit is really going to hurt US in the future.
More effort has to be given to developing the infrastructure for hydrogen fueled cars.....this smog is nuts. Again though....big oil wants US using all the expensive gas we can buy.
We need major solar panel work for individual homes......imagine being independent of your power company.......
09-27-2004, 05:48 PM #8
alot of coutrines has gone togheter now to build a new test fusion reactor. The first one built to be the same size as a "real" future reactor. The problem now isnt funding or lack of knoweldge. THE BIGGEST ****ING THING IS THAT THE IDIOT COUNTRIES CANT UNITE ON WHERE TO BUILD THE ****ING THING!! USA and japan wants it in japan. The europeans wants it in france....
09-27-2004, 05:54 PM #9
I am partial for it to be in europe offcourse since the jet reactor(the biggest fusion reactor so far)is in uk and therefor it can be assumed that more scientists with experience can be found in europe. But then again I dont care much where it goes aslong as it gets built...
09-27-2004, 06:19 PM #10Originally Posted by johan
09-27-2004, 06:20 PM #11Originally Posted by johan
09-27-2004, 06:44 PM #12
jet is a tomaka reactor as will the new one(cant remember what name they have given that project). It hasnt given any net gain of power. They need a bigger reactor for that. But they have been able to keep a fusion procsses going for a couple of minutes if I remember right.
Sorry that I cant respond to the other questions . I just read about the jet and the new reactor in some science mags a couple of times so I am FAR from knowlegable.
yeah earthquake riskt in japan never thought about that. Seems like france would be ideal.
I guess europe might have the sharpest physicists considering CERN is here, but then again that is a different field then fusion power...
09-27-2004, 06:45 PM #13
09-27-2004, 06:47 PM #14
09-27-2004, 06:58 PM #15
the way i see it i think it would be a good bridge between fossil fuels and energy sources that are still in the works (such as fusion). it seems to me it is the choice between what has the potential to do harm (nuclear) and what is already doing harm (fossil fuels).
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)