Lets talk about nuclear power

**goodcents** · 10-23-2006, 11:46 AM

What's your view on it? I think it would solve alot of polution problems and give energy at a lower cost.

**Phreak101** · 10-23-2006, 11:55 AM

Best thing ever, unfortunately it is also a small step away from nuclear weapons...

I'll allow Johan to rant when he sees this thread, he will describe it best, as you can see from his sig...

**FranKieC** · 10-23-2006, 11:56 AM

Johan will have a field day with this thread

**GUnit33** · 10-23-2006, 11:59 AM

Nuclear war is going to happen sooner or later... too many radicals out there for it not to happen.

**DNoMac** · 10-23-2006, 12:04 PM

Check out the thread by Logan in the New forum. It says there are roughly 30 countries who are VERY close to having the technology capable of producing nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is a clean and efficient alternative, it's just too bad there are all the other risks (weapons) associated.

**goodcents** · 10-23-2006, 12:59 PM

Johan, where you at

**gixxerboy1** · 10-23-2006, 01:13 PM

Yes but the countries who already have nuclear weapins aren't huge on nuclear power. There haven't built a new power plant in the US for a long time. Everybody complains the ydont want it in their town. But I agree is a good clean power source

**FranKieC** · 10-23-2006, 01:18 PM

I wouldn't mind one in my backyard..maybe it will make me grow super strength

**biglouie250** · 10-23-2006, 01:41 PM

where is johan?

**biglouie250** · 10-23-2006, 01:42 PM

solar and wind power > nuclear

johan will fall out of his chair when he sees that!

**needsomehelp** · 10-23-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

Yes but the countries who already have nuclear weapins aren't huge on nuclear power. There haven't built a new power plant in the US for a long time. Everybody complains the ydont want it in their town. But I agree is a good clean power source

Very true, little know fact as well. I think mid 70's for a nuke plant in the U.S.....

No power supply is cleaner, more efficient, or provides anywhere near as much energy.

I live in the, "Red Zone" of a plant. Bill Clinton's house is even closer. It's 15 miles from ther most expensive homes' possibly in the country. The truth is it's very safe. If they were to figure out a federal program for waste removal, and use today's technologies (Capable of putting the core 9 stories underground for instance), coal and Oil would be absolete in a couple of decades...just in time for the electric cars. The problem is, extreme enviromentalists don't like any form of energy, bedsides windmills...

You have to work within the confines of technology and have a REALISTIC view. Nuculear has no equal.

**shifty_git** · 10-23-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by needsomehelp

Very true, little know fact as well. I think mid 70's for a nuke plant in the U.S.....

No power supply is cleaner, more efficient, or provides anywhere near as much energy.

I live in the, "Red Zone" of a plant. Bill Clinton's house is even closer. It's 15 miles from ther most expensive homes' possibly in the country. The truth is it's very safe. If they were to figure out a federal program for waste removal, and use today's technologies (Capable of putting the core 9 stories underground for instance), coal and Oil would be absolete in a couple of decades...just in time for the electric cars. The problem is, extreme enviromentalists don't like any form of energy, bedsides windmills...

You have to work within the confines of technology and have a REALISTIC view. Nuculear has no equal.

2nd this!

I used to work security at a nuclear power plant - and know exactly how safe they are.
Its proven that a worker at the plant takes in less radiation than if you were to sleep every night next to an alarm clock that’s has luminous stuff on that hands!
The site is very clean, and they have played a mojour role i helping with local environmental issues. Even to the point of buying extra land (its placed on the coast) and making them in2 nature reserves.

**DNoMac** · 10-23-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

Yes but the countries who already have nuclear weapins aren't huge on nuclear power. There haven't built a new power plant in the US for a long time. Everybody complains the ydont want it in their town. But I agree is a good clean power source

They're weird about those. I read that they built a new plant in New York (I think), but state legislators ran them in cirlces with regulations/ect so that they couldn't open it. I think there was specualtion that oil tycoons had a hand in it. I'll see if I can dig it up because I obviously forgot all the details.

**Snrf** · 10-23-2006, 04:48 PM

nuclear energy is clean when its done properly, unfortunately its very rarely properly regulated and accidents, leakages, spillages etc etc are all too common....so its not clean like it should be....

**Tock** · 10-23-2006, 05:45 PM

So when are they gonna figure out what they're gonna do with the nuclear waste? Someone's gotta babysit that stuff for 20,000 + years. That's over 100 times as long as the USA has been a country.

I read that the price of uranium is going up. Prices have been down lately because the US has been using stuff from the Soviet missiles. Now demand is going up, and prices will too. When that happens, electricity from uranium is gonna cost more, and that's gonna piss off lots of people.

I dunno what the answer to it all is gonna be . . . one thing for sure, though, is that Americans need to reduce their use of energy. I doubt that will happen, so it seems to me that the next generations are gonna get stuck with lots of nuclear waste and too much carbon dioxide, global warming, and etc etc etc. Folks nowadays don't really care much about the future.

**Polska** · 10-23-2006, 06:04 PM

Chernobyl rings a bell...

**goodcents** · 10-23-2006, 06:22 PM

Damn it Johan, where you at

I always like a good discussion, chime in.

**needmorestrength** · 10-23-2006, 06:30 PM

Nuclear is ok... But it has to be used in combination with other contributing energies... There is NO reason not to utalize solar and wind power especially as production cost comes down.... Its clean, efficient ( as is nuclear) but has rarley any other effects. Does not require extensive storage of waste products, or lots of politics etc etc.. In my opinion the furture holds a combination of all methods, that is the only way!

**Tesla** · 10-23-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

So when are they gonna figure out what they're gonna do with the nuclear waste? Someone's gotta babysit that stuff for 20,000 + years. That's over 100 times as long as the USA has been a country.

I read an article recently that some of the newest technology reactors can recycle spent fuel to end up with a waste product that is only radioactive for about 100 years. Not bad.

**cfiler** · 10-23-2006, 09:30 PM

Are we talking about nuclear fusion or fision? Because that may change my vote depending on the country that would be building the nuclear power plant.

**l2elapse** · 10-23-2006, 09:49 PM

as of right now doesnt it use more energy to use?

**DNoMac** · 10-23-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by cfiler

Are we talking about nuclear fusion or fision? Because that may change my vote depending on the country that would be building the nuclear power plant.

I believe all nuclear power plants are fission reactors. The only time fusion happens on earth is in particle accelerators and the h-bomb.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2006, 11:12 PM

I was asleep

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2006, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

So when are they gonna figure out what they're gonna do with the nuclear waste? Someone's gotta babysit that stuff for 20,000 + years. That's over 100 times as long as the USA has been a country.

I read that the price of uranium is going up. Prices have been down lately because the US has been using stuff from the Soviet missiles. Now demand is going up, and prices will too. When that happens, electricity from uranium is gonna cost more, and that's gonna piss off lots of people.

I dunno what the answer to it all is gonna be . . . one thing for sure, though, is that Americans need to reduce their use of energy. I doubt that will happen, so it seems to me that the next generations are gonna get stuck with lots of nuclear waste and too much carbon dioxide, global warming, and etc etc etc. Folks nowadays don't really care much about the future.

The good thing about nuclear power is that the price of the electricity produced by a nuclear power plant is very unsensitive to swings in uranium prices. The price of uranium for a entire lifetime of a nuclear power plant is less than 10% of the cost of building the thing in the first place so the electricity price is determined by the building costs. I cant remember exact figures but I think a doubling in uranium prices correspond to a 3% increase in electricity prices.

The good news is also that we have enough uranium to run plants for thousands of years

Now as for the waste storage. Its only a problem in the minds of environmentalits. I puke everytime I hear the store for 100 000 years bullshit. That is the time it takes for the waste to drop down to the same level of radioactivity as natural uranium(i.e hardly anything at all). But alread after 40 years the radiation has dropped several thousand times. The current storages in big pools of water is adequate untill we have mastered transmutation. Through transmutation we can convert a big % if the waste into short lived compounds and get alot more energy out of the waste.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by needmorestrength

Nuclear is ok... But it has to be used in combination with other contributing energies... There is NO reason not to utalize solar and wind power especially as production cost comes down.... Its clean, efficient ( as is nuclear) but has rarley any other effects. Does not require extensive storage of waste products, or lots of politics etc etc.. In my opinion the furture holds a combination of all methods, that is the only way!

I think the only future for solar power in north america and most parts of europe is as heating. But as a source for electricity it plain sux. We dont get enough sunlight or intense enough sunlight for it to be cost effective. Its also far to cloudy to often for it to be of any use. But as heating homes directly it would be great.

Direct solar power to electricity would only work in places like the middle east, africa, maby spain, florida.

Wind power can at most supply a few % of the total electricity production due to the unreliable nature of wind. There always have to be backup plants to wind power. Something that can kick in quickly when the wind generators arent producing what they should. This need for a backup dramaticly increases the price of wind power. IMO the best way to use wind power is to use it in order to save water in the hydro plants. When its windy just dont let any water through. Sweden and denmark is kind of cooperating like this. We buy wind from them when they produce alot and they buy hydro power from us when they are in need.

Wind power would not survive in any country today if they where not subsidises as heavily as they are. Its not price competitive and the money to subsidise that comes from our pockets. I would rather se that money go to new nuclear power plants.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by cfiler

Are we talking about nuclear fusion or fision? Because that may change my vote depending on the country that would be building the nuclear power plant.

fusion is many many years away. A new experimental fusion reactor(ITER) is beeing built(to be finished around 2010 if I remember right) with hopes that it will produce more electricity than it consumes. But it costs around 10 billion dollars and wont produce much electricity. Comercial fusion are atleast 30-40 years away and many are sceptical if it ever will be economicaly competitive.

Its just horribly complex to get a sustained fusion reaction.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by needsomehelp

Very true, little know fact as well. I think mid 70's for a nuke plant in the U.S.....

No power supply is cleaner, more efficient, or provides anywhere near as much energy.

I live in the, "Red Zone" of a plant. Bill Clinton's house is even closer. It's 15 miles from ther most expensive homes' possibly in the country. The truth is it's very safe. If they were to figure out a federal program for waste removal, and use today's technologies (Capable of putting the core 9 stories underground for instance), coal and Oil would be absolete in a couple of decades...just in time for the electric cars. The problem is, extreme enviromentalists don't like any form of energy, bedsides windmills...

You have to work within the confines of technology and have a REALISTIC view. Nuculear has no equal.

In the 60's when the nuclear age was starting people where saying that there would be no point in charging money for the electricity in the future because its going to be so cheap....this was offcourse before three miles island and chernobyl.

The only example of when a industrial accident shuts down a entire industry

**wascaptain5214** · 10-24-2006, 04:32 AM

......i think nuke power is the way to go.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2006, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

Yes but the countries who already have nuclear weapins aren't huge on nuclear power. There haven't built a new power plant in the US for a long time. Everybody complains the ydont want it in their town. But I agree is a good clean power source

whats cool is that 85% of the people living close to nuclear power plants support them

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2006, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

nuclear energy is clean when its done properly, unfortunately its very rarely properly regulated and accidents, leakages, spillages etc etc are all too common....so its not clean like it should be....

The nuclear power industry has a safety record that is leaps and bounds above any other industry. The safety regulations are so tight that other industries would have to shut down given the same conditions.

In the west there has been no major release of nuclear materials from a plant. Not even the three miles island accident released any waste into the environment.

What is good about radioactive waste is that it is tremendously easy to detect. There is no hiding it and its impossible to not notice. This makes radioactive waste much much safer than chemical wastes, heavy metalls ect that is extremely hard to detect and regulate. A coal power plant releases far more radioactive materals into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant because of the radioactive residues in the coal, not to mention the heavy metalls and other crap thatcauses tens of thousands ofprematurel deaths every year.

**CSAR** · 10-24-2006, 06:08 AM

As long as we're on the topic of nuclear power, I thought I'd bring up Japan. Sorry to be a jerk, but I'm gonna be referring to them as Japs, 'cause this is one issue that really pisses me off.

Anyhow, the US 7th Fleet based in Yokosuka, Japan (near Yokohama and Tokyo) is going to be getting their first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The current and former carriers, Kitty Hawk and Independence, are conventionally powered. Now, the Japs are having a fit. They picket the base, have protest marches, and talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their biggest concern is the safety. But here's the hypocrisy - in the past 5 years Japan has had several big time nuclear accidents which resulted in death. Nothing on the scale of Chernobyl, but the Japs level of incompetence at operating nuclear reactors is much more worrisome than that of the US Navy, which to my knowledge is near-flawless.

Nuclear power technology is continually improving and the next generation of power plants is gonna be nothing short of jaw dropping. Just do it? Nah... Just nuke it!!

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2006, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by CSAR

As long as we're on the topic of nuclear power, I thought I'd bring up Japan. Sorry to be a jerk, but I'm gonna be referring to them as Japs, 'cause this is one issue that really pisses me off.

Anyhow, the US 7th Fleet based in Yokosuka, Japan (near Yokohama and Tokyo) is going to be getting their first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The current and former carriers, Kitty Hawk and Independence, are conventionally powered. Now, the Japs are having a fit. They picket the base, have protest marches, and talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their biggest concern is the safety. But here's the hypocrisy - in the past 5 years Japan has had several big time nuclear accidents which resulted in death. Nothing on the scale of Chernobyl, but the Japs level of incompetence at operating nuclear reactors is much more worrisome than that of the US Navy, which to my knowledge is near-flawless.

Nuclear power technology is continually improving and the next generation of power plants is gonna be nothing short of jaw dropping. Just do it? Nah... Just nuke it!!

Sounds wierd. But I guess those protesting are just the regular bunch of nutty environmentalists. Im sure they prefer the carriers poluting spewing out polutants with traditional engines instead. Damn morons.

Can you tell me more about those accidents? What was the name of the plants and when did they happen?

**CSAR** · 10-24-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by johan

Sounds wierd. But I guess those protesting are just the regular bunch of nutty environmentalists. Im sure they prefer the carriers poluting spewing out polutants with traditional engines instead. Damn morons.

Can you tell me more about those accidents? What was the name of the plants and when did they happen?

Actually, most are not environmentalists. A lot of it is anti-US.

Attached is a link to a very good BBC report about the Japanese nuclear mishaps and cover ups.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm

**goodcents** · 10-24-2006, 09:36 AM

About time Johan

I made this one for you. Always got the facts, always listening. (You need to come to america and run for office, we need someone

)

**gixxerboy1** · 10-24-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by johan

whats cool is that 85% of the people living close to nuclear power plants support them

My parents live probably 15 miles from 1. The house's in the area are very nice. I also know alot of people who fish in the river attached to it. The water is warmer so the fishing is better. Nobody around there complains about it. The was just fear of a terrorist attack after 9/11

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by goodcents

About time Johan

I made this one for you. Always got the facts, always listening. (You need to come to america and run for office, we need someone

)

Sure. America is in desperate need of someone that would make Bush look like a brilliant public speaker

Originally Posted by CSAR

Actually, most are not environmentalists. A lot of it is anti-US.

Attached is a link to a very good BBC report about the Japanese nuclear mishaps and cover ups.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm

Thanks for the link. Not good. They should clean up there act. All accidents make the whole industry look bad.

**goodcents** · 10-24-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Sure. America is in desperate need of someone that would make Bush look like a brilliant public speaker

Thanks for the link. Not good. They should clean up there act. All accidents make the whole industry look bad.

I don't think even you could make that happen, he's gone crazy

**DNoMac** · 10-24-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by goodcents

About time Johan

I made this one for you. Always got the facts, always listening. (You need to come to america and run for office, we need someone

)

Agreed, I'd vote for Johan as long as he legalized steroids too.

**Tesla** · 10-24-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by johan

In the west there has been no major release of nuclear materials from a plant. Not even the three miles island accident released any waste into the environment.

You're absolutely correct. Whenever someone hears about the Three Mile Island accident they usually start focusing in on the dangers of nuclear energy. What they completely miss is that Three Mile Island was a huge success. There was no radiation leakage at all...completely safe.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-25-2006, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tesla

You're absolutely correct. Whenever someone hears about the Three Mile Island accident they usually start focusing in on the dangers of nuclear energy. What they completely miss is that Three Mile Island was a huge success. There was no radiation leakage at all...completely safe.

exactly it was like a car crash where the car got totaly demolished but the driver steped out allright because of the airbag. I dont think people would scream that the car is unsafe. they would marvel over the airbag.

But when it comes to nuclear power it all has to be perfect.

In sweden we recently had a accident where 3 out of 6 safety systems failed and environmentalits are screaming we almost had a meltdown. Well the way I look at it we had half the safety systems still running. If only one had been left I would have been worried. Offcourse half of them should not fail. But it was still lightyears away from beeing anywhere close to meltdown and even if the utterly unimaginably unlikely happened and we had a meltdown the containment building would have done the same job as in 3 miles island.

god I hate stupid people