Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What's your opinion on nuclear power?

Two thumbs up.

Three thumbs up if we invent fusion.

Good if we can dispose of waste without harming the environment.

It's the bomb.

I think Black Mage is the best character ever.

*Brownie points if you get the reference*

Ketara wrote:I think Red Mage is the best character ever.

Fixed.

I support alternative energy - it hedges our bets regarding the whole 'Global Warming' thing, and the raw materials are free.
I mean, we in Britain live on a windswept island in the North Sea - how has it taken us this long to think of wind farms and hydro-electric wave power as an alternative to Coal, Oil and Gas? We don't exactly produce a lot of that stuff at home!

nuclear power is one of the best non-renewable sources out there right now. far better than coal, and less dangerous statistically than hydro electric. nuclear fusion would be very nice indeed, and in the relatively near future it will become completely possible to have that widespread. (20-50 years)
nuclear waste isn't such an issue; 3 cubic meters of waste are produced on average per year... it's not a lot.
thorium reactors would be good.
however, US nuclear reactors aren't very good. mainly because there's a ban on making newer ones. because of that, they've got no way of making the safer CANDU and other such passively safe reactors, so things are going to take a hell of a long time to get away from coal and such. grumble.

EDIT: apparently the ban I was talking about was rescinded in 2005. however, no new power plants are planned til after 2010 at the earliest. additionally, only 4 advanced power plants have been ordered.

also, a fun fact:
Instead of building a hydro dam far to the north of Vancouver (can't remember the name of the place, sorry) people are proposing a nuclear plant because hydro would have a worse impact on the environment. I haven't heard which plan they've gone with yet though, and this is a few months' old information.

I'm not really a fan. The waste issue is pretty hard to get around.

My entire state (bar a few factories and the like) is powered by hydro-electricity. I don't see what's wrong with it at all. Truth be told, I would prefer an alternative energy source.

CaptainCommunsism wrote:nuclear waste isn't such an issue; 3 cubic meters of waste are produced on average per year... it's not a lot.

THANK YOU!

Seriously, disposing of the heated water is probably more of a problem than the nuclear waste is. Look at how much solid waste your average American creates already.

however, US nuclear reactors aren't very good. mainly because there's a ban on making newer ones. because of that, they've got no way of making the safer CANDU and other such passively safe reactors, so things are going to take a hell of a long time to get away from coal and such. grumble.

EDIT: apparently the ban I was talking about was rescinded in 2005. however, no new power plants are planned til after 2010 at the earliest. additionally, only 4 advanced power plants have been ordered.

It sucks. No, solar and wind power are not going to cover the needs of the country, much less the needs of developing countries.

also, a fun fact:
Instead of building a hydro dam far to the north of Vancouver (can't remember the name of the place, sorry) people are proposing a nuclear plant because hydro would have a worse impact on the environment. I haven't heard which plan they've gone with yet though, and this is a few months' old information.

Another interesting fact: coal power plants release more nuclear radiation into the surrounding area than nuclear plants do, because of trace amounts of radioactive materials found in the coal.

Actually, I vaguely recall there being coal plants that actually wouldn't meet the safety standards for nuclear power plants because of this. (Not that safety standards are too lax in this regard for coal plants, just that they're incredibly stringent for nuclear.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:My entire state (bar a few factories and the like) is powered by hydro-electricity. I don't see what's wrong with it at all. Truth be told, I would prefer an alternative energy source.

Not every potential spot for a hydroelectric plant is the same.

Some can be built with little environmental backlash, but oftentimes there's a tradeoff. (Especially as time goes on, since the best opportunities are used up.)

Hydroelectric power has good uses, but you can't dam up every river you find and expect it to work out well.

Ketara wrote:I think Black Mage is the best character ever.

*Brownie points if you get the reference*

I was always fond of Fighter for some reason. I feel I can relate to him, I too am always getting stabbed by my friends and my brillance (sword chucks) is often ignored.

Anyway, my dad is not fond of nuclear power at all because of the waste issue, but I'm on the fence personally. If you can convince me that the waste isn't really a problem and that we can avoid accidents like Chernobyl then I guess I'm okay with it.

Chernobyl was a different type of reactor from the kind we use (RBMK), so if the circumstances Chernobyl happened under occurred in a Western power plant the worst that could happen would be the plant shutting down.

And speaking of the "circumstances" present in Chernobyl, the biggest of those "circumstances" was disabling the safety features for testing (which I believe was also against the Soviet's safety regulations..).

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Seriously, disposing of the heated water is probably more of a problem than the nuclear waste is.

I've seen some proposals to use the waste heat from nuclear reactors as a vehicle for desalination. No idea if its viable, but it would be a hell of a way to fix some of the issues in the American Southwest.

That would be quite an accomplishment.

of course if we were to recycle the waste like every other god-damn country with a reactor does we could all but eliminate it, but no that would help terrorists

The theory is that by not reprocessing it we'll encourage others to not reprocess it as well, and thus stop the production of nuclear weapons.

I don't know that anyone has changed their mind because of this, namely because America saying "hey you know what would be really cool... if we all wasted money and produced a lot of radioactive waste! That would be really rad! Watch me do it!" isn't much of an argument.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ketara wrote:I think Red Mage is the best character ever.

Fixed.

Stop fixing everything orkeo!

Also it's dangerous as feth and this planet can't handle any more excess waste!

Im for it, but it comes with problems as well.

well i'm all for it, but my man makes all his money building and maintaining them, and since the ship yards are doing very little without the power plants we would be very poor.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ketara wrote:I think Red Mage is the best character ever.

Fixed.

Stop fixing everything orkeo!

Also it's dangerous as feth and this planet can't handle any more excess waste!

in what way re they more dangerous then coal and how do they produce excess waste

youbedead wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ketara wrote:I think Red Mage is the best character ever.

Fixed.

Stop fixing everything orkeo!

Also it's dangerous as feth and this planet can't handle any more excess waste!

in what way re they more dangerous then coal and how do they produce excess waste

First off i know where you're goin with this, and im well aware off the fact that coal produces way more co2 but what happens if a coal plant feths up? It burns down...yay!What happens to a nuclear plant?BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!! and you can't live in an area of 400km around the plant for the next 40 years happened before, will happen again! Excess waste? You're not European, that' s why can't know about the Castor Trains that drive around Europe 24/7!Their load?Tonnes and tonnes of atomic waste...no excess waste, sure!





THINK CHERNOBYL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

r3n3g8b0y wrote:First off i know where you're goin with this, and im well aware off the fact that coal produces way more co2 but what happens if a coal plant feths up? It burns down...yay!What happens to a nuclear plant?BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

The uranium can't explode. Only steam, which is also used in coal plants.

and you can't live in an area of 400km around the plant for the next 40 years happened before, will happen again!

Don't you mean 30k? (Where people still do live, even though they're not supposed to?)

Excess waste? You're not European, that' s why can't know about the Castor Trains that drive around Europe 24/7!Their load?Tonnes and tonnes of atomic waste...no excess waste, sure!

Who the hell said they don't produce waste? "Tons and tons" is a silly thing to say, since this things of this scale are usually measured in hundreds or thousands of tons. Nuclear plants produce very little waste, and there would be little problems with disposing of it if it weren't for irrational fear prohibiting anyone from actually trying to contain it (and then those same people turn around and say nuclear power is unworkable because there's no way to dispose of it; it's hilarious, really).

THINK CHERNOBYL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Different type of nuclear reactor. Not that big of a disaster. Overhyped because people are ignorant of radiation.

Did you ever hear of the Bhopal disaster? About twice as many people died, should no one continue to manufacture pesticides? Of course not. Chernobyl wasn't that big of a deal, nor could it happen here (we don't use the same type of control rods, we don't have a positive void coefficient, we have containment shells around our reactors).

Orkeosaurus wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:First off i know where you're goin with this, and im well aware off the fact that coal produces way more co2 but what happens if a coal plant feths up? It burns down...yay!What happens to a nuclear plant?BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

The uranium can't explode. Only steam, which is also used in coal plants.

and you can't live in an area of 400km around the plant for the next 40 years happened before, will happen again!

Don't you mean 30k? (Where people still do live, even though they're not supposed to?)

Excess waste? You're not European, that' s why can't know about the Castor Trains that drive around Europe 24/7!Their load?Tonnes and tonnes of atomic waste...no excess waste, sure!

Who the hell said they don't produce waste? "Tons and tons" is a silly thing to say, since this things of this scale are usually measured in hundreds or thousands of tons. Nuclear plants produce very little waste, and there would be little problems with disposing of it if it weren't for irrational fear prohibiting anyone from actually trying to contain it (and then those same people turn around and say nuclear power is unworkable because there's no way to dispose of it; it's hilarious, really).

THINK CHERNOBYL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Different type of nuclear reactor. Not that big of a disaster. Overhyped because people are ignorant of radiation.

Did you ever hear of the Bhopal disaster? About twice as many people died, should no one continue to manufacture pesticides? Of course not. Chernobyl wasn't that big of a deal, nor could it happen here (we don't use the same type of control rods, we don't have a positive void coefficient, we have containment shells around our reactors).

It might sound nice and real when written in a forum, but reality is different mate! We could all be dead tommorrow...

Well there's a cop-out if I ever heard one. "Yeah, well...reality! I win the argument!"

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:First off i know where you're goin with this, and im well aware off the fact that coal produces way more co2 but what happens if a coal plant feths up? It burns down...yay!What happens to a nuclear plant?BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

The uranium can't explode. Only steam, which is also used in coal plants.

and you can't live in an area of 400km around the plant for the next 40 years happened before, will happen again!

Don't you mean 30k? (Where people still do live, even though they're not supposed to?)

Excess waste? You're not European, that' s why can't know about the Castor Trains that drive around Europe 24/7!Their load?Tonnes and tonnes of atomic waste...no excess waste, sure!

Who the hell said they don't produce waste? "Tons and tons" is a silly thing to say, since this things of this scale are usually measured in hundreds or thousands of tons. Nuclear plants produce very little waste, and there would be little problems with disposing of it if it weren't for irrational fear prohibiting anyone from actually trying to contain it (and then those same people turn around and say nuclear power is unworkable because there's no way to dispose of it; it's hilarious, really).

THINK CHERNOBYL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Different type of nuclear reactor. Not that big of a disaster. Overhyped because people are ignorant of radiation.

Did you ever hear of the Bhopal disaster? About twice as many people died, should no one continue to manufacture pesticides? Of course not. Chernobyl wasn't that big of a deal, nor could it happen here (we don't use the same type of control rods, we don't have a positive void coefficient, we have containment shells around our reactors).

It might sound nice and real when written in a forum, but reality is different mate! We could all be dead tommorrow...

.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Yes?


Let's stay with coal for now. At least until Australia finds another resource to make it's main export. I'm sure we can find some radioactive stuff around here somewhere. It's probably why so many of the animals here are deadly.

REALITY, PEOPLE! We could all die tomorrow so that means I'm right and you're wrong!

r3n3g8b0y wrote:
It might sound nice and real when written in a forum, but reality is different mate! We could all be dead tommorrow...

You're right, and that makes any consideration of the risks of nuclear power irrelevant. After all, we may simply fall through the planet, and give birth to a new universe.