Nuclear Energy good or bad?

[IndustrialEngr]

Lets face it, we can't rely on fossile fuels forever. One alternative source is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad?

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

You're the industrial engineer, you tell us.

[SolInvictus]

i found it interesting how a number of artists at Live Earth were wearing shirts protesting nuclear power. so much for the best alternative energy source we have at the moment, i guess global warming isn't that urgent an issue after all.

[AlexJS]

Considering the problems that arise with nuclear power, I'd say more natural forms of energy, like solar, wind, geo-thermal, the works.

[ThorKingOfTheVikings]

well nuclear energy is actually extreamley efficient but what really holds it back is people fear of another Chernoble. The science has become much less risky over the years since then but a possible nuclear meltdown will always be in the back of people minds. Also they dont know what to do with the nuclear waste.

[EndGameOmega]

At 7/23/07 01:32 AM, IndustrialEngr wrote: Lets face it, we can't rely on fossile fuels forever. One alternative source is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad?

It's a good thing. It's cheap, plentiful, and if you allow for reprocessing there's very little waste produced. There's no real reason not to use more nuclear.

[IndustrialEngr]

At 7/23/07 01:49 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: You're the industrial engineer, you tell us.

I already know what I think about it, I just wanted to know what others thought, but I'll put in some fun facts that I know about it.

Nuclear energy, right now, is the only viable source of alternative energy we have. Agianst things like oil and coal In matters of energy production, one kilogram of coal will make 3 kilowatt hours of electricity. enough to run 800,000 hairdryers for 2.5 hours. One kilogram of nuclear fuel produces 240,000 kilowatts of electricity compared to the 3Kw of electricity from coal The United States' current dependency on coal is higher then reserves which forces us to import from other countries and regions the same goes for oil in oil fired power plants. Also, the relative cost for a kilowatt hour of nuclear powered energy averages at $1.82 , compared to $2.13 for coal fired plants and 3.69 for natural gas fired power plants.

Alternative energy sources, such as wind, hydroelectric cannot make a huge impact on our needs. Hydroelectric is limited by the very few sites to be exploited. Biomass cannot outpace the growth of energy use, and wind and solar have problems in their low energy density and supply Nuclear power takes up less real estate than the usual green alternatives. It would reduce global carbon emissions by 15 percent and would require relatively modest growth in the US nuclear capacity. In order to eliminate one gigaton of carbon emissions per year, the amount of space needed would need to increase for nuclear by 5% of current capacity wind 300% and solar 6000%

The problem with nuclear power, is that people are scared of nuclear meltdowns, which really isn't a threat. What happened at Cheyrnoble was a series of mistakes and half asses construction by Russia. In theThree Mile Island incident, the containment building was intact and did it's job to help prevent the coolant failure from becoming a disaster, and no radiation was emitted.

People really need to stop worrying over the what if's and start looking at our current need of energy and nuclear is right there.

[Ravariel]

Agreed. There is no rational reason to be against nuclear power.

[AdamRice]

Nuclear fission hands down kicks the shit out of every other energy source we currently have the technology to utilize. It's safe as balls too, it's got the best safety record of any energy source. Just think of how many workers die in coal mines every year.

Chernobyl is possibly one of the most over hyped accidents in the history of the industrial revolution. Only 31 people and they were all workers at the plant. The media and other retarded anti-nuclear organizations would like you to believe that thousands died. Even if you ad in the deaths from cancer that may or may not have been caused by fallout from the plant, the number only increases to 56.

Let's compare this with some other industrial accidents.
Texas City Refinery explosion. On March 23, 2005. One of BP's refineries exploded and killed 15 people.

Bhopal, India Disaster, December 3, 1984. A gas leak at a pesticide plant outright killed 3,800 people in the area.

Average number of coal mining deaths each year: 1000

I hope you guys see my point.

[Tomsan]

I am totally pro nuclear power.. Although it seems that efficiency isnt near its potential, when we build nuc power plants more knowlegde is obtain also. This is very usefull for future practises.
there must be severe security measures tho, for greenpeace(oh how I hate those stupid treehuggers) infiltrated a nuclear powerplant not long ago pretty easily.

The waste problem is such a stupid non-argument, there is very little waste and although it will be here forever we can easily and savely store it. evntually we can shoot it in space e.g.

obviously nuclear power development should go hand in hand with solar and wind energy solutions

[Tomsan]

At 7/23/07 03:06 AM, AdamRice wrote:

Chernobyl is possibly one of the most over hyped accidents in the history of the industrial revolution.

this I agree with

Only 31 people and they were all workers at the plant. The media and other retarded anti-nuclear organizations would like you to believe that thousands died. Even if you ad in the deaths from cancer that may or may not have been caused by fallout from the plant, the number only increases to 56.

This is not true, although only a few people died of the explosion, many more died securing the meltdown. virtually all firefighters and soldiers that where send to secure the meltdown died within a few months.
This still doesnt count up to much, but the commen consensus is that many more people in the surrounding area did die of cancer later in life. I know some sites state this otherwise and some site tend to overreact (I saw the treehuggers site greenpeace estimating it on 100.000+ or so.
I think its safe to assume alot of people died as a result of the explosion. although I dont really know what that number is precisly, no-one really seems to know.

Let's compare this with some other industrial accidents.
Texas City Refinery explosion. On March 23, 2005. One of BP's refineries exploded and killed 15 people.

Bhopal, India Disaster, December 3, 1984. A gas leak at a pesticide plant outright killed 3,800 people in the area.

Average number of coal mining deaths each year: 1000

I hope you guys see my point.

I see your point and I agree with it 100% and I dont think an accident like chernobyl would happen in 1st world countries as fast as in the broke cold-war russia

[IllustriousPotentate]

If we had some safe way of disposing, reusing, or storing the waste, then it would be a great solution. Move the reactors underground, surrounded by a large, impermeable blast shell, which would limit, if not prevent, any air contamination or fallout from a potential accident.

[SupraZerg]

Less fossiles and contamination, less electronics, but renewable energy.

[EndGameOmega]

At 7/23/07 04:52 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: If we had some safe way of disposing, reusing, or storing the waste, then it would be a great solution.

We do. We can reprocess the spent nuclear rods into new fuel rods. The effect is the waste removed from the spent rods is highly concentrated, and very radioactive, which is a good thing as it will decay quickly an become inert in a very short time span. Additionally you have new fuel rods which had a significantly less over head cost associated with them.

Disposing of the high level waste produced can be done easily by mixing with various glasses and ceramics. This reduce leakage risks to near zero.

Move the reactors underground, surrounded by a large, impermeable blast shell, which would limit, if not prevent, any air contamination or fallout from a potential accident.

Not necessary. First off modern plants are almost impossible to meltdown, and the newer pebble bead type reactors are quite literally impossible to meltdown. If your worried about terrorists activity, there's no reason to. Even if something was able to breach into the reactor system, the majority of the material is solid, only the coolant is any type of fluid, and the amount of radioactive material that would be released from it is negligible.

[viceman]

it is the best energy source but if one of the plans goes up amerika has one country lost

chernobyl

[ErwinR0mmel]

France has the best idea (gasp!). They are currently the only western nation that keeps on approving the construction of new Nuclear power plants. I say, give it a try before you condemn or praise it!

[Stavros]

does anyone here live in australia? i do and let me tell you things would be a hell of alot better without coal mines and all the crappy shit. Nuclear energy is the way to go for any country that has a future in the world

[viceman]

short:

if an nuclear plant blows up one country of america gets waisted and we love america so much that i have to say: nuclear plant?

NO
think about it

[EndGameOmega]

At 7/24/07 05:20 AM, viceman wrote: short:

if an nuclear plant blows up one country of america gets waisted and we love america so much that i have to say: nuclear plant?

Umm, no it wouldn't. First off nuclear power plants can't explode. There is the very, very small risk of meltdown with a few of the older plants, but this would require a catastrophic failure of many different multi redundant safety system and complete human negligence. Even if a meltdown was to occur, radioactive release is nearly impossible due to the design of modern reactor cores. Newer reactor designs can not meltdown. There is no if ands or buts they just can't, they're designed such that physics prevent a meltdown condition.

Now that I've said that, let me also say this, every form of power production will damage the environment to some degree. You can't escape this, it's simply a fact of energy collection. Hell, the solar cells that environmentalists swoon over cause far more environmental damage then any nuclear plant will.

NO
think about it

I have, so have others, and I suggest you do as well.

[Emotional image]

And stop trying to use emotion as an argument aid. It's a logical fallacy and shows the weakness of your position.

Final question, what power source do you think can meet our needs, and is enviormentaly friendly?

[SmilezRoyale]

Vice you don't even know what nuclear means.

Nuclear is the second tier of changes of chemistry; the first is Chemical which is where you get the terms Chemical Recation and nuclear reaction

Chemical reactions are when you take Atmoms / Molecules and make them into new Molecules

Nuclear reactions are when you use Atoms to either break down or create new atoms [So far i think we've only managed to Split hydrogen, and Combine 2 hydrogen] The energy Yeilded.

Nuclear power has next to nothing to do with those passionate images of Nuclear explosions.

________________________________________
_____________________________

There's another reason why somone wouldn't wan't america to use Nuclear power, and it has nothing to do with fear of the enviormental consequences nor does it have anything to do with the fear of the money spent because of it.

[viceman]

there were already a meltdown in this world and we dont need it as long as the motherf***ing sun burns down on my beautiful hair ok

again for stupid people: that means i like solar energy

[viceman]

kids died so dont say it is save

if they would make a good one it would be fine for me but a good plant is to expensive for good ol uncle sam

[UWDarDar17]

At 7/24/07 10:55 AM, viceman wrote: kids died so dont say it is save

if they would make a good one it would be fine for me but a good plant is to expensive for good ol uncle sam
[cliche image of Chernobyl]

Again vice, you provide no actual arguement other than "it's bad" and "it will melt down". First of all, Chernobyl was a catastrophe because of one thing: faulty Soviet equipment. By the time of the accident, the USSR was so weak in so many regions that it could not provide needed resources to keep the plant safe. The damage was prevented from escalating by many of the plant's workers, who risked their lives to contain the meltdown.

You say that building good, safe power plants is too expensive for the government. Well, so is the oil subsidies and importation. And trust me, the last thing the government wants is to have a bunch of meltdowns across the nation on its hands.

I see building new power plants as this century's TVA.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/32 25build_6000_nukes.html

[Floirt]

At 7/23/07 06:53 AM, ErwinR0mmel wrote: France has the best idea (gasp!). They are currently the only western nation that keeps on approving the construction of new Nuclear power plants. I say, give it a try before you condemn or praise it!

Being french rocks these days. :D
Well, scientifcs are working on nuclear fusion , WAY better than the actual nuclear fission. :)
There's a prototype in Grenoble (anyways in europe)

[Sajberhippien]

Nuclear power is FAR better than coal and oil, but it's no good long-term solution. There's always waste, and no matter how deep we bury it, it will be dug up sooner or later. But I'd say it's nice to have, in combination with wind- water- and tidal power.
America has huge areas not used for anything, really. There's lots of space for windcraft there.

[Sajberhippien]

At 7/24/07 11:19 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Again vice, you provide no actual arguement other than "it's bad" and "it will melt down". First of all, Chernobyl was a catastrophe because of one thing: faulty Soviet equipment. By the time of the accident, the USSR was so weak in so many regions that it could not provide needed resources to keep the plant safe. The damage was prevented from escalating by many of the plant's workers, who risked their lives to contain the meltdown.

Although his argument isn't the best one, not to speak of his rethorics, the human factor is always to be accounted. In Sweden, we nearly had an accident at a nuclear plant last summer, and Sweden is said to have one of the world's safest power plants.

[Elfer]

At 7/24/07 11:19 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Again vice, you provide no actual arguement other than "it's bad" and "it will melt down". First of all, Chernobyl was a catastrophe because of one thing: faulty Soviet equipment.

Actually, even the soviet equipment was relatively safe. The problem was human error in overdriving the plant and not using nearly enough cooling, when sufficient cooling was available.

The thing is, nuclear plants have about a bajillion redundant safety features built into them so that catastrophic meltdowns that would cause significant damage just don't happen. Most anti-nuclear power activists are simply caught up in unfounded hysteria.

[SolInvictus]

At 7/24/07 01:34 PM, Elfer wrote: Most anti-nuclear power activists are simply caught up in unfounded hysteria.

but Homer Simpson caused inumerable meltdowns and catastrophic failures at his power plant, we can't risk such things happening!

[R-M-C]

See, we first ruin the ozone layer with pollution. Then more sun comes through! Then we use solar power! You must be saying: "A-hhhhh, thats the way to do it"!!! LOL!

[IndustrialEngr]

Chemical reactions are when you take Atmoms / Molecules and make them into new Molecules

Nuclear reactions are when you use Atoms to either break down or create new atoms [So far i think we've only managed to Split hydrogen, and Combine 2 hydrogen] The energy Yeilded.

The fission event used in modern nuclear reactors uses Uranium or Plutonium, and if it is a breeder reactor it uses thorium with Uranium to create a fissile form of Plutonium by using a source of nuclear irradiation.

Chernobyl had many faults in it. Number one was the half assed construction that went into it, and when the Russians were doing "tests" on the nuclear reactor they shut down a bunch safety systems to preform said tests. Plus a series of bad ideas and judgements contributed to it. The reactor became unstable during one of the low level portions of the testing, and because the safety protocoles were off the operators were not aware of the it. Which caused it to explode. The Russians had a high ego about what they could do with nuclear energy/bombs at the time (The Cold War) and were mainly testing the reactor in various sorts of forms which we really wouldn't do today.