PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear power.



Uncle_bob
Aug 28, 2008, 10:08 PM
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=aNqwRJJKfx8&feature=related

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MRC5KDqpZ_I&feature=related

I love youtube, it's full of clueless fools.

Stop being so fucking ignorant about nuclear power, read a fucking book. :disapprove:

MetaZedlen
Aug 29, 2008, 12:59 AM
Finally, someone who doesn't think that nuclear power is only nukes...

Syl
Aug 29, 2008, 01:30 AM
I love youtube, it's full of clueless fools.


I love youtube, it's full


I love youtube


youtube

There's the reason.

Mewnie
Aug 29, 2008, 01:42 AM
The big, big problem with nuclear power is what to do with the spent rods.

They're a bitch to store and nobody wants them to be buried in their backyards.

Seority
Aug 29, 2008, 02:21 AM
That's why we blast them into space, and hope to God that we never see them again.

:3

Blitzkommando
Aug 29, 2008, 03:04 AM
The big, big problem with nuclear power is what to do with the spent rods.

They're a bitch to store and nobody wants them to be buried in their backyards.

I take it that instead of a few thousand tons of nuclear waste every decade is less appealing than several million tons of conventional pollution produced through fossil fuels annually then?

In any event, there's this thing called 'reprocessing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing)' where spent fuel rods can be enriched back into nuclear fuel with approximately 5% waste versus 100% waste. Now, it's more expensive but the benefits of not having to mine as much uranium as well as producing less uranium waste are certainly appealing. Another consideration is that enrichment is necessary for mined uranium anyway so that portion of the expense is already there. Of course, that will likely not catch on in the US as we have plenty of underground mines left to fill at much less cost and located miles away from any population center.

Also, the vast majority of nuclear waste in the United States, that provides no industrial use, can be stored safely several hundred feet underground in mined out sections of Yucca Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain) or dozens of other underground waste cites. Not only are they deep underground and left alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository), the mines are out in the middle of nowhere where the population of humans is somewhere between none and few.

Check out the article on the nuclear fuel cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle) as well.

In any event, coal, oil, and natural gas are rather inefficient (understatement if there ever was one) compared to nuclear energy. But for some reason we seem to be one of the only countries with the capability and resources to convert to a nuclear-based energy policy yet still get spooked about an event that occured in a country that no longer exists that did everything, from the plant's construction, to its management, to the procedures used at the plant, absolutely wrong.

CelestialBlade
Aug 29, 2008, 09:16 AM
People hear the word "nuclear" and instantly think of something exploding in some huge violent way. It's relatively new technology, sure, but it would be foolish of us as a society not to pursue the *incredible* energy potential inherent in nuclear power, and I don't mean for destroying entire cities with bombs. The only problem with nuclear energy is that you're going to have a huge political piss-fight over EVERYTHING GOING WRONG and what to do with the waste (which is an incredibly overblown issue, nobody seems to complain about those clouds of smog engulfing entire cities). Said political garbage will last 30 years because we can't get anything done, and by that time I would like to expect to be driving an electric/hydrogen car.

Sekani
Aug 29, 2008, 10:52 AM
Lots of people make money by making people scared of things they don't need to be. Nuclear energy just happens to be an easy target. This little event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) probably hasn't helped either.

It's almost like air travel; even though statistically it's the safest method of travel, people are FAR more afraid of flying than driving... where the odds of actual death are exponentially higher.

Aisha379
Aug 29, 2008, 11:39 AM
Scientific advances themselves are not to be feared, but the possible application of those advances from humans is a very real threat, sadly.

While nuclear power itself may be safe under the right precautions and safety regulations, having that sort of power in the wrong hands will, undoubtedly, create a nuclear war.


I don't think most people are afraid of nuclear power itself, just what could happen if evil people somehow got a hold of it. The scientists who created the nuclear bomb lived with guilt for the rest of their lives, because they made something with such high destructive and life taking power, which has been used to kill quite a few people even since then.

Although I think changing our main energy source would be great as well, so I'm a little torn on the situation. One would think America has the right security and safety protocols to make it safe here. I certainly know I wouldn't want nuclear capabilities in a country run by some crazy dictator though. So I am somewhat torn on the situation.

DavidNel
Aug 29, 2008, 12:20 PM
Nuclear energy is a GREAT alternative fuel source... In fact, I'm going to college for Nuke E.

CelestialBlade
Aug 29, 2008, 12:58 PM
Nuclear energy is a GREAT alternative fuel source... In fact, I'm going to college for Nuke E.
That's awesome, I'm considering picking up a Nuclear Engineering course towards my Masters in Mechanical Engineering next year. One of my career choices is to be a design engineer working on alternative-fuel vehicles, and while I'm focused mainly on hydrogen and electric as more near-future alternatives, I really support the push for nuclear energy.

Mewnie
Aug 29, 2008, 01:10 PM
nuclear cars! >:3

But seriously, I'm not against nuclear power.

They tried to propose building one here in Alberta, but people shit bricks. Like the oilsands are any better http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/MagpieMouse/MewnPSU/Lulz/ohisee.gif

Seority
Aug 30, 2008, 03:59 AM
I heard today that "lots" of people are scared that there's too much info stored on the worldwide web and that all the service provider's will shut down and the internet, itself, will crash.
I love our world ^_^

W0LB0T
Aug 30, 2008, 09:54 AM
I heard today that "lots" of people are scared that there's too much info stored on the worldwide web and that all the service provider's will shut down and the internet, itself, will crash.
I love our world ^_^
Relevance???

Nuclear power Is quite clean, but its all the byproducts that it creates which is not so good. Its kind of like risk and reward, efficient clean burning power, but with radioactive waste and meltdowns.

Hurry the hell up with Fusion and solar power dammit!

afterthoughtz
Aug 30, 2008, 10:05 AM
Mehhhhh, i'll stick with blowin shit up!

Outrider
Aug 30, 2008, 01:39 PM
I'm not worried that nuclear energy is going to kill us all, but I will admit that I am very slightly paranoid by the fact that they just found out our local nuclear power plant was built on a major fault line.

Probably nothing is going to happen, but it is unsettling to some degree.

Donut_Hunter
Sep 1, 2008, 01:13 AM
Almost all of France's energy is nuclear. Is France a smoldering crater?

Tetsaru
Sep 1, 2008, 04:20 AM
As long as the people running the plants know what they're doing, then I'm all for it. It'd be nice to stop relying on oil all the time.

Btw, this reminds me... whatever happened to that super Hadron collider thing in Geneva(?) that was supposed to be started up sometime this month? I haven't heard any news about it lately... o_o

Mewnie
Sep 1, 2008, 12:21 PM
Well, the world hasn't imploded into mini black holes, so I think we're okay :3