Nuclear Power

Yay or nay?

IMO: Tis a good thing. Chenobrylulslyl (bah) was a result of inadequate knowledge and backwards political parties...

spending other peoples money on things for other people is never going to make everyone happy, it'll be half assed and retarded, and I think that thier backwards politics should not mean the end of nuclear power as a whole.

I believe that weening people off oil will end up with cheaper/cleaner/safer means of producing energy. So there is a waste element involved, but the actual quantity of waste is very small, and even then, a global initiative to spread the costs of say, sending the waste into space would lead to the most beneficial system of producing energy we have ever seen.

Similarly, the sooner we do it the better. Oil will always be mined because it is used for a vast array of other things, for example: the demand for plastics will probably not subside for along time, and not all plastics can be recycled, and thus, oil reserves should be limited to creating plastics.

Concidering oil is a fossil fuel it is not something we can mine from any nearby planets (should we ever have the ways and means to do such a thing) which makes it all the more precious.

Well, that's my very quickly written and ill informed opinion, what's yours?

--note: must figure out how to make a poll.

Sending waste to space would be a good idea if it weren't for the inherent danger of the vehicle blowing up on liftoff and then spreading the radioactive material all over the planet. Also, that stuff weighs a LOT! If I recall, most unmanned rockets can carry payloads weighing several tons. Problem is that we have thousands upon thousands of tons of the stuff. That would take so many rockets that we'd be unable to fund it.

Also, there are some plastics which are made with corn! Sounds weird but it's true. It's biodegradable and lasts for quite a long time.

Either way I'm with ya though. We need to get away from fossile fuels and towards nuke, wind and hydro energy. Just saw an article about a plac to develop water turbines similar to wind turbines. Basically, the put a REALLY HUGE, modified wind turbine into the water where a flow is known to be. Then, the water turns the turbine and we have electricity. So simple I wonder why no one ever tried it before.

Well, at least nuclear power plants would be good, even if cars weren't feasible. People complain about the dangers, but nuclear reactors have improved amazingly since the time of Chernobyl. Also, people complain about the waste left over, but 80% of that waste can be re-used for more power or for nuclear extraction.

The US needs to get over its irrational fears and start living in the 21st century...

Maybe we havent gotton over our fears because right in my backyard (NE Ohio), we found out in February 2002 that workers discovered a 6 x 5in hole in the Davis-Besse power plant's reactor head. Nuclear power is good, but not when you have companies more concerned about skimping on every dime they can than about inspections, upkeep and safety.

The real solution is solar: what if the every office building and house, and stadium had solar panels on the roof and sides (for the big office buildings).

PLease don't start bashing me about how impracticle that is, i know it is, but we need creative solutions...sooner or later one will become feasible.

I have a solar powered calculator. it HAS to be possible. ^_^

Why is this in Flame? What happened to the oft unused Science forum? Isn't it *perfect* for this topic?

I think it says a lot about some people here if it is assumed to be impossible to have a rational conversation about something like nuclear power.

butmunch: Chernobyl

Well, I guess I thought that some enviromentalists may have had a problem with it, move it if you want.

brzlianstud210, you raise some valid points, but in reality,[most western] people require a continual and reliable source of energy, this is something wind and solar can't provide. thus there will always be a need for a "mainframe" of power.

Many power companies can be subsidised by the government to prevent a loss leader situation. Though this will limit tax cut's, it will also limit overheads that would inherently be passed onto consumers. The reason I brought this topic up is because it's being discussed in the UK atm. (QS: flame forum inspired by greenpeace activists in Blair speech)

Over here in Cleveland we have a yearlong study going on about the feasibility of putting up wind towers far out on Lake Erie...

I know that solar/wind doesn't offer constant energy, but if you have something on as large of a scale as what I proposed, then the excess energy could be stored for lower production days. Or a hybrid electric grid could be built, whatever energy is needed beyond the production capabilities of the alternative sources could be supplememnted by traditional and/or nuclear power. Either way, it would be an enormous boon to oil conservation, and exponentially cleaner and more environmentally friendly then the immensly wasteful systems we have now. *says while typing on a computer with a 450w power supply*

nuclear power, although very clean, is also inefficient. It's just making heat to boil water to turn turbines. Isn't there a better way to make power then doing so? It seems like there's quite a bit of energy lost in the transferring from atomic to water.

Without nuclear power, most of us wouldn't be posting on Devh.

Ahh but this isn't always a bad thing...they can sell-off the hot water (by-product) to a water firm that would ideally be situated right next to them (they can distribute hot water to nearby towns). So in actual fact they can turn some of their inefficiency to use and therefore efficiency.