Nuclear Power

Post Reply New Topic

So now, in the western world, ministers and politicians are waking up to the fact that we need an alternative energy source. Their thinking always seems to follow laterally: Wind is safe, wind is powerful, but wind is also intermittent and unreliable. Think again, what isn't unreliable: Tidal energy: Nothing easier to harness than the movement of the sea. But doh, the scars which selfish people can't bear to have on their landscape. ALSO safe, geothermal. But you have to dig underground....*light bulb on* maybe the issue isn't safety, the issue has to be which fuel can generate most energy in the shortest timescale. *PING* Nuclear! Clean, cheap, huge energy quantity. Too bad about the lingering risk of HUGE scale catastrophies, it is a risk that must be taken. *Politician makes insubstantial speech about nuclear power*

I think nuclear fuel in itself is the ultimate enetgy source, the critical factor in safety terms is wether we can contain the reactors so they are never exposed. The soviets couldn't do this at Chernobyl, 1986, but neither could the Americans with Three Mile Island in '79.
I also think...that we cannot afford to be too emotive about the planet at risk because, unless energy output can be increased, there will be very few people left to enjoy the world. And the purpose of life is enjoyment...so we say.
So, poll your faith in nuclear and feel free to post your opinions on it.

The ulitmate reality of chernoybl and three mile island is that if safety systems were allowed to function as designed, both accidents would never have occured. In the case of three mile island, safety systems were overridden by operators and at chernoybl, they were shut off completely.

My only apprehension about nuclear power is the profit vs. safety mentality that owners take on.

I used to be an opponent of nuclear power, but right now, I believe that it should be considered a legitimate solution for our dependence on unreliable foreign oil. I am fully aware of the dangers of nuclear power, but it seems that France and Belgium have managed quite well with nuclear power. The problem is that the profitable development of other sources of energy such as wind and solar are years away.

True, and when they were developed we would have the problem of people complaining that the turbines are a blot on the landscape. It us this mentality I can't stand. People cannot complain about power stations on aesthetic grounds.....
One thought I've had about solar is that, if global warming continues, the intensity of sunlight will increase and disproportionately at places where the ozone layer is weak. Could we capitalise on this by errecting more solar panels or is there some difficulty I have not considered?

I think encouraging enegry conservation in the way of tax breaks for people with alt. enegry sorces for homes and businesses (as the US does with the owners of hybrid autos) would be a start in helping to solve the enegry crisis that looms in our future.

The other option, is nucluear power. clearly we can not pur reactors in cars and trucks with the technology we posess at this time, nor would it be fesiable for us to have such power sources at homes and businesses, but more reactors in more places for power is one way to curb our dependance on coal, oil and natural gas. The waste issues do pose a major problem, however, it is possible that the future may hold better disposal options that we havent even begun to imagine.

personally, I plan to install solar cells for aux power and backup when I eventually get a house built. it isnt much, but its doing my part. if we all do just a little, then eventually it will add up. Know what I mean?

*sounds kinda weird comming from me though, Im basically conservitive, politicallly speaking, yet I push conservation and alt eneg. sources.... *

Who's still got their bucks on cold fusion then? Hohoho

I know what you mean. I'd be looking to do the same if only it was warm enough in the UK. At the moment all I can do is make sure I switch my lights off when they're not in use

presently there is only enough Uranium to run reactors for 17 years.. build more.. just do the math...

the cold war was an excuse to produce plutonium.. and store it in MERVS till the Peak Oil crisis could be fabracated.. and scare people into justifying "Fast Breeder Reactors", they run on plutonium and create more plutonium than they use.. but they are HOT and dangerous.

the Hydrogen (H2) fuel scheme is just that.. a con job.. it will take nuclear plants to make enough H2 to make it comercial, but H2 can not be stored for any length of time or run through pipes.,it leaks out of everything because it is the smallest molecule, it takes a tremendous and i am talking Biblical Tremendous amount of energy to make it.
and you will have to have a hybred electric car to drive to the station if you park your car for a couple weeks. it is a farce, it is nothing more than a Corporate give away.. of tax dollars. and there wont be much left after the 2 TRILLION DOLLARS the Immoral and disasterous Iraqi war will cost in the next couple years... on top of the 7 trillion dollars debt presently incured and the 45 trillion that will be given.. to subdize the pharmacutical and medical corporations profits to fail to take care of the baby boomers elder care.

There exists the techonology for a solar program to create 3 maybe 4 solar farms 10 miles square across the South West that could produce up to 72% of the daytime energy needed.. there is a new light bulb that will cut lighting streets by 29% in the next 6 years.

Hemp Oil from non drug comercial hemp could produce enough renewable non poluting fuel to free us from forign oil, it only costs $140 to change a car to use both gas and hemp oil.. if we didnt have an criminal Oil Cartel running the country through puppet in the white house we would be already using the solar power from Clintons progran that Bu$h canceled his first week in office.

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

http://www.naihc.org/

http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

there are non Carbon chain automotive oils like AMSOIL, that with a Dual bypass filter only need the oil changed every 250,000 miles and lubricate much better and remove combustion by procducts down to 4 microns.. resulting in extended ware up to and over 1,000,000 miles on an engine and transmission, there are semi trucks with over 3 million on them and still have good compression. that alone could free us from using ANY forign oil.

there is a small commuter car that runs on AIR, it goes about 300K on 10 minutes of fillup at lower speeds. there is even a more effecient hydrolic system for larger heavy vehicals http://www.MDI.com

we will need oil in the future for agriculture production, tractors and fretilizer.. farming will have to be local to reduce transportation.. globalization is a con job .. there isnt enough fuel left to haul stuff around the world.. we have to make it locally..

it will take solar, wind, BIO FURL:hemp oil, extended lubricants and CONSERVATION if we want to stave off the EMENENT DISASTER looming in the near future.. a fuel crisis will result in extensive famin, massive widespread starvation and an end to democratic rule... and civilaztion all together.

we need to quit believing the Corporate lies and miss information about alternative fuels and energy procuction.. the media is OWNED by 4 Right Wing Corporations that spin the news and minipulate us through propaganda.

There is thing that is seldom said about the question: only a small percent of Americans can understand the difference between a reasonable safe nuclear power plant and a dangerous one.

To say that Chernobyl had an inadequate containment, implies and ability to calculate adequate containment. Then there is the discussion of the problems posed by Chernobyl being a lithium reactor (the reader must know a lithium reactor from a light water reactor). That is to say it takes some scientific training to know the difference.

Next: to say that there is no statisitical evidence that anyone was hurt as result of three mile island implies that the reader is compentant enough statistics to know the difference,

When I was discussing exaclty this question in an introductory college chemistry class last semester I asked the class if they would accept: trust me I'm a scientist.

They actually said yes they would. Then I asked: suppose I am Mengola (the physician who ran Nazi death camps). They laughed, but I had made my point. It does not seem wise to trust scientist when the question is beyond the comprehension of the public.

Something has to be done about greenhouse gasses, and nuclear energy is reasonably low cost alternative to fossil fuels, but I understand that the public has intelligent fears about it. The reasons that I disagree with their fears comes from years of study that they do not have, and telling them to shut up and accept my opinion is more than a little elitists. So alternatives like solar which may be expensive (solar panels are not cheap) might be best answer.

Rabbit

i live in new zealand so we really dont need nuclea power for the reasons that we have so much natral resorses we can use instead so there is no need for it but if u live in texas and there isent as much resorss u can use for power then i think in that reson its exceptable.