| Page 1 of 2 |
| Is nuclear power OK? |
| Yes |
|
75% |
[ 51 ] |
| No |
|
25% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
 Posted: Thu, 17th Mar 2011 22:46 Post subject: Nuclear power, yes or no? |
|
 |
A nuclear disaster is about to hit Japan and the nuclear debate is hot again -- 25 years after the Chernobyl meltdown.
My biggest complaint about nuclear power is the waste, because it is dangerous to all life on earth. As it is there's no real solution for the waste. Not right here, right now anyway. Radiation levels will remain dangerous for 240.000 years, or 2400 centuries.
240.000 years may well be beyond the end of our own civilization. It seems like ages ago when Jesus was walking on water, but that's just a "mere" 2000 years ago. So considering the huge timespan, I think the risk of something happening with the dangerous waste is too great. And if people get radiation sickness the rest of their life will probably be ruined by cancer.
Some kind of maintenance to the storage facility will probably necessary every now and then, and during so many years the cost may be astronomical. The nuclear plant itself also has to be dismantled after some time -- very expensive also.
And there's the usual set of disadvantages. Uranium supplies are limited, evil bearded Talibans want the plutonium waste for a dirty bomb, building the plant is expensive and time consuming. And as Japan has now shown: the nuclear facility itself can also create a national disaster if the unexpected happens. Even if you are the most technically advanced nation on the planet.
The benefit of nuclear power is a quick and large boost in power supply, using readily available technologies. Plus CO2 emissions are much less. But I just don't think that's worth it. Building new plants will take 1 or 2 decades -- and by then sustainable energy will probably proliferate quickly.
But mainly: if things do go wrong you are seriously fucked. Nuclear power has only been around for 50 years or so and things have already gone wrong a couple of times, both with plants and waste. If we can't handle 50 years, then I don't see how we plan to safely store all that waste for eternity. I think safety is more important than a quick fix for our need for electricity.
| Lopin18 wrote: | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Mar 2011 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
No ofc! There are other better options.
The Only Good Communist Is A Very Dead Communist
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Mar 2011 23:13 Post subject: |
|
|
If green hippies are against something, I'm for it by default.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Mar 2011 23:52 Post subject: |
|
|
i've already had a talk sometimes ago about energy crisis
don't feel like doing it again, i know it'll end
in before "lulz you can just store wastesz in big big holes in desertsz or throw it to spaaaccee"
| ScoobyDoh wrote: | | No ofc! There are other better options. |
sadly, there isn't
there is not a single way of producing mass energy (yet) without huge ecological drawback
because no one will possibly make massive cuts in energy consumption, we are stuck with building more and more nucelar plant and hope research will give us ability to use power of nuclear fusion or drastic decrease in waste coming from fission before there is nuclear wastes everywhere
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah the waste is a problem, but the containment we have today is good, and it will probably get better in time.
For the time being it's the best power source on Earth. Until they make ITER fully operational and fusion reactors in mass production I doubt we'll see a better solution for our growing energy needs...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65078
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | China doesn't really give a toss - I think they're planning for like 25 new nuclear plants right now. Hippies just get beat with a police baton over there so maybe they deserve to have world dominance.  |
And guess which is the other country that is going to not give a damn about the risks of nuclear? 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-italy-nuclear-idUSTRE72D6IH20110314
There will probably be a referendum though, unless our absolute monarch decides that it has to be done without using silly democratic tools, as regularly happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:23 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Untill someone can come up with a suitable replacement, I say yes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65078
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 00:32 Post subject: |
|
|
@OranosThe Mighty: Don't worry, I'm gearing myself up for that. I've found someone more reliable than Ezio 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:07 Post subject: |
|
|
It should certainly be reconsidered in countries like Japan that are prone to natural disasters, imo
Japan has some of the best anti-earthquake infrastructure in the world and it proved not to be enough :E
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:08 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | Untill someone can come up with a suitable replacement, I say yes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:14 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:51 Post subject: |
|
|
my complain is why it takes a nuclear accident to talk about the implications of nuclear power.
that whole"nuclear waste we can never get rid of no matter how deep we bury it" issue is always present
asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51399
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 01:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes.
Until nuclear fusion or cold fusion is successfully achieved, nuclear fission is pretty much the only way to keep up with the most advanced countries energy demands.
IMO.
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 02:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it's the way to go right now.
Nuclear plants do have a risk of meltdown, but in the future the risk is only going to get smaller. Waste is a problem, but we will have dug this planet dry in a few hundred years anyway, I feel we will have bigger problems then. And most likely technological advancement will find a way to get rid of it.
Plus, when you consider the other choice is primarily thermal plants running on fossil fuels...where you can't even control where the waste goes, instead we just pump it into our atmosphere, yeah nuclear is better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 03:17 Post subject: |
|
|
yes, most definitely. one only needs to compare the environmental damage done by nuclear and caloric power plants over the last few decades and it becomes rather obvious.
regarding japan: build em in an area prone to earthquakes is asking for trouble. but then again, they didn't really have that much of a choice.
still, i'd prefer alternative energy sources whenever possible (and efficient), here in austria for example we have shitloads of water and wind power plants, but you just can't do that in every other country due to geographic restrictions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 04:11 Post subject: |
|
|
I say let it happen, I'm curious to see if Godzilaa and the giant moth come rising from the water.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Invasor
Moderator
Posts: 7638
Location: On the road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 08:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Fuck Nuclear plants, gimme Fusiooon.
i5 6600k @ 4.3 GHz | MSI z170 Gaming M7 | 32GB Kingston HyperX Fury | 850 Evo 500GB | EVGA 1070 SC | Seasonic X-660 | CM Storm Stryker
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 08:37 Post subject: |
|
|
If there hadn't been corruption, economical incentives to cheat, poor management and some dimwit decision to build nuclear power plants along the coastline of a country that is basically sitting where 4 different continental plates meet and where it's known to experience massive earth quakes and tsunamis, it wouldn't be a problem. Add to that the fact that building new reactors based on thorium would completely eliminate the risk for meltdown. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled instead of dug into the ground etc. etc. etc.
The alternative, to fill half the area of a small country with ugly fans and massive solar panels just isn't a viable solution. Of course, covering the uninhabited deserts of Africa with high efficiency solar panels could actually make a dent, but the price to draw cables, build and maintain expensive solar panel technology on that scale, that's something that just isn't possible.
Currently most power produced that isn't nuclear comes from coal and oil plants. I'd rather see that we used updated nuclear technology until fusion becomes a viable alternative (2040-2050). Also, a Nuclear Plant should be dismantled after a maximum of 25 years of use to allow modern more safe nuclear technology to replace it instead of going cheap and keep using the old one until it fails.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 11:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I didn't see that one coming. The majority votes in favour.
The waste alone is reason for me to vote against. I value safety and a healthy environment. I think sustainable energy is a means to achieve that goal, and as long as there isn't a 100% safe solution for the waste (or plants) I do not want to risk public health and the environment. If someone could give me that 100% guarantee that everything will be safe, then I wouldn't mind nuclear power.
I think the most important disadvantage of current sustainable energy sources is the looks, and most people are a little ashamed to admit this. A significant part of the population does not like the way a windmill or solar cell look. Understandably, it does change the landscape. But so do factories, light pollution (orange glow above cities) and removing all the cows from meadows for cheap dairy. The difference with me though is I can live with the looks if I think about the gain: clean and safe energy. Moreover, windmills and solar cells aren't eternal -- unlike radioactive waste. Sustainable energy will keep evolving and changing. A large number of different varieties of sustainable energy will constitute the global energy stock. It's not all windmills and solar cells.
And I don't want to sound like Harry Potter, but in a couple of decades "invisibility cloaks" will be physically possible. Wrap such a cloak around a windmill -- who knows . I guess dingo_d can tell us all about the uses of metamaterials and wavelengths smaller than those of visible light.
| Lopin18 wrote: | | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 11:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Nuclear waste.. With the recent advances in low-budget space shuttling, I expect all highly-toxic human waste to be shipped to the sun, or thrown outside the solar system..
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 11:53 Post subject: |
|
|
What if a rocket blows up in the atmophere? We would spred radioactive waste all over the earth. Store it on earth until something usefull can be made out of it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 11:57 Post subject: |
|
|
There is nuclear waste is half-life of hundreds of years.. In order to start using it it will need to sit tight for 1000 years..
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 12:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| nouseforaname wrote: | my complain is why it takes a nuclear accident to talk about the implications of nuclear power.
that whole"nuclear waste we can never get rid of no matter how deep we bury it" issue is always present |
It's the same shit everyfucking time. Same with that planecrash a while ago people started talking about how safe it really is flying.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Mar 2011 12:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| StrEagle wrote: | | There is nuclear waste is half-life of hundreds of years.. In order to start using it it will need to sit tight for 1000 years.. |
I was thinking that maybe something usefull could made out of radioactive waste. Haven't they already begone using some of the old waste?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
