nuclear energy

[▽]

There's a lot of debating in my country how to save the enviroment. Everybody agrees on alternative sources as the solution but that isn't really efficient in this day and age. Basically we've got two camps, one says we should immediatly start with alternative sources, gradually turning our consumption to them. The others think that we should build nuclear plants to start reducing emissions while developing solar, wind, and other alternative sources. I Like the idea of nuclear plants but some still fear them. What is your opinion on it?

 

[Iridium]

Well as we all learned from Chernobyl nuclear power has it's consequences, but it is clean in the very least (producing energy anyway) Still alternatives such as wind, solar and water aren't the only ones we can really rely on.

I can also list a few as new alternatives, blimp air turbines, fussion energy, gamma radiation beamed to earth by giant satellites (ties in with solar) and lastly there's helium-3 which theoretically exists on the moon. Nuclear is one but it's not perfect with the disposal of the harmful materials the power plants produce as waste, everything other than diesel fuels is clean. (Than again I live within the blast zone of a nuclear power plant myself so of course I'm going to say this stuff =\)

 

[violent_anger]

"The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.[5]"

Wikipedia mentions soviet coverups, but if WHO is close, that would be 00.666% and 00.083% of people getting cancer respectively. This may just be me, but that doesn't sound too high, especially considering safety must have gone up in the past 20 years

 

[Antiquity]

I don't really like the idea of going over to nuclear power. Just the sound of the words are scary.

Yttrxium said, there are other alternative fuels we can use besides the most common ones.
It'd be best to start out using the alternatives and use nuclear power as a last resort should it come to it.

 

[violent_anger]

it's people like you who kept us from making airplanes

 

[Yannis]

Shut and deconstruct all of the nuclear plants on this planet! NOW! AT THIS VERY MOMENT! CLOSE THEM ALL NOW!! I DONT CARE, TAKE THE ENERGY FROM YOUR URIN WHATEVER YOU USE, LEAVE THE NUCLEAR BEHIND!!!!!!!

 

[Phoenix]

Shut and deconstruct all of the nuclear plants on this planet! NOW! AT THIS VERY MOMENT! CLOSE THEM ALL NOW!! I DONT CARE, TAKE THE ENERGY FROM YOUR URIN WHATEVER YOU USE, LEAVE THE NUCLEAR BEHIND!!!!!!!

No .

 

[Johnny Stooge]

Shut and deconstruct all of the nuclear plants on this planet! NOW! AT THIS VERY MOMENT! CLOSE THEM ALL NOW!! I DONT CARE, TAKE THE ENERGY FROM YOUR URIN WHATEVER YOU USE, LEAVE THE NUCLEAR BEHIND!!!!!!!

lol.

Isn't nuclear energy meant to cleaner for the most part? And don't you need more coal power stations compared to nuclear ones?
Get rid of coal, find a suitable disposal method, and then movie onto nuclear power.
All the while increasing research into alternatives so that we may switch over.

 

[▽]

If we want to spare the environment we should go nuclear now, it's pretty safe. If they'd use thorium as the splicing ingredient it would be even better. There is plenty of it, it's easier to get (less then one percent of rocks that are used for winning uranium is uranium ore) and the decay of thorium is less longer then that of uranium. Wind energy fluctuates too much in efficiency and solar panels are expensive and only produce 20% of the energy of the light that falls on them. Of course we should improve it, mainly solar energy but the research on fusion is promising but it takes at least 25 years to get the first fusion reactor running we actually can use for energy production.

 

[Yannis]

Nuclear waste!

The 1.000 year curse! It has no final place yet! Even if we stop Nuclear now, the shadow it leaves behind is not going to fade during our lifetime! The terrorism! It is a fact that terrorism is spreading, also Islam spreading makes the groups like Al-Qaeda to grow within! One Nuclear Plant as target is going to influence many things for maybe 100 years and if it happens in windy place the radiation can move 1000 kilometers or MORE! The fear isnt on Nuclear accident anymore, like Tshernobyl! The fear is on ONE SINGLE ATTACK TO ONE NUCLEAR PLANT! WHAT IF SOMEONE WITH EXPLOSIVES IS CONSTRUCTING ONE OF MANY UPCOMING PLANTS??!?!?! AND LEAVES TE EXPLOSIVES THERE AND WHEN THEY START USING THE PLANT... BOOOOOMMM!!!!!!!!

Nuclear is one of the worst things ever invented! Let´s say the oil disappears and then everyone use Nuclear!!!!???!! THERE IS OUR NEW OIL, URANUM!!!! THANK YOU FOR NUCLEAR!!?!!! LETS ATTACK COUNTRIES WITH URANUM!! NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE AS EXPECTED..

 

[Iridium]

Yannis I think you should just take a deep breath, leave the thread and come back an hour later.
It does some good to you mental state of mind, seriously just take a brake

 

[Yannis]

Yannis I think you should just take a deep breath, leave the thread and come back an hour later.
It does some good to you mental state of mind, seriously just take a brake

No, I wont write here again, the whole nuclear topic is making me sick always.

I dont support Nuclear.

 

[Phoenix]

I dont support Nuclear.

Would it make you feel any better if I told you that nobody cares? You're being annoyingly close-minded.

 

[Yannis]

Would it make you feel any better if I told you that nobody cares?

I know already and that´s the problem.

Nobody cares of my superior ideals!much:maybe a bit:

You're being annoyingly close-minded.

How? That I am against Nuclear and its good sides?

 

[Lancelot]

End point: Support whichever way you want to

I would only support nuclear for the greater good, otherwise i'd just stick to alternative energy sources

 

[▽]

What i meant was this, use alternative sources right away and have a lacking energy grid, or go nuclear while developing alternative sources.

 

[TheMuffinMan]

The fact that environmentalists have campaigned so vehemently against Nuclear Energy, is the reason Nuclear energy has yet to become entirely safe. It's because of environmentalists that there are laws preventing any company from further developing and researching more efficient and safer ways to use Nuclear Energy, and because of those same laws, existing Nuclear Power Plants aren't even allowed to be updated with newer equipment, which means that a Nuclear Plant still running from the 70's that's starting to beak down, can't even be fixed or given newer and safer reinforcing, it ha to keep running with broken down equipment. It's stupid lobbying against Nuclear Power that has prevented it from ever improving, and has kept us from discovering ways to drastically reduce the nuclear waste produced, or ways to destroy the nuclear waste, or ways to perhaps even double the efficiency of the energy we could get from the process. With thorough research and development to bring Nuclear Power to modern science standards, instead of leaving it's technology in the 70's, a handful of Nuclear Power plants in the United States could attribute more then 75% of the country's electrical power.

 

[▽]

Thanks muffinman, you just increased my hatred for tree-hugging hippies has just increased, they're just terrorists.

 

[Yannis]

The fact that environmentalists have campaigned so vehemently against Nuclear Energy, is the reason Nuclear energy has yet to become entirely safe. It's because of environmentalists that there are laws preventing any company from further developing and researching more efficient and safer ways to use Nuclear Energy, and because of those same laws, existing Nuclear Power Plants aren't even allowed to be updated with newer equipment, which means that a Nuclear Plant still running from the 70's that's starting to beak down, can't even be fixed or given newer and safer reinforcing, it ha to keep running with broken down equipment. It's stupid lobbying against Nuclear Power that has prevented it from ever improving, and has kept us from discovering ways to drastically reduce the nuclear waste produced, or ways to destroy the nuclear waste, or ways to perhaps even double the efficiency of the energy we could get from the process. With thorough research and development to bring Nuclear Power to modern science standards, instead of leaving it's technology in the 70's, a handful of Nuclear Power plants in the United States could attribute more then 75% of the country's electrical power.

You may call me hippie, but I dont allow something like that. They either stop it entirely OR make it all safe. The present laws dont help anyone! :/

I wtched Penn&Teller BS, nuclear episode. They made good points like Muffinman(havent seen u much btw), but I dont like how they bash the opinions of us, those who oppose Nuclear... People should also remember that its not good to see only two sides, because Im not like those some people. Im fine with Nuclear, IF it would be safe.

Only one person can do some attack to a plant, so they should do new technology where the generators are shutting down if the "shell" is broken as example. And also doing high-detailed base-work when building a plant: Make sure that there are no waters and fluids, where leaked material from factory itself could spread..

 

[▽]

But that's the whole issue, they can't improve or make it safe. All of that because the irrational fear of new technology. The irony, unsafe situations that may exist because people tried to prevent them, with the wrong way that is.