...please explain your stance. I just want to understand.

8/16/2007 8:33:08 PM

power? bombs? theory of nucleus? What's your deal?

8/16/2007 8:42:51 PM

Power.

8/16/2007 9:17:59 PM

well, i'm not anti-nuclear

but if I was, it would be because of this



and this



duh

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2007 9:51:38 PM

in other words, it would be because you are ignorant? got it...

8/16/2007 10:17:35 PM

The first is a can of radioactive waste. It has clearly been handled with the utmost of care.

The second is the result of a deliberate and intentional deviation from procedures in a plant that was designed with positive reactivity coefficients and a design methodology that is 100% the opposite of today's reactors.

8/16/2007 10:19:57 PM

seriously though

get a life

8/16/2007 10:27:09 PM

Fission power really does appear to be the way to go, at least until fusion comes along.

It's sad so many are opposed to it.

8/16/2007 10:36:28 PM

^What I would like to know is why most people go ape shit as soon as they hear the word "nuclear." As if anything having to do with radioactive materials is somehow an instant cancer-causer and environmental-killer or something. The level of ignorance really is astounding. And unfortunate, considering that nuclear power is pretty much our only (realistic) option for energy after fossil fuels.

The idiocy of it all really does kill me. People have no problem getting neuro-toxins injected into their faces in order to look younger, but nuclear power is somehow too dangerous? Wtf mate?

8/16/2007 11:05:01 PM

forget it

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 11:19 PM. Reason : that whole post]

8/16/2007 11:19:23 PM

^^It's because your average Joe has absolutel no understanding of nuclear energy.

Ignorance rules in this world, the US is no exception. People latch on to fear and hysteria rather than logic and reason.

8/16/2007 11:23:42 PM

Solar, wind, and water power are fine too.

8/16/2007 11:41:10 PM

^I think that they would make fine supplements to the electrical grid, but I have serious doubts that they could ever supply our current levels of power consumption, even if they're all put together. And they're not without their disadvantages (solar = pwnt on a cloudy day, for instance). Nuclear has so many advantages that it really is the next logical step to take imo.

8/17/2007 12:08:35 AM

Quote :

"please explain your stance. I just want to understand."

We don't know what to do with the waste. Radioactive waste poses an incredibly difficult environmental problem which, as far as I know, has yet to be dealt with.


When we figure out how to properly dispose or recycle radioactive waste in an environmentally acceptable way, I'll welcome nuclear energy with open arms.

8/17/2007 12:11:21 AM

Quote :

"^What I would like to know is why most people go ape shit as soon as they hear the word "nuclear." As if anything having to do with radioactive materials is somehow an instant cancer-causer and environmental-killer or something."

What about the nuclear waste problem? I am not knocking nuclear power, but I am also not very familiar with how to make it safely feasible.

So can a proponent explain what to do with the waste? Isn't the waste actually a serious cancer/environmental hazard? How do you dispose it off with the guarantee that it won't come back to haunt humans?

8/17/2007 12:40:34 AM

^ and ^^

the reason we have any problem with waste is because in the US there are no reprocessing plants. There are a number of reasons why we don't have them, some economic, some regulatory, some propoganda. But we should have them.

Even with existing plants (which are far less efficient than new designs) you only end up with about a marble of un-recyclable waste per year, per reactor.

The only problem we have with waste now is that ignorant people keep blocking the Yucca mountain project. The transportation issue is a non-issue, there is ample storage for all the existing waste, and future was will be drastically less than the initial movement.

The transport containers designed for nuclear waste can withstand multiple hits from short range missiles without rupture, much less a collision or improvised explosive device (being that the two big opponent arguments against the yucca transport project are terrorism or train accidents).

8/17/2007 1:15:45 AM

i'm pro nuclear power and pro whatever weapon keeps us ahead of the rest of the world

8/17/2007 1:36:21 AM

Quote :

"When we figure out how to properly dispose or recycle radioactive waste in an environmentally acceptable way"

Quote :

"The only problem we have with waste now is that ignorant people keep blocking the Yucca mountain project"

8/17/2007 2:02:20 PM

Quote :

"It's because your average Joe has absolutel no understanding of nuclear energy"

i resent that

8/17/2007 4:30:33 PM

8/17/2007 6:27:56 PM

Quote :

"The only problem we have with waste now is that ignorant people keep blocking the Yucca mountain project"

Ignorance eh? Wiki can solve that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

Quote :

"In March 2006, the majority staff of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a 25 page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet" [2] The conclusions were: Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal The cost of not moving forward is extremely high Nuclear waste disposal capability is an environmental imperative Nuclear waste disposal capability supports national security Demand for new nuclear plants also demands disposal capability "

Given the money spent researching the Yucca Mountain territory, and the need for nuclear disposal based on our current usage, I can see why moving forward on this is indeed the practical solution.

The downside is the classic slippery slope argument. By allowing this facility to be constructed, we are:

1) Implementing a short term solution to a long term problem. Safe disposal areas are indeed finite, so we're assuming that in the future a long term solution (reusing/recycling waste, implementing another energy source, etc) will be available. It's not a bad assumption, but it is an assumption nonetheless.

2) accepting the huge amount of resources needed to safeguard both the nuclear power plants and the disposal areas. Having been inside a nuclear facility, I can tell you that it's a logistical nightmare. The power plants and disposal areas will also require safeguarding long after they become inactive.

3) trading one set of problems for another. True nuclear power will help ease our dependence on oil, which reduces our dependency on the Middle East, and coal, which help with current air pollution problems. Nuclear pwer however is expensive both in the short and long term, and the security risks are enormous.


Moving forward on the Yucca Mountain project is currently a reasonable option. I might go so far as to support it. It needs to be made clear that, however, that Yucca Mountain cannot become a license to expand nuclear power. I would demand a significant amount of research funding go towards finding long term solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

Band aides have their uses, but they only plug the leak. They don't fix the problem.

8/17/2007 6:56:02 PM

So what would you suggest we do to support the growing demand for energy? Demand on high demand days (like the past few days) already exceeds the generating capacity of utilities, forcing them to buy power from other utilities and non-regulated producers. Every year demand increases, yet utilities are blocked from building nuclear plants to increase base load capacity, or building coal/gas plants to support peak loads. Alternative power sources are not ready/capable of the large scale production neccessary to meet demand. Alternative production also has a lot political issues to overcome as well; for example, several counties in western NC have banned or are considering banning wind farms in order to preserve 'viewsheds'.

Quote :

"so we're assuming that in the future a long term solution (reusing/recycling waste, implementing another energy source, etc)"

Successful recylcing programs do exist in other countries.

Quote :

"The power plants and disposal areas will also require safeguarding long after they become inactive."

You do realize that nuclear power plants can and have been decommisioned and the land released for unrestricted use, right?

Quote :

"Nuclear pwer however is expensive both in the short and long term, and the security risks are enormous."

Yes, they're so expensive utilities can't wait to build those giant nuclear money pits. If you've been in a nuclear plant as you say, you'd realize that the security risks are way overblown and that security at the majority of plants is well in hand.

8/17/2007 7:46:58 PM

Quote :

"1) Implementing a short term solution to a long term problem. Safe disposal areas are indeed finite, so we're assuming that in the future a long term solution (reusing/recycling waste, implementing another energy source, etc) will be available. It's not a bad assumption, but it is an assumption nonetheless."

First of all, modern plants are far more fuel efficient.

Second of all, the SOLUTION is reprocessing plants. This alone reduces the ultimate radioactive waste by upwards of 85%.

Quote :

"2) accepting the huge amount of resources needed to safeguard both the nuclear power plants and the disposal areas. Having been inside a nuclear facility, I can tell you that it's a logistical nightmare. The power plants and disposal areas will also require safeguarding long after they become inactive. "

Um, if you've been inside a plant you would know there are already HUGE amounts of resources being spent safeguarding the plants and tombs. Moving all the nuclear waste to a single location outside the reaches of civilian populations would only REDUCE the overall resources needed for safety and security.

Quote :

"3) trading one set of problems for another. True nuclear power will help ease our dependence on oil, which reduces our dependency on the Middle East, and coal, which help with current air pollution problems. Nuclear pwer however is expensive both in the short and long term, and the security risks are enormous."

Nuclear power is THE CHEAPEST long term energy solution in the world. Period. You cannot show me a shred of evidence that any other non-fossil energy source can even approach the economic viability of Nuclear in commercial scale NOW.

The security risks are the same as nearly any other plant. The only way a nuclear plant can cause human casualties to the civilian population is if someone INSIDE the facility causes a core to go critical and meltdown. Which is absolutely the most unlikely scenario EVER. Bombing a plant, hitting it with an aircraft et al (terrorist attacks) would only shut the plant down. It would never release significant amounts of radiation or cause a widespread fallout. This is a huge myth.

8/17/2007 8:20:37 PM

Quote :

"go critical"

Not to nit-pick, but a critical reactor is not a bad thing. Neither is a super critical reactor for that matter. Meltdown can occur regardless of the condition reactor--in fact a reactor that's meltdown-ing will probably end up being subcritical in very short order.

8/17/2007 10:50:29 PM

unless a reactor is super critical, no major damage is going to be caused by a meltdown

8/18/2007 1:45:11 AM

^Absolutely wrong. Meltdown is the result of inadequate heat removal. It has nothing to do with the condition of the reactor and can occur whether or not the reactor is critical, supercritical, or subcritical. Reactors operate supercritical all the time--startup, up-powers, poison depletion, etc.

8/18/2007 6:17:06 AM

For some reason most people are only looking at the new disadvantages of nuclear power, and ignoring the existing costs of the other power sources we use now because they are used to them. If we already relied primarily on nuclear power and wanted to switch to coal, people would be saying "you can't, it will put Millions of tons of SO2 and NOX into the air."

8/18/2007 10:44:06 AM

Here's a good thread on stardestroyer.net that talks about all of the pro-nuclear arguments, and covers most of the criticisms forwarded by the anti-nuclear crowd.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=110943

8/18/2007 3:09:50 PM

A Tanzarian: I was referring to it in terms of uncontrolled/terrorist actions. But yes, you are right.

8/18/2007 3:13:28 PM