Nuclear power, yay or nay?

[DefunctTheory]

Why do they call nuclear energy clean when it makes tons and tons of toxic waste every day that needs to be dumped and causes contamination for 0000's of years?

Why do politicians never say what we need to do is stop fucking breeding like morons and let the population stabilize at a level where we can feed everyone and create enough renewable energy to service us all? Is it because that would leave huge hole in the amount of poverty and cheap labour to service the greedy cunts.

You may think that working ever day just to own a house and have kids is freedom i'l just say you are fucked in the head if you think you are free and happy.

Claim we're not free and we're stupid if we think so. Advocate for government controlled breeding.

Fantastic.

Nope, I want renewable energy. The sun for example will never run out.

...No.

I mean, for our purposes it might as well never run out. But no.

Spoiler: SNIP

Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.

If you don't mind me asking, why not?
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!

Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.

Mostly, I see some problems with the sustainability. For one, you are adding energy to the Earth system by nuclear power, instead of just converting. This is going to cause more problems with global warming, since we're adding an additional heat source to the equation. It won't matter much over the short term, but over the long term . . .

Also, we have nothing to do with all that radioactive waste. Sure, we can store it somewhat safely for now, but many countries are running out of room to store it in, and with the kind of half-life your looking at for these things, we need to be able to safely store centuries or millennia of waste before it's actually sustainable, and we can't. Not to mention what happens 100 years from now when we run into a uranium crisis that will be every bit as bad as the current oil crisis, maybe worse.

I also think that we will find something better within the next half century or so. Zero point energy, maybe, and then there will be no reason to have risked these dangers.

Nuclear plants are phenomenally stable in normal conditions, and even mildly bad conditions, but we still haven't figured out how to secure them against natural disasters like Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other events that happen with reasonable frequency. Look at fukushima, the disaster was about 2.5 years ago and it's only now being discovered how bad the leaking is, and it could have been much worse.

I also have a problem with the statement that nuclear plants are safe. Yes, nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal conditions, but until we can make these plants safe in our infrequent but consistent disasters we have no business building them in hurricane zones or along fault-lines. Further, no other power plant has or ever will have an accident so bad as to render large tracts of land unlivable for decades or centuries.

Also, even if we could make them run safely through natural disasters, what about if a large war broke out? How would a running nuclear plant do if it was fire-bombed on-par with dresden, and if you shut it off during a war, where would you get the power?

The far better solution, for the environment and society, is to use solar power with smaller scale distribution. It's true that solar is quite difficult to generate enough power to run a plant, but it's laughable easy to run a home on solar, even if areas with poor sunlight. I live on the 45th latitude in an area that sees a lot of cloud cover and rainfall each year, and I know of a family that gets probably 80% of their power needs from about a 10 foot square of solar panels. They make up the difference with propane appliances and a generator. If they had even enough solar panels to cover half their roof, they would be able to run on pure solar no problem at all, and so would the vast majority of the civilized world.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of nuclear power causing global warming, the only thing coming out of the cooling tower is steam.

As to the rest, i said I wouldn't try to change your mind, so not gonna start. Feel free to think what ya want, differing opinions are always good!

It's not causing global warming. What I mean is that with nuclear power, massive amounts of energy that was locked away in matter is being released as heat and electricity(which always degrades to heat when used). It isn't like hydro or even coal power, where that energy was part of the system in the form of chemical or potential energy. We are increasing the overall energy of the Earth system by converting matter into energy. This wouldn't normally pose a problem, but in a situation where the Earth can't even dissipate the heat energy it gains from solar radiation it merely exacerbates the issue. Don't get me wrong, the amount of electricity human kind needs is a tiny fraction of the energy we absorb from solar radiation, but if we turn to nuclear power as a permanent source of electrical power then over the centuries that extra heat energy might play a role.

The amount of heat produced by humanity is negligible. I wouldn't expect any problems from increasing nuclear power usage.

I'm not even sure nuclear reactors generate more heat then the coal plants they would replace.

As much as I want to like nuclear power, I don't. There's too many possible problems and too much possible impact to the environment due to radioactive wastes. It's better than coal, sure. But that doesn't mean it's good.

I'm more of a renewable energy person. Solar, wind, all that lovely stuff.

Spoiler: The wave of the future.

Oh, the hubris.

Spoiler

 

[Syzygy23]

I wish we had more, hell its one of the things the US government seems to be good at making. A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

Ugh,3 mile island wasn't that bad, and Chernobyl was entirely the fault of the people who built and ran the place. This is a 21st century 1st world country. We have STANDARDS, which means we have a metric fuckton of security failsafes and countermeasures in place on the off chance anything goes wrong!

More Nuke plants I say! At least, until NIF or someone else cracks fusion power.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Where did I say the government should stop us breeding I said they should start debating how we are over breeding? Lol at you you know saying something and enforcing is quite different yes? Politicians never mention over population why is that?

edit to clarify my position I feel we should be able to breed as much as we like but with the knowledge that more than 2 kids your making the world a far worse place just for your own selfish reasons.

Well, if you live in the 1st world, they never say anything because we don't have a population problem.

And even if they did, why would politicians talk about it unless they intended to do something about it? As far as I know, politicians stopped doing service announcements sometime in the 60s.

I wish we had more, hell its one of the things the US government seems to be good at making. A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

Ugh,3 mile island wasn't that bad, and Chernobyl was entirely the fault of the people who built and ran the place. This is a 21st century 1st world country. We have STANDARDS, which means we have a metric fuckton of security failsafes and countermeasures in place on the off chance anything goes wrong!

More Nuke plants I say! At least, until NIF or someone else cracks fusion power.

In the name of fairness, the US boned up a few reactors as well. The biggest one to come to mind was the old US Army 'portable' reactors. They had control rods you had to manually control with your hands (The mechanical systems provided were nearly impossible to install). In one case, an Army technician actually got impaled by a control rod when he inserted it to far and it blew back at him.

Granted, a reactor that can shiv you isn't quite as bad as a reactor that's safety system actually caused explosions, but it just goes to show you no ones perfect.

Also, 'Shiv Reactor' is a good band name.

 

[generals3]

Fusion? HELL YES!

Fission? No.

Removing the whole nuclear waste/contamination and terrorist (hah!) kerfuffle from the equation, there is still the issue that fissile materials are a finite resource.

Breeder Reactors can alleviate this somewhat but at the end of the day replacing coal-fired and oil power stations with Nucelar ones is simply moving from one addiction to another.

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I'm a New Zealander so my opinion is automatically against. However, if the problem of waste could be lessened (thorium reactors) or negated (nuclear fusion) I likely would have less of a problem with it.

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

 

[Bruce]

Nay-be?

Well mantained nuclear is actually safer and cleaner than coal, the trouble is even Japan couldn't guarantee that (The Fukushima plant had been in the news prior to the earthquake that popped its lid for having a poor maintenance record and springing leaks, the quake was likely the straw that broke the camels back IMO) so I tend to err on the side of against. The human factor, with long term issues like budget cuts and just not giving a damn, is just too much of a risk.

 

[Idlemessiah]

Nuclear plants over fossil fuels any day. However, I live in the UK and it beggars me why we aren't running on tidal energy already. We're on a frigging island! As a matter of fact, anywhere in Britain you are never more than 70 miles from the sea.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I was talking about Thorium reactors when I said Breeder Reactors were a band-aid, you still need heavy elements like U235 or Plutonium to achieve a reaction and start creating fissile material to generate energy, which in turn still leaves the whole "where do we stick this crap" afterwards. (Admittedly it isn't as bad as current reactor designs)

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

Yes, 100 years of moderate radioactivity and 300 to become completely inert is just as bad as 10000+ years.

 

[Nemu]

I wish we had more, hell its one of the things the US government seems to be good at making. A lot of my older family members see nuclear power plants as an atomic bomb just waiting to go off and destroy an entire city. This fear seems to be somewhat common in my state (NY).

I would like to preface this by saying that I'm incredibly biased here, because I literally live across the road from VY.
I am TOTALLY worried about what I am going to do in 2 years, because I will NOT be able to afford to live where I do, as I expect my property taxes to go up at least 300%, and with this news, my property value will likely go WAY down (tho it could go either way, really).


I don't really have a problem with nuclear power per say, but there is an obvious problem of disposal-what to do with what we have now and what will continue to be produced is a HUGE issue. Nuke energy is still safer than coal power, but I hesitate to suggest that natural gas is better as I am admittedly ignorant with it as a fuel form (ie: how much there is, how to channel it, etc) as a replacement.


I am HOPING that the state takes care of us in the area of VY and installs solar panels or wind turbines, in order to generate[footnote]For lack of a better term[/footnote] income, otherwise the area is in for some hard times. I wish the protesters that worked so hard AGAINST VY would stick around and work to come up with a solution to replace it. This closing will be a BIG hit to the community, and neighboring states, financially, economically, socially--lots of people are going to lose their jobs which, in turn, means people will shop less, move away, create more strain on an already exhausted job market and state/federal aid packages.

 

[generals3]

Fusion materials are also finite (while the stock is high Lithium-6 doesn't have an infinite supply) so that argument doesn't really work for a pro-fusion and anti-fission stance. Let's also not forget Fission isn't limited to Uranium and MOX. China is looking into Thorium fission(which exists in a much higher quantity than Uranium).

And you may be correct it's moving from one addiction to another but isn't another addiction better if it's less harmful?

I was talking about Thorium reactors when I said Breeder Reactors were a band-aid, you still need heavy elements like U235 or Plutonium to achieve a reaction and start creating fissile material to generate energy, which in turn still leaves the whole "where do we stick this crap" afterwards. (Admittedly it isn't as bad as current reactor designs)

Well the best thorium reactor would be a liquid salt one. The amount of Uranium needed is little (and you can use Uranium 233 which doesn't produce plutonium when used in the reactor) and there is less waste than in your typical Uranium reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBIyZZuQl4A

Actually fusion also creates waste. There is much less waste and it's short-living waste, sure, but there is still nuclear waste.

Yes, 100 years of moderate radioactivity and 300 to become completely inert is just as bad as 10000+ years.

And I have never said it was so I don't see the point of that reply. It implies I made a statement i clearly did not.

 

[Blue_vision]

OT: I think the best use of nuclear power is if it's used as a reliable backup for a renewable system. It's pretty expensive and there's no current method of disposing of spent fuel, or even keeping it safe after use.

Actually, nuclear power isn't a very good backup for renewable energy. Nuclear power plants take a long time (a couple days) to ramp up production, meaning you can't increase capacity on the fly when your renewables stop producing electricity.

Also, nuclear power is pretty expensive, and people seem to forget that the construction of the reactors takes up a loooooot of concrete, which means a ton of CO2 in construction. They still end up being less intensive in CO2 production than other fossil fuels, and way safer, but they do have lots of downsides.

 

[Cpu46]

Depends, Uranium reactors? strictly for the birds, we only went with them in the first place to get weapons grade waste.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors on the other had have few of the risks associated with uranium reactors and a much more plentiful resource.

YES, finally someone else who knows of the LFTR.

I did a research project on those for my final project of my Energy Management course in college. The history of those infuriated me to no end. Such a promising energy source completely sidelined due to the fact that we couldn't make bombs with it.

OP: My answer is pretty much what Hoplon said. We need LFTRs yesterday.

 

[Esotera]

OT: I think the best use of nuclear power is if it's used as a reliable backup for a renewable system. It's pretty expensive and there's no current method of disposing of spent fuel, or even keeping it safe after use.

Actually, nuclear power isn't a very good backup for renewable energy. Nuclear power plants take a long time (a couple days) to ramp up production, meaning you can't increase capacity on the fly when your renewables stop producing electricity.

Also, nuclear power is pretty expensive, and people seem to forget that the construction of the reactors takes up a loooooot of concrete, which means a ton of CO2 in construction. They still end up being less intensive in CO2 production than other fossil fuels, and way safer, but they do have lots of downsides.

If you can predict weather over a couple of days then you can still use nuclear to meet demand. For short-term power you'd definitely need something a bit more like a traditional power station that can be turned on and off relatively quickly. That said, nuclear wouldn't be my first choice of power generation in the UK, I'd focus most on tidal power as it's very reliable and we have a lot of ocean surrounding us. And for the backup scenario a biofuel plant or traditional fossil fuel power station would be a better choice...but I'm not against it in principle. We'll need to use many different methods of energy generation to achieve a low carbon economy.

 

[RicoADF]

The waste it gives off isn't worth it, personally I'd say nay to nuclear (atleast current types) of reactors. I prefer Solar, Wind etc, especially here in Australia where we have massive land masses that a solar plant farm could be built with room to spare.

 

[conmag9]

I'm on the pro side. Enormous amounts of power, and while the waste is certainly a problem, it's much better to have a (relatively, compared to fossil fuels) small amount of waste you can contain than a whole lot of it you just spew into the atmosphere. If we had more of them producing enough power to meet our needs, we could then devote time to either renewable resources or ironing out the kinks in fusion power (which would be awesome, as fusion materials are SO much easier to come by).

 

[Blue_vision]

If you can predict weather over a couple of days then you can still use nuclear to meet demand. For short-term power you'd definitely need something a bit more like a traditional power station that can be turned on and off relatively quickly. That said, nuclear wouldn't be my first choice of power generation in the UK, I'd focus most on tidal power as it's very reliable and we have a lot of ocean surrounding us. And for the backup scenario a biofuel plant or traditional fossil fuel power station would be a better choice...but I'm not against it in principle. We'll need to use many different methods of energy generation to achieve a low carbon economy.

Yep. And for places where there's very high electricity demand or not a lot of easily accessible renewable energy sources, nuclear power is great. People just need to stop acting as though we'll have one source of energy that'll be good for the entire world.