Nuclear power, yay or nay?

[Libra]

Very much against it. Apart from the huge risks to the environment and human health, the main problem is that it doesn't actually win energy; it's a net loss. Sure, the reaction produces a lot of energy, but the entire product chain of enriched uranium costs more energy to produce than the energy delivers. In other words, a net loss.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Very much against it. Apart from the huge risks to the environment and human health, the main problem is that it doesn't actually win energy; it's a net loss. Sure, the reaction produces a lot of energy, but the entire product chain of enriched uranium costs more energy to produce than the energy delivers. In other words, a net loss.

Interesting.

Do you have any sources available on hand that show nuclear power is a net loss of power? Id like to look into that.

Edit: all I can find are sources saying its worse for the environment and less efficient, resource wise, then renewable sources. Can't find anything that says its a net loss of power (which doesn't add up with the fact that its overall cheaper then fossil fuel).

 

[Psychobabble]

Since we in the first world can't seem to stop eating electricity like candy, I see no workable future alternative but to build more nuclear reactors.

 

[Dismal purple]

Keep up fission until we can get fusion.

Nuclear power maybe isn't a permanent solution but it's more longsighted than fucking coal.

 

[T3hSource]

Until there's a new applicable way of capturing electrical energy, nuclear will be the most efficient.
Yes water energy exists and there are plenty of water stations that work, but pale in comparison to the power of the thermoenergy plant.
And we also have a nuclear plant powering the entire northern side AND giving the rest to neighbouring countries(it's on the border anyway), and it only has 2 working blocks.
This year we voted whether to start up a new nuclear power plant or not, the vote ended in 'no'. Because our current plants produce more power than needed for our country, this extra plant would've been an additional risk, without any real gain to my country.

 

[Connor Lonske]

depends on the location. anywhere liable for natural disasters is a no go, obviously. but if it's put somewhere safe, i have no problems with the concept. especially if they decommission bombs to fuel it (that'll be the day)

 

[Whispering Cynic]

Yay for me, it is clean, efficient, and safe when used responsibly (in terms of reactor design, plant location, waste disposal). Like it or not, when it comes to generating large amounts of electricity which is not reliant on some local geographical feature (like a huge lake for hydroelectricity) there is no viable alternative to nuclear energy at the moment.

 

[The Lugz]

So with Vermont Yankee joining the list of decommissioned nuke plants, I wondered what The Escapist people thought about it.

Personally, I'm wary of everything. however I can accept that a technology is safe if used correctly,
if you look at the case study of failed reactor systems, it's archaic sensor feedback, failure to adhere to guidelines or unexpected circumstances ( such as a natural disaster ) in the case of the recent Japanese reactor failures

on the whole the technology is safe and clean, the problem is the sheer instability of the materials means that if something unexpected happens that damages the system in some way there is potential for serious harm that is where modernisation is required to activate cooling systems and place the radioactive materials in storage if a system failure occurs.

point to consider: failure happens.

everything fails eventually, we pump billions of litres of gas into our houses on a daily basis, which has the potential to create an air-fuel bomb with the destructive force of a fuel air bomb.
how do I know this? well, it was in the news last year. did we dismantle the gas service? no. because on the whole, it's safe, cleaner than coal and better than eating raw food.

Conclusion:

our energy consumption is set to rise, people keep having several children ( which i object to, but that's another story ) and there is little way but to implement nuclear fuels into our power delivery systems, consider, even with oil fracking ( deep penetration of subterranean oil-rich rocks ) oil, petrol, gas will simply vanish in the next 50-100 years. it won't exist any-more. no more gas stoves, no more fires, no more V8 supercars.
you'll have to have an electric one.
oh shit.. right? replace all the gas stoves, fires, cars, generators, ect ect with electric equivalents and suddenly electrical draw is up to a degree our current systems cannot handle. if nothing is done the infrastructure will fail overnight.
this means your gas and coal power-plants are also gone, which we rely on heavily today.
the only thing left are bio-matter generators and exotic material burners ( wood and microbiologicaly produced fuels )
people will suffer and be limited to a certain ration of power which will be frankly, horrific for the development of humanity, and many of the freedoms afforded by modern technology will be hamstrung because people can't communicate as they do today

the only current viable technology is a thorium reactor.
call your government representatives today and tell them: 'hey, you know that thorium stuff, we need it for the future of humanity and so my grandchildren can use the internet'

 

[Pinkamena]

It's the least bad option for areas without a lot of reservoirs for water power. It's relatively clean, but of course there's a lot of problematic by-products.

If looking forward to fusion power. That's the future.

 

[Olas]

In general I'd have to say I'm for it. It's not ideal, but it definitely seems like a superior alternative to what we predominately use most of the time.

Also, for those of you hoping we can someday harness power from fusion:

Spoiler: THE FUTURE IS NIGH!

TADA!!

just kidding, I know what you mean.

 

[Senare]

Nuclear is better than coal, yet it is a bad alternative. We may also need to use the fuel for future endeavours such as space programs so do not waste it on light bulbs. Continually upgrade and research the area without investing in increasing the number and spread of power plants and use microbiology and genetic manipulation to come up with more effective and commercially viable batteries and solar cells. While you are at it, research cheaper hydroponics labs and in vitro meat.

 

[shootthebandit]

Fuck nuclear and fuck fossil fuels. Heres what we do. We attach giant hamster wheels to the generators and open up the powerstations as free gyms. Then we solve the renewable energy issue and make the nation fitter.

Seriously though nuclear is a good solution but not the best. More needs to be invested in tidal power which is somehow completely overlooked yet is a constant and reliable source of power

 

[shootthebandit]

Very much against it. Apart from the huge risks to the environment and human health, the main problem is that it doesn't actually win energy; it's a net loss. Sure, the reaction produces a lot of energy, but the entire product chain of enriched uranium costs more energy to produce than the energy delivers. In other words, a net loss.

Thats the same with any system unless its over 100% efficient which just isnt possible

 

[James Crook]

I'm all for nuclear power and I sneer at the sheer ignorance of people out there on the subject. What'd they expect us to do? Go back to fossile fuels? Coal? Use solar and wind when we don't have the tech to actually make those cost-efficient? Not every region or country in the world has ready access to a waterway on which to build a proper electric dam. And these hurt the environment, too. Just look at what happened on the Yangtze river. All these villages, all the vegetation and fauna drowned.
I don't like fission power that much because of those damn radioactive byproducts, but the current progress on fusion power is very promising and we shouldn't let go until we get there.

 

[Frission]

Against it. Financially it's the cheapest per cent, but the extra costs for managing nuclear plants after they've been decommissioned (such as guards, finding sites to store waste etc), makes them not worth it. If you calculate nuclear with say the equivalent of photovoltaic cells in terms of space and cost, photovoltaic cells win.

This only applies for Fission power, not fusion, but I don't count them as the same thing.

EDIT: One accident can also undo all the good that may come from the energy. I would be more at ease with nuclear power if a list of accidents in France hadn't been released. Stupidity on the level of Japan not having nuclear robots is not uncommon.

If we really need nuclear, then the nuclear lobby has to be hobbled and if extra regulations are not needed, then the current regulations should at least be enforced far more severely.

 

[Talvrae]

Yay... It's actually one of the safest and cleanest way to produce energy surprisingly, the main problem trought is the nuclear waste... The risk of accident is actually minimal, but when it does happen... ouch

 

[wickedmonkey]

Pro nuclear here, until we can get something better of course.

The only issue I have is with the radioactive material left over - until we can develop a way of neutralising it or putting it to use elsewhere etc. I'd take a leaf out of Superman's book and (as immature as it sounds) launch it into the Sun!

 

[Mersadeon]

Nay.

Besides green electricity (and it will take a long time until we power enough with it), we only have nuclear or coal. Coal may be horrible for the environment, but at least even the ozone layer CAN get better, even if it takes a thousand years.

The stuff that comes out of nuclear power plants? In german, they call the places to store that stuff "Endlagerstätte" ("Final storage area"), as if they could really store it there forever. Spoiler warning: you can't. And even if you could, that stuff will be radioactive longer than there will be humans on earth. On this overpopulated planet, contaminating an area irrevocably until the end of time seems... unwise.

 

[Frission]

The only issue I have is with the radioactive material left over - until we can develop a way of neutralising it or putting it to use elsewhere etc. I'd take a leaf out of Superman's book and (as immature as it sounds) launch it into the Sun!

There's too high a risk of the shuttle having a problem in the atmosphere. If an accident happens, we're in human civilization ending level trouble, not to mention that there's too much waste to send it all into space.

Entombing is the current modus operandi, but until a grand storage site is opened most waste is still stored on site, in inadequate conditions...