|
| Thread: Nucelear Power Plants |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:14 PM |
|
|
Nuclear power is defintely the best thing we have at the moment.
And I actually think its fairly safe. There are LOTS of nuclear plants all over the world that have existed for several years, and yet we have had like two major accidents with Fukushima?
I think a lot more people have died when working on other energy sources. Such as people dying when building dams etc.
And look at the BP catastrophe, the sea around it turned black with oil.
The dangerous thing with nuclear plants is that WHEN there is a disaster on them, it can be super dangerous and affect the enviroment and people around it FOR YEARS. And the waste just does not disappear, though there is plenty of space for it.
I personally think that nuclear power is completly nescessary. It is enviromental friendly, safe if you have proper security and place them in a fairly nature-catastrophe-proof area and provides tons of energy. I do not think that we should be completly dependant on nuclear power though and once we find a better source, such as fusion, then we should switch over to that ASAP.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem is more about how we use the energy. as long as our goal is to use always more energy, clean energy sources won't be of much help
Until we get fusion running, that is.
Ok, I know there is waste with fusion also, but compared to all the others, if we ever manage to get it going, we'll probably have solved pretty much all our problems.
Btw. there was a really interesting german documentary on the area around Tchernobyl in danish television the other day, about how the whole closed area was now turned into a natural wildzone where all sorts of rare speciae migrated and lived although they hadn't been around that part of Europe for ages.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:16 PM |
|
|
JJ, you do realize there's no alternative right now, I hope. The power generated by alternative sources won't do. And getting more coal and oil plants is obviously not the answer either, because they will run out sooner or later and you will end up with nothing. Switching from nuclear to coal in most countries would probably speed up the depletion process by some extreme value and the reserves would go to 0 in like, few years.
And then what?
You want major urban areas out of light?
Yes, the technology has a chance of failure, and every failure that happens can be extremely severe. But there is simply no alternative whatsoever.
You also ignored my comment that there was no accident past 20 years despite large number of nuclear facilities running.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Btw. there was a really interesting german documentary on the area around Tchernobyl in danish television the other day, about how the whole closed area was now turned into a natural wildzone where all sorts of rare speciae migrated and lived although they hadn't been around that part of Europe for ages.
I saw it several months ago. but it has more to do with the fact that humans are gone, radioactivity still killed about everything at the start. still, animals have adapted themselves quick.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ, you do realize there's no alternative right now, I hope. The power generated by alternative sources won't do. And getting more coal and oil plants is obviously not the answer either, because they will run out sooner or later and you will end up with nothing. Switching from nuclear to coal in most countries would probably speed up the depletion process by some extreme value and the reserves would go to 0 in like, few years.
And then what?
You want major urban areas out of light?
Yes, the technology has a chance of failure, and every failure that happens can be extremely severe. But there is simply no alternative whatsoever.
You also ignored my comment that there was no accident past 20 years despite large number of nuclear facilities running.
You are wrong. And I didn't ignore your comment.
It's simply a question of MONEY INVESTED. If you invest money, you'll get progress. If not, you won't.
What we have is a terchnology with rather limited use and UNCALCULABELE risks for eveeryone.
It's like finding gene-tailored virus eliminating a certain desease. Would you feel safe allowing uusing the virus, if there was an uncalculable danger that the virus just might, under the right circumstances, mutate and not annihilate itself after use, possible deforming, even killing all of humanity?
You'd demand to research the issue until you could make SURE there was no such risk.
This doesn't even cover the fact that the waste situation isn't solved either.
All scenarios that paint a picture of dark cities are unsound. they are as unsound asthe claim that closing all burger palaces would lead to a massive famine.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:38 PM |
|
|
yeah, most of the day they are lit by the sun. for free! 
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:39 PM |
|
|
Unlimited risk for limited gain?
Even Chernobyl, with it's full-on nuclear meltdown, has ultimately made a small impact on Europe. Not to brush aside the wave of birth defects and such that resulted from it, but the harm that fossil fuels has caused the world has been far worse than any harm nuclear power has done.
If you're referring to the hazard of nuclear waste, granted it's an issue that needs to be taken very seriously, but it's not as though there aren't plenty of other ways that we could cause massive harm. We've reached a stage in human development where we are capable of destroying ourselves. There's no going back.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:41 PM |
|
|
I am wrong where? You don't prove me wrong by saying "you are wrong".
Give us your ideas on the alternatives, as asked, instead of using this phrase.
I don't exactly understand what do you mean by "if you invest more money", too. Care to elaborate?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 10:48 PM |
|
|
According to Wikipedia more people have died during the building of the Hoover Dam in the US than of nuclear power through out all of history. About 50 people have died because of nuclear plant malfunctions and stuff like that.
And as somebody said, Tjernobyl had a very small impact on Europe overall in the end and not a single person has died in Fukushima because of the nuclear plant.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 11:02 PM |
|
|
Which will soon change.
Anyway, what you don't realize is that it's only a question of how to invest R&D money. Only by investing money scientific development will happen. If left to the "market" alone, you can't invest money in technologies that will produce clean, but more expensive energies.
Here "the people" decide. By voting against nuclear power you are actually voting for investing money into more expensive (or not immediately profitable) technologies - TAX money, mind you - as opposed to immediately profitable, but potentially desastrous technologies.
That is the choice you - we - have.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 11:12 PM |
|
|
Then invest in renewable R&D. Also invest in nuclear power.
I don't think any of us are claiming that R&D in renewable energy is a waste of time, but you need to serve both the present and the future. I'm not going to fall on a sword in order to have everything renewable energy powered, which - by the way - is questionable whether that is the best choice even from a strictly humanitarian perspective, because the amount of land you would need for that would be enormous, and land is the most basic commodity in the world. You need land for crops, for houses, for forests, for anything.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even Chernobyl, with it's full-on nuclear meltdown, has ultimately made a small impact on Europe. Not to brush aside the wave of birth defects and such that resulted from it,
>>I find this callous. It's not a problem unless it happens to you or someone you know, right?
>>A bit similar to this post from Xerox:
Quote:
I do not think there is going to be a huge disaster at Fukushima, but would the worst case scenario be that like the entire city of Tokyo has to be exiled? its like over 10 million people living there, thats almost as much as the population of world of warcraft!
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2011 11:59 PM |
|
|
Nuclear power - disastrous? Nonsense. Nuclear power is safe. Germany is not known for its abundance of fault lines, so it's not like it has to worry about earthquakes. Nuclear power is a bit expensive, yes, but it's definitely the best alternative we have. When's the last time someone died because of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl. The fact is, we can and do control nuclear power, and are doing it very well.
Quote:
If you invest money, you'll get progress.
Okay, let's invest money into squaring the circle. We'll get progress, right?
Far be it from me to agree with Xerox, butQuote:
I personally think that nuclear power is completly nescessary. It is enviromental friendly, safe if you have proper security and place them in a fairly nature-catastrophe-proof area and provides tons of energy.
This.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Which means, the technology is WRONG.
Think drugs. Energy production isn't a must.
If that is really what you believe, then turn off your computer. Call the electric company and have them turn off your electricity. Call the city services and have them turn off your water.
Take your family and whatever you can carry out into the wilderness and live off the land. And be absolutely certain that you don't interact with anything that uses power or is manufactured by anything that uses power.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 01:54 AM |
|
|
Fun fact: The japanese plant was going to be commisioned and replaced in mai anyhow
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 02:56 AM |
|
|
@Mvass.
Quote:
Okay, let's invest money into squaring the circle. We'll get progress, right?
In JJ's defense, I think it is extremely probable that more R&D will produce some results. You might get nothing worthwhile or you might get a miraculous breakthrough. The less a technology has been played around with, the more likely you'll get solid progress. Compare that to the internal combustion engine, which has been worked and fine tuned time and time again to the extreme.
There's currently a lot more brainpower focusing on nuclear and even on better usage of fossil fuels and I doubt you'll say that that won't yield some improvements over the next decade.
@JJ:
The main criticism of the market's ability to invest in renewable energy is that the profit-driven nature of it fails to account for the long-term problems of relying too much on natural resources. Perhaps, though I question how much, since government subsidiaries on oil are negatively impacting alternative energy. You yourself said that a decent amount of people are willingly expecting to pay more in order to have more renewable power. That trend might be stronger in Germany than most other places, but it is the overall direction that the entire globe is moving in, and there can still be profit-based motivation in renewable energy. Having costly solar panels put on your roof can be a good investment in the long term, and we see that more and more people are doing that. If a new house gets built, the cost of the panels just gets wrapped up in the cost of the mortgage, and their electricity bills go down for the rest of their life in the home, plus they have the added bonus of being able to touch themselves at night knowing that they're saving the planet.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 03:38 AM |
|
|
@Phoenix:
Quote:
>>I find this callous. It's not a problem unless it happens to you or someone you know, right?
But the risk does affect me. New York state and Connecticut both rely primarily on nuclear power, and there's also a good amount of nuclear power here in Massachusetts. There could in theory be a meltdown. If the winds carry it north, I would be exposed. If the winds carry it south, my family in PA would be exposed. I accept that (incredibly tiny) risk, and would ask other people to do the same.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:31 AM |
|
|
The fact is, that no one seems to know what they are talking about.
In 2009 nuclear power provided only 13-14% of the electricity produced worldwide (it's a lot less in terms of energy overall). More than half of that is produced in the US, Japan and France.
13-14% of the worldwide electricity used isn't really that much if you consider that renewable energies already provide EIGHTEEN percent of the world's electrical energy output...
So if renewable energy resources (which most seem to have not much of a clue about either) is "negligible", what, then, is nuclear power?
And that is WITHOUT much R&D investments, tax subsidies and other encouragements like the nuclear industry is living off of.
Anyone knowing what the waste storage costs? The amount of R&D necessary to provide a "safe" place where to store the stuff? The amount of work and money necessary to make it storable? The problems to find suitable long-time storage places (as opposed to INTERIM storage places? You may read the wiki about "Gorleben", the German repository - it offers a couple of interesting points about "safety". The simple truth is, the waste is shipped around in search of a safe way to dispose of - and as we know now people have been lied to about possible consequences and so on.
Anyway, I read here that nuclear power is environmental-friendly, cheap and in control.
Are you people blind or something? Fukushima will be a problem for YEARS to come, and it will continue to poison the environment with massive amounts of radioactivity. Can you imagine what this means for Japan - who relies heavily on fish for food? The problems haven't even started.
And aren't you seeing - I repeat this - that those people are COMPLETELY helpless? I mean, it's an ongoing problem for over 2 weeks, we are talking about one of the most advanced industrial countries in the world - and they can do nothing: the company is dabbling, the government is wringing their hands... it's like a natural desaster that no one seems to have the power to stop.
Secondly, don't you see your mistake: what is happening now is what the opponents of nuclear power always warned against. So you can't say that it was a "freak" natural event that can happen only in Japan, that it was "bad luck" or something.
With this kind of threat, with that much at stake, "bad luck" is simply unacceptable.
I repeat, it's simply a problem of where to put the money and what avenues to explore. A wrong avenue has been followed much to long. It's high time we start to minimize dangers and put serious money into finding safe ways to waste energy.
A last word on the advice to switch off my comp and go back to living in caves - you are ridiculous. I could easily reduce my energy use to safe the 13 or 14% NP provides. However, I don't need to - I already pay more for my energy: In Germany you can pick your energy source (which is a theoretical choice only, since in practise it is difficult to make a difference, but still).
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:49 AM |
|
|
13-14% in the world. Okay. Pretty unfair to include countries that don't have nuclear plants in that.
How much % comes from nuclear power in countries that DO have nuclear plants?
And a couple of questions:
- how many traditional coal plants does one nuclear plant replace and how's the waste ratio? I mean, combined coal plants poison vs. nuclear waste poison. What's more climate-affecting? (I seriously don't know.)
- Where can we get enough space on earth to get enough "natural" power plants? I thought with current technology it's not possible. (just don't start with "we'll get better technology" - might get cold fusion as well which is safe and a million times more efficient than "natural" power...)
- Who would pay for transmission to "natural" power? Remove all the existing nuclear and coal plants, re-employ the personnel (can't just fire thousands of people and say sorry), build new ones?
- What natural power? Solar is pretty much out, water is limited to number of rivers one state has and cannot be exceeded (causes massive environmental disturbance anyway, destroys eco system), wind takes too much place for most countries to even think of.
- Hydro plants that produce the solid percentage of energy per world cannot replace all the electricity production methods so far.
So, once coal is out, then what? if no nuclear? Back to candles?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Fukushima will be a problem for YEARS to come, and it will continue to poison the environment with massive amounts of radioactivity.
Nothing to worry about.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
