PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Energy



LOEG
2008-Nov-11, 06:45 PM
Should the United States government significantly increase its nuclear energy? This was a forum resolve in October. Discuss what you think.

Swift
2008-Nov-11, 07:16 PM
I don't know what a "forum resolve" is? And it is a very broad question and one discussed before (you may want to search around).

Personally, I am pro-nuclear power, no matter what country. I think it is one of the best, near-term solutions for global warming.

geonuc
2008-Nov-11, 10:38 PM
Yes. I need the money and want to retire soon.

Donnie B.
2008-Nov-11, 10:51 PM
I think there's a lot of promise in the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor concept. If the claims pan out, it should produce much less waste and have very high inherent safety. There would be little or no weaponable daughter product.

What's more, its fuel is much more plentiful than 235U and would therefore provide a much longer-term energy source than traditional designs, without the risks of Pu breeders.

Nowhere Man
2008-Nov-11, 11:07 PM
Never mind what I think -- my opinions are uninformed and stupid. What do you think, LOEG?

Fred

LOEG
2008-Nov-11, 11:34 PM
Never mind what I think -- my opinions are uninformed and stupid. What do you think, LOEG?

Fred

We should, Look at France ( Not saying we should compare ourselves to them, just using them for a example ) 70 % of there power is nuclear and have they had any problems? They run over 1,000 tests each year at the plants and the environments around them(If you want me to cite this source I will). Then people would argue look what happened to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, I would say first Are We Russia? No. I like to think Three Mile Island is a success story because it was a human error that caused the meltdown to start but then it was a human who stopped it. We have also come 30 years in technology that do not let these things happen. People argue the threat of terrorism about flying a plane into a plant, the only damage that would happen is you would take out a cooling tower and cause a fire. Congratulations, too bad the terrorist guy turns out NOT getting his 70 virgins. And again the tree huggers need to open there eyes. There has been some cases back in the 80s of PETA I believe using RPGs to take out a nuclear plant while it was being constructed( I'll cite this source too if you want me to). And again no one can just walk into these plants and take a uranium rod and sell it on terrorist ebay to make a dirty bomb off it. These plants have high military personal guarding these plants 24/7. They also reduce CO2 emissions greatly. Coal Plants kill 20,000-30,000 premature deaths each year. Nuclear Energy in the US has 0 deaths or fatalities. Coal also pollutes the air so i don't know why hippies are targeting nuke plants instead of coal plants. In the end nuclear provides 20% of the US power and wind and solar only 2%. We should not just go solar and wind because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. We should continue funding to solar and wind but until they prove more efficient then Nuclear, Nuclear is the top dog. Period. I also hope Obama approves nuclear when we find better ways storing and recycling nuclear waste. Waste is also over dramatically worried about. I don't know why because after it is recycled it has a 40 year life span, meaning we only have to deal with that barrel of waste for 40 years. When you have to bring in truck loads of coal each day to power a coal plant the trucks cause more emissions, when nuclear only needs to have its rod replaced every 18 months. The last issue is the cost, currently it costs 10 billion to build a nuclear power plant, leaving the American people having to pay for it. Instead we should focus on private companies who are WILLING to pay for the construction of these plants. So in the end nuclear is the best energy source out there. Unless anyone can prove me wrong, I am open for argument on this topic. I hope you all learned something:).

LOEG
2008-Nov-11, 11:37 PM
I don't know what a "forum resolve" is? And it is a very broad question and one discussed before (you may want to search around).

Personally, I am pro-nuclear power, no matter what country. I think it is one of the best, near-term solutions for global warming.

Sorry for being vague=P Its a topic in speech and debate for high schools around America.

PraedSt
2008-Nov-11, 11:40 PM
You're probably preaching to the choir here. At least where coal's concerned anyway. :)

LOEG
2008-Nov-11, 11:47 PM
You're probably preaching to the choir here. At least where coal's concerned anyway. :)

Lol I figure these guys would know more than me I'm only 15 :lol: xD

mugaliens
2008-Nov-12, 12:16 AM
Lol I figure these guys would know more than me I'm only 15 :lol: xD

And yet you're familiar enough with the term hippie to include it as if you'd learned to speak in the late 50s or 60s...

By the way, this (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81151-nuclear-energy.html#post1363040)was a very succinct recap of many of the pro-nuke arguments out there. Nice job.

PraedSt
2008-Nov-12, 01:20 AM
What Mugs said. About the only nit-pick I have is: PARAGRAPHS. :)

01101001
2008-Nov-12, 01:33 AM
We should, Look at France [...]

Here is some white space:









Feel free to borrow as much as you like and use it to separate your written thoughts, for our easier reading. Enjoy.

Salty
2008-Nov-12, 09:10 AM
I've been for nuclear power, for a long time. Not only does it work well on our planet, but also it may be the necessisity for inhabited structures on our moon, or Mars, etc.

Laguna
2008-Nov-12, 10:06 AM
We should, Look at France ( Not saying we should compare ourselves to them, just using them for a example ) 70 % of there power is nuclear and have they had any problems?
Recently? Yes...

geonuc
2008-Nov-12, 10:09 AM
By the way, this (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81151-nuclear-energy.html#post1363040)was a very succinct recap of many of the pro-nuke arguments out there. Nice job.
I'll have to disagree with you, mugs. Aside from the poor writing (call me crazy, but I think 15 year-olds should be able to write better than that), LOEG's mega-paragraph contains quite a few factual errors.

And even a smiley face doesn't excuse this finale:

"I hope you all learned something:)."

Whirlpool
2008-Nov-12, 11:55 AM
Should the United States government significantly increase its nuclear energy? This was a forum resolve in October. Discuss what you think.

I don't like the Idea of increasing it's Nuclear Energy .


<worried>

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-12, 11:58 AM
Why are you worried? Just out of curiosity.

Whirlpool
2008-Nov-12, 12:02 PM
AFAIK , Nuclear Energy has it's Advantages , but it has more Disadvantages.

<shrug>

Nicolas
2008-Nov-12, 01:44 PM
...such as...

aquitaine
2008-Nov-12, 01:57 PM
When I was younger I used to be against nuclear, just because it *seemed* dangerous, but then when I actually started looking into it, now I am pro-nuclear.


Longer term if we are going to have any future in space it will most certainly be on the back of a nuclear reactor, there is simply no real alternative.

Btw, one ton of Uranium used at a typical 1GW reactor has the energy equivalent of how many tons of coal at a 1 GW coal fired power plant?

LotusExcelle
2008-Nov-12, 02:07 PM
Here we have one of the oldest operating nuke plants in the country. It had an incident back in the 80's but since has ran (as far as I know) incident-free since then. I'm not sure how much longer it can keep running. I think it keeps getting its service life extended by various upgrades.

I've driven by it a number of times and I've also ridden my bike near it. It doesn't have the cooling tower typically associated with nuke plants - so there's a little bit less of a 'holy crap' sense when you look at it. In fact the entire complex is pretty boring looking. (I suppose that is a good thing)

Since there is a moratorium on building new plants coal plants have been popping up like daisies.

Personally I think the only path to take is to cautiously bring more plants online. It really is a safe process if done right. Just as a comparison - would you dump 10 gallons of gas on the ground, sit 3 feet away from the puddle, and light it? no? Well you do it every day you drive your car, in a sense. Gas goes *bang*. But its safe if done right.

Particularly with new building technology nuke plants will be safer than ever. Design flaws can be sorted out much faster, etc etc.

Swift
2008-Nov-12, 02:12 PM
AFAIK , Nuclear Energy has it's Advantages , but it has more Disadvantages.

<shrug>
I don't disagree Whirlpool that there are serious downsides to nuclear power, but I can't think of any energy source that doesn't have some sort of downside. Look at wind energy, for example. There is increasing evidence that wind farms kill significant numbers of birds and bats and the best locations for them (at least in the US) tend to be far from where the power needs are, so you have to build long transmission lines from them.

I think the solution is to look for a mix of energy sources, to match the needs in a given area to the resources available and to the needs, and to pro-actively deal with the downsides of the energy sources up-front (for example, don't build those nuclear power plants until you have a system for dealing with the waste).

megrfl
2008-Nov-12, 02:13 PM
I'm with Whirlpool on this, but I am not worried, yet?

LOEG Quotes:

I also hope Obama approves nuclear when we find better ways storing and recycling nuclear waste.


Waste is also over dramatically worried about. I don't know why because after it is recycled it has a 40 year life span, meaning we only have to deal with that barrel of waste for 40 years.

40 years to get rid of a barrel of nuclear waste. How many barrels a year is France producing? What are they doing to contain this waste? Are these barrels buried underground; have they leaked there or elsewhere?

My only concern LOEG is that you are buying into something without completely understanding it. In addition, where is your innovation? Think outside of the box, please, and never buy into anything without a complete understanding. I want your generation to be the innovators, out with the old and in with the new.

Check out this car: http://www.mdi.lu/english/

I have a 14 year son btw. His nickname is Relentless. Gamer Tag: Numbed4
Relentless to find truth and Numbed to the lies.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

PraedSt
2008-Nov-12, 03:28 PM
40 years to get rid of a barrel of nuclear waste. How many barrels a year is France producing? What are they doing to contain this waste? Are these barrels buried underground; have they leaked there or elsewhere?

Legitimate concerns about nuclear waste. However, France's nuclear programme and it's waste management activities are hardly a secret. Digging around should give you some of your answers.
Nuclear power in France (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)
Nuclear power in France (World Nuclear Assoc) (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html)
IEA France (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/country/m_country.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=FR&Submit=Submit)
Wiki on Nuclear waste in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste)

Nuclear waste is definitely dangerous, but one advantage it has over coal is that it is localised danger. It can be confined (however badly). The waste from coal power, using current techniques, is global. It's going to kill everybody.

So the question isn't about nuclear power in isolation. Most people agree that solar is the ultimate energy source. The problem is getting from coal to solar. Nuclear could fill that gap (if it's not already to late I suppose). It comes down to choice between coal and nuclear.



In addition, where is your innovation? Check out this car: http://www.mdi.lu/english/
The point about innovation is good. But I do have to (gently) criticise that link. It's about the use of compressed air to drive machinery. The air has to be compressed. This needs energy. We're back where we started.
But I understand that you were simply emphasizing the importance of innovating...hence (gentle) :)

LOEG
2008-Nov-12, 06:08 PM
Recently? Yes...

Could you name them?

megrfl
2008-Nov-12, 08:29 PM
Legitimate concerns about nuclear waste. However, France's nuclear programme and it's waste management activities are hardly a secret. Digging around should give you some of your answers.
Nuclear power in France (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)
Nuclear power in France (World Nuclear Assoc) (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html)
IEA France (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/country/m_country.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=FR&Submit=Submit)
Wiki on Nuclear waste in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste)

Ghee, Thanks Praed (nudge). I think you missed my point. LOEG doesn't answer these questions. Does he know the answers? Shouldn't we find out what France is doing in that their program is sooooo successful. If you are going to support something; then know what you are supporting.


Nuclear waste is definitely dangerous, but one advantage it has over coal is that it is localised danger. It can be confined (however badly). The waste from coal power, using current techniques, is global. It's going to kill everybody.

Agree.


The point about innovation is good. But I do have to (gently) criticise that link. It's about the use of compressed air to drive machinery. The air has to be compressed. This needs energy. We're back where we started.
But I understand that you were simply emphasizing the importance of innovating...hence (gentle) :)

snip - The air has to be compressed. This needs energy.

Think about that statement a little longer. :)

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/790/new-air-powered-car-looks-weird.html

I would drive it.

Science, Innovation, Alternative energy = Future.

PraedSt
2008-Nov-12, 08:38 PM
snip - The air has to be compressed. This needs energy.
Think about that statement a little longer. :)
Still waiting Meg!

sarongsong
2008-Nov-13, 02:01 AM
...currently it costs 10 billion to build a nuclear power plant...we should focus on private companies who are WILLING to pay for the construction of these plants...Who are they?

PraedSt
2008-Nov-13, 02:18 AM
Who are they?

Here you go Sarongsong. Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum.html). A list of current operators is on the right. They pay other companies to build them of course (such as GE). I presume if more licences were granted, some more operators would want to enter the field.

PraedSt
2008-Nov-13, 02:37 AM
Oh no! I've done it again :doh:

sarongsong
2008-Nov-13, 05:50 AM
...A list of current operators......and they all are
...WILLING to pay for the construction of these plants...http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

PraedSt
2008-Nov-13, 06:56 AM
No idea! Only a set of likely candidates.

geonuc
2008-Nov-13, 09:19 AM
It's the utilities that pay to build the plants - companies like Westinghouse and GE are the reactor suppliers, companies like Bechtel do the construction. Currently, there are a few utilities that have plans to build new plants. NUSTART and Dominion are two frontrunners.

The engineering firm I work for has performed preliminary licensing work for several new plants already.

Laguna
2008-Nov-13, 01:08 PM
Could you name them?
They had some problems with the Tricastin plant in July.


In the night from july 7. to 8. 75 Kilogramm Uran leaked into the surrounding rivers and lakes. The human population was informed many hours later.
Because of a leak in the reactor on July 23, over 100 persons came into contact with Cobalt-58.
On July 29, the alarm went off in reactor #4. There are reports that 45 persons have been contaminated with radioactive material.

megrfl
2008-Nov-13, 02:15 PM
Still waiting Meg!

What's with the edit, Praed?


The point about innovation is good. But I do have to (gently) criticise that link. It's about the use of compressed air to drive machinery. The air has to be compressed. This needs energy. We're back where we started. But I understand that you were simply emphasizing the importance of innovating...hence (gentle)

The point is there are alternatives. The air has to be compressed and this does require energy, but does it have to be traditional energy?

In the 1980s, it was all about garbage. Recycling has come a long way, however, you can't be lazy; it requires a little extra work. My husband thinks he is going to single handedly save the world. My 93 year old grandmother recycles.

Now what about what is not recyclable?

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage
http://www.livescience.com/technology/041103_convert_garbage.html

I like particularly the second link which includes sewage.

ETA: LOEG's original post:
[B]Should the United States government significantly increase its nuclear energy?[B] NO.