First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Why are we not building more nuclear power plants ?
Posted 3/30/09

Allhailodin wrote:


ec1032am wrote:

They have problems trying to find places to build them. People tend to say "Not in my backyard!". It's the same thing with planes. Most people think that riding in a car is safer than riding in a plane. When in fact the chances of you getting in an accident on a plane is way lower than an accident by car. Nuclear Plants are very safe but still just the thought of something happening makes people afraid. Just think about the Chernobyl accident, it released more toxic chemicals into the air than both atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It affected hundreds of thousands of peoples lives. Also nuclear power plants are not perfect they still haven't found a solution as to where they should put the toxic waste. In my opinion they should focus on safer ways to harness energy. Plus nuclear power plants are not that easy to build there freakin EXPENSIVE! All the Safety crap. and the workers. Personally i think it's more cost effecient to look for other means of energy.


The Chernoby accident will never happen again, modern reactors simply will not allow those conditions to happen, they'll shut themselves down before that ever becomes an issue, and even if they did the containment field would stop the radation before it ever got outside the plant, modern reactors are safer then coal burning and natural gas power plants. Chernoby didnt have a containment feild, besides can't rely on oil forever, it'll run out eventually and solar is useless. nuclear is the answer.


What is useless about solar? There are other options mind you, if you don't like that one. People are developing new and more efficient ways to produce energy without nuclear power. I'm reading this page right now http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm which is giving the negatives of nuclear power.

"A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years."
or so it says.

Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, or maybe I'm just paranoid. But nuclear power is always/usually described as a near perfect solution. No environmental problems, safe, doesn't run out. I don't trust those claims, especially when we've actually seen the negatives of it. Nuclear power to me, seems like a way to secretly make more weapons.

"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs."
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/30/09 , edited 3/30/09

cerisey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


ec1032am wrote:

They have problems trying to find places to build them. People tend to say "Not in my backyard!". It's the same thing with planes. Most people think that riding in a car is safer than riding in a plane. When in fact the chances of you getting in an accident on a plane is way lower than an accident by car. Nuclear Plants are very safe but still just the thought of something happening makes people afraid. Just think about the Chernobyl accident, it released more toxic chemicals into the air than both atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It affected hundreds of thousands of peoples lives. Also nuclear power plants are not perfect they still haven't found a solution as to where they should put the toxic waste. In my opinion they should focus on safer ways to harness energy. Plus nuclear power plants are not that easy to build there freakin EXPENSIVE! All the Safety crap. and the workers. Personally i think it's more cost effecient to look for other means of energy.


The Chernoby accident will never happen again, modern reactors simply will not allow those conditions to happen, they'll shut themselves down before that ever becomes an issue, and even if they did the containment field would stop the radation before it ever got outside the plant, modern reactors are safer then coal burning and natural gas power plants. Chernoby didnt have a containment feild, besides can't rely on oil forever, it'll run out eventually and solar is useless. nuclear is the answer.


What is useless about solar? There are other options mind you, if you don't like that one. People are developing new and more efficient ways to produce energy without nuclear power. I'm reading this page right now http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm which is giving the negatives of nuclear power.

"A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years."
or so it says.

Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, or maybe I'm just paranoid. But nuclear power is always/usually described as a near perfect solution. No environmental problems, safe, doesn't run out. I don't trust those claims, especially when we've actually seen the negatives of it. Nuclear power to me, seems like a way to secretly make more weapons.

"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs."


Well its true fission reactors produce a lot of useable plutonium, what's wrong with that ? So what if a few nuclear weapons are made ? ANd a safe way to dispose of it is to bury it. However a fusion reactor is the true answer here. Thermonuclear fusion is the real answer and its safer then its fission counterpart, if the fuel is shut off the reaction stops within seconds and the operating pramaters are very percise so the chances of something bad happening are slim to nil as there are many many ways to stop the process before anything can go wrong, i think the fusion is the answer. and their doing research on it and it looks promising. Fusion btw uses the exact oppisite process the fission, fission splits the nuclei into 2 smaller atoms where as fusion takes 2 smaller atoms and fuses them into 1 bigger atom
Posted 3/30/09

Allhailodin wrote:


cerisey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


ec1032am wrote:

They have problems trying to find places to build them. People tend to say "Not in my backyard!". It's the same thing with planes. Most people think that riding in a car is safer than riding in a plane. When in fact the chances of you getting in an accident on a plane is way lower than an accident by car. Nuclear Plants are very safe but still just the thought of something happening makes people afraid. Just think about the Chernobyl accident, it released more toxic chemicals into the air than both atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It affected hundreds of thousands of peoples lives. Also nuclear power plants are not perfect they still haven't found a solution as to where they should put the toxic waste. In my opinion they should focus on safer ways to harness energy. Plus nuclear power plants are not that easy to build there freakin EXPENSIVE! All the Safety crap. and the workers. Personally i think it's more cost effecient to look for other means of energy.


The Chernoby accident will never happen again, modern reactors simply will not allow those conditions to happen, they'll shut themselves down before that ever becomes an issue, and even if they did the containment field would stop the radation before it ever got outside the plant, modern reactors are safer then coal burning and natural gas power plants. Chernoby didnt have a containment feild, besides can't rely on oil forever, it'll run out eventually and solar is useless. nuclear is the answer.


What is useless about solar? There are other options mind you, if you don't like that one. People are developing new and more efficient ways to produce energy without nuclear power. I'm reading this page right now http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm which is giving the negatives of nuclear power.

"A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years."
or so it says.

Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, or maybe I'm just paranoid. But nuclear power is always/usually described as a near perfect solution. No environmental problems, safe, doesn't run out. I don't trust those claims, especially when we've actually seen the negatives of it. Nuclear power to me, seems like a way to secretly make more weapons.

"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs."


Well its true fission reactors produce a lot of useable plutonium, what's wrong with that ? So what if a few nuclear weapons are made ? ANd a safe way to dispose of it is to bury it. However a fusion reactor is the true answer here. Thermonuclear fusion is the real answer and its safer then its fission counterpart, if the fuel is shut off the reaction stops within seconds and the operating pramaters are very percise so the chances of something bad happening are slim to nil as there are many many ways to stop the process before anything can go wrong, i think the fusion is the answer. and their doing research on it and it looks promising.


What do you mean a few nuclear weapons? Considering the dangers of them, and the after effects that have been witnessed, one is one too many.
And what's safe about burying it? I assume it will cause the area around it to be radioactive. And regardless there is the question of how they will bury it. Machinery that runs on oil, perhaps?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/30/09

cerisey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


cerisey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


ec1032am wrote:

They have problems trying to find places to build them. People tend to say "Not in my backyard!". It's the same thing with planes. Most people think that riding in a car is safer than riding in a plane. When in fact the chances of you getting in an accident on a plane is way lower than an accident by car. Nuclear Plants are very safe but still just the thought of something happening makes people afraid. Just think about the Chernobyl accident, it released more toxic chemicals into the air than both atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It affected hundreds of thousands of peoples lives. Also nuclear power plants are not perfect they still haven't found a solution as to where they should put the toxic waste. In my opinion they should focus on safer ways to harness energy. Plus nuclear power plants are not that easy to build there freakin EXPENSIVE! All the Safety crap. and the workers. Personally i think it's more cost effecient to look for other means of energy.


The Chernoby accident will never happen again, modern reactors simply will not allow those conditions to happen, they'll shut themselves down before that ever becomes an issue, and even if they did the containment field would stop the radation before it ever got outside the plant, modern reactors are safer then coal burning and natural gas power plants. Chernoby didnt have a containment feild, besides can't rely on oil forever, it'll run out eventually and solar is useless. nuclear is the answer.


What is useless about solar? There are other options mind you, if you don't like that one. People are developing new and more efficient ways to produce energy without nuclear power. I'm reading this page right now http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/nuclear-energy-fact-sheet.htm which is giving the negatives of nuclear power.

"A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years."
or so it says.

Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, or maybe I'm just paranoid. But nuclear power is always/usually described as a near perfect solution. No environmental problems, safe, doesn't run out. I don't trust those claims, especially when we've actually seen the negatives of it. Nuclear power to me, seems like a way to secretly make more weapons.

"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs."


Well its true fission reactors produce a lot of useable plutonium, what's wrong with that ? So what if a few nuclear weapons are made ? ANd a safe way to dispose of it is to bury it. However a fusion reactor is the true answer here. Thermonuclear fusion is the real answer and its safer then its fission counterpart, if the fuel is shut off the reaction stops within seconds and the operating pramaters are very percise so the chances of something bad happening are slim to nil as there are many many ways to stop the process before anything can go wrong, i think the fusion is the answer. and their doing research on it and it looks promising.


What do you mean a few nuclear weapons? Considering the dangers of them, and the after effects that have been witnessed, one is one too many.
And what's safe about burying it? I assume it will cause the area around it to be radioactive. And regardless there is the question of how they will bury it. Machinery that runs on oil, perhaps?


Pshh there are 1000's of nuclear weapons on earth, more then enough to waste the earth hundreds if not thousands of times over. a few more isn't going to hurt anything. besides nukes aren't the only weapon of mass destruction. you got mustard gas, nerve gas, carpet bomings and so on. carpet bomb a city with nerve gas or mustard gas and it'll kill as many people if not more than a single 100 kiloton nuke would, possibly more damage then a 1 megaton nuke. And whats wrong with burying it in vaults ? the radation is confined to the undergroung facility and it can possibly be taken back out and reprocessed and reused. but like i said fission aint the answer fusion is.
838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/30/09
I think a lot of people are worried about the nuclear waste that comes from it. It's extremely radioactive and difficult to dispose of, and it's very, VERY harmful to the environment. While the energy neclear powerplants would produce is clean, the waste is not. I've heard talk of people disposing of it in the Canadian Shield, but...I dunno. I can see that backfiring, somehow.

And also, what the first couple posts suggested about the political power, has some merit to it. It's also an ecomonic thing. Oil is one of the biggest producers of income for North America. The government and large companies get rich off it. So powerful people are hesitant to make any changes because they don't want to lose their power. -_- Sigh. I just want to say to those people, "Pull your head out of your ass and care about someone other than yourself for a change". It's depressing, but true.

I think the best way is to gradually work our way to cleaner energy. Doing it suddenly and all at once scares people and it's a very drastic change for the economy, as well as lifestyles. And the economy is crappy these days anyway. So being green has been put on the backburner, for now. Just take it one day at a time, I guess. We can't save teh world all at once.
149563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 3/31/09
Although it's a "clean" alternative resource, we still face the problems of handling nuclear waste. For the time being, we have to store them deep underground and let it deteriorate but that will just take too long so they'll be there for a while. Transporting waste requires the presence of military personel because it is very dangerous and we wouldn't want that thing to fall in the wrong hands. Initial construction costs will also hamper development of new facilities. Currently 15% of the world's energy is supplied by nuclear power. It's a reasonable percentage and I think it's for the best it stays that way until we find better alternatives to energy sources or at least breakthroughs in handling nuclear waste.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/31/09

Lionna wrote:

I think a lot of people are worried about the nuclear waste that comes from it. It's extremely radioactive and difficult to dispose of, and it's very, VERY harmful to the environment. While the energy neclear powerplants would produce is clean, the waste is not. I've heard talk of people disposing of it in the Canadian Shield, but...I dunno. I can see that backfiring, somehow.

And also, what the first couple posts suggested about the political power, has some merit to it. It's also an ecomonic thing. Oil is one of the biggest producers of income for North America. The government and large companies get rich off it. So powerful people are hesitant to make any changes because they don't want to lose their power. -_- Sigh. I just want to say to those people, "Pull your head out of your ass and care about someone other than yourself for a change". It's depressing, but true.

I think the best way is to gradually work our way to cleaner energy. Doing it suddenly and all at once scares people and it's a very drastic change for the economy, as well as lifestyles. And the economy is crappy these days anyway. So being green has been put on the backburner, for now. Just take it one day at a time, I guess. We can't save teh world all at once.


Well there are many solutions on what to do with the waste, bury it in deep underground vaults, launch it into space using either a rocket or a railgun, if you bury it you can go back to it later and reprocess it and use it again. Or the real answer fusion, produces virtually no waste, none on the scale that a fission reactor does, and its only radioactive for about 15 years. a LOT less time then the fission waste.
149563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 3/31/09

Allhailodin wrote:
Well there are many solutions on what to do with the waste, bury it in deep underground vaults, launch it into space using either a rocket or a railgun, if you bury it you can go back to it later and reprocess it and use it again. Or the real answer fusion, produces virtually no waste, none on the scale that a fission reactor does, and its only radioactive for about 15 years. a LOT less time then the fission waste.


On that not there is no guarantee space launches are 100% successful. We wouldn't want any falling radioactive debris back to Earth. Fusion power is quite hard to achieve currently even though it has been claimed that there has been a successful fusion experiment. Still it is a long shot to accommodate the neccessary tools and technology to provide for a stable and functional fusion power source (correct me if I'm outdated).
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/31/09 , edited 3/31/09

CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
Well there are many solutions on what to do with the waste, bury it in deep underground vaults, launch it into space using either a rocket or a railgun, if you bury it you can go back to it later and reprocess it and use it again. Or the real answer fusion, produces virtually no waste, none on the scale that a fission reactor does, and its only radioactive for about 15 years. a LOT less time then the fission waste.


On that not there is no guarantee space launches are 100% successful. We wouldn't want any falling radioactive debris back to Earth. Fusion power is quite hard to achieve currently even though it has been claimed that there has been a successful fusion experiment. Still it is a long shot to accommodate the neccessary tools and technology to provide for a stable and functional fusion power source (correct me if I'm outdated).


A contained fusion reaction hasn't been done yet that I know of, a uncontained fusion reaction however has been done. the hydorgen bomb is that example. the hydrogen bomb is a fusion weapon. the standard nuke as you know it is a fission weapon. which uses the exact oppisite process. fusion takes 2 smaller atoms and fuses them into one bigger one, where as fission takes one bigger atom and shoots a free neutron at it and splits it in 2. But contained fusion reactors are the answer. and on earth there is enough fuel to run em for millions of years.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.