Well the title says it all. With all this talk of getting independance from foriegn oil should we be pursuing nuclear energy more enthusiasticly? Is it safe from terrorism? How much could we save?
Printable View
Well the title says it all. With all this talk of getting independance from foriegn oil should we be pursuing nuclear energy more enthusiasticly? Is it safe from terrorism? How much could we save?
Im a supporter of nuclear power myself, i think it combined with renewable energy sources (wind farms, those tide power things ect.) is the way forward.
BTW answers yes incase you didn't guess..
Yes, I wholeheartedly (sp?) believe the US should switch to cleaner energy sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind etc.
The only problem I can see, besides a repeat of 3 mile island (which isn't likely to happen) is security from terrorism, but I think we should be able to handle it.
I am a supporter of Nuclear Power, so long as it is done safely and away from main population centres.
So since NZ has a tiny population the world could use it?
~D
The problem with nuclear energy is with long power lines lotsa power is lost.
I support it if it is done safely and away from dense population cities and is supported by wind, hydro, solar and other clean powers. Oh yeah and if we learn from 3 Mile ISland and Chernobyl.
I don't think NZ will ever accept it. It still beats burning oil and coal.
When you do the calculations, any calcuations, there's no comparison.
Nuclear power yields more electricty per dollar of fuel injected.
It's a more efficient transfer of energy.
There's much, much, much less waste.
Treated properly, it's safer than any other means of generating that kind of power.
The whole myth about nuclear power being 'terrible' is the one way the French still lead the world. My hat's off to them for being brave enough to not believe the hype and let the science speak for itself. What's more, the French seem to contain the risks better than anybody else. Maybe there's something we should be learning from them.
The US should build advanced (read:safe) nuclear plants and begin massive desalinization programs of sea water.
Surprisingly, I don't want to.
I am in LV, NV, and the federal government (not Bush in particular, though he seems so eager to...) seems so enthusiastic of storing the toxic wastes in Yucca mountains not far from LV. Worse still, the plan must see that the wastes must go through LV directly! WTF!? Can't they go somewhere where, if accident happens, won't harm millions!?
Edit: Why, if they manage to establish a safer kind of nuclear waste "elimination" I would've agreed.
I read that know how to build plants that have no waste and are perfectly safe. It involves using liquid helium to cool the rods as opposed to water.
It's twice as expensive to build and only allows half the energy output. So no one builds them.
They should, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Ah well. Business world. ~:handball:
Thanks for pointing out, though.
You worry to much. I'm pretty sure that the really dangerous stuff decays in a few decades(and alot has been sitting around for that long). I don't care enough to demonstrate that the containers are safe. And yes, more nukes is for the best, unless you want to cover the land with solar panels and cover the sea with wind turbines.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
We, Europeans, have no problem with this, as long as US promise not to make nuclear WMD's with the technology...... ~;)
LOL, an Ozzie speaks...Quote:
So since NZ has a tiny population the world could use it?
Anyway, as this is the only way to persuade you people to cut your carbon emmissions (and to be honest the only way the UK will too since I don't suppose we are about to sign up for the back to the middle ages green lifestyle either) then I vote yes. If you want to tell yourselves its about reducing dependency on foreign oil that's fine by me, whatever works.
And yes the French do deserve credit for this one. A11 may have a bee in his bonet about global warming, but I have one about the green lobby's misrepresentation of the dangers of nuclear power. Chernobyl was the most amazingly badly designed reactor, and anyway (I might not go to print on this one) the world didn't end, did it? With modern design and safety protocols nuclear power can be as safe if not safer than any other form.
Not if you're watching the latest series of 24 it seems.Quote:
Is it safe from terrorism?
But if you're watching the latest serie of 24, then your brain is probably quite damaged :-p
And yeah, we french rule the world cause we're using nuclear plant. Yeah, well, kinda...
And we're likely going to host the new over-great-awesome nuclear stuff, as it seems that Japan isn't ready to do so.
Of course, there's a risk, but as long as nuclear plants are correctly maintained by a careful institution (the State), I think it will be alright.
Most deffiently. We need to start moving away from oil as soon as we can, to lessen the inevitable chaos when oil starts to become really scarce.
Nuclear power, solar, and wind is the way to go.
Agreed. But I doubt the promise, would really do much...Quote:
We, Europeans, have no problem with this, as long as US promise not to make nuclear WMD's with the technology...... ~;)
Reactor designs like the gas-cooled (using helium) pebble-bed reactors are very safe and should be cheap to operate too.
Terrorist attacks cant do that much against them as you will never have a "China syndrome" nor will it have any radioactive leaks from cooling leaks. The pebbles are incased in silicium carbide so can take a lot of punishment.
http://gt-mhr.ga.com/
Info about other advanced reactor designs :http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm
CBR