Does nuclear power have a future?

clrumivier4life

clrumivier4life

Active member
How do you guys feel about nuclear power? Bush mentioned in his State of the Union speech that the government was looking into expanding the country's use of nuclear power. I'm all for it since it is cleaner, more efficient, and is cheaper to use. Plus since the accidents (three mile island and Chernobyl back in the early 80's) safety systems have greatly improved because of computers and technology. I'm sure people have other opinions so state them.
 
Whoa whoa whoa, nuclear energy is by far no means cheaper. It is soooo expensive to operate and maintain a nuclear reactor fed power plant. After a plant has reached the end of its lifespan, they need to put the radioactive waste somewhere. Think about these things before you agree with it.

This is also very Ironic of Bush because it is placing very highly valued targets by terrorists into our country. His plans just keep making more and more sense.
 
K, so I'm doing a RESEARCH paper on this and I have done my research. Building plants is more expensive than conventional plants, but nuclear power is cheaper to operate.

"For one kilowatt-hour of power from a coal

burning plant, it costs $2.13 and for natural gas it costs $3.69. As of 2005, one kilowatt-hour of nuclear

power costs $1.82"

That is real data from my research. The radioactive waste can be stored in large cement containers until it has decayed. The U.S. originally was going to open Yucca Mountain for storage in 1998, but due to public fear is has been pushed back to 2017. A storage place like that could house all the nuclear waste generated and allow it to sit until it has decayed.

As for terrorism, have you seen the cement towers around nuclear reactors. They can withstand a plane crashing into them without leaking any radiation.

On top of all this, nuclear power is much more efficient. A much much much smaller amount of uranium is needed to produce the same amount of power from a fossil fuel plant.

 
do you have any idea how long it takes for that stuff to decay/breakdown? a whicked long time depending on the product, i.e. uranium etc. its very expensive to run and operate a power plant but yes the power plants can produce energy cheaper. only problem with that is that you need the people to run those places. its take quite a bit. my father is a radiological supervisor at a power plant here in ny. theres quite a bit of shit that comes along with these facilities because the government is in control no matter what. and basically every few years or so a new company leases the facility so it changes hands quite frequently. he was just offered a job in colorado somewhere along the river to help clean up a 90 ft high by about 150 acres of i dont even know what, something nasty, that was stored there about 45 years ago and is now about to run into the colorado river. what a thing to do to the environment
 
Nuclear power is CLEANER, SAFER, and CHEAPER. Theres been two big disasters. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was shitty because the Soviet Union kind of sucked ass. Nobody was hurt or died from three mile island. The only problem is storing the waste. There is plenty of space in the desert or some place until we can figure out something better to do with it. I am 100% for nuclear power plants.
 
Well then maybe you should do some better RESEARCH. The cost of building/maintaining/staffing a nuclear power plant costs far more than the cheaper fuel burning difference. What I'm saying is it would take hundreds of years to make up for the efficiency savings that a nuclear power plant has.

You should also do RESEARCH on the half-life of uranium. Decaying of this waste takes an incredibly long time.

They can SUPPOSEDLY take a plane crash. This has never been fully tested, just combined with numbers. Three Mile Island was SUPPOSED to be able to be too safe for a meltdown, but that didn't turn out to be true.

Right, but a much much much smaller amount of uranium is far more deadly than a very large amount of fossil fuels.

I'm not condoning nuclear plants, I'm just saying they aren't the best alternative, and in a country where we spend thousands of dollars on purses, I can see where cost shouldn't really matter. Too many nuclear plants, however, can be a very bad thing.
 
in the long run im pretty sure the cost between maintnence and constuction evens itself out. the costs in this modern day are almost exactly the same within a ten year period. at least thats what i learned. Im for it.
 
Your data is not completely accurate but you have the right idea. Uranium is much more expensive now than it was in 2005. If you have any questions for your paper, shoot me a PM. I am an Oil & Gas Analyst on the stock market.
 
There has been nuclear reactors operating in the united states for 50 years and there has been one disaster. And 100+ reactors operating since 1980 with no disasters. It's pretty safe. And Nuclear power is more efficient over time than coal or oil. It's far better for global warming and the environment as a whole, but obviously there are some drawbacks, no energy source if perfect. The 2 problems I have with Nuclear power are 1, the storage of its waste, and 2, the open pit mines in which the fuel source is mined.

As long as governments are diligent in constructing safe temporary facilities (for the first 30-40 years where the waste is at its most dangerous) and then safe permanent facilities with every precaution taken to avoid groundwater leakage I think its great.

Burning Coal and Oil is terrible for the environment and the oil part doesn't help the cost per barrel for our cars. Cause we still don't have a viable alternative for that yet. Wind power is extrememly inefficient, not to mention the Wind farms are ugly as sin. Tidal energy is expensive, so-far inefficient, and relatively unproven, as well as is limited by geography. Hydro power is nice and clean, fairly efficient but destroys habitats when the resovoirs are flooded. The Dams are expensive to built and the number of locations where you can build those damns is very limited.

20% of the US's power comes from Nuclear, France uses about 80%. If it's done properly it can be safe and cleaner than our other options. And as a bonus I own stock in uranium nining companies, so...cha-ching!
 
what about E85 Ethanol? it is a viable alternative isn't it? I am asking, i don't really know...but i know that car companies are now making engines for it....just a thought.

 
well we cant use coal or natural gas much longer, and thats fact. So unless someone finds another from of enegry production we are going to start relying heavily on nuclear power. Maybe we can store the waste on another planet or moon or something? I think we really need to look at wind and solar power more as well as new developments. How about some thing powered by the ocean currents or tides or some thing? IDK just high and trying to thing out of the box.
 
I don't see it as that great an alternative. It requires million upon millions of acres of arable land that could otherwise be used to grow other crops. Brazil is currently the largest user of Ethanol flex-flue vehicles, more than 1/3 of the world usage. However, to get that 16 billion litres it required over 6.6 million acres of land, 4.5% of its available arable land. It is also unproven whether or not it takes as much energy to grow the crop and produce the fuel than it does save. And because the flex flue mix contains less energy than petroleum, it gets worse gas milage. Depending on the cost per litre/gallon, this could end up costing you the same or more to fuel your car (as well as making you stop to fill up more often)

Diesel and bio-diesel are better solutions in my opinion. Why we haven't seen the same proliferation of diesel vehicles here as there is in Europe is beyond me. Especially since the Yanks love their powerful SUVs, diesel is great for torque. Man do I want a new Range Rover with the 3.7L diesel V8..mmmmmmm....
 
nuclear power is very bad. i watch a video on it in science class featuring bill nye the science guy. there is no guarenteed safe way of storing waste forever. there is some method where the waste can be safely stored for like 100 years, but after 100 years what are they gonna do? dig the stuff back up and reseal it? that costs a lot of money, and is really dangerous. and this method hasnt even been proven since it hasnet been 100 years yet. plus if you store this stuff and the containers break, the land in that area is screwed.

every alternative source has its ups and downs. no one would want to pay a lot more for wind and solar energy, so thats out. the only thing i would suggest to power cars, and maybe electricity is hydrogen. it seems the safest to the environment, most abundant source on earth, but it is a little pricey, but im sure you can make it cheaper if you make it conventional.
 
dont they drill down deep into the canadian shield to store our waste?

right now most of the worlds reactors use the basic nuclear fission process. future reactors will likely going to use the much more efficient "fast breed" process.

yes, i think nuclear power does have a future. when we adopt the fast breed process, we will have a little under 1000 years of uranium supply.
 
There is enough coal and natural gas to last us for quite some time into the future, DEFINITELY enough to last our generation. When wells run dry, we will simply look to other places for gas/coal/oil. It will take years and years and years for these to run out. The main problem with energy is that the us government subsidizes gas/coal/oil so fucking much. Will an average American EVER care if gas is around $2 a gallon? The answer is no, and to be honest, I can't really blame them. Hummers and gas guzzling SUVs will continue to flourish because of hte unnaturally low gas prices. The answer to this problem is to tax gas more, thus raising the price of gas, and forcing people to actually care. Americans will never care if they don't have to. That is how htis country works, because unfortunately we are lazy and don't have the foresite to look into the future and see inevitable problems.

I think that nuclear power does have a future. As well as hybrid cars, solar energy, wind energy, and any other sustainable energy source. This is the major flaw I have with the US government. Imagine if they took all the money they spend on subsidizing big oil companies, searching for new oil/coal etc, and spent it on sustainable resources. Do you have any idea how fast we would be able to come up with solutions to the current energy crisis and CO2 emissions? Very, very fast.

People state that they won't switch from fossil fuels because alternative energy sources aren't researched enough and they aren't known well enouhg to rely on them. Well, obviously they aren't researched enough because the fucking government is busy spending the VAST majority of their money on fossil fuels. Ughhhh so frustrating. I guarentee that if the government spent more money on alternative fuels, more efficient building materials, and other things like that the problem would be solved. Under the Bush administration, there is NO chance for this. This is my main issue. Forget the middle east, in my opinion this is more important.
 
they try to make it sound like it is....but in reality it really isn't.

Back to the topic at hand....as with many here I am 100% for Nuclear Power. Much cleaner than anything else, safe even though many people think otherwise, and will help solve the energy crisis which is already occuring around the country.

If we go to all nuclear power, which would be awesome, it still may not do too much to help with pollution globally. The Chinese are now moving in the direction of coal more and more which is incredibly dirty. Maybe they will smarten up and get with nuclear power as well.
 
Has anyone mentioned Geothermal energy? This may seem very nice too me simply because I know less on the subject, but from what I have heard it is efficient and has very limited impact on the environment(unless if digging a lot of holes has some negative long term effect I dont know about).

But yeah I have negative feelings on nuclear enegy, the biggest reason would be for the storage of the waste. As mentioned before, if theres a leak or anything a whole region gets contaminated.
 
Diesel isn't an alternative energy source, it is still made from crude. It's just produced with middle distillates instead of the light ends.

Geothermal isn't a viable alternative because it relies on geography. It's not widely available. Also, you cannot transport or liquefy the fuel for automotive use.

Ethanol has issues but it is promising. It doesn't necessarily even require corn or sugar-cane to be produced. Some current leading technology uses a cellulose feedstock (woodchips, biowaste, poop, etc.). This makes it much more attractive, unfortunately it isn't economical YET. It will be as technology increases and commodity prices appreciate or remain at these levels.

No one has mentioned gasification of coal or clean coal. These are more viable alternative energy sources to crude although they are still fossil fuels. Coal gasification is better for the environment and fairly cheap to produce. There are many projects underway in North America right now!
 
Actually, do you know those articles you read in the newspaper or investors magazines?

I write those.

I love it when people who have no idea try to judge other people.
 
I agree with taxation. I mean I am going to hate it when it hits me like a brick wall at the pump, but it sure as hell would change my driving habits if gas was $4 a gallon instead of thte high $2s, or $1.50-$1.75 a litre as opposed to $1.00.

Unfortunately is going to be something we are going to have to do to reduce our emissions.
 
I would like to say that as someone who lives within 10 miles (immediate radiation zone if theres an accident) of Three Mile Island and that I approve of increased nuclear power use. We need to use a clean option if we plan on hanging around earth and not being forced to follow stephen hawkings to mars.
 
Three Mile Island never even melted down. The operators got it under control and there was only 1 case where someone could have gotten cancer from the incident. Both three mile island and chernobyl happened because of human error (this is back in 1979 and 1986) and since then, computers have replaced the human interaction which helps prevent mistakes made by humans.

 
ah ok, but is it better for the environment?  and they say that it is more efficent...is it?   someone said it wasn't

 
The main problem with alcohol as fuel if you look at from a global scope is that it hurts third world or at least economically depressed countries. I'm not sure if anyone heard about the recent tortilla protests in Mexico but it was a result of raised toritlla prices which when you are living on less than $2 dollars a day, is very significant. This raise is being attributed to the increased use of corn to make fuel in the U.S. We normally sell Mexico a lot of our surplus corn but now that is being used domestically. While the fuel itself is a good thing its effects on non-americans are very bad. If alcohol was going to be a viable alternative I wouldn't have an issue with it but the fact is it would require so much land to produce the fuel that we consume at todays levels that there would hardly be room for any actual food crops to grow. I'm definitley not saying fossil fuels are the way to go but alcohol has its problems as well. Hydrogen although still really far from being viable seems like the best option. Either that or electric but we will see.
 
how about we just invent nuclear fussion.  like the sun. ...even better yet, cold fussion. liek that movie.......
 
3 mile island was a disaster, but the contanment domes and all the safety stuff did its job and protected the core, unlike Chernobly where not contanment domes were bulit. So 3 mile proves that the safety procaution work
 
I don't know why I would make such a ludicrous claim. Its fine if you don't want to believe me, many people on this website do know me and know what I do for a living. I'm not going to argue with you.
 
im so glad in oregon we have not nuke power.... its all hydro elictric, with wind and sea power i realy realy do not want a nuke power plant in oregon.. the only active reactor in oregon is at reed college and its for study purposes only..

come one kids... half life here.... and think about the china syndrome. i know thats worse case but you could wipe half of the usa away with one fuck up...
 
you my friend, are what is right with NS.

im all for nuclear power. i think it would be so fucking tight to have xmen powers.
 
I live within 20 miles of a working plant in Michigan and I'm not afraid of anything happening. They're much safer than people think. Especially with the safety technology that has been created since chernobyl and three mile island, such as gravity fed control rods (drop into reactor in case of meltdown).
 
oh come on you... are you actually worrying about the china syndrome? That will not happen. I mean technically it is possible, but the odds are astronomical. And about half life, who cares when we have a bunch of radioactive material buried under a mountain in the middle of Nevada inside feet of concrete? That is the least of my concerns. Unlike nuclear power, we can't contain the emissions from fossil fuels.
 
three mile island proved that the safety precautions work and the reason chernobyl happened was b/c they didnt have any safety precautions
 
Mmhmm. They shut down the safety systems and were trying to lower the output of the reactor but they did it too fast causing a steam line to explode which triggered other explosions.
 
nuclear power puts out a ton of renewable energy so its a little bit more cost efficient. but the waste is the downside
 
If nuclear reactors were cars, American one's would be a newer volvo and the one at chernoble would be a ford pinto with disconnected brakelines. That thing was a nightmare.

I think a lot of what slows nuclear progression down is public fear. Radiation is some serious shit, we know how to make it safe, but mistakes do happen. Not to say an oil spill isn't a huge deal, but ducks fish beaches vs people dying horrible deaths and having cancer for years.. I dunno.
 
Not quite, its gaining some momentum around where I live(Montreal). But like someone said it isnt meant for transportation. I thought that was pretty obvious and it wasnt the only focus of this thread. And, mind you, the energy can be stored in batteries so maybe it would be possible to use in cars..
 
Nuclear power is being phased out as we speak. As nuclear power plants expire.. theyre done and therefore there is no future for it. It'll die out eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top