nuclear energy

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well a lot of orphans from Russia have that problem so it is not rare.

From near Chernobyl? That would not be surprising. Also I am advocating a level of safety at least a 100 times better than whatever the soviets had.

     Agreed. The former Soviet Union should not be held up as a paragon of safe nuclear power.

Do you remember the plane crash in the Ural mts? Think about it

     I don't get it. Was the plane nuclear-powered or something?

[The Mikado]

Support in general, but I freely recognize its many drawbacks: uranium isn't exactly plentiful, its expensive as hell, the waste issue, and people have an irrational phobia of the word "nuclear."

Even with all of those issues, nuclear is better than the fossil fuel trio.  I support it, but only as part of a package of new energies, like wind, solar, and even the more out-there ones like geothermal.

I also strongly support room-temperature fusion power, or "cold fusion," which would provide us with near-limitless almost-free energy.  It should be getting here any day now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

sbane
What kind of research do you want?
The kind where a person actually went threw it?

[CARLHAYDEN]

In general, do you support the continuation/expansion of nuclear energy?

Absolutely!!!

[Associate Justice PiT]

sbane
What kind of research do you want?
The kind where a person actually went threw it?

     He wants research from a country that actually has a good track record with nuclear power, like France.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Not many country's have a good track record.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why can't we just use wind,solar,water. Just cause France doe it does not mean we should. It would be very dangerous if something happend. And things always happen.

Look, I'm supportive of solar power because I'm in southern Arizona, one of the few places in the United States where solar power is marginally useful.

There are very few places in the United States where there is sufficient wind on a consistent basis to be commercially viable.

Ecofreaks are opponents of hydroelectric, so we're unlikely to get more electric power there.

We need a variety of improvements in our energy mix, of which nuclear power is a major element.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not many country's have a good track record.

     How many of the countries with bad ones belong to the former Soviet Union? Regardless, the United States has a proven track record in the area of nuclear safety. Three-Mile Island was the worst accident we suffered, with zero casualties to show for it.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

OK so as long as you get energy you are willing to sacrifice lifes.

[Franzl]

OK so as long as you get energy you are willing to sacrifice lifes.

You really don't seem to be listening to very much of what anyone is saying in this thread...

________________________________________________________________

I support atomic energy mostly, I think it should be combined with renewable energy sources to come up with stable and effective replacements for unnecessary fossil fuel consumption.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The more I think about it, I think I am pro-nuclear power.  It shouldn't be a long term solution, but it could really help us get off of coal and oil in the short and mid term.

We could store the waste at Yucca Mountain until we find a better way to eject it into space in a more cost effective manner.

Eventually, we could phase nuclear energy out by replacing it with new technologies and renewables.  Again, conservation and research are the most important parts of our energy solution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

OK so as long as you get energy you are willing to sacrifice lifes.

     How many lives has the United States sacrificed for energy? This isn't Soviet Russia; we're capable of safely running a nuclear plant around here.

[2952-0-0]

First things first, nuclear energy isn't a long term solution, since peak uranium production is coming before 2030 and subsequent reserves will be scarcer and costlier to access. It's also subject to the same strategic risks as oil.

In the 1970s France even sent air support to help install a dictator in central Africa in exchange for safe uranium supplies at the cost of thousands of lives.

Having said that it's something that should be considered as a bridge. Total energy output is going to decline dramatically within the next ten years and we'll need to accelerate means to find replacements.

[Sbane]

First things first, nuclear energy isn't a long term solution, since peak uranium production is coming before 2030 and subsequent reserves will be scarcer and costlier to access. It's also subject to the same strategic risks as oil.

In the 1970s France even sent air support to help install a dictator in central Africa in exchange for safe uranium supplies at the cost of thousands of lives.

Having said that it's something that should be considered as a bridge. Total energy output is going to decline dramatically within the next ten years and we'll need to accelerate means to find replacements.

I do believe we can use thorium as an alternative. Do believe India will try that soon since they have almost no uranium but plenty of thorium.

[King]

We've got a fairly large waste storage plant in Carlsbad, NM.

Plus, with the way ozone is going, in a few years you'll get more radiation exposure from the Sun than from hugging a barrel of Nuclear Waste.

[War on Want]

The more I think about it, I think I am pro-nuclear power.  It shouldn't be a long term solution, but it could really help us get off of coal and oil in the short and mid term.

We could store the waste at Yucca Mountain until we find a better way to eject it into space in a more cost effective manner.

Eventually, we could phase nuclear energy out by replacing it with new technologies and renewables.  Again, conservation and research are the most important parts of our energy solution.

My same exact thoughts except I do see nuclear power as more of a long term solution and I think we could research new ways to make it more efficent.

[dead0man]

Nope I think that people would have to really know what they were doing. And  some Americans in my opinion are getting dumber,

You think we would have enough space? People are coming in like a swarm of flys. It would be way to crowded. Especially since you have to kick people out to make more room. Now what?

What do you do when they explode!!

Seriously?  Some Americans are dumb so we can't have things that need to be run by smart people?  We're running out of space?  explode?

[dead0man]

Total energy output is going to decline dramatically within the next ten years...

Cite?

[Sbane]

Total energy output is going to decline dramatically within the next ten years...

Cite?

I think what he meant to say was supply will not keep up with demand. I don't want to put words in his mouth though.....

[Associate Justice PiT]

Damn!  I wish I had found this sooner.  I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy and fully support its expansion along with deregulation and demonopolization (yes, that's a word now).  It is overregulated to the point of having exaggerated barriers to entry.  It is profitable, safe, and clean.  There is no reasonable opposition to it and the only issue that needs government instigated resolution is the backyard argument.  The mountain west needs to boot up their asses and let the waste into their vast expanses of nothing.

     I agree. Nuclear energy in the United States is quite safe & clean. Some people aren't so convinced though. Look at our argument with Dc_united_15 (my ex for all who don't know) over it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nope I think that people would have to really know what they were doing. And  some Americans in my opinion are getting dumber,

You think we would have enough space? People are coming in like a swarm of flys. It would be way to crowded. Especially since you have to kick people out to make more room. Now what?

What do you do when they explode!!

Seriously?  Some Americans are dumb so we can't have things that need to be run by smart people?  We're running out of space?  explode?

Seriously.. I had a nuclear power plant explode in my back yard.  It was NOT pretty.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, but not for safety reasons (There have been only two actual nuclear meltdowns in history, only one caused any deaths and that one was thanks to the Soviets following safety procedures that were beyond an absolute joke.) but simply because it's not practical at this point as the cost of building new plants is super-expensive and I doubt anyone's willing to foot the bill only to have the plant go obsolete before it's made back 20% of its cost after alternative energy takes over.

Expanding the scope of existing plants or reactivating closed ones isn't something I'd oppose though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, but not for safety reasons (There have been only two actual nuclear meltdowns in history, only one caused any deaths and that one was thanks to the Soviets following safety procedures that were beyond an absolute joke.) but simply because it's not practical at this point as the cost of building new plants is super-expensive and I doubt anyone's willing to foot the bill only to have the plant go obsolete before it's made back 20% of its cost after alternative energy takes over.

Expanding the scope of existing plants or reactivating closed ones isn't something I'd oppose though.

That's reasonable, but don't you think at this point it would be a better investment than say, solar or geothermal?  Would you be opposed to the government loosening its grasp on the industry and allowing it to become privatized?  Or do you think the long run (renewable energy) is closer than we think?

Your typical plant would take at least 20 years to be profitable. Now granted that's not an uncommon business model and plenty of other businesses operate that way, but not ones looking at obsolescence likely before that. From a business standpoint, solar and geothermal are far better investments.

[12th Doctor]

What do you do when they explode!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


If you had any clue how nuclear physics works, you would know that that basically can't happen.

A nuclear power plant in not a nuclear bomb, and anyone who thinks it is is flat out ignorant.  In order to achieve a nuclear chain reaction, you need to either have enough uranium 238 to go super critical, or you have to create a device that will cause slams the pieces together so fast that it causes such a reaction to occur.  The later is how a bomb works.

A nuclear power plant can't explode, because they never keep enough Uranium 235 on site to cause a reaction that would go super critical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons

The wonderful thing about the modern world is that information is free.  I suggest you educate yourself.

[12th Doctor]

PiT (The Physicist)
So you want to harm the enviorment?

     I don't. However, I'm realistic about it. Nuclear fission is the best option available to us now. The nuclear waste is not that bad if properly maintained. There's a chance it won't be, just as there's a chance a bird will be killed by those windmills out there.

What do you do when they explode!!

     Explosions in modern facilities are rare. Chernobyl was ancient & poorly-maintained when it melted down. A similar incident at Three-Mile Island was avoided when the safeties shut down the reactor before it went critical.

Well in the car museum they had a nuclear car and it exploded.

     I doubt a car's safeties would be as sophisticated as those of an industrial reactor.

I think she is confused into thinking that a nuclear power "explosion" would look like an atomic bomb.  A nuclear reactor can't explode in such a fashion.  What happened in Chernobyl was that the reactor blew, and sent nuclear material into the atmosphere, it was a steam explosion.  There was no mushroom cloud.  And the only reason the damage was so wide spread, actually, the only reason the accident happened at all, is because the Soviets were utterly unconcerned with safety.  The Soviets never bothered, for instance, to construct containment buildings around their reactors, which are mandatory in the West.