people are now thinking of using nuclear power to replace coal, nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gasses and are estimated to last or thousands of years but the accidents that can happen and the nuclear waste are big cons, the question is should we embrace using nuclear power?

discuss

Onca we find an effective way of safely harnessing it, then why not?

Replacing one thing with another similar yet more complicated thing. So it goes, so we "progress", and eventually we will all be robots.

Obviously you have no idea what nuclear power is.

Sure, why not?

is there anything to do with the dangerous wastes?

when we find a use for it, i think nuclear power is okay, there's just the fear of an accident.

Since now nuclear energy relies on atom splitting, there's a lot of excess nuclear waste. Just a quick explanation for those who don't know: In order to split an atom you need a large unstable atom to bombard with alpha particals. When its split, the mass or the atom (not too much) times the speed of light squared (thats thats around 90000000000000000) is outputted as energy.
Afterwards you're left with smaller particals which are still unstable and emit radio-active radiation but are too small to be split again. thus being the radio-active waste which is problematic (impossible) to dispose of.


Nuclear power isn't really the way to power the future IMO, since there are easier ways to get energy like Wind power which is cheap and abounded.

The question is if we can find anything to do with toxic waste but rather can we achieve safely harnessed fusion power where the output is twice as much energy and the leftovers are just helium gas.

Sonic - I'm assuming that by "nuclear power" you mean nuclear fission, not fusion. Although fusion looks like a good prospect, I don't think it will be feasible for a long time.

As for fission, I am all for embracing it.

1. Other countries have already embraced it - France, for example, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear plants. This shows that a reliance on nuclear energy is entirely feasible.

2. Uranium supply, if breeder reactors are used, would last for a very long, LONG time.

3. Nuclear waste is a problem but it is a problem that can be solved - that is, if political legislation would let it. Waste can be stored in repositories where it will not be harmful to humans, but of course this has been slowed by politics. Yucca Mountain for example.

4. Spent fuel rods can be reprocessed, reducing nuclear waste.

And other reasons that I don't feel like writing down.

Yes, definitely.
this is the future without doubt, with a few improvements this will probably be the largest form of energy income.

lol drmr at least you know what i ment

Yes. And with nuclear waste, why don't we just load the barrls onto a rocket, and send it to the sun. It would probably be really expensive and fairly dangerous, because if the rocket ship exploded on lift off, you would be fu**ed.

LOL, yeah, lets just do that

just store all the nuclear waste on some island

Yeah the British wouldn't mind, do you think?

Dunno, imagine if it would leak overseas to the netherlands
I was more thinking of america tbh

maybe we culd like bury it?

That's pretty much what they want to do.

thats what they already do lol

I was thinking, nuclear waste can't be radioactive if its frozen, and we have the technology to freeze things to almost absolute zero in fact we've only been about .000000001 degrees centigrade away

All of you talk like nuclear power is a dangerous thing and that we should research it.

I hope you realize it's already being used, and can be contained. Freezing anything doesn't stop it's radiation.

Sonic, if you are referring to this article when you talk about being half a billionth above absolute zero, I hope you read that


I am for nuclear energy in places where there are no other options. I personally do not like nuclear energy because to me the negatives outweigh the positives. As there are no emissions, but mishandling nuclear waste could potentially be 10 times worse. I would prefer if countries that could use solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro powered plants to produce significant amounts of energy used those instead of nuclear.

It dosen't produce greenhouse gases and the chances of a Disaster like Chernobyl (Sp?) happening are quite low so it is quite a low risk. It is also incredibly efficient.
The only problem is when you have to abandon it, it takes at least twenty years until the land can be used again.

Whats wrong with just sending massive amounts of nuclear waste to the sun, or to mars?

The only thing wrong about it is that its economically unachievable... sending anything far enough so it won't just orbit around the earth costs so much that it's not even close to somewhat worth.

about freezing it, the lowest temperature ever archived in a laboratory was obtained on an extremely small particle and took probably tons of energy to produce. Here's just a quick reference for energy.
at 100% efficiency (ni=1.0) it takes 1 Kcal to change the temperature of 1 liter of H2O in 1 degree Celsius. so to cool it down some 280 degrees from room temp is 280 is over 1100 Joules which is the energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton (the force needed to accelerate 1 KG of mass to 1m/s^2) over a kilometer or 1100 newtons over 1 meter (in other words. 1100Nm) either way, thats a lot of energy, and we're not even talking about 1 liter and obviously not H2O

Now that energy is needed all the time to keep it that cool... which means its (even if it scientifically works) impossible.

It is a danger to humanity. A small city in ontario has a plant and its workers do complain of birth defects and loss of ability to reproduce. I'm not saying like a third leg but reproduction and a risk of mental disability is a common complaint amongst its past workers.

if you do not think its dangerous heres a lovely little link. Poke around for awhile.

That doesn't sound the best, but other than that it seems like a better alternative than some of our other methods for energy such as coal burning etc, releasing greenhouse gasses.

Morril leveled up! Morril is now level 2. Morril learned What Chernobyl is. Make room for What Chernobyl is?

The accident happened because people are morons. Counting in that variable, everything is dangerous.

lol, zhou, i love this little point .

well done.

Fusion is what we need to focus on. Its a lot better in terms of the environment and power capacity.

Not that I like the environment.



Why not do that with trash too?

Honestly, make a big rocket, add a little tax, say a dollar or two per person, and load some trash for a trip to the sun. You wouldn't need a whole lot of gas, since the Sun would pull you in at some point.

You do realize that the energy required for a fusion reaction exceeds that which it releases? It's inefficient at this point.

it's obvious disasters like chernobyl happen. There's a risk of me breaking a leg if I'm walking but I'm not going to sit for the rest of my life right?

i think the only problem is the wastes but i'm pretty sure some solution will be found soon

everyone says, nuclear power is dangerous, here's a little fact, more people have died in coal mines than from nuclear accidents

I just want to reaffirm what Zhou said: Nuclear fusion is not economically feasible with our technology.



That right there is the essential problem with fusion. Right now, in order to get nuclei to those conditions and achieve a stable nuclear fusion reaction, we must use put in more energy than we get out of it.

You can't say for certain something will be discovered in the future that will make it efficient.

Side note: The Sun uses nuclear fusion. Does that mean it is somewhat radioactive?

Obviously... Solar radiation?

Sure, and it's possible that a renewable, cheap, and efficient alternative energy source will be discovered. But that doesn't mean it will be.

The essence of nuclear fusion creates problems for it ever being useful.

Not to mention Chernobyl happened over 20 years ago.

Nuclear Fission-> Very safe, very efficient; the only real argument is the disposal of the waste. I just say contain it and bury it in a government facility where the public isn't allowed to come close.

Nuclear Fusion-> We don't have the technology to make it feasible, so until we do have the technology, don't even assume it's possible to make it economical.

Plasma Gasification-> http://inventorspot.com/articles/plasma_ga...ansforms_g_6315

wow, i don't think anybody else here though about that

I dont think you guys know that when the chernobyl accident happened it was all due to human error, The workers wanted to perform an experiment to produce more efficient energy, in doing so they shut off 6 safety devices....Dumb.

all nuclear accidents were caused by human error

I believe Chernobyl was the only significant nuclear accident.

Are there still amounts of nuclear waste in Chernobyl?

there's still amounts of radiationn ther

It's not nuclear waste, but rather radiation. And yes, it is still present, in harmful amounts.

Chernobyl was the most significant
but there was still the three mile accident here in the U.S.
and there was another one in england but I forgot it's name, they couldn't drink milk for a month because of the radiation, the factory used a less radioactive fuel tho so it wasn't that harmful

Wind power isn't cheap, in the Energy White Paper, it's predicted energy bills would rise if we converted to Wind power.



We'd have to wait for a global communist state before someone can agree what island to store it all on.



Actually the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl are occurant 24 hours a day. A nuclear power plant is a 'controlled' nuclear explosion every time it creates energy. I'm going to assume that we rely on a chap at a computer to make sure it doesn't go into meltdown each time.




That doesn't actually support your argument, as coal mines have been used for a longer time than nuclear power plants, and in times when Human Rights were not recognised so the safety of the miners could have been neglected. And we all know in Wales they were mining for noodles not coal.


I'm for nuclear energy. Other sources are just too unreliable;

• Fossil Fuels will run out...when?
• Solar is reliant on the sun. Cloudy day, where will energy come from?
• Wind is reliant on a windy day.
• Wave is reliant on waves, and is still inefficient at that.
• Hydro power is reliable...but damage to surrounding area.