Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Nuclear energy - Do you feel safe with it?

profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
Global warming, energy crisis, rising oil prices, yadda, yadda, yadda... Go searchbar those topics if you wanna discuss them. What I want to know here is whether or not you feel safe with nuclear power. Why/why not? Areas of concern? Possible solutions?
May 21 2008 10:08AM
0 0
profile picture
comeatmebro
Posts: 10720 - Karma: 66
huh interesting. i'll have to look that up, didn't know we were so close.
May 21 2008 9:54PM
0 0
profile picture
aznsteeze
Posts: 1319 - Karma: 52
Nopee, dont feel safe
i live like 10 minutes away from a nuclear power plant in Pickering Canada,
and people have caught three eyed fish in Lake Ontario and weird shit like that.
and if i lived any closer to Pickering, i'd have to take some "iodine" pill to counteract the radiation or something?  I doubt it actually does something.  Haha and by buddy even surfs in Lake Ontario.

And i think that we should be using many more renewable sources.  There are soooo many.
May 21 2008 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
Is that a serious statement???? How about every animal that lives on the wildlife refuge there?  How about the fact that there's a finite amount of oil and when it's gone, the land will be devastated?  If that statement was serios, you need to gtfo of the city and get in touch with nature to see wtf we're doing to it.
May 21 2008 11:14PM
0 0
profile picture
sarahskis
Posts: 1587 - Karma: 41
Yeah, but the problem is were not.  If we want a way to immediately have an alternative energy source, there is nothing left to be developed.  We already have what we need, working power plants, and plenty of nuclear physicists (one of my best friends being one of them ) trained and ready for work. 

We have enough advancements to seriously counteract the radioactivity it releases. High level waste can be diluted twice with neutral materials and than change into glass or ceramic form.

Economically speaking, nuclear energy costs only 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour, while for coal it costs 1.80 cents per kilowatt-hour, oil was 4.93 cents and gas was 6.08 cents. Gas is steadily going up if you haven't noticed yet.
May 21 2008 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
if the French are doing it(i mean the FRENCH, come on!)    i dont  see any reason we shouldnt..
May 21 2008 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
Interesting comparisions (Jesus, landmines). Kinda adds a different perspective on the timescale (Jesus) and long term storage (linemines) issues.


Also I read a while ago that the "Nuke barge' you mention was being developed by Russia to help power remote coastal cities. Of all countries...Russia...greaaaaat.
May 22 2008 10:00AM
0 0
profile picture
FUUUCK
Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888
Nuclear power is the way.
May 22 2008 10:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
The price per kilowatt hour of Solar is dropping like its hot. Its going to be competative with carbon-generated electricty very soon which should mark a big shift in energy production (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml).

I would expect that certain progressive governments will capitalize on this global price decrease because of rising oil prices and consumer demands (to go more green).




A company I'm very interested in right now is Nanosolar: "Their mission: to deliver cost-efficient solar electricity. The Nanosolar company was founded in 2002 and is working to build the world’s largest solar cell factory in California and the world’s largest panel-assembly factory in Germany. They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal."

While they are still building the production facilities, test panels have been built and proven to work. Plus, when you look at who backs this project, it looks like it holds a lot of future potential.

Bringing this into context, at 30 cents/watt, solar will be 4 times cheaper then Nuclear with almost zero risk involved...


May 22 2008 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
MLB
Posts: 4462 - Karma: 298
I feel TOTALLY SAFE with nuclear energy. Besides hydro electric power, it is the cleanest power source we have.  All it is, is a big water heater......all the steam coming out of the stacks at 3 mile island is STEAM.....not some sort of chemical polution. Literaly the water pumped into the reactor is just as clean as the power pumped out of it.

The ONLY problem i have with nuclear energy is the american view/regulation on nuclear power. Honestly, they create a HUGE nuclear waste storage facility in the nevada desert for millions of dollars, and because of legislation nobody is using it. Not to mention the used uranium that does come out of the reactor does not get recycled into plutonium ( then put back into the reactor). RETARDED. Canada, Germany, France............ALL recycle. But no not america. So now the states has a huge stock pile of nuclear garbage that it has no where to put ( Yucca Mountain the nevada storeage facility will be totally full when it opens).  Nuclear power is awesome......and all i have to stay is im happy that i live in canada.
May 22 2008 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Craigskis
Posts: 6650 - Karma: 1,645
mytreads
May 22 2008 11:53AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
I'm going to quote this post, but I also have a few words for Hiro and Shawn as well.

First, this power source aint as safe as you think. Sure, we have Yucca Mountain. You know how many towns and cities have tried to block the trucks that will almost daily be moving radioactive materials from around the country into that facility? Moving nuclear waste is fucking hazardous, no matter how protected and careful you are.

Hiro, there are lots of crazy ideas out there. I really would eat my own head if a floating nuclear barge got approved by our government. As for terrorism, it should be a concern by not the main issue here.

Shawn, as for solar power, heres what I know - Its a possible cost effective source of energy that we could run the country on by 2050. Panels are getting very efficient, and Spain has had a lot of success using a system that uses solar energy to compress a gas, which is then constantly leaked past an alternator, giving constant power day and night. Everyone also bemoans that issue of "where are all these going to go?" How about state owned highway easements in the Southwest? That alone has to be on the order of a hundred thousand acres of unused government owned and environmentally screwed space.

There are other alternatives too, beyond wind. I read about a cool proposal to make giant convection turbines thousands of feet tall that look like the iconic nuclear power smokestacks. Warm air on the earths surface rushes in through turbines in the bottom, and rises to the top of the tower where it meets cooler air at the top. I think a prototype is being made in Europe soon. Point is, there are plenty of safe alternatives to nuclear energy. Problem is that they take more investment of money, time and research. Will they be better in the long run? No doubt. But as for what can solve our energy crisis now...

May 22 2008 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
MLB
Posts: 4462 - Karma: 298
Ok....to the guy that said nuclear barge.....there already has been that for years. America has had them, Russia has had them. NUCLEAR SUBMARINES. 

I like the suggestions of everybody on this thread....but lets be real here. Hemp? Come-on like anybody is going to approve that, and i DOUBT that we could even quench our power needs with hemp. I do like the methane electric plants in some Landfills, i think using our own garbage to create clean power is brillient.

Solar would be great, but the costs would be astronomical. Wind power is just to expensive, and not constant enough to make power.  Tidal power would be great, but again no one knows what is going to happen with the tides over the next 20 years. The effects of global warming to fuck us on that one.

Coal is too dirty, expensive, and Radioactive ( you get more radiation from living by coal plant, then living by a nuclear power plant......serious look it up. There is radiation in everything.)  We have all agreed that oil is not the way, and well i don't know about you guys, but in canada we are hydro-damed out to the tits.

Nuclear is the way to go. I think what needs to happen is that we need to run nuclear untill we can implement other technologies better.  Honestly you guys just get fed too much media, do your own research. Literaly go visit three mile island now......go.  You guys are talking about something that happened in the 70s. Last time i chequed we  do not listen to Abba, or rock the roller skates anymore.  Systems have changed, and so have we. Nuclear power is not the same as it was 30 years ago, not EVEN CLOSE.
May 22 2008 12:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
Any links to info on this?
May 22 2008 12:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
On the methane topic, there are areas in the third world where mini-methane setups are producing fuel for the local people. They collect all the shit from their farm animals in one room and as the shit offgases during decompsoing, the gas is collected and piped into their house to fuel stove top burners and heaters. Very smart energy solution for those people IMO.

As for people complaing about the price of solar and wind, technolgies are improving all the time and the cost is dropping. See my post above on the company Nanosolar for an example of this. Sure they aren't feasible right now, but since it costs ~$2 billion to build one nuclear power plant, think about reinvesting that money in Solar and wind R$D...i bet we'd have large scale solutions in no time. Its the previous buracratic systems that are getting in the way of this transition from "dirty power" to "clean power". Evidence? Look at the European countries that are making 'clean energy' work. If they can do it, why can't the US? Oh yeah, oil monolopies are stalling it. If we stopped hating on the cost of renewable energy and instead invested in it, the price would fall much quicker and make it much more feasible for use en mass. The majority of the problem here is politics, not the technology. Technology developes as fast as money allows. Very little money, very little advancement. Times are changing now though.

As for tides...they are always going to be there regardless of ocean levels. Until the moon decides to fuck off and stop orbiting us, we are going to have tides. I think a better solution to harnessing the potential ocean power is Pelema's.

Link to how they work:
www.pelamiswave.com

Think about all the unused surface area in our oceans...these would be awesome ways to gather power without having to deal with land restrictions.
May 22 2008 12:37PM
0 0
profile picture
grifter
Posts: 933 - Karma: 102
yea, I feel safe with it, so does my third eye...
May 22 2008 12:38PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
i'd support Nuclear for now, i think it ironic to say that nuclears' main problem is safety, when all our reactors are 20 something years old. 

The reason Nuclear isn't as 'safe' here is because we stopped building new reactors 20 years ago,  start with new facilities,  and new productions, and you probably could make a safe reactor.
May 22 2008 12:42PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
My article was in popular science (and now  that I think of it I think I have the cold air and hot air reversed, but whatever). I was looking online for it and came across this... kinda a fusion of the two ideas I mentioned. Check it out:

http://www.shpegs.org/



May 22 2008 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
noneskier
Posts: 35 - Karma: 12
 I don't feel save, because we have the most nuclear weapons in the world that my opinion other people have theirs.
May 22 2008 1:25PM
0 0
profile picture
ChanchoVelez.
Posts: 1029 - Karma: 11
i think it sucks!!!!!
May 22 2008 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
very eloquent response
May 22 2008 4:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Dan.
Posts: 7201 - Karma: 1,126
terrorism shouldnt be an issue, if we pull out of the middle east and israel, almost all hostilities toward the us will cease, thats why we were attacked in the first place
May 23 2008 12:14AM
0 0
profile picture
HiroProtagonist
Posts: 304 - Karma: 11
Please stop posting the price of nuclear power at only a few dollars. Does that include the cleanup fees when we have to clean that shit up? Does that include the cost of dismantling the power plants in another 50 years (just a guess, but how many years can a machine like that function before it falls apart?)? Does that cost include the lost time at work when people have to evacuate a city? Human life if something happens?

My point is not to fear monger, or rant about how we will all die of cancer and have the legged babies (although it has happened..)... My point is simply this: If you play with fire, you will get burned.

Do people understand the chemical reaction behind fire? Sure. Do people know how to start a fire? Yep. Do people ever get burned? I know I do once in a while.

It's just statistics. With that much risk, and that many thousands of years (Ok, hundreds, depending on how well we can stabilize the waste) something will go wrong.


It may suck that we are the generation that has to pay more for energy than any other generation in modern history, but it is the case. And if I have to pay a few more dollars now, so that my children (the ones that will love me unconditionally until they turn 13, then stop wanting to be seen in public with me, be patronizing know-it-all little shits, until they take all my money for their college education, never write home, only come back for Christmas (If I'm lucky), get married to someone I've never met, and then dump me in a nursing home until I die)... If I have to pay now, so that they can live in a slightly more Utopian world... Then thats fine with me.


May 23 2008 3:13AM
0 0
profile picture
HiroProtagonist
Posts: 304 - Karma: 11
Oh... and Abba's the shit.


























...No homo
May 23 2008 3:24AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
With terrible risk comes great rewards. You hear about radioactive deaths because they are so strange and new to our civilization. People have been dying from drilling accidents and mining disasters for hundreds of years. Energy can be a deadly business. While I agree that nuclear energy has the potential to reach out and effect more civilians than other sources, its not the first time we've seen human life lost for such pursuits.
May 23 2008 3:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
I like your thinking Hiro.

I think we can all agree that accidents can happen regardless of the safety features involved. The difference now is the resulting 'hangover' left from an accident has gone from an oil slick in the water or an exploded refinery to radioactive waste that travels the whole planet and hangs around for 1000's of years. We can clean up and oil slick or burned down building, we can't clean up radioactive waste. One accident is not acceptable now.
May 23 2008 7:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.LemonPie
Posts: 4100 - Karma: 1,625
It is all about fusion power. If we could figure out cold fusion the world would be set for energy. It is pretty close too, will probably happen during our lifetime.
May 23 2008 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
blakcnd12
Posts: 22 - Karma: 10
Nuclear energy is definately the way to go, but it is not that safe working with them  but the energy used is way cleaner than fossil fuels
May 23 2008 3:37PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Actually, Bush just denied funding for numerous scientific endeavors in the US... so goodbye Fusion program, as well as the Linear Collider.
May 23 2008 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
Why did he?
May 23 2008 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
grifter
Posts: 933 - Karma: 102
cus the guy is a tool
May 23 2008 6:28PM
0 0
profile picture
comeatmebro
Posts: 10720 - Karma: 66
yeah you see though, that's the thing. 40 years is a pretty long time, hell i'll be 56 by that time. i think that we are going to need some type of energy source to fill that 30 year gap or whatever it may be. although i could be wrong...
May 23 2008 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Ryan, its because funding a war is much more exciting to watch.

Shawn, totally agree. We do need something in the interim. Something that doesnt pollute, has low environmental impacts and is sustainable. Unfortunately, not much we have now can do all of that. Its going to be a mass of different source of energy until  (and hopefully) we can get our renewable energy policy going.
May 23 2008 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
comeatmebro
Posts: 10720 - Karma: 66
yep but unfortunately i don't think it's that easy. with the people controlling our country having something to do with the oil business, things could get bad. the people who run the country are the most corrupt fucking people there are. it's all about money to them, and renewable energy sources definitely isn't where it is at. it seems like our generation is much more environmentally aware though (thank god) and maybe when we get into office etc. some changes will be made. haha kind of a rant, but i needed to say it.

and really, i'm not sure what else we can use besides nuclear energy. coal is pointless, oil is definitely going to be a no soon, and all the rest i can think of are renewable which i think we will steer clear of until we absolutely need them. not saying nuclear energy is good, it's a huge risk and isn't disposable but i think we're gonna be stuck with it soon for a little while...
May 23 2008 7:51PM
0 0
profile picture
sarahskis
Posts: 1587 - Karma: 41
Theres huge ups and downs.  The problem we're all facing is energy RIGHT NOW, and the best way to get it is through nuclear energy.  We have the resources, are more advanced than we used to be, and would be a great way to have cheaper energy while getting something else in tow. 

Nuclear energy produces waste about 3.5 million times smaller than the leading energy source for United States: coal.

Theres some really good arguments going up for both sides.  I'm researching
May 24 2008 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
HiroProtagonist
Posts: 304 - Karma: 11
This is something i havent heard mentioned: China.

China may be able to save our ass's here. Think of how much renewable energy generation equipment they have the infrastructure to produce. They are turning to coal and nuclear power, but they are smart too. They know they will be running out soon. They know there will be huge pressure on them to turn green. And they know they can sell that shit to us all day long.

Solar panels (even low efficiency ones) mass produced could be bought for far far below the cost of any other energy source that we rely on now in the US.

Same goes for windmills and any other gear needed.



May 25 2008 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,458
yes. Justification:france.
May 25 2008 2:12AM
0 0
profile picture
Inbred_Redneck
Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28

I think that nuclear energy is a great source of energy, yet we can't rely on the forever since they use uranium, which would eventually run out, causing the shit storm with the "oil crisis". 

Solar is the only way to go for now.  We have thousands of miles of unused government land next to highways and interstates that arent used for anything.  The government could also put them on residential houses and pay the owners a small fee to use them.  Another thing we need to  think about is garbage.  I read in a popular mechanics mag that some guys in new england had created a huge plasma incinerater.  They put trash in, vaporize it, and out comes water, methane, and some other non harmful substances that are used as a power source.  They then use those substances to power some kind of turbine and create electricity.  Killing two birds with one stone.

I also really like the concept of Rowens idea to use thermals to power huge turbines.  It would be possible, but unconventional since the thermals and downdrafts are constantly changing.

May 25 2008 8:43AM
0 0
profile picture
PagesHouse
Posts: 6024 - Karma: 104
I'm working to shut down the Yankee nuclear power plant in Vermont at the moment actually. I'm not sure how I feel about nuclear energy in comparison with others, but this specific plant is actually very unsafe. It's falling apart and one of the cooling towers collapsed and yet theyre working to keep it open for a long time.
May 25 2008 9:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
China is fucked right now from the earthquake. 50 radioactive problems areas had been identified since the quake with most (but not all) having been secured since.

Also China's main nunclear warhead facility is on "Emergency standby" since it was in one of the hardest hit provinces.

http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=8371424&nav=menu606_2

Hopefully they get this shit under control asap.
May 25 2008 10:26AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
The Quebec company Enerkem has a working facility that turns our garbage from landfills into ethanol for cars...pretty fucking cool IMO since there is already a global shortage of grains to make ethanol.


From one of the co-founders, "There's hydrogen in our trash. There's carbon. There's very nice molecules that we are putting in landfills,"

Here is the link to the company if anyone wants to check out the process...its pretty awesome

http://www.enerkem.com/
May 25 2008 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
Inbred_Redneck
Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28
Thats pretty sweet, I found this video on youtube.  The plasma incinerater is made by Startech. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhNqL-1VrcE

May 25 2008 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
dmc12380
Posts: 3545 - Karma: 792
the risk of a meltdown and fallout is deffinetly worth it compared to fossil fuels. Believe it or not we are all killing ouselves with pollution and wars over fossils fuels, so nuclear energy is deffinetly worth it.
May 25 2008 12:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Manlenium
Posts: 571 - Karma: 11
I give nuclear energy 3 thumbs up!
Jun 5 2008 5:41AM
0 0
profile picture
General_Shredgnar
Posts: 3024 - Karma: 34
Definitely don't feel safe. Not only are meltdowns terrible, but what maybe a lot of people don't realize is how much by product plants put out. So much nuclear waste which is extremely dangerous. The US has an abondoned mine where it's putting all of the waste, but in many conditions that could leak into water supplies. I mean I'm sure the mine is secure and thats why they are putting it there, but lets say theres an earthquake, material is spilled, etc. Its not worth the risk.
Jun 5 2008 7:52AM
0 0
profile picture
grifter
Posts: 933 - Karma: 102
Radioactive meltdown is very rare, and people don't normally die... and before you quote Chernobyl, that wasn't a true meltdown, as there was no loss of coolant.

as far as waste is concerned, blasting it in to space is the answer, no joke...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1

nuclear reactors are the future...
Jun 5 2008 12:23PM
0 0
profile picture
sarahskis
Posts: 1587 - Karma: 41
i've never considered blasting it into space, but that sounds like a very very good idea.  We only have so much room here on good old planet earth.  Space, as far as we know, is unlimited
Jun 9 2008 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Bangor
Posts: 9599 - Karma: 129
except for the "what happens when the rocket blows up right after launch" syndrome which has happened more than enough times in space history?

nuclear gobstoppers for every man woman and three breasted child.......







i just read the whole thread, it's 3:30am and i can't think about this shit right now so I'll be back on this later....
Jun 10 2008 3:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Alex_G
Posts: 11902 - Karma: 1,019
I can't wait till they figure out cold fusion.
Jun 10 2008 3:36AM
0 0
profile picture
grifter
Posts: 933 - Karma: 102
as far as the explosion-on-launch issue is concerned, that would be solved by not having any fuel, use laser guided, or space-elevator based systems and the situation is solved, problem is, those systems are not yet in place.... give it a few years.
Jun 10 2008 10:54AM
0 0
profile picture
CHRISm
Posts: 291 - Karma: 10

I've got a question for EVERYONE who has posted in this thread, are any of you experts?

An "expert" (Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.

Are any of you making decisions based upon expert, i'd even take semi-expert, knowledge, or just a "feeling" you have about nuclear power?

Good thread though, who knew the NS community would be debating over energy issues.

Jun 10 2008 11:52AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)