• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Three Mile Island nuclear reactor shuts down unexpectedly.

Fisher said:
The funny thing is somebody on this board on another thread, and I forget who, actually advocated for nuclear power as part of the green energy industrialization of America. I am pretty sure there are no more diametrically opposed ideas than that. I really do not have a problem with it as long as we site select to minimize Mother Nature throwing whammies at our plants as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Well...

Apart from the radioactive waste output that has to be stored somewhere and the miniscule chance of accident, nuclear power probably IS greener than coal, oil, natural gas, or any of those fossil fuels.

Might even be greener than solar and wind power, possibly even water, because it basically requires only an area in which to build a facility, whereas solar would require FAR greater land area to generate the same amount of power, wind power has the same issue as well as being a noise pollutant and a danger to some flying creatures, and water power tends to mess up the ecology of the waterway on which it is built…

But then, I’m no expert on these things, so I probably missed something.
 
I have no problem with it. Good Luck convincing Martin Sheen though.
 
Surtr said:
Hope their faces aren't melted off in the name of "clean" energy.
Click to expand...

I keep hoping people start researching before they open their mouths...
 
Last edited:
Surtr said:
Oh yeah, it's totally clean. Never you mind the toxic waste it produces. Just bury it, and dump it in the ocean, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

The waste that it produces is significantly lower than the waste products of other sources of energy which are spewed into the air or buried or blah blah blah. You know nothing John Snow.
 
Ikari said:
The waste that it produces is significantly lower than the waste products of other sources of energy which are spewed into the air or buried or blah blah blah. You know nothing John Snow.
Click to expand...

Radioactive waste remains lethal for hundreds of years. Just coming into contact with it is lethal, and we continue to produce more and more with no viable way of disposing of it. If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
 
Surtr said:
Radioactive waste remains lethal for hundreds of years. Just coming into contact with it is lethal, and we continue to produce more and more with no viable way of disposing of it. If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
Click to expand...
Really, nuclear fission would be cleaner as space craft propulsion...I mean you can always dump the radioactive waste in the nearest star...:mrgreen:

But to my understanding, burying the stuff deep underground is fairly effective…
 
Surtr said:
Radioactive waste remains lethal for hundreds of years. Just coming into contact with it is lethal, and we continue to produce more and more with no viable way of disposing of it. If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
Click to expand...

Radioactive decay can last centuries, millennium even. But the quantity we're talking about is small and the amount of radiation that it gives off when properly contained is minuscule. We have viable ways of storing it till inactive that will not increase the overall radiation rate of people in the surrounding vicinity any more than walking outside will.

If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
 
Surtr said:
Oh yeah, it's totally clean. Never you mind the toxic waste it produces. Just bury it, and dump it in the ocean, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

The Simpsons is not an accurate depiction of nuclear energy. You don't know how any of this works.

Surtr said:
Radioactive waste remains lethal for hundreds of years. Just coming into contact with it is lethal, and we continue to produce more and more with no viable way of disposing of it. If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
Click to expand...

Stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You probably don't realize it, but you're pasting together snippets from all over your memory. Half of them probably came from works of fiction, but you don't remember the sources. Source Amnesia, is the term.

Half the stuff we think we know is complete horse****.
 
Deuce said:
The Simpsons is not an accurate depiction of nuclear energy. You don't know how any of this works.



Stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You probably don't realize it, but you're pasting together snippets from all over your memory. Half of them probably came from works of fiction, but you don't remember the sources. Source Amnesia, is the term.

Half the stuff we think we know is complete horse****.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem I see with nuclear power is that it is run by for profit corporations. This immediately opens the door to cutting corners and breaking regulations in pursuit of the almighty bottom line.How, after the recent financial fiasco, anyone can trust corporate America with anything as potentially devastating as a nuclear reactor is beyond me. It's not like we don't have a large supply of government personnel with the necessary expertise since the U.S. Navy uses nuclear power extensively and has been a pioneer in the field.
 
Surtr said:
Radioactive waste remains lethal for hundreds of years. Just coming into contact with it is lethal, and we continue to produce more and more with no viable way of disposing of it. If I'm putting you to sleep, go away.
Click to expand...

Handled properly, radioactive waste needn't be so scary as it seems...

If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%,[38]
Click to expand...
Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom