View Poll Results: Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

Voters
126. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?

    21 16.67%
  • Don't know.

    3 2.38%
  • Maybe. What do the scientists say?

    29 23.02%
  • Absolutely! Every other idea is even worse.

    79 62.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 31 of 39 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 382

Thread: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

  1. #301
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

    Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

    I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

    What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
    I think they are fine. I've never understand the anti-nuclear energy crowd.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  2. #302
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.


    I'm fine with that. Bring it on.
    exactly. I have lived in the shadow of Browns Ferry nuke plant my entire life.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  3. #303
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    I have heard of this before, and it does seem promising only trouble is it is still too far away, even the article states 30 years from now. Given the history of overly optomisitic predictions on timelines for technology I would be pleased if this happens within 50 years. The study also did not estimate the price tag either, which may make it prohibitive.
    So even best case scenario 30 years out we get this technology what do you do in the meantime? We need the energy today not 30 years from now. To get any large scale energy project going takes time, Wind/solar/nuclear/oil/coal/hydro all take time. Wind/solar as it stands now cannot supply all the energy required, so that leaves, coal/oil the fastest 2 to build but with obvious downsides or Hydro and nuclear. Hydro is not feasible in all locations and does have a negative effect on the environment itself, Nuclear can be placed anywhere but like Hydro takes soem tiem to get going and there is the waste disposal issue.

    Saying lets do nothing untill some future tech gets here is really playing with fire, What if the tehcnology fails or takes much longer than expected? What if it is so cost prohibitive that it becomes unfeasable?
    I do not have the answers to these questions and as far as I know no one does. Untill there are answers all sources of energy should be investigated.
    Well we need to have an actual future plan not just keep expecting to limp along because the future isnt here yet. I mean the future will never get here if we just keep putting it off as if its unattainable. We built dams because we needed power. The same with coal, Natural gas and nuclear power plants. Btw I would rather see Natural gas power plants being built rather than nuclear as a bandaid fix for the immediate future. They can be built and removed form the site without the troubles of nuclear or even coal. Hydro is awesome but we lack enough waterways to really do much more good. ANd dare I point to coastal tidal power generation without people crying any more about broken promises? Or even further with thermal towers? Speaking of thermal geo thermal power generation is very promising and the technology already exists. We even already have some geothermal power stations running.

    The plan should be for multiple solutions not just one. No one really is suggesting that just solar or just wind power will solve all of our problems. Well there are some ass backwards hippies but do they really count? I think they are more of a fringe element.

  4. #304
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,003

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Well we need to have an actual future plan not just keep expecting to limp along because the future isnt here yet. I mean the future will never get here if we just keep putting it off as if its unattainable. We built dams because we needed power. The same with coal, Natural gas and nuclear power plants. Btw I would rather see Natural gas power plants being built rather than nuclear as a bandaid fix for the immediate future. They can be built and removed form the site without the troubles of nuclear or even coal. Hydro is awesome but we lack enough waterways to really do much more good. ANd dare I point to coastal tidal power generation without people crying any more about broken promises? Or even further with thermal towers? Speaking of thermal geo thermal power generation is very promising and the technology already exists. We even already have some geothermal power stations running.

    The plan should be for multiple solutions not just one. No one really is suggesting that just solar or just wind power will solve all of our problems. Well there are some ass backwards hippies but do they really count? I think they are more of a fringe element.
    I agree multiple forms of energy are the way to go. And Yes we should definetly invest in future technologies. I consider Tidal to be hydro as well, Hydro really just means water, like traditional hydro dams it is also geographically dependant so all i said before applies to both types. I know geothermal is another, should have thought of that. I do not know that much about it however. I understand the principal but i am not sure of how much energy it can supply and whether or not it is very geographically sensetive as well.
    As to natural gas pretty much same as oil in terms of speed of construction costs etc as far as i know, as well as having the same downsides.
    There is way too many people who think wind/solar can/will solve all our energy needs, possibly if the solar satellite idea does pan out they may have somethign but ATM it doesnt.

    I really have little problem with Nuclear because right now it is the only working technology that can provide energy for the indefinate future, natural gas is a much more limited resource, still got lots but do we have enough for the next 100,200,500,1000 years if we start using more and more of it? I suppose we could switch to nuclear if other tehnologies dont pan out and we start to really run low on coal/oil/natural gas but there is the carbon emissions problem with them as well.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  5. #305
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    I agree multiple forms of energy are the way to go. And Yes we should definetly invest in future technologies. I consider Tidal to be hydro as well, Hydro really just means water, like traditional hydro dams it is also geographically dependant so all i said before applies to both types. I know geothermal is another, should have thought of that. I do not know that much about it however. I understand the principal but i am not sure of how much energy it can supply and whether or not it is very geographically sensetive as well.
    As to natural gas pretty much same as oil in terms of speed of construction costs etc as far as i know, as well as having the same downsides.
    There is way too many people who think wind/solar can/will solve all our energy needs, possibly if the solar satellite idea does pan out they may have somethign but ATM it doesnt.

    I really have little problem with Nuclear because right now it is the only working technology that can provide energy for the indefinate future, natural gas is a much more limited resource, still got lots but do we have enough for the next 100,200,500,1000 years if we start using more and more of it? I suppose we could switch to nuclear if other tehnologies dont pan out and we start to really run low on coal/oil/natural gas but there is the carbon emissions problem with them as well.
    If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

    I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

    And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.

  6. #306
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

    I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

    And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.
    A big difference between nuclear and coal is that nuclear waste is held in a very small area, like a ten meter long dry cask. So it's waste is highly concentrated. It's extremely unlikely a human being will come in contact with it. Whereas coal releases a great deal of waste into the atmosphere, guaranteeing that some people will be exposed to it's pollution. Add to it the massive mountains of sulphur and rivers of coal slurry that are both hard to dispose of, and it becomes clear that coal is far more poisonous as an energy source when compared to nuclear.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  7. #307
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,003

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    If there is an incredible breakthrough in batteries wind/solar would become very viable. But I think until then those sources can be supplemental viable source of power. Certainly the more power production the better. Iceland have some good geothermal plants. I think they account for something like 30% of their energy production, but you have to remember Iceland has a very small population. In reality all of their power plants account for power part of Los Angles. And if you go by the numbers the US out produces Iceland in both Hydroelectric and Geo thermal power production already. I know when people get all puffy and say we should do what Iceland is doing I just say we already are and then some.

    I like the space solar scheme because it has the potential of being a main power source of mega proportions. But at this point I agree its years away. And in 30 years something better might come along. Nuclear power plants though have a lifespan that limits their use. Even if you ignore the by products of nuclear power it is by far not a efficient option. Overall efficiency for a nuclear power plant is 38% while hydroelectric is in the 85% range. To be fair though most power stations (including geothermal) have an efficiency of around 30% to 40% except solar and wind because of variances they range down in the 10% to 20% efficiency area. But Nuclear efficiencies are deceptive since no one seems to count the disposal of nuclear wastes in the amount. As of yet there really is no solution in what to do about nuclear power -plant waste.

    And another thing that I think is relevant is that only coal and nuclear power create long term hazards that is directly to the site of the stations and the surrounding areas. One could argue though Natural gas and petrolatum plants do pose long term hazards to the environment. My point is that we should not choose the power plants that pose the largest threat to the safety of American citizens. Of course that brings us back too we are not ready to switch yet from coal or nuclear. But if we ramp up the number of nuclear power plants we will still have to replace them later with something better. And we will have a lot more nuclear waste to deal with. Its like choosing a firewood that makes excessive ash. Yea it worked but was not the best choice.
    I agree the solar sats seem best long term if they work, short term I guess it depends on how important you think global warming and carbon footprints are, If it is a major concern than ATM only Nuclear can be used as an alternative to coal/oil/natural gas. As to hydroelectric dams, they are bad for the environment as well and destroy/render unusable large tracts of land. Unlike coal/oil, they are bad if you use em or not, once built the damage is done. But hey I'm from Quebec thats where we get most of our energy from so I'm pretty keen on it, I just knwo it doesnt work everywhere. There are some types that only partially block rivers and cause less damage but again geographically dependant and dont get as much energy as a full dam.
    As to geothermal like I said I am not sure how geographically dependant they are. I know it works great in iceland but they have great geography for it
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  8. #308
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    A big difference between nuclear and coal is that nuclear waste is held in a very small area, like a ten meter long dry cask. So it's waste is highly concentrated. It's extremely unlikely a human being will come in contact with it. Whereas coal releases a great deal of waste into the atmosphere, guaranteeing that some people will be exposed to it's pollution. Add to it the massive mountains of sulphur and rivers of coal slurry that are both hard to dispose of, and it becomes clear that coal is far more poisonous as an energy source when compared to nuclear.
    I did not assert that nuclear waste results in larger wastes than coal. I also said nothing about emissions. Didnt really think that I needed to though.

    A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.
    Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 67,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

    Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage

  9. #309
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Where are we going to get the money to build nuclear power stations or to keep the ones we have running as the age? Where will we get the money to clean up our own nuclear cartography?
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed you were talking about Government Money for the research. What you mention would come from existing industry as it struggles to meet demand and government regulation. The kind of money you are talking about would either have to come from a government or a very large power company. Whoever builds it first is going to own the rights to the technology, unless it is developed by public funds and patented on a public license.

    Right now, governments simply do not have the monies to put into the kind of R&D, and will not for the foreseeable future, that would be necessary to bring this kind of technology to the market place in the time period given. These kind of articles, not just concerning energy technologies, are the life blood of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. How many have we actually seen come to pass and make to market, when they do, in the time periods predicted?

    Perhaps the best approach would be for the government to announce that in 10 years, say Jan 1, 2023, all coal/fossil fuel plants must be replaced and closed by that date. Wouldn't cost the government anything and would force the industry to put out the money for new Nuke plants, Geo-Thermal, solar and other means of producing power. The government could really make money on the deal two, set a date in two years where the tax rate applied to power generation from Fossil fuels will go up by 10% per year. The first two years is so the generation companies can get replacements built prior to the increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    And please do not try to make me argue against your strawman argument.
    What strawman? That our existing infrastructure is aging, based highly upon fossil fuels and will not meet our needs for the next 30 years without the building of new plants? Or perhaps that predictions about future technology reaching the market have never been met?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    What I am asserting is that we need to make advances in power production not just keep spending money on old technology. And nuclear power plants are old technology.
    I never said we didn't need to. I clearly stated that "we have to work with existing technologies to survive to the point that other means become available."

    To assume Nuclear technology is fully matured and cannot be advanced any further is ludicrous nonsense. If nuclear is so advanced, why do we not have nuclear battery powered electric vehicles?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I dont know if you read the article that I linked, but its talking about an endless supply of power. Given that it is in space the solar energy is much higher than on the surface. Such a power station could catapult the economy in a way that nuclear never could. You should really research the subject of that link before lumping it in with fusion and regular solar power.
    Read, no, scan, yes. Beaming power from space is not a new idea, it's been in science fiction for a longtime. So has core-taps (actually may be the better way to go), FTL travel, etc, etc.

    With the right investments, it could happen in that time frame. But that is a mighty big maybe to be banking trillions of dollars on. My prediction is that they will continue the R&D but nowhere near the level to meet time predictions.

    Instead of beaming the power, using a "beanstalk" cable arrangement may actually be cheaper and easier to do. Carbon nano-tube technology has the math saying it is possible to run such a cable now, if you can find someone to fund it.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #310
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I did not assert that nuclear waste results in larger wastes than coal. I also said nothing about emissions. Didnt really think that I needed to though.

    A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.
    Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 67,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

    Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage
    I don't mean to claim you did. I merely wish to point out that there is much more waste from coal than there is from nuclear, and the waste from coal not nearly as well controlled, being released daily into our shared atmosphere. So for me, the choice between coal and nuclear is very easy. I'll take nuclear every time. Consider this:

    Yes, after operating nuclear energy plants in the US since 1957, we have accumulated about 50-60,000 tons of used fuel material. That material is carefully inventoried, monitored and stored in either pools or casks. The plant operators can account for almost every single gram produced. There are 806 billion kilowatt hours produced every year in nuclear plants in the US.

    In contrast, a single large coal plant will be required to dump about 45,000 tons of waste material DIRECTLY into our shared atmosphere EVERY single DAY that it operates. It will also dump about 1,000 tons of a toxic mix of ash and ‘stuff’ into a slurry pond and ash pile. Those storage locations are neither monitored nor even sealed from the environment and are often found to be leaking into nearby bodies of water. Sometimes the retaining dams fail with significant and well publicized consequences. A large coal plant might produce 8 billion kilowatt hours per year, so you can easily see the difference in the tons of toxic waste per kilowatt hour between coal and nuclear.
    Waste Storage at Nuclear Plants Versus Waste Dumping at Coal Plants - Atomic Insights
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

Page 31 of 39 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •