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 32 of 39 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 382

Thread: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

  1. #311
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    I'm perfectly okay with nuclear power. It's generally far safer and less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. Obviously there have been a few potentially catastrophic safety lapses throughout the world, but that's an issue of proper oversight and management.

    Although I'm really looking forward to the day when some clever individual works out cold fusion.

  2. #312
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    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:


    Waste Storage at Nuclear Plants Versus Waste Dumping at Coal Plants - Atomic Insights
    That is very true, the facts are out there if all goes well with a nuclear power plant it is much better than a coal plant.

    Personally in my opinion I think that even with the US good track record after 3 miles island that even a small chance of a major catastrophe is a lot to ask of the people of any country. Mistakes happen, we have all scene the unimaginable happen before. That one in a thousand chance statistically is meaningless if despite those odds disaster strikes.

    If we build enough reactors to replace coal where would we put that many damn reactors? And who is going to pay trillions to do it?

  3. #313
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,004

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    That is very true, the facts are out there if all goes well with a nuclear power plant it is much better than a coal plant.

    Personally in my opinion I think that even with the US good track record after 3 miles island that even a small chance of a major catastrophe is a lot to ask of the people of any country. Mistakes happen, we have all scene the unimaginable happen before. That one in a thousand chance statistically is meaningless if despite those odds disaster strikes.

    If we build enough reactors to replace coal where would we put that many damn reactors? And who is going to pay trillions to do it?
    Same could be said for solar/wind/hydro/geothermal or any other form of power generation
    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

  4. #314
    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 Quag View Post
    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
    Very geographically dependent. They basically use the heat from magma (lava). They have to be built where the magma is close enough to the surface to use. I guess you really could build them just about anywhere, if you were willing to bury them deep enough to get close to magma.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #315
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    Same could be said for solar/wind/hydro/geothermal or any other form of power generation
    Nuclear power though is unique in that the start up investment is very high. Hydroelectric though also has a high start up price. But I dont really count dams since it would be very hard to convince people that more dams on that favorite piece of river is something they have to accept.

    Really what people want is for electricity to be cheaper and power plants should be fewer in number and clean. It is obviously going to be tough to fill that bill. One of the problems is that power generation has become politicalized but not in a good way. See we have the Left that says that power generation should be green at any cost. They lack any real detail on how thats would work. Most will point to wind and solar but cant really explain how that would replace fossil fuel generators. Then theres the Right that claim that nuclear is the magic bullet and that all alternative power generation is pointless. Funding and location are valid questions that should be asked of both sides. Nuclear safety is a valid concern because despite every reassurance **** happens. We have 23 reactors like what is in Fukushima. Most of the time the danger of anything happening bad at nuclear power plants is very slim, and the statistics show it. Its kind of like dam failure is rare but not out of possibility even though not likely. There are safety rules though for a reason, because despite the good records with both dams and reactors they still pose large dangers to human life and property. Of course alarmists go way overboard and even lie about such dangers. But safety is always apart of decision making especially when one is talking about the safety of many people. ANd right now if anyone raises any concerns about the safety of nuclear power Republicans are quick to dismiss it because of the alarmists.

    From a logical assessment Nuclear power has pros and cons. A big con is the fact that no one can get around, and that is more reactors means more nuclear waste will need to be stored. There isnt right now a good solution for storing nuclear waste. All nuclear waste requires capital to be spent on storing nuclear waste for generations. 100-200 years down the road the problem of storing nuclear waste will still exist. So we shouldnt just run into building bunches of new nuclear reactors without debating the science behind the solutions available for power generation. Yes Nuclear energy power generation exists right now while other ideas are just ideas. But either way building enough nuclear power plants to take over fossil fuel power generation will be astronomically expensive and would not happen over night. Is that the best solution to this nations power needs?

    I dont think its wise to put all of our eggs in one basket. Nuclear power generation isnt the magic bullet. At best it is a half ass temporary solution. We need to find an actual solution for the immediate future. Something that involves a hell of a lot less capital to do.

  6. #316
    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
    Really what people want is for electricity to be cheaper and power plants should be fewer in number and clean.

    Then theres the Right that claim that nuclear is the magic bullet and that all alternative power generation is pointless..
    Actually, I don't think most people care about the number of plants, other than those that realize they provide jobs, in which case they actually want more, not less.

    Interesting view of the right, since that is not what I have seen from them. I've seen them trying to protect coal and push natural gas too much to think that the average person on the "right" is promoting nuclear as a "magic bullet." It is more the middle pushing for it. The middle doesn't go whole hog environmentalist but would like to see the elimination of fossil fuels and are willing to accept Nuclear as the available primary source that can be exploited right now while allowing as much alternative sourcing and R&D into other sources as possible.

    However, for me at least, possible does not mean increasing deficit spending in budgets that are already over a trillion dollars/year in deficit spending. While I would love to see more put into research and development, the simple fact is that we are now more that $16 trillion in debt and the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for several years now. Is new technologies worth pursuing, yes, but pursuing at the cost of collapsing everything else in our country, no.

    Also, the "right" is not against alternative sources, they are against the government spending money on it since the industry was already expanding it for years without the government money. Part of this may even be that Obama gave that money to companies in Liberal states that competed with other companies in states that did not vote for him and that some of that money has been sent overseas instead of being kept in the US. Had the money been given equally to all companies involved in alternative power and spread equally, based upon population to all states, not just liberal ones, then there would probably be less resistance to it.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #317
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    People want more power, and they want it cheap? Good luck with that....
    There is no shortage of electrical power, but there is a shortage of CLEAN electrical power.....clean don't come cheap.

    Currently nukes are the only viable source for clean electricity, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it, not even Fusion, which has a lot more problems than most people are aware of.....
    Assuming they can even make it work, there are still SOME waste storage problems, and there will still be people complaining about it..

    When electricity starts getting price hikes similar to oil prices, then maybe we will decide to stop wasting it.
    We could get by without a lot of the dirtier coal plants tomorrow, if we just stopped using electrical power indiscriminately...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  8. #318
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    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.
    Something usually overlooked with gas is that it is not easily stored on site...so if your gas supply is interrupted, your electricity is interrupted.
    Coal plants usually have a pile of coal ready to burn, I don't know how many days supply they have in the event some terrorist decides to blow up the tracks but I would hope it is at least 30 days. Nuclear plants can store new fuel easily, a years worth can be stashed in a small room.
    Nobody tries to store natural gas, that I know of, because they think the gas lines will always be at full pressure and able to deliver all that is needed. A few years ago, in Texas, they found out that a serious drop in pressure and the gas turbine plants have to be shut down. It got really cold, people used more in their homes, line pressure dropped. At the same time, the cold caused some coal plants to shut down. Some of the equipment was designed based on their never having such severe and extended cold...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #319
    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 UtahBill View Post
    People want more power, and they want it cheap? Good luck with that....
    There is no shortage of electrical power, but there is a shortage of CLEAN electrical power.....clean don't come cheap.

    Currently nukes are the only viable source for clean electricity, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it, not even Fusion, which has a lot more problems than most people are aware of.....
    Assuming they can even make it work, there are still SOME waste storage problems, and there will still be people complaining about it..

    When electricity starts getting price hikes similar to oil prices, then maybe we will decide to stop wasting it.
    We could get by without a lot of the dirtier coal plants tomorrow, if we just stopped using electrical power indiscriminately...
    With scheduled closers of so many plants, that kind of price hike may not be that far away.

    I think some of what you call waste, others would consider it the reasons they have electricity.

    But while waste could still be reduced, what is the cost to the individual to do so? My house was built in 1983, to bring everything, insulation, windows, doors, heating/cooling, water-heater, etc, up to current top efficiency available would cost me out of pocket half the value of my house or more. Since my electric bill runs me a little over a $100 a month on average (was $52 last month) and less than a $1,000 per year for propane (gas furnace is only use of it), it would take me one hell of a longtime to recoup the cost to upgrade. Although at current prices, I will probably never see a real savings on them, I am working towards replacing all lighting with LEDs, due to medical conditions, I cannot use Fluorescents so they were never installed before. If people did put in fluorescents, it definitely would not be worth the upgrade to LEDs even though they are more efficient. So are people wasting electricity by not upgrading, sure, but financially, not upgrading is more affordable. I can pay for a hell of a lot of electricity for a long, long time for what it would cost me to not be wasteful.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #320
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    With scheduled closers of so many plants, that kind of price hike may not be that far away.

    I think some of what you call waste, others would consider it the reasons they have electricity.

    But while waste could still be reduced, what is the cost to the individual to do so? My house was built in 1983, to bring everything, insulation, windows, doors, heating/cooling, water-heater, etc, up to current top efficiency available would cost me out of pocket half the value of my house or more. Since my electric bill runs me a little over a $100 a month on average (was $52 last month) and less than a $1,000 per year for propane (gas furnace is only use of it), it would take me one hell of a longtime to recoup the cost to upgrade. Although at current prices, I will probably never see a real savings on them, I am working towards replacing all lighting with LEDs, due to medical conditions, I cannot use Fluorescents so they were never installed before. If people did put in fluorescents, it definitely would not be worth the upgrade to LEDs even though they are more efficient. So are people wasting electricity by not upgrading, sure, but financially, not upgrading is more affordable. I can pay for a hell of a lot of electricity for a long, long time for what it would cost me to not be wasteful.
    If you are asking a contractor to do the work, yeah, it isn't worth it. But some things can be done by the average individual....
    There was a time that all windows were single pane, and we had screens in the summer, storm windows in the winter....that can still be done.
    I would not replace a working water heater just to get a more efficient one, but when it fails, then I would.
    Adding insulation to attics is usually not that expensive or hard to do...blown in insulation is really easy.
    Even a well insulated house can be expensive to heat and cool, if infiltration is a problem. Air leaks are common in older homes.
    And a dumb contractor will tell you that venting your clothes dryer inside the house during the winter months is dangerous. Well, it is, if you are using a natural gas or propane dryer, but not so an electric dryer. Next they will say that venting the dryer inside will cause a build up of mold, but that is only true if you live in a humid climate (rare for winter months), do a lot of laundry, and your house is really air-tight, and very few of houses are.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 32 of 39 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •