What is wrong w/ Nuclear Power? - Page 2

obvious Child · 05-13-08, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

But, seriously, there are other power sources that don't involve all of the problems that Nuclear power does, why not invest in them?

Thorium based reactors of certain types produce 1% of the total waste that conventional Uranium reactors produce. And thorium can't be used as a weapon.

The problems of nuclear are far exaggerated.

Platanium · 05-13-08, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Thorium based reactors of certain types produce 1% of the total waste that conventional Uranium reactors produce. And thorium can't be used as a weapon.

The problems of nuclear are far exaggerated.

For me it is still about all the potential mutants.

UtahBill · 05-18-08, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

For me it is still about all the potential mutants.

Got any sources for your fears? Like increased incidence of mutants near a nuclear power plant designed and built in a free world country?
I worked in nuclear power a lot of years, and the only downside I see related to it is the fear and ignorance of the public and the media that feeds on those fears.
In order for any civilian to get hurt by radiation, he would have to get one of the few specific jobs at a nuclear power plant that will allow him access to the spent fuel storage area, then bypass safety mechanisms, and purposely pull spent fuel out of the storage tanks. But there still won't be mutants. Direct exposure to spent fuel is usually fatal, within hours at the most. Hardly enough time to have sex with anyone....

partier9 · 05-18-08, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

Nuclear waste creates mutants = The X-Men comics come true.

I mean is there a more obvious answer here?

But, seriously, there are other power sources that don't involve all of the problems that Nuclear power does, why not invest in them?

The problem with other sources is that they are to early in there infacy. Solar power works really well in deserts because theres sun all the time. Wind Farms work well in windy areas but in order to produce a good amount of energy there needs to be a lot of them. Nuclear energy has proven to work. France runs on it in fact they have some much power there selling it to other countries.

Solar Energy, Solar Power: Why Not Now?

Quote:

The energy intensity of solar energy is relatively low
Even though sunlight energizes virtually all processes on Earth, the amount of solar energy falling on one square meter of ground is actually pretty small. The average amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth is about 300 Watts per square meter (about 10 sq. ft.). This value is larger in the tropics or where there are few clouds, smaller at high latitudes and where it is frequently cloudy. One rule of thumb is that a collector area equal to about 10% of the floor area of a house is required to provide most of the heating needs for that house. So for a 2,000 sq. ft. house, 200 sq. ft. of collector area would be needed. For centralized collection of solar energy, large land areas need to be covered with solar collectors in order to gather enough sunlight to generate a significant fraction of our energy needs. Concentrating the sunlight with mirrors does not increase the amount of energy that is collected. In fact, focusing the energy to produce higher temperatures usually leads to more loss of energy since the most efficient energy collection systems are those that run at temperatures close to the temperature of the environment around the collector.
The technology is expensive
Whether in the form of water-heating solar panels, or photovoltaics to generate electricity from sunlight (like in the accompanying image of solar panels on the Space Station), the solar energy technology is relatively expensive compared to, say, coal-fired power plants. Electricity costs in the United States average 7 cents per kilowatt-hour. A currently advertised inexpensive 3 kilowatt (peak) solar system bought in California, after a hefty state rebate and tax incentive, will cost $6,552. Running at an average of 30% of peak capacity (no sun at night, cloudiness, etc.), this system will take ten years before it costs less than buying all electricity from utilities

.

NCPA - Daily Policy Digest - Problems With Wind Power

Quote:

Critics say wind power is neither a viable nor a desirable energy source. However, due to state mandates and federal tax subsidies, some energy producers -- including Enron -- have made substantial investments in windmills. Among their criticisms:

* Wind power is intermittent.

* To produce the same amount of energy as a conventional gas-fired power plant, wind farms need 85 times more land area.

* Community members often complain about the blinding strobe-light sensation that takes place on wind farms at dawn and dusk and about the loud noise pollution.

* It costs twice as much as electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Finally, wind power has a devastating effect on birds. In Northern California's Altamont Pass, more than 400 endangered or protected birds are killed every year by wind turbines, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and kestrels.

roguenuke · 05-18-08, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

For me it is still about all the potential mutants.

As a person that spent 8 years working in nuclear power, including being able to touch a couple that were shut down, I believe the potential for this is so low, you'd probably be more likely to be mutated by the radiation given off by cigarettes. Your biggest fear should be an increase of women, especially from among those men who are closest to the operating reactor.

Don't worry, a little vacation away from the radiation, and the chances of having a boy return to normal.

jfuh · 05-19-08, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

Nuclear waste creates mutants = The X-Men comics come true.

I mean is there a more obvious answer here?

... seriously, comic books are where you are getting your information from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platanium

But, seriously, there are other power sources that don't involve all of the problems that Nuclear power does, why not invest in them?

True, there are alternatives, but they ALL come with a price tag some more obvious than others.
Bottom line though is that the only power source available today that even has a chance of getting us off of oil in the very very near future is nuclear.
There just isn't another source as of present that is as compact, as "efficient", as "clean" as nuclear energy.

UtahBill · 05-19-08, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

... seriously, comic books are where you are getting your information from?

True, there are alternatives, but they ALL come with a price tag some more obvious than others.
Bottom line though is that the only power source available today that even has a chance of getting us off of oil in the very very near future is nuclear.
There just isn't another source as of present that is as compact, as "efficient", as "clean" as nuclear energy.

Yep, a lot of people have way too much faith in technology. I believe technological advances can do it, but not in the next decade. And nuclear is not a complete answer for the short term either. Only a small part of our electricity comes from the burning of oil. It will take a lot of battery powered cars in conjunction with nuclear generated electricity to start taking the place of oil. Nukes can also provide some of the power for extracting oil from tar sands, shale, etc.
In the meantime, get used to high fuel prices, and start adapting accordingly.
Carpool, plan your trips to minimize how often you go shopping and the routes you take to minimize distance traveled. Think of the trips as dollars per mile based on your city gas mileage, and it will definitely make you think about driving to the corner conveniences store for the big gulp and a bag of chips....