Thread: Nuclear!

Ok, this one's for you Chimensch.

The whole Nuclear thing has it's pros and cons... we.. big pros and big cons. Which side do you feel the scale weighs towards?

Personally with the disarmament of many countries and the non -proliferation agreement I think the technology has been a benefit to us all as a whole, and hopefully will become moreso.

nuclear power is an idea that i actually like and if the idea would just stay at power it would be fine, but whe you start speaking nuclear another type of "power" comes into play... and weapons are born and my view on that is well.... to use a saying I have heard many times ww1 and ww2 were fought with guns and knives, I dont kow how ww3 is gunna go but i promise ww4 we will be fighting with sticks and stones

Nuclear isn't just one thing, where you can turn fuel processes into weapons processes by flipping a switch.
Fuel breeder reactors are different from weapons material breeders.

Nuclear fuel is the best option that we have right now. Wind, solar, wave, ... energy is something we should investigate. And if solar ever becomes efficient enough, it will be great. But until that time, nuclear is better than anything we have.

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

And with reprocessing of nuclear fuel, combined with modern reactor design, there is only ver little actual waste. But it won't matter because the greenpeace zealots fight against anything that uses nuclear fuel, regardless of facts. It's no different from any other fundamentalist mindset, except they don't blow up stuff.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

Please explain in more detail.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Please explain in more detail.

Yes please, I haven't heard about this either.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Yes please, I haven't heard about this either.

The thing about coal powered plants is that they burn massive amounts of coal, and coal dust gets emited into the atmosphere. A fraction of all carbon is radioactive (which is the basis of carbon dating).

from
Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.[58]

It's just a wiki article, but if you google around, you'll find lots more.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Nuclear isn't just one thing, where you can turn fuel processes into weapons processes by flipping a switch.
Fuel breeder reactors are different from weapons material breeders.

Nuclear fuel is the best option that we have right now. Wind, solar, wave, ... energy is something we should investigate. And if solar ever becomes efficient enough, it will be great. But until that time, nuclear is better than anything we have.

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

And with reprocessing of nuclear fuel, combined with modern reactor design, there is only ver little actual waste. But it won't matter because the greenpeace zealots fight against anything that uses nuclear fuel, regardless of facts. It's no different from any other fundamentalist mindset, except they don't blow up stuff.

I couldn't have said it better. The best option in the future is obviously harnessing nature, but right now the best harness we have is nuclear energy. All the Nimitz carriers use it, so why not cities?

I support the use of nuclear power fully, and think we could take a page from the methods the French are using (e.g. recycling fuel through the reactors, etc until by the time it is waste, it is MUCH safer than the one-time-use method which causes so much concern)
With less demand for fuel, I feel prices would go down, also, as well as the need for international squabbling over it. At the moment, if Russia or OPEC shut off the fuel, people would freeze in their homes during the winter, all sorts of bad things could happen; if electricity was being produced primarily by nuclear power nationwide/worldwide, this would be less of an issue, and, hopefully, once one nation is not able to hold this vital resource against another (much like the sugarcane or spice trade of years past) there will cease to be fighting over it.
I'm rambling, I guess I could have simply said
"I agree".



John P.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Nuclear isn't just one thing, where you can turn fuel processes into weapons processes by flipping a switch.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Fuel breeder reactors are different from weapons material breeders.

Nuclear fuel is the best option that we have right now. Wind, solar, wave, ... energy is something we should investigate. And if solar ever becomes efficient enough, it will be great. But until that time, nuclear is better than anything we have.

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

And with reprocessing of nuclear fuel, combined with modern reactor design, there is only ver little actual waste. But it won't matter because the greenpeace zealots fight against anything that uses nuclear fuel, regardless of facts. It's no different from any other fundamentalist mindset, except they don't blow up stuff.

Except that the nuclear waste lasts for thousands of years and can not be transported safely.

yeah for the lasts thousands of years, but I won't buy can't be transported safely without more details.