Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Imo nuclear power should only be used in cases when it completely outweighs alternative energy sources.For example it is the case in Japan, because they dont have enough land for solar/wind power and landscape for hydropower plants , at the same time the amount of energy japan industry and metropoly require are tremendous.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    Adjust for inflation and tell me how much went into nuclear research and development.
    I don't have the exact data, but it's still expensive. I don't think there will be any working fusion power plants before 2040.

  3. #23
    I'm something of a fence sitter when it comes to nuclear.

    The uranium used in fission will run out in 50-100 years, though other sources could be used they too are all limited. It has its place, but we shouldn't become reliant on it over renewable sources.

    Development of fusion should continue, it has the potential to be a badass power source, but again renewable sources should be used where possible.

  4. #24
    Epic! Tokru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The end of the rainbow
    Posts
    1,740
    It's the same with planes. The big plane crashes are in the news as horrible disasters. But planes remain the safest way of travel if you look at the statistics. So, how many dangerous accidents with human loss have their been ever? Not many compared to the losses caused by smoke (nobody dies so obviously to smoke, but many many suffer over a long time), collapsing dams, explosions in ordinary power plants, etc.

    So definately pro-nuclear-power-plants.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by rantus View Post
    I'm something of a fence sitter when it comes to nuclear.

    The uranium used in fission will run out in 50-100 years, though other sources could be used they too are all limited. It has its place, but we shouldn't become reliant on it over renewable sources.

    Development of fusion should continue, it has the potential to be a badass power source, but again renewable sources should be used where possible.
    You can breed fuel for fission plants - we can make fission work for at least another 1000 years if needed. Fusion is a better solution though as the fuel is in seawater which is incredibly abundant.

    I think more use of renewables with nuclear as a short term fix is what we should be doing. More research into geothermal would seem a good idea as it doesn't require much land and is a very abundant resource.

  6. #26
    Old God Frozenbeef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Uk - England
    Posts
    10,016
    Nuclear fusion pwns your puny fission

    Whats the point in investing in nuclear power if there is only less than 100 years left to use it? are their alternatives to uranium that can be used?

  7. #27
    Scarab Lord Azalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    Wow, I hadn't heared of this... No wonder our country is going down the shitter. The governments "50% of students at university" idea is coming back to bite them in the ass, only so many jobs require a degree in Media Studies/Theatre Studies/Sociology - (you can also do a BTEC in wheel clamping at Birmingham univ, and Zen Surfing elsewhere - don't forget Grass Field Technician degrees - the world only needs so many).
    It was on the news earlier, it said that environmentalist groups were urging the government to re-consider the nuclear power plan considering what happened in Japan.

    Yes nuclear plants can be very dangerous when damaged but it was hit by a Tsunami. That aint going to happen in Britain, ever

  8. #28
    Scientists are already working their butts off trying to make fusion reaction work. It's just rediculously complicated to make it stable and profitable. Problems like that can't be overcome by investing lots of money in it or kicking their butts and telling them to work harder. It requires old fashioned brainwork.

    Not too long ago I watched a great documentary about energy. The subject about fusion power was very interesting. Several scientists (from different countries and companies) predicted that we'll be able to get profitable energy out of fusion power within the next 5 decades.
    It might be a bit too optimistic, but it's a satisfying feeling knowing that they're working hard on a solution.

    Once I can remember the title of the documentary I'll post it here.

    Edit: And I'm pro nuclear fission, btw. 95% of the waste can be recycled and it's alot of energy. I just want them to spend more time, effort and money in making them safe. I know the cores are surrounded by meters of steel, concrete and whatnot. But as you can see in Japan, meltdowns can happen way to easy for my liking.
    Last edited by Crunchy Clown; 2011-03-15 at 11:46 PM.
    Want a balloon?

  9. #29
    Apparently Germany closed like all their nuclear power plants who were build before 1970 or so (number could be off) for a month or 3 I think.

    Imo all he hysteria in western Europe countries is a bit over exaggerated now.

    ---------- Post added 2011-03-16 at 12:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunchy Clown View Post
    Scientists are already working their butts off trying to make fusion reaction work. It's just rediculously complicated to make it stable and profitable. Problems like that can't be overcome by investing lots of money in it or kicking their butts and telling them to work harder. It requires old fashioned brainwork.

    Not too long ago I watched a great documentary about energy. The subject about fusion power was very interesting. Several scientists (from different countries and companies) predicted that we'll be able to get profitable energy out of fusion power is within the next 5 decades.
    It might be a bit to optimistic, but it's a satisfying feeling knowing that they're working hard on a solution.

    Once I can remember the titel of the documentary I'll post it here.
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/24633

    Basically hopes to get it operational somewhere around 2040, perhaps a tad earlier.

  10. #30
    Banned The Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Merry ol' England.
    Posts
    5,026
    Fusion reactors are simple, actually easier to make than fission reactions. They are just less yielding.

    What people want is a COLD fusion reaction, basically to make atoms fuse with much less heat and pressure needed. Research could have this down in around 25 years if allowed. Then we move onto another amusing energy source we may harness.

    Dark Matter reactors.

  11. #31
    Scarab Lord Azalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    Dark Matter reactors.
    One can dream

  12. #32
    Dreadlord shockpally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vatican City
    Posts
    800
    The reactors in Japan are around 40 years old and designed to withstand an 8.2 earthquake, it took a 9.0 earthquake to damage the coolant system. Out of this tragedy the amount of radiation that was released is less than a chest x-ray. The US currently uses later generation plants.

    The US can not build newer plants to get rid of the older coal plants or even the older nuke plants due to the environmentalists protesting the opening of the Yucca Mountain depository.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M...ste_repository

  13. #33
    Epic! Darios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Uninja'd States of Amerikill
    Posts
    1,550
    IMO I think we as a species should expand out, and look for alternative energy sources. Many scientists have proposed the idea of a grid of solar arrays encircling the planet. This would be the largest undertaking man has every attempted yet it would yield a near infinite amount of energy for our planet. Another energy source we could look into would be fusion reactors. Not only would this be a suitable power source for the planet, but it would also provide the means for speedy space travel and other high energy processes.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Frozenbeef View Post
    Whats the point in investing in nuclear power if there is only less than 100 years left to use it? are their alternatives to uranium that can be used?
    You can use breeder reactors to generate nuclear fuel while also generating power. The amount of fissile uranium is not a real limit in the way fossil fuels are.

  15. #35
    Over 9000! apepi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    9,621
    Yeah I agree fusion power seems wonderful, seems safe, and gives about as much power as fission.You talk about using the solar power from the sun but the sun is basically a huge fusion power, so to say it is not really good for to the earth would be funny.Why are we not real using fusion power seems funny....It is pretty hard,near impossible(right now) even after 50 years of research their is not one.Not only if being hard I think most of the other energy companies(gas *cough*) are trying to stop other energy studies and such.

    Although here is one fusion 'experiment' that they are making
    Seems okay guess we will see how it turns out:}

    The experiment is called iter, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  16. #36
    Brewmaster HazardYo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Awesometopolis
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    Dark Matter reactors.
    I don't even know what that might exactly be, and yet I love it already <3

    Also, I definitely am for nuclear energy.
    The pro's clearly outweight the minimal and fairly unlikely con's.

    As for the germans shutting down their plants: the source of all this - I'm sorry, but I have to name it that way - idiocy seems to be deluded Greenpeace-environmentalists, who kept stirring up the masses against nuclear energy. Those guys were, after all this tragedy in Japan happened, all the time on the TV, explaining why the devil that is nuclear energy is bad to every living soul on this planet.
    I can only wonder why anyone would listen to THOSE GUYS and not to people who actually know their stuff.
    Last edited by HazardYo; 2011-03-16 at 12:38 AM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Discipline priests we heard you like shields that heal, so we put shield in your shield so you can heal while you heal.
    For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.
    Richard Dawkins

  17. #37
    I don't think there's any conspiracy at work with fusion - it's just much harder to get going than fission. Fission is quite easy after all - you stick enough enriched uranium together and you get heat.

    Fusion requires huge temperatures (10 million degrees +) and very high pressures for it to work, creating these in a controlled and sustainable way is the problem lies. So far we've only just managed to get fractions of a second of fusion before it cools down and stops.

    Also, fusion isn't a panacea in terms of radioactive waste - it still produces plenty. The main difference is it's composed of relatively short half-life isotopes so needs storage for a few hundred years, rather than the several thousand years for fission waste.

  18. #38
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Mage View Post
    I'm making this in order to let those who expressed concern regarding nuclear vs non-nuclear in the Japan Quake thread a place to discuss with no fear of being banned for being off-topic.

    To start of the conversation, I am pro-nuclear, thinking it is a pinnacle of human engineering and remaining one of the best and safest power sources on the world.

    P.S. Please keep it civil.
    Personally, I had a discussion with my dad about it, and I told him that, while renewables are ideal, they are too expensive for now, (Because imagine to have 50% of the world energy with safe renewables... We only have 2% right now, it'd be hell to change it, so unless oil is low, it's not gonna happen sadly :S )and the cheapest (And safest, barely any lives were lost, compared to coal and oil) energy source is nuclear power, and waste is nothing compared to what it used to be. He did have a good point, why aim for the cheap answer, instead of trieing to progress? But that's capitalism for ya, whether you like it, or not.

    EDIT: Fusion is the BEST for now, but it's almost impossible to make it MAINSTREAM (Yes, I know someone will say "derp impossible is nothing be open minded lolol") in this decade. (Mainstream like oil or coal, of course) Maybe in the 2030's or the 40's, not yet though.
    Last edited by JohnnyTKF; 2011-03-16 at 01:00 AM.

  19. #39
    Over 9000! apepi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    9,621
    It is much easier to break/pull something a part then putting something together, basically the easiness of fission vs fusion.
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  20. #40
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    2,131
    And yes, I lost a lot of faith in gov'ts :P But hopefully, in 50 years we'll switch to renewables, they are almost infinite (The only thing that'll end them is time, since the Earth will be destroyed in billions of years, thanks to the Sun). Nuclear energy wouldn't be a bad alternative for a while, sadly I think that's what'll get developed instead of renewables, whatever, it's better than Coal (because they are in a perfect state most of the time).

Posting Permissions

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