Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.

?

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy?

  1. For

    315 vote(s)
    91.6%
  2. Against

    29 vote(s)
    8.4%
  1. Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Simple question, due to Chainbolt's moaning in this thread, I thought I'd make a thread out of interests sake:

    So OCAU, are you for or against Nuclear Energy?
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2011
  2. Reaper

    Reaper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,308
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld, Australia
    For.

    How else does fusion work without the nuclear fusion process? ;)
     
  3. Lei

    Lei Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,809
    I against nuclear energy. The nuclear waste is currently not "processed", it is just sealed and stored underground, it will dramatically pollute/damage the environment if a major earth quake strike the storage location. The long term risk is now simply ignored.

    If you look at Japan and Germany, as two countries that are most famous for their quality of products, Japan failed to secure its nuclear power station, Germany decided to abandon such highly dangerous energy source, all these are pretty conclusive from my point of view.

    There is simply no reason to support it when there are so many alternative renewable energy sources.
     
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  4. luxtin

    luxtin Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    6,558
    I think Nuclear should be a serious option. If the movement to renewable energy is slow and is a serious detriment to our environment we should definitely have nuclear as backup.

    If advances are made to make it safer with little or no waste then it may become a solution while we sort out our population problem.
     
  5. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,866
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Nuclear fusion powers the sun so solar and wind power is inherently nuclear.

    Seriously, new/next generation nuclear is safe and clean; if sustainable fusion plants get off the ground better yet.
     
  6. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,044
    Location:
    Sydney
    For, simply because the alternative appears unthinkable.
    We face the greatest challenge to our existance that our species has ever had. Our population will soon if it hasn't already reach unsustainable levels. The one mechanism that slows if not reverses population growth effectively is improvements in the standard of living.
    To improve the standard of living per capita energy consumption has to rise.
    There are two problems, we're running out of fossil fuel and our continued consumption of it places our existance at dire risk. Every scientist I've heard talk on this topic describes our fate as not quite an extinction event but close to it. If we reach that stage then to some extent the problem will resolve itself but the recovery time for our planet's climate will be measured in tens of thousands of years.
    The only energy source we have that we know works is nuclear. There's good arguments that it doesn't have the best safety record and good counter arguments that more modern technology renders the issues of the past irrelevant. I accept the latter but when we're talking about averting the demise of the majority of humanity it does seem not much of an issue either way.
     
  7. VooDoo

    VooDoo Large Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    11,232
    Location:
    Drag Rehab Center
    I suggest you do some research. Waste can be and is processed and can even be reused, storage of waste isnt an issue anymore either. Germany's decision is based more on fear and greenies overtaking their politic's than actual science (which some are already regreting) and Japan thought they had planned for the worst but was prove wrong. Do you think anyone would make that kind of mistake again? Its not a highly dangerous source. Its THE safestway to produce energy currently known. You conclusion is based on the lack of facts and incorrect infomation.
     
  8. Grom Hellscream

    Grom Hellscream Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,097
    Location:
    SE QLD
    For.

    If you're against carbon emissions, and also against nuclear power, you're a dirty fucking hypocrite. Other renewable energy sources are not large-scale viable.

    Currently, a heap of nuclear waste is stored underground, but when current plants are overhauled/replaced with gen 4 and gen 5 plants, it will be dug up and reprocessed (especially when the cache of weapons grade from decommisssioned weapons runs out).
     
  9. Amran

    Amran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,564
    Location:
    Wagga
    I used to be be strongly against nuclear power when I didn't know anything about it. Now I've been to uni and actually learned a lot about it which leads to me strongly supporting it. In my opinion, (read that again, just my opinion) it seems to me that most people who know the workings of the nuclear process are supporters while people who don't know anything about it are against it. When the majority of the population are uneducated about nukes (no offense - why would they need to be?) then the government just sees a lot of people against and block it. :(

    It always seems to come down to the same argument, nukes would be awesome if there was zero risk and the waste could be dealt with. The technology to process and store waste is improving, but the risk factor is the part that the average mis-informed person will always get caught up on.
     
  10. Revenge

    Revenge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    19,795
    Location:
    Blue Mountains - NSW
    I am for the use of nuclear power, though I do have some reservations about who gets to control it. I have concerns about privately run nuclear power stations, where profit ultimately becomes the greatest driving force.. potentially at the expense of safety.

    .
     
  11. gobbledegook

    gobbledegook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    For. The reality is that renewable energy can only supply a certain amount of power which means we need supplemental power from additional sources (coal, gas, nuclear, etc).

    I don't think many people realise how little nuclear waste is actually produced from a nuclear power plant. And the safeguards that are in place to manage that waste are second to none.

    I would definitely prefer living near a nuclear power plant compared to coal.
     
  12. dave_dave_dave

    dave_dave_dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,865
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Very pro nuclear power. As its much cleaner than our current power generation methods, cheaper and more reliable than other clean alternatives like wind and solar.

    Bring on the generation IV thorium reactors. :thumbup:
     
  13. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,544
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    When there is no nuclear fallout to contend with :o


    When there is no nuclear fallout to contend with :o


    When there is no nuclear meltdown :o
     
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  14. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    This makes sense.

    But cutting corners might be an issue with government funded ones dont you think? Or is cutting corners kinda expected anywhere with a $X set budget?

    You say it like it happens every 2nd week...

    But you're totally cool with the constant flow of toxic shit being pumped into the atmo by coal fired plants yeah?
     
  15. Revenge

    Revenge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    19,795
    Location:
    Blue Mountains - NSW
    There exists the "money before safety" potential in any situation I guess.

    But it would be reasonable to suggest that it is less likely in a Government owned enterprise, where final responsibility is to the general public rather than the shareholders.

    A Government can easily make a loss on something for a couple of years in order to bring about a particular level of safety (say.. if upgrade works are required).. A board of directors would be more inclined to avoid this as it would/could have a impact on them directly by way of tenure or performance bonus.

    That is not to say that a board of directors would not care about safety at all, let's face it.. a melt-down is not in their best interests either.. but they would probably be more inclined to roll the dice a couple of extra times.

    .
     
  16. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Cheers, that's more clear.

    How do other countries operate their Nuclear facilities? Funded, built and maintained by the gov or the private sector?

    Some reason I think of the NBN when I think of this for Aus. Gov owned entity using private contracts to complete the construction, overseered by NBNCo's standards (which indirectly are the gov's standards).

    Only diff is, the ongoing operation of the plant will be done by ???? (since in the NBN the ISP's will be using the network).

    Aus' eastern (sa/vic/nsw/qld) electricity grid and market is maintained, operated by about 60-70% gov owned. But I think im comparing two different things now.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  17. mercy420

    mercy420 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Enmore, Sydney
    I'm for it.
     
  18. Revenge

    Revenge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    19,795
    Location:
    Blue Mountains - NSW
    A bit of a mix I think.

    Of the three 'nuclear incidents' that readily come to mind, I think two were privately owned (Fukishima, Three Mile Island) and one was Government owned (Chernobyl). That said.. the government owned one.. well.. the less said about that Government the better.

    .
     
  19. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Pretty much what I was going to say lol...afer watching the "Inside Chernobyl" doco it is horrifying what the Russian government made the men do after the incident, only implies how shocking the safety standards would have been like when the plant was freakn operational :S.

    What people dont realise is, the plant was actually still operational for years and years after the meltdown... and it was shut down only a decade ago or something.

    Crazy stuff imo.
     
  20. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,544
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    Not at all,

    but when there are sustainable alternatives such as Geothermal, Hydro, Solar, Wind etc.. why the fuck would you support something which can leave hundreds of thousands of humans and animals severely crippled?

    just because it is "Generally" safer when "Controlled" etc.. shouldnt make a "Good Thing" to invest into...

    There have been too many examples in the past 100 years when harnessing nuclear power has caused mass destruction. It should be ruled out of humanity, same can be said with Oil /Coal and Gas.

    That is just my opinion. You asked if I was for or against.. That's why.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: