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

    334 vote(s)
    91.0%
  2. Against

    33 vote(s)
    9.0%
  1. Arch-Angel

    Arch-Angel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,888
    Location:
    Brisbane
    For.
    I know it's not without significant risk, but since renewable methods aren't really up to scratch at the moment I can't see any other option.
     
  2. Goobers

    Goobers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,484
    Location:
    Sutherland Shire, NSW
    Cant stand people who complain about high polluting coal and gas powered plants but dismiss nuclear over "green" tech as the viable alternative. you show your ignorance on the issue of pollution reduction when you take that position.

    I also hate it when people cry no nuclear in Australia when we are one of, if not the largest producer of Uranium in the world...so sure, be against Nuclear power in Australia, but at least have the intellectual capacity to know we're the one powering the rest of the world with it. Fucking hypocrites.

    I am most certainly for nuclear power.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  3. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Hydro plants generally require dams that destroy animal habitats, flood farmlands and even require relocation of towns. The largest installed capacity hydro plant (3 gorges) sits on top of half a dozen fault lines and is upstream from 15 million people. The weight of the catchment is causing increased pressure on these faults. It's also removed half the tree cover in the area and increased errosion. But remember, hydro is "renewable" and "safe".

    Large scale solar thermal is feasible, but not for baseload generation. PV isn't suited for large scale deployment.

    Geothermal could end up as a supplemental source, but still geographically limited.
     
  4. ravescar

    ravescar Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,603
    Location:
    Darwin
    Strongly For Nuclear Energy especially based Gen IV or newer.

    The ones that bases on coolant = moderator idea and other inherit safety concept.
     
  5. dave_dave_dave

    dave_dave_dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,866
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Solar and wind are no good for base loads, the sun sets, the wind stops blowing. Hydro is no good for the exact reason stated below. Do we have enough proven geothermal sites to cover the base load? Do you have an alternative to cover base load, power our appliances with hopes and dreams perhaps?

    I see no cited evidence that nuclear can leave hundreds of thousands of humans crippled.

    There has been 1 in total example where nuclear power has caused mass contamination, not exactly destruction. It didn't blow up like a nulcear bomb.

     
  6. Revenge

    Revenge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    20,068
    Location:
    Blue Mountains - NSW
    I would love to see world wide increase in the building of nuke power plants.. If it was the most widely used form of baseload power generation.. Australia could be the 'middle east of the nuclear age'. (Rolling in energy dollars.. not the whole constant wars and killing thing)

    Geothermal is probably the only 'green' electricty generation source that could provide baseload.. everything else has downtime.

    .
     
  7. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    And it is still nuclear, relying on radioactive decay in the to generate the heat.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Appreciate your opinion but I really dont think renewables are quite there yet for baseload. I'm totally for renewable energy, dont you worry, I have had debates regarding this stuff with so many people and friends, it's just ridiculous that we are not pouring more funds into the R&D of renewable stuff. Hell, we have a giant floating ball of gas in the sky that produces like 400 000 000 000 000 000 watts per second. But no we still seem to have this idea of digging up buried sunshine and burn it.

    I think it needs to be a mix of everything. Hydro/solar/geothermal/solar thermal and nuclear to meet our electricity needs. We have a vast landscape that can accommodate this approach.

    100% agree. Hilarious how we export so much uranium yet no one really cares about that.

    I'm an open minded greeny. Not a closed minded one.
     
  9. gobbledegook

    gobbledegook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    We all love renewable energy such as solar, wind, etc. But the reality is that based on current technology we need something "more".

    This "more" will come from forms such as coal, nuclear, gas, etc. There is no denying this. It's just a case of which of these evils is less.

    So if it was coal vs nuclear (in my opinion):

    I don't WANT to live next to a nuclear power plant but it is better than living next to a coal plant.

    I don't like the idea of nuclear waste or a risk of a meltdown (we all know it is low, butthere is always some element of risk) but I prefer it to tonnes of stuff being pumped into the air by coal.

    In regards to the cost factor I don't think nuclear is any cheaper than coal and the likes. A big part of it being the very large expenditure required to build a nuclear power plant.
     
  10. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Remember the thread title.
    Geothermal is heat from radioactive decay.
    Solar and wind are from emissions from a nuclear fusion reactor.
    Hydro relies on the water cycle, which is again reliant on the sun.
    Coal is from plants, which used the above fusion reactor to drive photosynthesis.
    Oil and gas are from animals that ate the plants.

    Which leaves you with tidal, which can destroy marine and coastal habitats and requires large amounts of expensive coastal realestate.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    So, in the end, looks like OCAU is pro nuclear afterall?

    lol

    Also meltdown doesn't = explosions lol, not sure why everyone is saying OMG MELTDOWNZ.
     
  12. The Mafia

    The Mafia Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,469
    Location:
    Mackay
    To the retards that think solar and wind is a great idea


    How much emmisions will be created making so many solar panels and wind generators to power the world?

    By the time you did have enough panels and wind turbines produced,the world would have blacked out and bombed and killed each other do to conflict because of the crisis.

    The ONLY solution at the moment is to start building nuclear reactors. Its the only technology we have that can sustain the human "virus" from killing this planet.

    Also, I've been to germany. I've seen the thousands of wind turbines that they have installed. Its taken so much time and money to do it. But, you know what the absolute useless part of it is? They only power 7% of the country.

    So if you can on;y power 7% of your country in 10 years, then well, there are some serious issues coming our way.


    Nuclear fear = people with low IQ.


    And I don't get it, these people seem to think that we don't need to build reactors, because the fucking fairies are going to magically supply us with power then we shut all the reactors down, and only have enough win and solar to power 10% of the worlds population.


    People that are against nuclear power should have their right to vote taken away from them.
     
    Hive likes this.
  13. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    ;)
    Because nuclear is bombs, don't you remember what happened to Hiroshima?
     
  14. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    And ALL nuclear reactors = unsafe, look at Chernobyl guyz.
     
  15. craz3d

    craz3d Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,152
    Location:
    3195
    Renewable energy sources are not yet viable as a whole (efficiency is low and cost is high). Nuclear is MUCH cleaner and sustainable than coal will ever be, a very good interim option for the next 50-100 years before renewables become viable alternatives.

    Also, uranium comes from the ground, used uranium can go back into the ground. It's not like we're making it a WHOLE lot worse. And the amount of waste compared to coal is tiny, something like a 1:100 or 1:1000 ratio.

    And you're also saying "its ok to pollute the sky cause I can't see the effects immediately but touch my ground and oh no!"
     
  16. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    And if we pull money from "renewables" that'll never get off the ground we could be putting it into fusion to replace fission.
     
  17. F1Fan2011

    F1Fan2011 (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    398
    im a FOR, based on it using a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)



    ENERGY FROM THORIUM

    anyone who is against nuclear i encourage you to research it. thorium is the way to go. if it wasn't for wars and the need of the US to build nuclear bombs we would be using thorium reactors today.

    they were testing working LFTR in the 50s that proved much safer then todays reactors, they went in favour of the reactors we have today to produce the material needed to produce nuclear weapons.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  18. meremortal

    meremortal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Benowa, Gold Coast
    110% FOR.

    Australia is one of the best countries in the world for it - massive unpopulated desert regions and coastlines, lots of Uranium, lots of very very clever people.

    We should be the best in the world at it but instead we're piss farting around with coal still.

    It's THE CLEANEST source of power.

    Australia's useless at dealing with water AND energy. 0 forward thinking.

    Yes we should be piping water from Lake Argyle to Perth and Adelaide (and 100 towns along the way) and yes we should get right behind nuclear power done well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  19. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,872
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    No point, nuclear powered desal would take care of it.
     
  20. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    It is amazing technology, even if it is old.

    I mean c'mon, the thing auto cools by a plug melting and salt cooling the reactor. Salt... SALT!

    (and by cooling I mean it slows the chain reactions down)

    It honestly is fear mongering.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: