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

    335 vote(s)
    91.0%
  2. Against

    33 vote(s)
    9.0%
  1. Billzilla

    Billzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,251
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    I'm also a big Thorium fan, it'd work very well and is a very clean and safe way of making nuclear power.
    But there's a vastly better way - Dense plasma fusion. It has effectively zero radioactive waste, does not use heat to boil water or whatever to spin turbines, and it vastly cheaper and safer to run.
     
  2. dave_dave_dave

    dave_dave_dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,866
    Location:
    Gold Coast
  3. Jyouji

    Jyouji Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Hydroelectricity generated by dams can cause much more immediate damage and much more loss of life. Look at the Banqiao Dam in China for example, approx 26k deaths, with 100k+ from the after effects.

    Whereas with nuclear, if we look at Chernobyl and the deadzone. Animal life is acutally thriving, humans are the only things absent. Any direct effects on the wildlife (i.e mutations) have already died out. Any "suffering" is only expected to be in longer living creatures - most animals that live there don't live long enough to be effected by the radiation in the first place. The main issue with Chernobyl now is the reactor itself, it needs to be removed and safely disposed but it doesn't seem to be a priority for the Ukranian government

    Definitely for nuclear power, it just needs to be put in the right hands and in the right areas.
     
  4. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,549
    Location:
    Brisvegas

    It's people like you that drive Coal/Oil/Gas industries. Over-bearing selfishness, bigotry and narrow mindedness.

    Perhaps the world would be more peaceful if there wasnt enough power to process yellow cake or synthesise chemical weapons..? Why so quick to judge alternatives?



    Or perhaps, we could start by reducing our need to consume? If every human attempted to grow half of their food intake in ther backyard, through the power of the sun. If every human remembered to turn off the TV/PC whatever when they were not using it, or shower for only 2 minutes instead of 10 minutes you could easily reduce the need for power by 50%

    Have you been to Pripyat ? Have you seen what the consequences are? They fear it.. for a very good reason.

    As the technology develops, it will become more efficient, however "panels" as such arent the only way to harness solar energy. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

    Now, despite calling me a "retard" and someone with a "low IQ".. I do hope you can give humanity a chance by at least supporting research into renewables so that we can change our fossil fuel driven world for the sake of the future!

    The world didnt evolve from the Stone Age because it ran out of stone. I don't think we will run out fossil fuels anytime soon, and so long as corporations are driven by the reward of digging it up, it will continue to thrive... :tired:
     
  5. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,549
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    It appears the primary motivator for the dam was to control flooding, the power generation was an added bonus... Not exactly the same thing...
     
  6. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,834
    Location:
    Canberra
    There is a question that I've been wondering about.

    Right now, renewables look like a nice option because it has zero side effects.

    In contrast, nuclear has all of these nasty side effects - the risk of meltdowns when it's active, and the storage of waste afterwards.

    With that said, when steam power was first developed (using coal/wood) it also had zero side effects. The concept that after hundreds of years and vastly increased usage this technology could actually (a) pollute the roughly infinite atmosphere, and (b) warm up the whole planet, wasn't even considered.

    Can anyone guarantee that the same is not true of renewables? What are the chances that there's something that right now we don't even think about because it's obviously impossible - but in two hundred years we'll be asking "what were those idiots thinking with all this solar/wind/hydro stuff?"

    I've had a think about it and I can't find any possibilities, but obviously this does not mean much.

    The same applies to nuclear, of course, in addition to the well-known side effects. No argument there.




    Anyway, with that said, I'm pro-nuclear. Two major nuclear disasters in 50 years isn't all that bad. One of them was caused by a huge tsunami + earthquake, the other by issues associated with the Soviet Union. Australia is largely safe from both. We also have lots and lots of land away from people - precisely the same land that people keep suggesting we cover in solar panels. If a nuclear power plant was to meltdown in the middle of Australia, it seems likely that the only reason most of the population would care is that their power bills went up a bit.
     
  7. dave_dave_dave

    dave_dave_dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,866
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Wow, i just, wow.

    Some points of this post i would like to address.

    Nuclear power now apparently = chemical weapons.
    Sounds very reasonable for people in the cities (i.e. the majority of the worlds population) to grow 1/2 their food in their non existant back gardens.
    So thats why hippies smell so much, you can't wash yourself properly in 2min.
    There are people still living in Pripyat. The animals are also thriving, it has become an unoffical nature reserve.
    Again with the solar, you don't seem to understand that the sun isn't up in the sky 24 hours a day.
    I don't think you have a firm grasp on what "The Stone Age" was.

    One thing i do agree with you on is that the reason we rely so heavily on fossil fuels is the money to be made from them.
     
  8. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,875
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Even after we stop burning fossil fuels we'll still need oil for lubrication and plastics.
     
  9. Jyouji

    Jyouji Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    It's an associated risk no? Hydroelectricity is very limited in where you can use it. Established dams are essentially the only place you can use them without any major effect on the surrounding environment that we know of so far.
     
  10. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,549
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    Tides is another ;)
     
  11. Jyouji

    Jyouji Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Tidal powerstations disrupt the environment around them ;) Practically anything you place in water will have an effect on it's environment and tidal power is no different. Tides won't go in/out as they used to which leads to things like a change in the water and certain animals not being able to feed. Whereas with dams and resovoirs, the damage has already been done and we can control the amount of water going through.

    Tidal power would work, if we ignored most things that rely on estuaries and such.
     
  12. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,549
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    I think you missed my point.. I was just saying, because there may be no power for a short amount of time, doesnt necessarily mean the world is going to start bombing each other :S was just a bleak outlook on life...

    again with the narrow view of many. It's the exact reason why people are occupying wall street right now. Maybe the human idea of "civilization" in tall concrete buildings, with fossil fuel industries isnt the best way for humanity to have evolved? Its just a different way of looking at the grand scheme.


    Any longer your either playing with it... or female.. I can wash my hair and all parts of my body well within 2 minutes.... Perhaps if you have some kind of dissability it may take a little longer??

    lol 2nd post where "Its ok now".... Lets go back to 1986 and ask the people "How ok" they were..

    Same as Fukushima... in 20 years it will be "Thriving" im sure...

    True, by why don't we focus on harnessing the power during the 12 hours there is light, rather than splitting atoms putting the world in immediate danger??
    Your'e probably right..

    It's a start :D
     
  13. dave_dave_dave

    dave_dave_dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,866
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    So the exact reason for Occupy Wall Street is that people don't have backyards and can't grow 1/2 their own food. Strange i thought it was because they are the 99% that don't have the 1%'s wealth, power and control. The idea these protests are based on seems to be boarderline communism and we all know how that turns out, with a failed nuclear reactor.

    I assume you wouldn't like to hear about my weekend 40min showers then. :lol:

    Most of the people living there now were living there pre meltdown and never left. The only reason the majority of people left is because the military forced them to.

    Sounds about right, just look at how long it took them to start rebuilding after the bombs were dropped and they left a hell of a lot of fallout.

    Are you some kind of moderate Amish? Do you want us to go back to the middle ages of working the fields sun up to sun down and sleep all night due to the fact we can't light or power anything at night? More alarmest green bs. So a nuclear reactor is going to explode and take out the whole planet with it now? Sounds like a pretty sweet movie idea to me, kinda like Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
     
  14. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,064
    Location:
    Sydney
    100 years ago indeed we thought of this planet as an infinite resource, in fact many believed it was God's gift to us and it would be wrong not to accept his blessing and plunder all of it as fast as we could.

    Today we know better and we can measure and calculate what is happening.
    There are of course environmental impacts to any form of energy including renewables. I think it can be safely said we already know what they are although many seem to totally ignore them. When we harvest solar energy we are taken it from where it used to go and using it elsewhere. That has an impact on the environment. When we use tidal we are increasing the rate at which the orbit of the moon decays. Geothermal is using radioactive decay and has a risk of releasing radon gas. PV cell manufacture can create lots of pollution. A lot of the renewables seem green because the mess happens elsewhere. Still to a very large exten the issues are either negligable or minimal if managed properly.

    My beef is the same can be said for nuclear. Yes, we should include the mess made mining uranium, we should include everything associated with the entire business of getting energy by splitting atoms. When we do that, when we look at what the next generation of designs and in particular the thorium based solutions offers the benefits are huge. Even the fast burnup designs that use traditional uranium are a big leap forward, with those the only waste is much smaller in quantity and it has a half life of 100 years making it very easily suitable for disposal in stable geological locations with very, very low risks.

    To be totally honest though your point still stands, there is always the possibility of a problem we haven't thought of or dismissed popping up to bite us. There's been some complaints about the low frequency sound made by wind turbines and it long term impact on health. To date no study has found any real health impact, personally I doubt anything new will be found and I suspect the only issue is the NIMBY issue, still, it is there.
     
  15. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,875
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Not really, it was mainly done by the early 50s. The pictures don't do the damage justice, the train and tram systems were running again the day after the attacks.
     
  16. Jyouji

    Jyouji Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    The main scare was based on the LNT model - which used data gathered from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki blasts. Initial projections using this model had it at approx. 9000 deaths. Out of the liquidators, 130~ experienced Acute Radiation Syndrome, 47 are known to have died (2006). As for cancers - children were monitored after the incident and 4000* thyroid cancers were recorded - where 9 children had died. That leaves it at 56 deaths directly related to the initial incident at 2006, UNSCEAR released a report in 2008 stating 64 people have died. Far cry from the 9000~ deaths that was estimated :rolleyes: You will see figures ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of cancer related deaths attributed to this incident, but no one will ever know - after chernobyl people were going doctors on the smallest of things in fear of radiation.

    *Highly controversial number.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  17. Dicky

    Dicky (Taking a Break)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    691
    Location:
    Sydney
    Sorry guys, it isn't going to happen. This is old tech and yesterday's thinking. That fission powered science fiction fantasy is just that.

    I find it rather ironic that the same people who demonise people on the dole, expect government assistance for their energy needs.
     
  18. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    That's two very different things lol.
     
  19. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,391
    Location:
    Brisbane
    True - one is giving money to those who needs it, the other is giving money to those who wants to build big phallic status symbols :D
     
  20. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,875
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    And their healthcare and transport and the police/justice systems and national security and foreign relations; the government shouldn't have anything to do with any of them.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: