What do you think about nuclear power?
02 Mar 2014, 10:41 am
I am a Polish, our Prime Minister Donald Tusk, plans to build a nuclear power plant in Poland, but the eco-freaks very loudly protesting that kind of nuclear power is dangerous, it can threaten the Polish ecosystem and all that crap.
My mom i don't knows why also is opposed to the construction of a nuclear power plant, although I hope that the Prime Minister, will realize his plans and build these power plants.
PS. I have some problem with nuclear power plant in SimCity but that cannot happen in real life 
Last edited by pawelk1986 on 02 Mar 2014, 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
02 Mar 2014, 10:56 am
Nuclear power is good.
1) It is very safe. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html
2) It is low in greenhouse gas emissions, only requiring them to construct the power plant and transport the fuel. The plant itself does not produce greenhouse gases. This will help fight against global warming.
3) Clean energy is a great way of fuelling economic growth
02 Mar 2014, 11:01 am
There isn't any real alternative to nuclear power. Use of fossil fuels in inherently more dangerous to the environment with global warming. Fossil fuels are also in limited supply. Natural energy sources such as hydroelectric, wind and wave power yield only a fraction of the power needed. So bring on the nuclear power, but build the nuclear power stations where they are not likely to be damaged due to earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural disasters and build them and maintain them to a high standard. Also build them strong enough (or underground) so they can cope with terrorists flying aircraft into them!
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,474
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 Mar 2014, 11:23 am
I dislike it....from what I understand its nearly impossible to stop all radiation leaks, so radiation will get into the environment even if precautions are taken. There is quite the risk to the environment and people around the area if something goes wrong...and the risk of even more radiation.
Also what is to be done with all those containers of radioactive waste? there is only so much room on the planet and we don't need it taken up by a bunch of barrels of radioactive material. I mean aside from any radiation maybe getting out....the waste just does take up a hell of a lot of room which seems problematic.
Renewable energy seems like it would be the least harmful since it doesn't involve burning fossil fuels or nuclear radiation. I think if it was invested in properly they could find a way to make it create enough power....I mean I have yet to see any evidence suggesting its impossible to get enough energy from renewable sources. Hydroelectric seems promising since there is always running water...not like wind energy where it sort of depends on there being wind, or solar where there has to be sun.....there is also geothermal which sounds pretty promising.
I don't think its so much that renewable energy would be ineffective, but rather its easier to go about it other ways currently.
But yes if most of the world decides nuclear power is the way to go, its likely to cause a lot of problems like more cancer and birth defects and whatever nuclear radiation causes...and well what to do with all those barrels?
_________________
We won't go back.
AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA
02 Mar 2014, 12:05 pm
My biggest complaint is people don't always look where their building them. near coasts or rivers to have access to the water as a coolant is bad if the power plant crashed. near fault lines is also bad, in tornado areas, avalanche and rock slide areas, etc. and then there is the problem of the waste disposal. past all that, I have nothing against nuclear energy.
Just to note, its looking quite likely that in 50 years or so nuclear energy may become obsolete for magnetic energy..
sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA
02 Mar 2014, 12:13 pm
Incorrect.
Incorrect. Spent fuel rods from a reactor take up the physical space of a keg of beer. The facility in the Nevada desert that the US Government was proposing for spent fuel storage was only about 10k sq ft of storage space, and was supposed to last several decades.
Really, cause I have. Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.
Nuclear power is the only power source available that comes close to meeting our power needs for the foreseeable future. Nothing else, including coal and gas fired plants, has the energy density that will soon be required.
_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.
02 Mar 2014, 12:14 pm
Also what is to be done with all those containers of radioactive waste? there is only so much room on the planet and we don't need it taken up by a bunch of barrels of radioactive material. I mean aside from any radiation maybe getting out....the waste just does take up a hell of a lot of room which seems problematic.
Renewable energy seems like it would be the least harmful since it doesn't involve burning fossil fuels or nuclear radiation. I think if it was invested in properly they could find a way to make it create enough power....I mean I have yet to see any evidence suggesting its impossible to get enough energy from renewable sources. Hydroelectric seems promising since there is always running water...not like wind energy where it sort of depends on there being wind, or solar where there has to be sun.....there is also geothermal which sounds pretty promising.
I don't think its so much that renewable energy would be ineffective, but rather its easier to go about it other ways currently.
But yes if most of the world decides nuclear power is the way to go, its likely to cause a lot of problems like more cancer and birth defects and whatever nuclear radiation causes...and well what to do with all those barrels?
Promising is also the prospect of fusion power plant construction, the principle of its operation is based on deuterium-tritium fusion not fission like a traditional nuclear power. There is no radioactive waste, no possibility of a meltdown. Such plants could be off at any time.
We do not have such technology, although there are already built prototype
http://www.efda.org/faq/how-long-is-the ... elsewhere/
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
For some 50 years, this technology may be commercially available, but only maybe.
Last edited by pawelk1986 on 02 Mar 2014, 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,474
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 Mar 2014, 12:35 pm
Incorrect.
Incorrect. Spent fuel rods from a reactor take up the physical space of a keg of beer. The facility in the Nevada desert that the US Government was proposing for spent fuel storage was only about 10k sq ft of storage space, and was supposed to last several decades.
Really, cause I have. Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.
Nuclear power is the only power source available that comes close to meeting our power needs for the foreseeable future. Nothing else, including coal and gas fired plants, has the energy density that will soon be required.
1. Ok are you basing that radiation leaking out is false on anything? Everything I have read indicates radiation gets out, also I was reading on that major issue they had with a nuclear plant in japan and it said in the article they are actually allowed to let out a certain amount of radiation into the ocean, just not over a certain amount. Also the buildings can age and leaks can occur letting out radiation into the environment. That said though even if no radiation leaks out normally....what happens when there's a nuclear meltdown? not sure that risk can be totally removed.
2. A keg of beer doesn't take up much room....but multiple kegs of beer will, and if that number keeps growing more storage space is needed. Or is the amount of waste going into these keg sized barrels minimal? I was under the impression a lot of such containers result so the shortage of space seems like it could be an issue if nuclear power were to become a lot more common.
3. I have a hard time with absolutes such as 'nuclear power is the only way ever"....if it is safer than I am thinking maybe it is a good resource, however renewable energy should still be taken advantage of where possible. What might really work well is if us humans could figure out a way to harness the power of lightning....that's an idea, but probably not going to happen any time soon. I suppose all forms of energy could have their potential problems.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,474
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 Mar 2014, 12:39 pm
Also what is to be done with all those containers of radioactive waste? there is only so much room on the planet and we don't need it taken up by a bunch of barrels of radioactive material. I mean aside from any radiation maybe getting out....the waste just does take up a hell of a lot of room which seems problematic.
Renewable energy seems like it would be the least harmful since it doesn't involve burning fossil fuels or nuclear radiation. I think if it was invested in properly they could find a way to make it create enough power....I mean I have yet to see any evidence suggesting its impossible to get enough energy from renewable sources. Hydroelectric seems promising since there is always running water...not like wind energy where it sort of depends on there being wind, or solar where there has to be sun.....there is also geothermal which sounds pretty promising.
I don't think its so much that renewable energy would be ineffective, but rather its easier to go about it other ways currently.
But yes if most of the world decides nuclear power is the way to go, its likely to cause a lot of problems like more cancer and birth defects and whatever nuclear radiation causes...and well what to do with all those barrels?
Promising is also the prospect of fusion power plant construction, the principle of its operation is based on deuterium-tritium fusion and fission not like a traditional nuclear power. There is no radioactive waste, no possibility of a meltdown. Such plants could be off at any time.
We do not have such technology, although there are already built prototype
http://www.efda.org/faq/how-long-is-the ... elsewhere/
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
For some 50 years, this technology may be commercially available, but only maybe.
That sounds like a good idea....if there is a way to eliminate the radioactive waste, and get rid of the possibility of a meltdown I'd be much more fond of the idea of nuclear power. I will have to read those links in a bit.
_________________
We won't go back.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
02 Mar 2014, 12:39 pm
I've got mixed views on it.
I think the peaceful application of nuclear fuel can be fine (energy and space exploration) as long as its heavilly regulated, correct investment is put into it as well as waste disposal and its in a remote area with reduced safety implications for the general public; that its well away from an Earthquake/Tsunami zone.
As far as I can see the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were the culmination of a litany of failures on all of these fronts to a greater or lesser degree.
That said I don't think we should get into a situation where nuclear power is seen as the be all and end all. In a post non-renewable industry we need to utilise a multi faceted approach, including solar, wind and hydro farms.
02 Mar 2014, 1:22 pm
There haven't been many nuclear meltdowns...
The Three Mile Island incident in, iirc, 1979, was the most severe to date, and nobody died (though a few people had died in "less severe" meltdowns in experimental reactors).
It was then topped by Chernobyl, in which fewer than 50 people die. From memory, I think it was around 38. Some of those only died because the Soviet authorities didn't hand out the necessary iodine supplements. The incident was entirely preventable. The plant had some safety features disabled because they were trying to push power generation past the safe capacity.
There were then no meltdowns for 25 years.
Fukishima used outdated technology, and should probably not have been built on the coast of the Pacific. It's hard to judge right now, but to date nobody has died and it seems to be closer to Three Mile Island than Chernobyl.
But even accounting for these... well, the one disaster with any fatalities, nuclear power results in fewer deaths than renewables (and far fewer than fossil fuels). Nobody ever shouts about [what happens when hydroelectricity goes wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)...
02 Mar 2014, 1:23 pm
the nuclear powerplants that are currently running are pretty bad because they are so old, most are past or getting near their lifespan limits and should be decommissioned they were built with 50s technology. new plants are much more safer and come in many forms the majority have passively safe, now days you have your classic style reactors and you also have mini reactors the size of shipping containers that can power entire towns. you also have what are known as nuclear battery's that run on passive radiation, these are used on satellites and remote lighthouses they last for many many years and are completely safe unless you chop them apart for scrap metal which has happened a few times even then the exposure was not major.
the main problem is people blocking the new technology's because when they hear the word nuclear they instantly think of bombs. these people block the building of new safe plants so the old unsafe plants must continue to operate. they also block waste reprocessing because you get plutonium. so instead of reprocessing and getting many valuable elements from the waste and more reactor fuels with a small amount of plutonium that can also be burned up they want the waste stored forever so it turns into plutonium on its own.
also nuclear power is incredibly cheap if you remove the massive bureaucracy that leaches off the cheap power.
the majority of accidents happen because of old tech running far past its predicted lifespan fukushima was supposed to be decommissioned but its lifespan was extended because protesters blocked the new plant
Chernobyl was just a terrible design even under the lax soviet standards. the meltdown happened because they did unnecessary test. they turned off the pumps to see what happened but some of the gauges on the control panel were broken so they did not see all the water in the reactor was gone and the pumps were still off
another problem is people dont understand what radiation is they seem to think its some magical death gas but its not its all around you the earth is made of radioactive elements people carry radiation emitting devices in their pockets everyday, you are blasted with radiation from the sun everyday even. also the more radioactive an element the shorter its life is, energy is not free, the radiation is energy so the element is turning itself into energy. so every second a little of that element is turning into energy.
its not perfect but its far better than all the other sources and has the least deaths of all energy sources and least environmental impact. even wind and solar kill more people and pollute the environment more than nuclear a year
one of the things nuclear can do to cutdown on greenhouse gases in a major way is to power cargo ships which are a major polluter the united states navy has been running nuclear powered ships with no problems for decades now. it would also make things cheaper because of the cut down on cost of transport
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,474
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 Mar 2014, 1:46 pm
There haven't been many nuclear meltdowns...
The Three Mile Island incident in, iirc, 1979, was the most severe to date, and nobody died (though a few people had died in "less severe" meltdowns in experimental reactors).
It was then topped by Chernobyl, in which fewer than 50 people die. From memory, I think it was around 38. Some of those only died because the Soviet authorities didn't hand out the necessary iodine supplements. The incident was entirely preventable. The plant had some safety features disabled because they were trying to push power generation past the safe capacity.
There were then no meltdowns for 25 years.
Fukishima used outdated technology, and should probably not have been built on the coast of the Pacific. It's hard to judge right now, but to date nobody has died and it seems to be closer to Three Mile Island than Chernobyl.
But even accounting for these... well, the one disaster with any fatalities, nuclear power results in fewer deaths than renewables (and far fewer than fossil fuels). Nobody ever shouts about [what happens when hydroelectricity goes wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)...
I was not talking strictly about people dying....regardless of that the radiation that then gets released into the environment is harmful in varying ways. There doesn't have to be a lot of nuclear meltdowns for them to cause a lot of damage to the environment from my understanding. I suppose one question I'd have if safety features were disabled in the past what would prevent it from happening again? What is to say such preventable incidents wouldn't happen?
Also I didn't hear of that Dam incident...a bit before my time it appears, but from the sound of the wiki page faulty construction and such played a role, in that. So perhaps the solution is better planning and such for various forms of power so risks and dangers can be minimized.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,474
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 Mar 2014, 1:55 pm
I can see the hydroelectric going wrong and causing a lot of death...dams aren't exactly entirely safe and flooding/rushing water can kill as far as I know. As for wind and solar how does that kill people? And what about geothermal? I've honestly never heard of anyone directly dying from either of those but would certainly be interested to read of cases of this happening.
The rest of your post makes it seem like nuclear power can be safe...and you do make a good point about there being all kinds of radiation in the environment that people constantly get exposed to. But yeah I think renewable energy has its place as well....perhaps safer nuclear power you describe supplemented with renewable energy sources where possible is a good thing provided precautions are taken and the benefit outweighs the risks it might cause.
_________________
We won't go back.
02 Mar 2014, 2:14 pm
Nuclear energy seems to be the viable option for replacing carbon-based fuels, but you've got to have a ton of oversight over the entire construction process. No cutting corners, no second-rate materials. Also, maybe consider not building your nuclear power plant right next to the ocean in an area that's prone to both large earthquakes and tsunamis.
We really need to work on some kind of Corium containment as well, which is rather difficult since it's really, really hot. Actually Corium is pretty rad just for curiosity's sake:
http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-me ... ill-lethal
Also, it's only a few meters across, but it has a weight of several tons (I couldn't find a straight answer on just how many, but BBC seems to think it's over 100 tons).
