Are you afraid of nuclear power?

[Hitro]

In the late 70s and the 80s, especially after Chernobyl, there was alot of resistance against the use of nuclear power due to the risks involved with it.

The Chernobyl disaster showed what the effects of something going wrong might be and the issue of what to do with the waste is still unresolved today.

Mostly as a result of that few new plants were built in certain countries since then and Germany even made the political decision to phase out nuclear power as a whole.

But in times of the CO2 scare and the wider global warming debate nuclear power has made a comeback. Energy corporations now hope for a shift in public perception of it and many young people grew up way after the scare of the 80s (comparable in a way to AIDS and contraception).

So what is your view on nuclear power? And I don't mean in Iran...

And wait for the pole.

 

[Godwynn]

We need to dedicate a big open expanse lacking in human settlement to put up a lot of nuclear reactors/ wind farms/ and solar panels.

I nominate Missouri.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

We need to dedicate a big open expanse lacking in human settlement to put up a lot of nuclear reactors/ wind farms/ and solar panels.

I nominate Missouri.

I have this big feeling of deja vu. Have you posted this before?



Anyways, I am not afraid of the boogeyman... I mean nuclear power.

 

[Narz]

Not afraid of it in general but I wouldn't want a plant in my backyard.

I think people should just cut electricity use by 90% so powering the world on renewable can become feasible.

Of course that's not what's going to happen but my like or dislike of nuclear will make no difference either & I'm talking about that.

 

[Dachs]

Nuclear power would be of virtually no concern to me unless the waste problem were dealt with. Unless there's some good plan to fly all the waste into the Sun or something (uneconomical ), I'm not comfortable with a nuclear-power project.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Storage of waste will be costly, but I'm still not worried about it. If sailors on a nuclear sub, could spend their time meters away from a reactor and not die, I see no reason to worry.

 

[Integral]

I have this big feeling of deja vu. Have you posted this before?



Anyways, I am not afraid of the boogeyman... I mean nuclear power.

He nominated Missouri back in November, as well.

I'm pro-nuclear.

 

[Dachs]

Storage of waste will be costly, but I'm still not worried about it.

Where are you going to put it?

 

[Godwynn]

I have this big feeling of deja vu. Have you posted this before?

Probably, I always welcome the chance to take a jab at VRWC.

 

[Hitro]

Nuclear power would be of virtually no concern to me unless the waste problem were dealt with. Unless there's some good plan to fly all the waste into the Sun or something (uneconomical ), I'm not comfortable with a nuclear-power project.

That is the problem I see with it, too. And while Narz already wouldn't want a plant in his backyard I guess he definetely wouldn't want the waste to be dumped there.

And the problem with the "in the sun" thing is not even primarily economical. Think of a start failure...

 

[Earthling]

I think I'm supposed to nominate Texas, really my duty to do so.

No, but seriously (without considering the number of OP's you've just opened, Hitro...) nuclear power is not TEH SCARYZ and could do a lot of good in America, and elsewhere too. It just produces vastly greater amounts of power compared to current renewable technologies, yet isn't as damaging as fossil fuels (breeder reactors can even recycle some waste, and if people are responsible its not nearly as bad as airborne pollutants). Nuclear power actually has very good safety records around the world - Cherynobyl being a one of a kind instance of stupidity (the way I also think of it is basically: "let's do an experiment. Oh, what would happen if we turned our safety systems OFF?") that would not happen again and its fear-mongering to say so.

Unfortunately it would have been great if the US had still been building nuclear plants these past couple of decades cause we could use them now - and even still I think they are an important step in transitioning away from fossil fuels. Wind, solar, et al. are the best but simply couldn't be built quickly enough with current realities, while nuclear power can make a difference. At the very least, it's certainly MUCH better than opening a bunch of new coal plants which still has many proponents in America right now.

Edit: Dang, I got pwnt. My post was seriously supposed to be right after Godwynn's!
Also edit: about storage waste can be buried/stored in facilities with virtually no harm to people - just sits and decays- we still do have space that's not in anyone's way. But in fact we can even minimize some of that with breeder reactors and more advanced plants (people often get confused about these because, politically, we don't like other countries having more advanced nuclear plants for fear of weapons development - but the simplest ones produce more waste).

 

[Arwon]

I'm mostly afraid of how much lost opportunity every dollar sunk into nuclear power as opposed to alternative energies represents.

There's more power than we could ever use bombarding this planet every day, it's just a matter of converting and storing it efficiently enough. We know that plants can convert sunlight to usable fuel more efficiently than we know how to and there is no reason to believe that we can't imitate that. This has to be a solvable problem and advances are being made virtually every day.

It's where the smart money is going, rather than subsidies to constructing new nuclear plants from whole cloth - particularly in countries where there is presently no nuclear industry.

 

[Godwynn]

He nominated Missouri back in November, as well.

I'm pro-nuclear.

*shakes fist*

Integraaaaaaaallllllllllll!!!!

How could I forget Serbia, again?



We must start building nuclear power plants in Kansas City and Belgrade immediately.

 

[Miles Teg]

Arwon, in the long run that might be true. At the moment however, nuclear power is more bang for your buck.

 

[Earthling]

Actually, that's not true about plants either - something I was surprised to learn myself in the past too. At least, if you some measure like energy absorbed/energy radiated onto the plants (if you're using some measure like economic costs of growing plants that's different- also, converting to fuel might be different than just straight electricity - cause if a solar panel generates electricity for a car for example there's really no need for an intermediate "fuel"). But yeah, solar panels already capture more energy than a plant does. Solar is incredibly awesome but still expensive and doesn't generate as much as nuclear in the short term. Believe me, I'd love to just see us shell out $10,000 per American for solar power but we don't have that luxury right now - and without that kind of money solar's not enough so nuclear can help us along the way right now.

 

[Hitro]

Also edit: about storage waste can be buried/stored in facilities with virtually no harm to people - just sits and decays- we still do have space that's not in anyone's way.

How about countries that don't?

And if it is so easy, why are there no final storage places yet?

 

[Arwon]

Arwon, in the long run that might be true. At the moment however, nuclear power is more bang for your buck.

Probably not when you live in a non-nuclear country where you'd have to build the bastards from scratch without any pre-existing nuclear power industry, as well as fight all the legal battles that would ensue.

 

[Dachs]

Also edit: about storage waste can be buried/stored in facilities with virtually no harm to people - just sits and decays- we still do have space that's not in anyone's way. But in fact we can even minimize some of that with breeder reactors and more advanced plants (people often get confused about these because, politically, we don't like other countries having more advanced nuclear plants for fear of weapons development - but the simplest ones produce more waste).

Dude, if the best site we can find is Yucca Mountain, where there are major concerns about leakage into Vegas' water, I haven't got my hopes up for other places. Got any ideas?

 

[Arwon]

I actually think Australia could make a bit of money storing the world's nuclear waste somewhere in the desert. It's geologically very very stable, and sparsely populated. We export a huge chunk of the world's uranium anyway, so we might as well take it back.

 

[azzaman333]

No, I am not afraid of nuclear power.