kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
I'm for it i don't see that there will be another Chenobil (USSRs nuclear power station
I am under the impression that the amortised capital costs of nuclear are too expensive compared to renewables (windfarms and solar, for example) and thus isn't really financially viable.
Also, getting rid of the waste poses are serious long term problem.
JC said:Uranium and plutonium are in limited supply. What happens when they run out?
JC said:Wind and solar are definite long term solutions. Nuclear isn't a long term solution.
JC said:Nobody has mentioned hydrogen as a fuel...thank god, because it will never be a viable fuel.
Wind and solar are smaller scale though - I don't think wind produces much energy, and solar probably doesn't either, and it's small scale: People have them on their roof, you don't see power plants.
I'm all for it! Just as long as they build it safely and make sure that none of the radioactive water leaches into my shower water.
Wait until he finds out there's already radioactive tritium in his shower water and it has nothing to do with nuke plants!
I work for a firm that is funding a windfarm, so I gathered alot of these figures from various models.
But try this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Some of the figures I mentioned can be rationalised here.
What I said about the 1 acre per turbine, thats on a sloped surface. You wouldn't normally have 20 turbines in a flat 20 acre field. If it was on the side of a valley or mountain you could.
Edit: This is a link showing some highlights of generating electricity by wind in Ireland. As you can see, they quoted 5.5m for a 5MW turbine. This is 1.1m per MW, slightly higher than my 1m figure above.
http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/Economics.pdf
Very much in favor of it.Are you in favour of nuclear power plants or not?
You might also add any comments you may have.
If anyone has any juicy numbers, please throw them in (i.e. cost per Mega Watt etc etc)!
The fact that you talk about Plutonium as a fuel source indicates to me that you need to do more reading (hint, its not used for commerical energy production).
How big is the risk of one of these nuclear plants melting down? Is it like in Civ4 where they melt down quite often??
Yet why isn't everybody outraged by the thousands of deaths caused by the exploitation of coal?
I'm really curious.
The fact that you talk about it as if it isn't indicates to me that you need to check things before taking the mickey out of someone (hint, look under "MOX").
Except you need a heckuva lot less uranium than coal to run a modern nation.In fairness to coal, uranium mining isn't really a healthful activity.
Except you need a heckuva lot less uranium than coal to run a modern nation.Even unrefined uranium.
Yet why isn't everybody outraged by the thousands of deaths caused by the exploitation of coal?
I'm really curious.
Nuclear Power is the Power of future. Why waste time with those RIDICULOUS things like "Solar Energy", "Windmills" when we can do it with Nuclear Plants? They don't polute that much, they are very efficient and they are secure. To say that they are dangerous is foolishness.