Nuclear energy

Are you for nuclear energy production?

  • Yes

    Votes: 69 86.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 7.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 6.3%

  • Total voters
    80
At this point, no. I do not wish to discuss the reasons why.
 
Haven't any y'all played Sim City 2000? Just put a cluster of nuke plants in the wilderness!

Actually, standardize one design. Stamp them out across the country.

Subsidize the need for this with renewable options on a local scale, where and when possible.
 
Yet why isn't everybody outraged by the thousands of deaths caused by the exploitation of coal?

I'm really curious.

yeah, same here :( after tschernobyl, public opposition stopped a planned nuke-plant in Kaiseraugst and a Moratorium was agreed on to not build any new NPP for the time being. Now all our plants are getting old and should be replaces, yet opposition remainst strong. (about 30% of our energy is produced by nukes, 65% by hydropower).

the fun thing is that the opposition doesn't want to build other non-nuclear powerplants but instead import the needed additional energy from ...... France :crazyeye:
 
I edited my original post because my wording was incorrect. Yes, it's a "fuel", but not in the sense that it is a source of energy. You input more energy to create it than you can later recover from it.
Whatever energy source we use will have had more energy put in than we can get out. You can never get out more than what's been put in. The good thing about oil is that the energy had already been put in before we came along, so it's effectively free. Now, if we had to make the oil before using it, it would make it completely useless.
 
How big is the risk of one of these nuclear plants melting down? Is it like in Civ4 where they melt down quite often??

The risk is minimal, but it exists. With every reward comes some risk, but in the case of TMI and Chernobyl, a few things compounded: technical problems and human error combined to cause the problems in those reactors. And for what happened at TMI, the radioactive material was contained.

Now, the risk is a lot lower because the safety systems in a nuclear power plant tend to be passive; that is, pumps to put cool water into an overheating reactor are now gravity-driven instead of mechanical so as to avoid failure or somebody not turning them on at the right time. Safety systems are redundant; there's more than one way to shut down a reactor.

Actually, melting down is kind of a silly term, as the amount of concrete in a containment building (the thing around the reactor) stops pretty much anything, whether it be hot radioactive material or a 747.

A lot of nuclear energy startup costs come from the lengthy safety/regulatory process. I wonder if its possible to streamline it without compromising on safety?

The process, at least in the United States, has become more streamlined since the 1970's and '80s; it used to be that a site had to be approved, construction had to be approved, and once the plant was finished and ready to open, the public could still block that from happening. The process now approves all the same things, and it's still open to the public, there are just fewer steps. The safety requirements are all still there (and are probably a heck of a lot stricter now than they were a couple of decades ago, what with passive safety systems and such), but once a plant is approved, it can be built and open once built to specifications. Makes things a lot more attractive to investors if they know that once a reactor is approved, it's not going to get built and then sit idle after millions or billions of dollars spent.

downtown said:
IC has me re-convinced!

Tell all your friends in government!

;)
 
In the simplest form I will explain;

More people have electric items at home, Power demands are greater, and the only way to keep up is the use of Nuclear Energy.
 
The answer is a no-brainer : Nuclear energy !
 
Back
Top Bottom