Welcome to Gaia's forums, where millions of members gather to discuss random stuff, make new friends,
complain about life, argue about nothing, laugh at dumb pictures, discuss serious issues and/or curse like sailors.
Lurking is creepy. Quit skulking in the shadows and join the conversation!
Register to reply
 |
I just wanted to know...do you think we should use nuclear energy?
|
|
|
No. The plants are expensive to build and the waste that they generate is toxic for centuries. Even if the waste was buried in containers and sealed in an underground concrete or lead or whatever chamber, if there was an earthquake or any other sort of movement of the surrounding rock it could destroy the chamber and release the radioactive material into the ground water. The idea that nuclear energy is 'clean' energy is a hoax. It should only be used in places where other ways of producing energy are not viable.
|
 |
|
|
Wow...very interesting response!
|
|
|
Vote Kira No. The plants are expensive to build and the waste that they generate is toxic for centuries. Even if the waste was buried in containers and sealed in an underground concrete or lead or whatever chamber, if there was an earthquake or any other sort of movement of the surrounding rock it could destroy the chamber and release the radioactive material into the ground water. The idea that nuclear energy is 'clean' energy is a hoax. It should only be used in places where other ways of producing energy are not viable. I'll start with the waste. While it is true that the waste is dangerous to almost all life forms for somewhere between decades and tens of thousands of years, depending on the type of material and which process it was involved in, it can be safely stored. Regions of Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been proposed waste disposal regions, as they would safely store the materials despite any natural disaster, were one to occur, which, given the region, would be somewhat unlikely. The proposed region is also already incapable of supporting life, so there is no risk to any sentient being. As for the safety of the actual plants, there have only been two serious incidents in the fifty odd years that nuclear power plants have been implemented, an already significantly lower incidence rate than other power sources such as coal-burning plants. And when a closer look is taken at the two incidents (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), it is obvious that a nuclear power plant can operate safely. Chernobyl was built to safety standards that were appalling even in that era, and this standards have only risen with time. The idea that something like that could happen is unthinkable if one takes into account the enormous regulation of nuclear power plants. The incident at Three Mile Island was not caused by any failure in the plant itself, but rather in user error. There was a minor mishap, the attendants strayed from protocol, and some bad s**t happened. (Though I don't have any reliable source for this, my father, who spent 26 years in the Navy working in the nuclear field once told me that a properly built nuclear power plant could have an F-16 collide with it without releasing any substantial radiation). That paired with the fact that the average coal-burning plant actually releases more radiation on a day-to-day basis than the average nuclear power plant shows just how safe these plants are. And while nuclear energy does produce hazardous waste, that waste can be stored where it will not threaten life. The greenhouses gases produced by so many other methods cause just as much harm, and are not so easily stored safely. These gases are not produced at nearly the same rates at nuclear power plants as other power sources, meaning that nuclear energy is, in that and other respects, a clean energy. And currently, France produces almost half of it's energy by means of nuclear power. They manage to do this without wasting money on admittedly expensive plants, because nuclear plants produce more energy per dollar than coal and solar (though current research into solar will likely change that fact within 2-4 years). So while the individual plants are expensive, the waste is dangerous, and the plants aren't perfect, the energy is cheaper per kilowatt hour, the danger is a non-factor, and they are as, if not more so, safe than most other types of plants. |
|
|
|
Build those fission plants. They're less harmful than coal-burning plants day-to-day. Hell, BEER is more radioactive than the exhausted water from fission plants.
And keep working on the fusion problem. |
|
|
If the waste products can be safely stored somewhere, I am all for it. We need more energy options, especially in the US. And frankly, right now France produces 70% of their energy from nuclear power plants, and they've had no issues with things exploding, so I don't see why anyone else can't.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all your insight! Keep the posts coming!
|
|
|
Vryko Lakas And keep working on the fusion problem. I cannot wait for a fusion reactor to be built. Anyways, Nuclear energy has enormous potential, to be both clean and efficient, but it takes serious regulation and dedication. The biggest problem I see is the nuclear waste produced. Unlike some would have you think, however, it is often disposed of in a very clean and viable manner. The majority of it is shipped to a facility where it is placed in liquid cooling for the remainder of the chemical's half-life, or at least, until it stops being outrageously hot. These facilities can only hold a finite amount, and if nuclear plants started popping up all over the place, storing the waste may become a problem. That's why, like I said, it requires regulation and dedication. Politicians can't just pass a bill that says "BUILD MORE NUCLEAR FACTORIES" without making a plan to deal with the rest of a details (and having a decent amount of money stowed away for such a feat.) That would be unwise. |
|
|
|
Kaz-Balan Reclusiarch Grimaldus ... it takes serious regulation and dedication. ... Trouble is we witness the exact opposite. In France, producing electricity with nuclear plants asked for a lot of research & development, some heavy industrial choices, and it was a state affair, VERY regulated. Nowadays, more and more, we see private companies taking the juicy parts ( selling electricity ) ... ...and leaving the problematic ones to the state ( ie to be paid with our taxes ). Which means that the management of the plants may face dangerous cuts in budgets by the private companies ( mainly AREVA, here ), and the main worries come with the way the old plants will be dismantled, SOON, because, in order to do so safely, it will ask for a LOT of money, which our state is going to avoid spending, mainly ( for now ) by saying "well... we'll do it later", and then by letting unqualified private companies doing the job ! Yeah... Politics play a damn big role in our energetic choices. It is a very messy state of affairs. I couldn't agree more. That's why I say that it has high potential. Hopefully, one of these days it will be managed properly by the right people. smile |
|
|
We have no way to dispose of the toxic waste it produces and I think it's pretty expensive, from what I understand.
Bad news bears, in my opinion. sad |
|
|
|
Kaz-Balan CherokeeAlex If the waste products can be safely stored somewhere, I am all for it. Most people just do not compare... ...or they'd soon realize the problem caused by nuclear wastes is INFINITESIMAL when compared with the results of most industries, with the pollution caused by oil and coal, and with the mountains of plastics creating dangerous and sterile grounds for centuries... Would someone mind explaining to me how all the nuclear waste which could remain lethal for more than a million years is infinitesimal? |
|
|
Vote Kira No. The plants are expensive to build and the waste that they generate is toxic for centuries. Even if the waste was buried in containers and sealed in an underground concrete or lead or whatever chamber, if there was an earthquake or any other sort of movement of the surrounding rock it could destroy the chamber and release the radioactive material into the ground water. The idea that nuclear energy is 'clean' energy is a hoax. It should only be used in places where other ways of producing energy are not viable. |
|
|
