Feelings on Nuclear Energy

[Geneva]

With the recent nuclear crisis in Japan having the eyes of the world fixed upon itself, I thought it might be interesting to discuss to Hive's stance on nuclear power. Positive? Negative?

Post your opinions below. Also, try not to flame. While it's great to debate your opinion against another's remember to respect their's as well.

[Tyrantor]

I'm all for it. I think it's a brilliant short term source of power.
Though, I think it should be a stepping stone into a world of Hydrogen energy. Love it, research it avidly.
But in reality I'd like it to be a stepping stone into a totally renewable planet. Which won't happen.

[wisdomseyes1]

As long as nothing bad happens to anyone, and this gets done quickly and efficiently, I am not worried.

If something bad does happen, I just don't want it to leave a scar to the world that doesn't affect generations to come...

But, it hopefully wont.

It does make me wonder though... Why the **** do we use nuclear energy... The entire point of having these reactors is to heat water to turn turbines that produce energy... There are so many safer ways to do this...

[The Tomato]

Basically because of the [fuel consumption]/[Energy output] is a lot lower than other popular methods.

A more direct method would be preferable though since heat is a secondary energy type which makes for substantial loss of power along the way. A nuclear reactor is essentially the lovechild of a steam engine and a pacified nuke.

[wisdomseyes1]

okay. Better question. Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

[WestRider]

Much of the problem with Nuclear Power has to do with the fact that the technologies currently in use were largely developed hand in hand with Nuclear Weapons. There are other forms of Reactors than the common ones (notably Molten-Salt Thorium Breeder Reactors), which are far safer, and possibly even more efficient. One of the main reasons they haven't been used and explored more extensively is that their byproducts are not, by and large, usable in Nuclear Weapons, which makes them less attractive to the large Governments who are the only ones with the cash to fund this sort of research.

Looked at from another point of view, this becomes an advantage: These reactors can be safely built in areas where theft or redirection of Nuclear material for Weapons is a concern, without risking increased Nuclear proliferation.

There are other advantages as well: Thorium is relatively cheap, rather more abundant than Uranium, and the Reactors also require as fuel one of the isotopes of Uranium that current Reactors generate as a waste product, so they'd simplify the problem of getting rid of our current stock of long-lasting radioactive waste. They generate some radioactive waste, but it's much quicker to degrade to a safe level, needing only to be stored for a matter of centuries instead of thousands or even millions of years.

That said, on average Nuclear Reactors seem to actually be safer than other types, it's just that when they do cause damage, it happens in one big, highly visible burst, while Coal-Fired and Hydroelectric plants cause their damage gradually, over years or decades. It's the same phenomenon as Airplane accidents: per passenger-mile, Airplanes are far and away the safest way to travel, but they're perceived by many as unsafe because whenever one does crash, it makes the news across the Country, and possibly the World, while the far, far higher number of people killed in traffic accidents never make it past the local news.

[Hyper Kinetic]

*seconds WestRider's comments*

Personally, I am for Nuclear Energy.
As noted above, there are some better reactors out there these days.
When used in geologically stable areas, things ought to be fine. These guys kinda got unlucky (in the sense that there was an Earthquake that knocked them out.... not that they put reactors on a geologically active region).

As noted, coal power plants cause their damage over time. Believe it or not, Coal Power Plants are also large radiation producers (though ash capture systems substantially reduce this). It just happens over a longer period of time. Radiation is not the only thing, of course... but it is amusing to think about.

I am also for other forms of energy, such as Solar... even if we are stupidly avoiding it like the plague (seriously... how does Australia not have good solar facilities?)...
But Nuclear should be considered a viable alternative until something better can be made.

[salamut2202]

Mar 16, 2011 5:06:24 GMT Hyper Kinetic said:

I am also for other forms of energy, such as Solar... even if we are stupidly avoiding it like the plague (seriously... how does Australia not have good solar facilities?).

This, I for one believe nuclear fusion is better than nuclear fission. "We don't have a fusion plant' I hear you say? We do! We in fact orbit around it. Solar, geothermal, wind, tidal. Australia's main export should be energy goddammit!

[zephoid]

100% for nuclear energy. The benefit of cheaper energy far outweigh the risks of a possible meltdown. all 3 major nuclear power accidents had so many things go wrong with them that there was no possible way it could have been planned for. Also, as west said, there are different types of nuclear reactors that are far safer than current designs. My best friend is currently starting his masters degree in nuclear physics. His masters goal: prove thorium reactors can work on a small scale. aka, try to build his own(nothing about thorium is illegal. in fact, its not even restricted.)

[Deathnid]

nuclear = thumbs down
_____
/l____l
l l____l
l l____l
l l____l
l l
l_l

[Hyper Kinetic]

Mar 16, 2011 5:48:23 GMT salamut2202 said:

Australia's main export should be energy goddammit!

Well... actually... it is
Coal.

In an amusing twist of fate, Australia holds roughly one third of world's known Uranium resources... yet we are consistently knocking back Nuclear Power as an option and it is very difficult to get a uranium mine past the Greens (to be fair, a significant amount of the Uranium sites are in the middle of major national parks )

[salamut2202]

Okay, we're exporting coal, are we exporting something that will last a fair bit longer?

And Australia sits on much uranium although I would not blame the greens completely. When that (please do not swear) Howard was was in are we too quick to forget that the ALP started the "Not in my backyard" campaign?

[Trygon]

I am in the same boat as everyone else. We cannot keep using the fuel sources we are for many reasons and most alternatives are either too underdeveloped or not practical for fuelling an entire planet. Nuclear is our best option at this time. Though it too is not something we should rely on as a permanent solution until we can figure out how to iron out the issues it still has or find something better.

[andy089]

I am for nuclear power-both fission and fusion. I am also for Nanomaterials, but let's not get into that now.

Of course it would be nice if we could put a few solar panels, wind turbines and hydro-electric power plants and power the whole world/continent/country with it. But you would need more of them. LOADS.
And if you look at it-the produced energy might not be as "clean" as you might think at first:

A solar panel takes up space. While this is pretty much irrelevant in areas like deserts and rooftops and so forth, having large arrays of solar panels in areas where there are A) people or B) animals it's quite a different story. Plants don't get sunlight if there is a solar panel above them. And as someone said (or will say): After all these years of research, the efficiency is still (please do not swear)-and its still more efficient to heat water and use this heat for powering a generator than direct photoelectric conversion. Efficient Solar panels anytime soon? I do not think so.
Wind Turbines....ever thought about what happens if they are built on traveling routes of birds? yes-free dinner... And those things 1) are fairly loud and 2) vibrate a bit, causing unease on surrounding households and animals. Plus maintaining one of those isn't actually cheap...
Now my favorite: Hydroelectric Plants. You move a few villages, flood a few acres of land, damage/destroy a rivers ecosystem and call this thing "green & clean energy". And while someone might think "oh well at least its continuously producing energy" - you are wrong. If there is too much water in the basin the pressure is too high and water has to be bypassed through a vent and not through the turbines. if the water is too low, the turbines won't turn to overcome the generators resistance. So what they do is: they produce energy during the day (if it works) and during the night, when the electricity is cheaper, they pump water back up into the basin.

Now if we think about nuclear power people keep saying "ooh but there is radiation and we're all going to die!", well-yes. there IS radiation. INSIDE the reactor-that is what's powering it. The same way as there are explosions inside the engine of your car.
"But what if something goes wrong?" Well quite a few things have to go wrong at once in order to have a really BIG problem. Lets face it: if someone dies in any other kind of power plant barely anyone will really give a (please do not swear), but if it happens in a nuclear power plant its all over the news. But if you would apply the same logic to everything else-why would ANYONE go by plane? Its all grand until a plane crashes-chances that you survive are...well not really good I'd say...
"But it just happened a few days ago"-yes, there was one of the strongest earthquakes yet experienced. PLUS the power plant skipped a few security checks in the past and so forth-honestly, you can't use this as an "everyday situation"....

There we go, I finally got a chance to tell my opinion =D

[Grythic]

Im for nucular fission until they sort fusion out.
Or harness Zero point energy, but thats such a long way off its not worth thinking about. I'm not thinking stargate by the way, though im not sure if the real version can be harnessed.