|
|
Post by Hive Carnithrope on Mar 16, 2011 17:14:54 GMT
I think that nuclear power is ok. It is not the best way to harness energy, but for now, it is better than burning fossil fuels. It releases less toxic gases and usually is more efficiant.
On the other hand, the used nuclear rods have to be buried underground ehich can leak into the environment.
For now, until a better solution is found, nuclear power seems to be the best option.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Mar 16, 2011 17:20:56 GMT
Do you realize how much power we could get just from the sun? Remember that almost all energy we have comes from the sun (there are those weird chemosythisis plants... but I am not realy going into that)
Then add wind power.
Then add that we can turn turbines by using rivers (that is what we call a dam.
Not a single one of these is dangerous. If a natural disaster strikes, the only one of these that might hurt us is the dams...
Nuclear power does what these things do better, yes. But it also creates waist which we can not get rid of. And, this waist (unlike that in which we fill landfills with) is dangerous to us, and quite a bit more so to the next generation. Unborn babies don't take to radiation well...
We can make 1 powerplant for nuclear energy, or X for solar (I don't actually know how much more power nuclear energy creates)
The only reason we DON'T do this, is because it is more cost efficient to just make the nuclear power plank and hope nothing goes wrong.
|
|
r2d2
Genestealer
Posts: 67
|
Post by r2d2 on Mar 16, 2011 17:52:12 GMT
i am in debate team and in last years main tournament, nuclear energy vs. renewable sources was our topic. we did a lot of reasearching on this and now i can share with you what we discovered. every person uses only 0,2 grams of uranium per lifetime. and just with australia we have enough uranium for thousands of years. we can build nuclear power station anywhere while for renewable sources you need enough wind, sun... modern nuclear power stations are very secure, and let's say that no one expects such an earthquake. and even now there hasn't been any destroying explosions yet. and we in slovenija have only one nuclear power station and it provides 70 % of electricity we use. and we share this power station with neighbour country croatia.
in your face you renewable sources hiooies!
|
|
r2d2
Genestealer
Posts: 67
|
Post by r2d2 on Mar 16, 2011 18:02:43 GMT
another thing we dicovered. we would have to built whole europe over with this sun things that provide energy (forgot the name) and this wind things. first you have to have wind to get some power. we don't have enough wind to provide all power that we need. and this dams aren't very enviromental too. fish isn't very happy if she is happily swimming around and suddenly she bumps into a dam. nuclear waste is not a real problem. we just pack them and barrie them in the ground and while researching this topic i haven't found any reports on problem with it. nuclear power station for the win!
|
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Mar 16, 2011 19:29:01 GMT
You know what I hate about energy arguments? It the fact that too many people argue a position based on fear and ignorance.
Take solar power for instance. Many people think that it is the be all and end all for our energy issues. But despite decades of research the power that we gain from a single solar cell remains small. Most people would then say that we should put a bunch of them together in order to create a large power output. What those people seem to forget is that you lose power as power goes through the lines. By just making your solar array bigger you add more power lines, and in the end you end up losing more power than you gain by making your array bigger.
But since people aren't smart on the issue you can't point out how large scale solar power is unfeasible at the present time.
Not only are people ignorant on nuclear energy, but they argue out of fear as well.
How many of you can tell me what a harmful dose of radiation is without using Google? How many of you can tell me how much radiation is put out by a nuclear reactor? Who knows how much radiation you receive each day just sitting in your house? People don't know these facts and yet they cry how horrible radiation is.
They don't know that a nuclear power plant can provide 100 times the energy of a coal burning power plant. They don't understand how modern nuclear reactors have multiple reduntant safety features to keep it from melting down. And if it ever did melt down it won't release radiation in harmful levels.
People are worried about "scarring the Earth". Never mind the fact that we have dropped nuclear warheads larger than anything that a nuclear reactor would produce and people still live in those areas. Or the fact that Chernobyl and the area around it was so "scarred" that they continued to operate the nuclear power plant for the next 20 years.
But none of this matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrantor on Mar 16, 2011 21:01:01 GMT
I can say I safely know the answers to those questions, within reasonable limits.
Realistically, as has been said, nuclear power isn't a forever-lasting power source. It should be a stepping stone until we harness something like hydrogen power - something which may prove to be a goldmine in the scientific community.
Also, it could pave the way to cold fusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy089 on Mar 16, 2011 21:09:54 GMT
You know what I hate about energy arguments? It the fact that too many people argue a position based on fear and ignorance. Take solar power for instance. Many people think that it is the be all and end all for our energy issues. But despite decades of research the power that we gain from a single solar cell remains small. Most people would then say that we should put a bunch of them together in order to create a large power output. What those people seem to forget is that you lose power as power goes through the lines. By just making your solar array bigger you add more power lines, and in the end you end up losing more power than you gain by making your array bigger. But since people aren't smart on the issue you can't point out how large scale solar power is unfeasible at the present time. Not only are people ignorant on nuclear energy, but they argue out of fear as well. How many of you can tell me what a harmful dose of radiation is without using Google? How many of you can tell me how much radiation is put out by a nuclear reactor? Who knows how much radiation you receive each day just sitting in your house? People don't know these facts and yet they cry how horrible radiation is. They don't know that a nuclear power plant can provide 100 times the energy of a coal burning power plant. They don't understand how modern nuclear reactors have multiple reduntant safety features to keep it from melting down. And if it ever did melt down it won't release radiation in harmful levels. People are worried about "scarring the Earth". Never mind the fact that we have dropped nuclear warheads larger than anything that a nuclear reactor would produce and people still live in those areas. Or the fact that Chernobyl and the area around it was so "scarred" that they continued to operate the nuclear power plant for the next 20 years. But none of this matters. While I do not know the answers of most of those questions, I actually don't see the sense in knowing it, unless you are working the this specific field. But you are right with all the stuff you said ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Mar 16, 2011 23:08:04 GMT
Solar power is great for some things, in some areas. If you use solar energy to directly heat water in a tank on your roof, and then use that for bating, washing dishes, maybe even some heating, it's great, and can save you quite a bit of money. But Solar energy is incredibly diffuse, and you lose a big chunk of it every time you try to make it change state. If, instead of directly heating the water by exposing it to sunlight in an insulated container, you put photovoltaic cells up there, generate, electricity, and then try to use that electricity to run a conventional hot water heater, you're not going to be very happy with the results.
It also only really works at all in relatively low latitudes. Up here in the Seattle area, where we've got frequent cloud cover as well, forget about it.
Plants can use Solar power really well, because they don't need to do much. They stay in one place, and grow fairly slowly. Over time, they concentrate that energy, so it's capable of powering more active beings who eat plants and can then move around and stuff. Similarly, coal is a further concentration of that same energy that was already concentrated by the plant life in the first place. Only after that level of concentration can Solar Energy be used effectively in a system where it needs to be changed in type, from raw heat to electricity, for instance, because those changes are inherently inefficient, and feature unavoidable losses.
The other thing people forget about Hydro is that it's still an exhaustible source. Hydro dams alter how silt settles out in the rivers they block, and gradually lose efficiency as they can't get the same volume and drop because the river's clogging up in the wrong place. Plus, there are the effects on fish. I'm no hippy, but I do think stream-bred, ocean-caught Salmon and Trout taste quite a bit better than farmed, and I'd really prefer to continue to have that option. Even well designed fish ladders cut down on the spawning capacity of a river, and many ladders are not well designed.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Mar 17, 2011 0:55:04 GMT
@yori: I would assume people do understand how much more power nuclear reactors can produce.
My problem leans more towards, Hey guys! Where are we going to put this waste? We can't use it for anything. And then they start dumbing it in mountains and such (yes. They actually have done that)
I understand that yes, they have safety measures. They have those rods of (insert name that I forgot here) that trap excess neutrons that cause the reactions to prevent meltdowns.
We receive radiation from the sun each and every day. This is why staying outside for extended periods of time and trying to get tan is a bad thing. It causes skin cancer. My consern is not for us right now... it is for women who are exposed.
Unlike the suns radiation... radiation from a nuclear reactor actually can harm a womans eggs. Ever seen a baby born with 4 arms that has survived? This can happen naturally... but it is far more likely if the, basically half of a cell that is an egg, gets damaged because of radiation.
The effects of excess radiation is probably why we avoid using nuclear weapons...
Now I do have a question yori.
If radiation from a melt down does not come in harmful levels, why are they making sure the levels of radiation are down in there citizens in Japan and testing them for there levels? Obviously someone must think it isn't good for you... And there hasn't even been a meltdown.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Mar 17, 2011 1:37:50 GMT
My problem leans more towards, Hey guys! Where are we going to put this waist? We can't use it for anything. And then they start dumbing it in mountains and such (yes. They actually have done that) As I mentioned earlier, look into Thorium Breeder Reactors. They actually use the waste products from our current Reactors as part of their fuel, and the wastes that they produce themselves are much less dangerous and break down far, far faster. |
|
|
|
Post by coff on Mar 17, 2011 2:31:45 GMT
Yori's right on most counts.
@wisdom. Nuclear waist is an atomic pelvis. Waste is the proper spelling.
Nuclear comprises approximately 8-14% of worldwide energy provided depending where you get your statistic.
Fossil fuels provide approximately 86% of worldwide energy.
Best numbers I could find for nuclear waste indicate 12,000 metric tons produced annually.
Numbers I found on waste from fossil fuels indicate 21.3 billion metric tons of CO2 are produced by burning fossil fuel.
If we scale these by percentages (mass/%) we get 24.7 billion tons to 150,000 tons (I used 8% to get highest possible yield).
Keep in mind that these numbers are from wikipedia so may not be entirely accurate but I checked the sources provided and they seemed fairly legit.
Renewable needs a whole lot of work to catch up to the cost/efficiency ratio of nuclear and fossil.
Also, I've heard plenty of people complain about the environmental effects of green energy. Dead serious, I've had people look me straight in the eye and tell me about wind mills kill thousands of birds and how solar panels in the desert would affect the fragile ecosystem out there (separate instances, different people).
Not knocking green energy per-say, but there are two sides to every coin.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Mar 17, 2011 3:16:55 GMT
Shhhhh! We don't need to point out my fail at spelling
Contrary to popular belief... Wikipedia does actually check if their information is correct or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by salamut2202 on Mar 17, 2011 4:55:20 GMT
Renewable needs a whole lot of work to catch up to the cost/efficiency ratio of nuclear and fossil. Just going to say that this guy was involved in a study that found that solar and wind alone could sustain Australia's* base energy needs at the 3rd of the cost of the of Australia's coal fire stations and at half the cost of necessary nuclear power plants. *I acknowledge that Australia has unique circumstances as a desert continent. |
|
|
|
Post by The Tomato on Mar 18, 2011 10:11:42 GMT
Just read the morning newspaper and were reminded why i disslike reporters on these subjects.
It was a part were fifthgraders who had questions about what is happening in japan right now.
One of the kids was a little girl who were asking "What will happen with the radiation now?". Now, the reporter could have answered that it would spread out with the winds but not in dangerous levels, or that the amount we get up in the north would hardly be detectable from the background radiation.
What he did tell her, however, was "It will enter the plant eating animals and then you will eat those animals."
Way to calm down all those worried kids....
|
|
|
|
Post by salamut2202 on Mar 18, 2011 10:22:50 GMT
"It will enter the plant eating animals and then you will eat those animals." "By which time the main isotope, iodine 129, would have decayed to not harmful levels by the time it gets to your plate." I'm against nuclear plants because I fell we don't need it and we have the technology to move on from uranium reactors, this is fear mongering. |
|
"]