|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel combustion. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...sustainability |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. [snip] The military fuel cycle isolates transuranics at high purity and leaves alpha-emitters in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever and there are long term criticality issues. A civilian fuel cycle isolates transuranics contaminated with beta-emitters for refueling. The waste stream is strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage times and has no criticality issues. There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. [snip rest] Bull****. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
Uncle Al wrote
Immortalist wrote Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. The military fuel cycle It aint the military fuel cycle being discussed. isolates transuranics at high purity and leaves alpha-emitters in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever No longer than the original nuclear material. and there are long term criticality issues. Like hell there are. A civilian fuel cycle isolates transuranics contaminated with beta-emitters for refueling. The waste stream is strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage times and has no criticality issues. There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. Bull****. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:50:06 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote: Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. [snip] The military fuel cycle isolates transuranics at high purity and leaves alpha-emitters in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever and there are long term criticality issues. A civilian fuel cycle isolates transuranics contaminated with beta-emitters for refueling. The waste stream is strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage times and has no criticality issues. There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. [snip rest] Bull****. BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the thorium reactors will obsolete it. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Aug 13, 6:15*pm, Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents of nuclear energy are very similar to proponents of oil energy, The only thing either of the parties mostly know about enginering is 500 foot tall exhaust stacks. Which is also why the people with post North Pole Admiral Engineering Plans work work so much on GPS, Weather Satellites, Digital Terrain Mapping, Data Fusion. PGP, Holograms, Post Thumbscrew-AI, Desktop Publishing, Pv Cell Energy, Electronic Books, Laser Disk Libraries, Blue Ray, HDTV, Mulrt-Plexed Fiber Optics, Cell Phones, Home Broadband, Micowave Cooling, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microcomputers, Flat Screen Software Debuggers, C++, USB, XML, Optical Computers, Atomic Clock Wris****ches, Light Sticks, Compact Flourescent Lighting, UAVs, AAVs, Drones, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Cyber Batteries, Self- Assembling Robots, Self-Replicating Machines, Post 1912 Gas Turbine Engines, Hybrid- Electric Engines, On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Publishing, ABS, Spandex, Plexiglass, Solar Energy, neo-Wind Energy, Biodiesel, Holographics, DSP, and Post-Chrysler Nomics Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel combustion. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
A classical science fiction method of getting rid of radioactive
waste has been to dump it into the sun. Also, as an energy source, the sun, with 'up close', transfer stations, has been discussed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On 14 Aug 2009 00:18:49 GMT, Michael Coburn
wrote: BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the thorium reactors will obsolete it. Power plant technologies seem to advance slowly. But "obsolete" power plants are producing power all over the world. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
"Sir Frederick" wrote: A classical science fiction method of getting rid of radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun. hanson wrote: .... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize and ionize such incoming loads... and wouldn't the solar wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back into the direction it came from? ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:03:49 GMT, "hanson" wrote:
"Sir Frederick" wrote: A classical science fiction method of getting rid of radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun. hanson wrote: ... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize and ionize such incoming loads... and wouldn't the solar wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back into the direction it came from? ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson I have no idea.... ahahahaha... ahahamartin |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:37:51 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
On 14 Aug 2009 00:18:49 GMT, Michael Coburn wrote: BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the thorium reactors will obsolete it. Power plant technologies seem to advance slowly. But "obsolete" power plants are producing power all over the world. But are they creating decent ROI? The costs are now sunk costs. The investment in a large nuclear facility will not produce a profit whereas it may well be that an investment in a thorium plant will do so with a greater certainty. That is obviously not the case at present for thorium. But it would not take much public funding to make it the case. -- "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why nuclear power is better = solar power stinks | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | November 18th 08 04:55 AM |
OT Russian floating nuclear power plant. | Pat Flannery | Policy | 2 | September 28th 07 08:45 AM |
So... is someone Sabotaging our Nuclear Power Plants? | jonathan | Policy | 0 | April 21st 06 01:41 AM |
CNN article about nuclear power on space probes | quibbler | Policy | 9 | February 28th 04 08:00 PM |
Nuclear power in space | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 5 | August 2nd 03 01:58 AM |