• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Nuclear Power, Bad or Good?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Nuclear power offers us a CO2 emission free way of generating power.

As climate change is becoming more of an issue, should we use nuclear power stations to provide power for the cities of the future?

Currently I'm in favor using towards nuclear power.

This is because it release no Greenhouse gases, it produces relatively little radioactive waste (less than coal lol. See link here), it produces almost no air pollution, and they're relatively safe according to this source here.

I'm interested to know what us PGers think about this issue.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
I agree nuclear would be the way to go, but you have to get past the status quo to make that happen. nuclear is too frowned upon, and coal/oil use is far more prevalent throughout the world. china's building new coal plants like every week it seems. they -are- relatively safe, they are in fact less harmful to the environment overall, and they -could- be cheaper for us to use, but you gotta get at all the big electric companies, or get them to change to nuclear, instead of coal-fired/hydro.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
I agree nuclear would be the way to go, but you have to get past the status quo to make that happen. nuclear is too frowned upon, and coal/oil use is far more prevalent throughout the world. china's building new coal plants like every week it seems. they -are- relatively safe, they are in fact less harmful to the environment overall, and they -could- be cheaper for us to use, but you gotta get at all the big electric companies, or get them to change to nuclear, instead of coal-fired/hydro.
That's quite true, the coal lobby is very powerful, and there is a lot of unfounded fear about Nuclear power. After Chernobyl, there have been no major accidents that have killed people. Whereas coal is killing people all the time.

I think the community's perceptions about Nuclear power are unfounded. Also France gets around 80% of it's electricity from Nuclear power and it seems to be fine.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
You hit it on the head, right there. Big Coal, lol. The spin against Nuclear power is pretty fierce. 3-mile Island, and Chernobyl, plus there's still some strange association between using Nuclear power and Nuclear Weapons, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Naga... naga... not gonna work here anymore! No, but yeah, it's some strange culture of fear, ever watch any of the movies from the 70's on it? Or similar fear movies like Andromeda Strain? haha, that was all the rage back then, fear of big technology, fear of new things... now we live in a new culture of fear thanks to GW, fear of Muslims! WTF. It's really sad, because the more fear you instill in your public, the less apt they are to jump at an idea that might actually be good! It's almost The Boy Who Cried Wolf.. but in reverse... or something. Yah.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
The thing is, that Nuclear reactors can be used to produce Plutonium which can be used to make nukes, but these stations are generally not used to generate power. Additionally, you could also use the plutonium for civilian purposes, as the fuel for more nuclear reactions generating electricity.

Sure there are risks with Nuclear risks with nuclear power, that's been proven by Chernobyl and 3-mile Island, but these risks can be managed as we've seen with almost every nuclear power station on earth.
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
Not to mention the obvious here, but this issue always comes back to the same thing: where's a cost efficient way to dispose of nuclear waste? Containers have a relatively short shelf-life. The only full-proof way to recycle radioactive waste is ridiculously expensive. I'm not terribly opposed to launching or putting it somewhere in space, or simply just launching it into space--but, what happens when one of the rockets doing this has a mishap and crashes? I don't think I need to elaborate much on what would happen in this situation with a large amount of radioactive waste on board.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
The thing is, that Nuclear reactors can be used to produce Plutonium which can be used to make nukes, but these stations are generally not used to generate power. Additionally, you could also use the plutonium for civilian purposes, as the fuel for more nuclear reactions generating electricity.

Sure there are risks with Nuclear risks with nuclear power, that's been proven by Chernobyl and 3-mile Island, but these risks can be managed as we've seen with almost every nuclear power station on earth.
well ok, the plutonium is used IN the reaction, and it could be stolen, perhaps and then weaponized. uranium also, which on naval vessels is highly enriched.

Not to mention the obvious here, but this issue always comes back to the same thing: where's a cost efficient way to dispose of nuclear waste? Containers have a relatively short shelf-life. The only full-proof way to recycle radioactive waste is ridiculously expensive. I'm not terribly opposed to launching or putting it somewhere in space, or simply just launching it into space--but, what happens when one of the rockets doing this has a mishap and crashes? I don't think I need to elaborate much on what would happen in this situation with a large amount of radioactive waste on board.
there we go, was waiting for this to be mentioned. this is indeed at the heart of why nuclear vs coal. both basically do the same thing. heat water to create steam which turns a turbine. if we are to truly convert to nuclear we'd be better off waiting for the so-called Generation IV nuclear technology, which promises waste lasting decades instead of centuries or more, a lower chance for exploitation or weaponization, and a far higher yield ratio from product work to energy. The latest estimates on their use are looking like somewhere between 2020 and 2030.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Not to mention the obvious here, but this issue always comes back to the same thing: where's a cost efficient way to dispose of nuclear waste? Containers have a relatively short shelf-life. The only full-proof way to recycle radioactive waste is ridiculously expensive. I'm not terribly opposed to launching or putting it somewhere in space, or simply just launching it into space--but, what happens when one of the rockets doing this has a mishap and crashes? I don't think I need to elaborate much on what would happen in this situation with a large amount of radioactive waste on board.
Also some nuclear waste products can be useful, for other purposes eg. food irradiation. So, this can lower the amount of radioactive waste that needs dealing with.

Storing the stuff you can't reuse is harder, you can trap it in a relatively inert glass and let it sit underground where it will cause little trouble. There is little leakage from this method, as the substance is relatively stable. Another method is building the waste into a synthetic rock which stores the waste in it's crystal structure. These synthetic rocks can then be stored underground, where nothing can get to it. This means that it's very hard for the waste to leak and enter the biosphere.

Really, I don't think radioactive waste is actually that big a problem... It seems like it's a really small problem in comparison with the greenhouse gas emissions it saves.
 

Ryan Ludovic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
217
Why not go geothermal. It's cheaper, clean, produces no waste.
The only reason It's not persued is because big oil / big coal are preventing it.


So the first advantage of using geothermal heat to power a power station is that, unlike most power stations, a geothermal system does not create any pollution. It may once in a while release some gases from deep down inside the earth, that may be slightly harmful, but these can be contained quite easily.

The cost of the land to build a geothermal power plant on, is usually less expensive than if you were planning to construct an; oil, gas, coal, or nuclear power plant. The main reason for this is land space, as geothermal plants take up very little room, so you don't need to purchase a larger area of land. Another factor that comes into this is that because geothermal energy is very clean, you may receive tax cuts, and/or no environmental bills or quotas to comply with the countries carbon emission scheme (if they have one).

No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power.

The overall financial aspect of these plants is outstanding, you only need to provide power to the water pumps, which can be generated by the power plant itself anyway.


Geothermal energy is basically what it sounds like. Using the earth's heat to generate power. Drilling holes at hot spots(which are suprisingly more available then one would think) to use the heat to power a turbine. Adding water to produce steam also is used.



geothermal hot spots in america - the more red, the better.


Six feet down, the earth stays a constant and comfortable temperature — between 50° and 60° all year round. By burying some water pipes and then running the fluid through a heat exchanger, you can produce ambient air that warms you in the winter and cools you in the summer.

---

Like Gladwell, I had assumed that geothermal was useful only in unusual circumstances. Say, if you happened to live in a volcanically active region, or near a body of water with a steep thermocline. It turns out all you need is a decently sized back yard.


In my opinion, if you are a homeowner you could probably power your own home for free[minus the cost of setting up solar power, and geothermal power]


sources:
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/geothermal-powe
http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/geothermal_power.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/geothermal-energy.htm
http://www.homepower.com/home/
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Yeah, I would say renewables are better than nuclear power. Especially geothermal, it seems almost too good to be true; 24/7 reliable, renewable power. The only problem I see is, that some areas won't have access to geothermal power due to their location, but this is only minor.

However the technology for nuclear power is well established, but for geothermal it isn't. This means nuclear power can be mass-produced, whereas geothermal is still rather young and the mass-production of geothermal seems like quite a while away.
 

Ryan Ludovic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
217
Yeah, I would say renewables are better than nuclear power. Especially geothermal, it seems almost too good to be true; 24/7 reliable, renewable power. The only problem I see is, that some areas won't have access to geothermal power due to their location, but this is only minor.

However the technology for nuclear power is well established, but for geothermal it isn't. This means nuclear power can be mass-produced, whereas geothermal is still rather young and the mass-production of geothermal seems like quite a while away.
I agree. Geothermal is in it's infantry and needs some development.

Obama is planning on putting $3+ billion dollars into a smarter electrical grid for America, which means there will be plenty of room for Geothermal to be developed.


Geothermal and Nuclear power plants will cost about the same, but the maintaining a geothermal power plant is much more reasonably priced. Geothermal plants take about 2 years to build, while a Nuclear powerplant take 3-4 years. Which isn't a big deal really.

Right now big coal and the tycoons of the power industry are doing all that they can to keep in business as long as they can.

With sufficient funding to tidal / solar / wind / geothermal powers I feel we could not only create jobs in america, but cheapen the cost of energy while keeping all of the resources in our country and lowering our emmissions. The question is where is it more wise to put the funding - into building Nuclear plants, or building and researching geothermal?

Costs:
geothermal binary plant - 4.5 - 30 Cents/kW-h
nuclear - 11.1 - 14.5 Cents/kW-h

"New low temperature conversion of heat to electricity is likely to make geothermal substantially more plausible (more shallow drilling possible) and less expensive. Generally, the bigger the plant, the less the cost and cost also depends upon the depth to be drilled and the temperature at the depth. The higher the temperature, the lower the cost per kwh. Cost may also be affect by where the drilling is to take place as concerns distance from the grid and another factor may be the permeability of the rock. "


Sources
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour
http://www.geo-energy.org/content/default.aspx
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
Really, I don't think radioactive waste is actually that big a problem... It seems like it's a really small problem in comparison with the greenhouse gas emissions it saves.
Of course storing radioactive waste is a HUGE problem. The stance you're taking parallels that of our country's stance on PCB disposal pre-1970's. People didn't think that the environmental concerns were significant, and now we're digging all of it up. Radioactive waste is much worse than PCB. Comparing the two indirect effects that radioactive waste and emissions have on the planet doesn't make much of a point either(fixing a problem by adopting another problem??) You can find plenty of information about it here:

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/pcbs/index.htm
http://www.nreca.org/PublicPolicy/Environment/wastemgmt.htm
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/radwaste/index.html

If we had a full-proof way to use nuclear waste as a reliable energy source it would be a different story though. The container / fuel cell would only need to last for the duration of the waste being used for power. There are many energy options that are feasible like this, but when it comes down to all things considered: solar power is the way to go.

I think it's rather apparent too. Solar power isn't just concentrating the sun's energy, either; wind is a solar power as well, in addition to other energy sources we can harness regulated by the sun. The sun delivers us ridiculous amounts of energy that goes unused, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. When one weighs out all of these non-cost-efficient ideas for alternate energy: it's the most available and the best for the environment.

Of course, solar power is still in it's infancy as well. However I'm proud to say that advances are being made right in my back yard.(the pamlico sound touches my property): http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/6148861/ | http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/115561.html

450 ft. tall turbines that will definitely be visible from my house.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
It can cause an explosion much bigger then those of oil and gas.

So until I can be proven otherwise, I really don't support it. There are other ways renewable sources we can use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom