chaos_Leader
Smash Lord
A nuclear power plant produces no greenhouse gases, does not significantly disturb local habitats the way a hydroelectric dam does, does not rely on outside conditions such as wind or solar. Yet most environmentalists are against it.
First and foremost argument: nuclear waste.
What it is:
Nuclear waste is a mix of several radioactive isotopes, or atoms with many extra neutrons that break down to other elements and emit radiation at varying intensities and speed until it has decayed into a stable atom, usually lead.
-waste is contained in sealed lead-lined ceramic containers to block any radiation escaping.
-In order for nuclear waste to do any harm, you have to be almost touching it.
-There is a site in Nevada called Yucca Mountain that is geologically stable (no earthquakes) and is very far from any source of water or major populations. Nuclear waste can be stored underground and kept safe for a very long time.
-up to 90% of nuclear waste can be reprocessed back into nuclear fuel for further use power plants, the other 10% has a very short half-life
Second argument: nuclear catastrophe
When a reactor goes critical, it doesn't explode, it melts; thats why they call it a meltdown. The concentration of uranium 235(produced in breeder reactors) to uranium 238(natural, can be found in the ground) in fuel isn't great enough to have an explosive reaction like weapons-grade uranium.
Most people site the Chernobyl disaster,
[edit]That was the combination of several design flaws, the operation of the plant with safety measures disabled, and a poorly conducted test of emergency shut-down procedures.
Nuclear power plants today are designed,constructed and operated much more safely than the power plants of the past.[/edit]
Some people say it is a target for terrorists.
If you've ever been to a nuclear power plant, you'd notice that it has security like a military base, a significant part of the staff is well-trained security personnel. Additionally, the reactor is encased in several feet of solid reinforced concrete in the reactor dome; in one test, they rammed a train with several heavy cars into a reactor dome at full speed, the dome was fine.
Advantages of Nuclear power:
-Only has to be refueled once every 5 years, a coal power plant that produces similar wattage has to be refueled daily with many many tons of coal.
-produces no greenhouse gases, only water from cooling, and the water never comes in contact with nuclear fuel or waste. reactors with the massive iconic cooling towers produce only water droplets, literally a cloud. Others release hot water, one power plant uses treated sewage to cool itself and recycles that water back to the city for use.
-Can be built almost anywhere. A hydroelectric dam requires a river, a wind turbine requires a windy place and solar panels require a sunny place. Wind and sun are sometimes unreliable.
-Cost as much to operate as a coal power plant that produces similar wattage without the greenhouse gas emissions
Japan is the best example:
Japan is the only country in the world to have a nuclear weapon used against them, yet 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The air in Japan for the most part is very clean, even compared to the forests of Oregon where I live.
other uses:
-Nuclear powered ships.
These are already in use, many naval vessels such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines use nuclear power to operate. The only alternative is diesel fuel. an extensive study of the crew members have shown that those who were serving on board nuclear vessels had no long-term health effects different than an ordinary person.
Other alternatives:
Fusion power is the next great hope, it emits only heat and helium, which also has uses. But it is not ready yet. So far we cannot produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction, much less one that can produce energy, for the here and now, Nuclear power is the best option for a clean, eco-friendly and high-power electricity option. I'm all for Solar and Wind power, but they cannot meet the demands of large-scale industrial and commercial consumers that need larger quantities of power to operate.
Conclusion:
People's lack of knowledge on nuclear power has always bugged me, whenever I see protesters against nuclear power I think "don't be so foolish! I thought you wanted to stop global warming, not play right into the oil/coal companies hands!" By refusing nuclear power, we have done very little against the demand for fossil fuels like coal to power our industries, our homes and our lives
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/erc/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Snuclear.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm (information on nuclear reprocessing)
http://nuclearinfo.net/
First and foremost argument: nuclear waste.
What it is:
Nuclear waste is a mix of several radioactive isotopes, or atoms with many extra neutrons that break down to other elements and emit radiation at varying intensities and speed until it has decayed into a stable atom, usually lead.
-waste is contained in sealed lead-lined ceramic containers to block any radiation escaping.
-In order for nuclear waste to do any harm, you have to be almost touching it.
-There is a site in Nevada called Yucca Mountain that is geologically stable (no earthquakes) and is very far from any source of water or major populations. Nuclear waste can be stored underground and kept safe for a very long time.
-up to 90% of nuclear waste can be reprocessed back into nuclear fuel for further use power plants, the other 10% has a very short half-life
Second argument: nuclear catastrophe
When a reactor goes critical, it doesn't explode, it melts; thats why they call it a meltdown. The concentration of uranium 235(produced in breeder reactors) to uranium 238(natural, can be found in the ground) in fuel isn't great enough to have an explosive reaction like weapons-grade uranium.
Most people site the Chernobyl disaster,
[edit]That was the combination of several design flaws, the operation of the plant with safety measures disabled, and a poorly conducted test of emergency shut-down procedures.
Nuclear power plants today are designed,constructed and operated much more safely than the power plants of the past.[/edit]
Some people say it is a target for terrorists.
If you've ever been to a nuclear power plant, you'd notice that it has security like a military base, a significant part of the staff is well-trained security personnel. Additionally, the reactor is encased in several feet of solid reinforced concrete in the reactor dome; in one test, they rammed a train with several heavy cars into a reactor dome at full speed, the dome was fine.
Advantages of Nuclear power:
-Only has to be refueled once every 5 years, a coal power plant that produces similar wattage has to be refueled daily with many many tons of coal.
-produces no greenhouse gases, only water from cooling, and the water never comes in contact with nuclear fuel or waste. reactors with the massive iconic cooling towers produce only water droplets, literally a cloud. Others release hot water, one power plant uses treated sewage to cool itself and recycles that water back to the city for use.
-Can be built almost anywhere. A hydroelectric dam requires a river, a wind turbine requires a windy place and solar panels require a sunny place. Wind and sun are sometimes unreliable.
-Cost as much to operate as a coal power plant that produces similar wattage without the greenhouse gas emissions
Japan is the best example:
Japan is the only country in the world to have a nuclear weapon used against them, yet 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The air in Japan for the most part is very clean, even compared to the forests of Oregon where I live.
other uses:
-Nuclear powered ships.
These are already in use, many naval vessels such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines use nuclear power to operate. The only alternative is diesel fuel. an extensive study of the crew members have shown that those who were serving on board nuclear vessels had no long-term health effects different than an ordinary person.
Other alternatives:
Fusion power is the next great hope, it emits only heat and helium, which also has uses. But it is not ready yet. So far we cannot produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction, much less one that can produce energy, for the here and now, Nuclear power is the best option for a clean, eco-friendly and high-power electricity option. I'm all for Solar and Wind power, but they cannot meet the demands of large-scale industrial and commercial consumers that need larger quantities of power to operate.
Conclusion:
People's lack of knowledge on nuclear power has always bugged me, whenever I see protesters against nuclear power I think "don't be so foolish! I thought you wanted to stop global warming, not play right into the oil/coal companies hands!" By refusing nuclear power, we have done very little against the demand for fossil fuels like coal to power our industries, our homes and our lives
Some outside sources:
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/erc/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Snuclear.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm (information on nuclear reprocessing)
http://nuclearinfo.net/
