• 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 is green (good for the environment).

chaos_Leader

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
1,035
Location
among the figments of your imagination
It's been a pleasure debating w/ you Aesir.

for those concerned about the destructive qualities of radioactive material:

Radiation comes in three types: Alpha decay, Beta decay and Gamma. they are particles ejected through the process of nuclear decay of unstable isotopes.

Alpha radiation is potentially the most deadly. it is alpha particles (two protons and two neutrons with no electrons, atomic mass of 4 and a positive charge). On the other hand, alpha particles only travel a very very short distance, an inch at the most, before they pick up stray electrons and form a Helium atom. This kind of radiation is only dangerous if you ingest or touch an emitter of alpha particles for a long period of time. But if you are in such close contact, the heavy alpha particles can cause serious damage to the cells in your body.

Beta radiation is a little less dangerous, but travels a little further. a Beta particle is nothing more than an electron (atomic mass of near 0 and negative charge) ejected at high speeds. it penetrates a little further than alpha particles but since an electron/beta particle weighs next to nothing it will cause far less damage. it will travel 2-3 inches unobstructed before it is absorbed by other particles in the vicinity.

Gamma radiation is high-frequency high-energy electromagnetic radiation. very similar to ultraviolet and X-rays. What makes gamma radiation dangerous is its difficulty to contain, Gamma rays can travel through much more than lesser wavelength radiation, in fact, at this moment you are probably getting small doses of gamma radiation from sun. Gamma rays are stopped with very dense materials like lead, gamma rays can go between most of the atoms of less dense substances. Despite its difficulty to contain, Gamma radiation is comparatively far less harmful than alpha or beta radiation. a single high energy photon has enough energy to dislodge a single electron and fling it another direction; at high doses it will cause problems.
When controlled, gamma radiation has beneficial medical uses, such as the destruction of a tumor.

Just remember that radiation cannot 'stick' to anything, it is emitted by radioactive material in the process of nuclear decay, much the same way a hot piece of iron will emit light and heat.
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
There's still preparation, costs and all that.

furthermore there's the risk the rocket might go up in flames during ascension.



edit:

Chaos_leader: I'm dropping out of the discussion. =o it's clear you know what you're talking about.

Just understand that there are legitimate concerns with the dump site and transportation issues.
Which will not come to much.
And if it goes up in flames, nobody would be aboard, and the materials would be secure.
If the dump site is space, who's to be concerned? And with these cheaper rockets, transportation to space should be a low cost alternative to mountain storage facility's.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
If you don't know the risks of what happens when a rocket CARRYING NUCLEAR WASTE, blows up WHILE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Then I believe I'm wasting my time. ..

I seriously hope you understand now.
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
If you don't know the risks of what happens when a rocket CARRYING NUCLEAR WASTE, blows up WHILE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Then I believe I'm wasting my time. ..

I seriously hope you understand now.
A dirty bomb effect happens, that is, if the waste is just sitting around, or not secure.
Unlikely and preventable if the waste is stored on the rocket safely and correctly.
 

SuperRacoon

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
344
Location
It's a Secret to Everybody!
I actually remember all the different types of radiation from High School Chemistry, (mostly because I just barely graduated High School, I'll be attending college in the fall)

What I asking specifically, Is how much radiation is produced by nuclear waste, compared the that of raw naturally occurring Uranium.

Because unless I am mistaken, Uranium has to be mined from the earth, so there for B amount radiation per mole uranium is coming from the Uranium already in the earth. Compared to C amount of radiation per mole of nuclear by products. Where B and C are some constants that I don't know, but I want to compare those numbers.

Because if it as I am thinking it is, creating nuclear waste really has less of on an impact on than environmentalist would like to believe.
Because Uranium is not a friendly metal anyway, it is mildly chemically toxic and radioactive.

Anyway, I want to see the Net change in Nuclear radiation as a result of Nuclear Power plants. If it is a small number, as I think it probably is, then Nuclear truly is a much greener source of power than fossil fuels. I'm asking a simple math question and this is the third time I'm asking it, why, because I'm a searching relentlessly for a reliable source on this subject, but I can't find it, either because any research on this topic is not highly publicized or because I clearly don't know where to look.

This is the third time I've posted this question, can anyone please help.
 

DarkDragoon

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
AZ
NNID
LordDarkDragoon
NASA is spelled with all caps, and it cannot be smarter, the people at NASA can be though, since they are sentient, when a building known as NASA is not a sentient being.
Jesus kid.
You know what he meant, no need to get the last word in and make yourself look like a moron.

The fact is, putting things into space is still a high-risk operation, never mind filling it up with radioactive waste.

Remember the Columbia? Yea. That wasn't carrying toxic waste, but they still shut off huge portions of the land surrounding the crash zone, because the pieces of the ship became dangerous.

Imagine if that canister broke open in the jet stream? Or too close to earth? Or curves off, explodes, and lands in the ocean?
What if it landed in another country like China? That would be REALLY hard to explain.

That brings up another problem. We're launching rockets filled with nuclear waste. If we do it, whats to stop North Korea from doing it? What if they send a rocket into us and call it an accident?
That'd be swell.

When coming up with new ideas to old problems, you need to consider the worst case scenario, not blindly assume they'll magically work around it.
-DD
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
Jesus kid.
You know what he meant, no need to get the last word in and make yourself look like a moron.

The fact is, putting things into space is still a high-risk operation, never mind filling it up with radioactive waste.

Remember the Columbia? Yea. That wasn't carrying toxic waste, but they still shut off huge portions of the land surrounding the crash zone, because the pieces of the ship became dangerous.

Imagine if that canister broke open in the jet stream? Or too close to earth? Or curves off, explodes, and lands in the ocean?
What if it landed in another country like China? That would be REALLY hard to explain.

That brings up another problem. We're launching rockets filled with nuclear waste. If we do it, whats to stop North Korea from doing it? What if they send a rocket into us and call it an accident?
That'd be swell.

When coming up with new ideas to old problems, you need to consider the worst case scenario, not blindly assume they'll magically work around it.
-DD
A box of nuclear waste will not work the same as a nuclear weapon tipped ICBM.
Your scenario is not possible.
 

Ilex

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
572
Location
Okotoks, Alberta, Canada
From what I know, the nuclear power is used to boil water that in turn spins the turbine. Afterwards the steam is cooled back into water, but it is still at an unnaturally warm temperature when it is released back into the body of water it came from. This is is bad for the aquatic species in that body of water as it is too warm for them to inhabit.

I see it as a better alternative than say, coal, but it still isn't the best option.
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
From what I know, the nuclear power is used to boil water that in turn spins the turbine. Afterwards the steam is cooled back into water, but it is still at an unnaturally warm temperature when it is released back into the body of water it came from. This is is bad for the aquatic species in that body of water as it is too warm for them to inhabit.

I see it as a better alternative than say, coal, but it still isn't the best option.
This can be solved by cooling the water in pipes while it is heading back to the original source, plus, can't they just recirculate the water, unless they already do.
 

Ilex

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
572
Location
Okotoks, Alberta, Canada
This can be solved by cooling the water in pipes while it is heading back to the original source, plus, can't they just recirculate the water, unless they already do.
I should look more into it, but I'm sure that they would recycle the water if they could.

Also, Nuclear is non-renewable. Once you blow up uranium, it's not coming back. That is another downside, it's harming the environment by having to mine and process this element from the earth. Wind only uses up enough to build a windmill, and same with hydro and solar. And it's not like these elements keep renewing themselves- we're going to run out eventually.
 

chaos_Leader

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
1,035
Location
among the figments of your imagination
This can be solved by cooling the water in pipes while it is heading back to the original source, plus, can't they just recirculate the water, unless they already do.
There are several ways the heated water is dealt with:

-Cooling towers
remember those huge ominous chimneys that scream 'nuclear power plant'? they are simply emitting small water droplets, literally a cloud from the water used to cool the reactor water.

-internal recycling
Some power plants cool their cooling water and use it again.

-external recycling
there is one power plant that uses treated sewage to cool the reactor water, after it's done it pumps the water back into the city's water system.

-water body
Many nuclear power plants are built near bodies of water, usually lakes where the water is pumed from the lake, and sent back. If the temperature of the water they send back into the lake is too high, the plant may be shut-down for it's environmental impact, several have.


On the issue of space disposal:
Not going to happen, there is too much cost and too much risk. Can you imagine the PR disaster if spent nuclear fuel were to be released into the atmosphere? the shipping casks that are used are near indestructible, but even those cannot survive falling through the atmosphere. Nuclear powered spacecraft is one thing, but to have a landfill in orbit just isn't practical or safe. Again, we don't have to send the waste into the sun because we can replicate the sun here on earth using a Tokamak fusion reactor, and even generate some electricity in the process.
 

SuperRacoon

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
344
Location
It's a Secret to Everybody!
If you think mines are the worst of the issues, you may want to check again. It really doesn't take long for nature to reclaim what man has built once it is abandoned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPbNFTX-Mxw

Really, though, towards the end of it, the visit an area that was evacuated after the Chernobyl incident, where life was completely wiped out, and yet after just 20 years, the ruins of that city were teeming with wildlife.

The hold we have on the planet is limited, and the scars we create are really way more temporary than we realize.

You've seen weeds growing in the side walk, side walks need too be maintained because the elements of nature, even those wimpy little plants, destroy the sidewalks fairly quickly.

Tar highways stretch across the country. there's a paved road near where I live that has not been maintained for quite some time. there are places where it has decayed back into a dirt road.

My point is, we dig a hole, we pull some metal out of it, then we leave, 20 years is all it takes for nature to reclaim the site.
 

Brav3r

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
453
Location
Theory Brawl, CA
Im almost covince nuclear power is a good idea

@superracoon : could you give me more detail on what this has to do with nuclear power
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
I should look more into it, but I'm sure that they would recycle the water if they could.

Also, Nuclear is non-renewable. Once you blow up uranium, it's not coming back. That is another downside, it's harming the environment by having to mine and process this element from the earth. Wind only uses up enough to build a windmill, and same with hydro and solar. And it's not like these elements keep renewing themselves- we're going to run out eventually.
The problem I see, is despite it's extremely high efficiency, we have a limited supply of it, I am not sure how much though.
Wind, solar, and geothermal have a very low risk of running out, although solar goes away at night(and day in Alaska lulz).
 

SuperRacoon

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
344
Location
It's a Secret to Everybody!
Im almost covince nuclear power is a good idea

@superracoon : could you give me more detail on what this has to do with nuclear power
I was answering Ilex's comment on mining Uranium, which is directly related to Nuclear power.

So therefore my comment and video is indirectly linked to Nuclear power through mining.

Please watch the documentary, is all cut up into parts and posted on youtube, but if you have an hour of free time, it might give you some insight.
 

MAXimum

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Illinois
Maximum Power!



"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel."
 

MAXimum

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Illinois
Maximum Power!

Hehe, Homer works In sector 7-G of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant as the safety inspector. He mostly works in a control room, sitting in front of a T-437 Safety Command Council, but has little idea how to operate it.

(Trust me, i know alot about The Simpsons)
 

CR4SH

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
1,814
Location
Louisville Ky.
I agree with the OP. Neuclear, if done conscientiously is indeed very green. The biggest risks are to people and not the planet. Which is favorable to me.

My 2c.
 
Top Bottom