Nuclear Power: Yay or Nay?

ASWnut101 · 02-05-07, 07:54 PM

Well, I want to hear your opinions on Nuclear Power (Land Based). Is it a good idea because of it cleanliness and safety? Or does the waste disposal issue outweigh the benifits?

baggygreen · 02-05-07, 07:57 PM

Im all for it.

We got a big debate going on here with the opposition saying they'll never go to nuclear power, n the govt lookin at the feasibility. Im all for it, i think that it is only a matter of time before fossil fuels are almost gone. I dont have any figures, but am of the opinion that it'll be within my kids' lifetime.

Ducimus · 02-05-07, 08:23 PM

Im all for nuclear power because it gets us away from fossil fuels. But we must have the most strict regulations, management, and supervision of waste disposal. Not to mention powerplant operations. We don't want anymore long islands.

Theres only one problem with nuclear power. That problem being the banner that every American waves no matter where they live in the country, for this and many other issues or proposals:

"NIMBY"

baggygreen · 02-05-07, 08:30 PM

nimby??

baggygreen · 02-05-07, 08:32 PM

oh of course, not in my back yard.

sorry, not up with internet slang. or is it down?:hmm:

Mush Martin · 02-05-07, 08:38 PM

of all the options that we have the chance to grossly mismanage

Nuclear power is the best option

assuming we are able to learn how not to mismanage whatever option
we choose.

MM

Ducimus · 02-05-07, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

oh of course, not in my back yard.

sorry, not up with internet slang. or is it down?:hmm:

Nah, thats not internet slang. Real life term. Probably an old one though.

The Noob · 02-05-07, 08:43 PM

Yes, the civilisation demands more power, this is the only realistic way to produce it. The problem is, if a meltdown occurs, the results are fatal, as chernobyl has shown. Also, the waste disposal method is retarded. Do they really think barrieing the waste below the earth so you cant see it wont cause long term problems?

If it would be like, shot into space, that would rule.

fatty · 02-05-07, 08:46 PM

I think that acronym actually predates the internet as we know it

Of course, regarding waste disposal, we can always take a page from the Russians and fight fire with fire!

Quote:

According to a report in Izvestiya on 6 May 1997, Minister of Atomic Energy Viktor Mikhailov, Minister of Defense General Pavel Grachev, and Chief Military Inspector General Konstantin Kobets wrote in a 4 July 1994 confidential letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin that the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear-powered submarines and naval surface vessels poses the main radioactive waste handling threat to Russia. As a solution, the Central Physical-Technical Institute of the Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics (VNIIEF) in Sarov (Arzamas-16) proposed using an underground nuclear explosion technique to vitrify and bury the radioactive waste in tunnels at the Central Atomic Test Site at Novaya Zemlya.

I thought they actually did this in practice but I can't find any other mention of it.

Ducimus · 02-05-07, 08:57 PM

I wonder how cost effecitve it would be to just shoot the s**t into space.

Not like we'll ever set aside our differences and explore it anyway.

ASWnut101 · 02-05-07, 09:02 PM

very good idea, Noob and Ducimus, but there ARE drawbacks.

1. If the Rocket you use to launch it fails and crashes, you have a VERY bad problem.

2. That would require one heavy lifting rocket to launch the stuff, which is also pretty expensive.

Ducimus · 02-05-07, 09:21 PM

Hey , you know.... dream a little dream

Reality is we'll probably never switch to using more nuclear power, we wont be shooting any waste into space (let alone explore it), and we'll continue using fossil fuels tell the wells dry up. Resistance to change is human nature. Im a gross offender of that myself.

CptSimFreak · 02-05-07, 10:09 PM

Fission is the only power until tokamak can do fusion properly.....and that's not going to be for sometime.

LoBlo · 02-05-07, 11:06 PM

From what I understand, scientist are making steady progress in fusion (the topomak etc) and its predicted that by 2060 it will be effecient enough to compete with fossil fuel electric plants.

Those new generator IV reactors being researched sure look cool though. Seems like the one of the designs might one day be applicable to subs one day:hmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Kapitan_Phillips · 02-06-07, 05:22 AM

Waste disposal by firing into space, huh?

Where's my Howitzer :hmm:

View Poll Results: Nuclear Power
YES!!! The best idea since sliced bread!	18	36.73%
Yes, but I don't like the waste disposal method	24	48.98%
NO!!! It's totally horrible and worthless	5	10.20%
Huh, I don't care. Where's my beer?	2	4.08%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

02-05-07, 07:54 PM	#1
ASWnut101 Admiral Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,021 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Nuclear Power: Yay or Nay? Well, I want to hear your opinions on Nuclear Power (Land Based). Is it a good idea because of it cleanliness and safety? Or does the waste disposal issue outweigh the benifits? __________________

02-05-07, 08:38 PM	#6
Mush Martin Eternal Patrol Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,398 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	the cyclic nature of systems of all the options that we have the chance to grossly mismanage Nuclear power is the best option assuming we are able to learn how not to mismanage whatever option we choose. MM __________________ RIP Mush Tutorial

02-05-07, 09:02 PM	#11
ASWnut101 Admiral Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,021 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	very good idea, Noob and Ducimus, but there ARE drawbacks. 1. If the Rocket you use to launch it fails and crashes, you have a VERY bad problem. 2. That would require one heavy lifting rocket to launch the stuff, which is also pretty expensive. __________________

02-05-07, 11:06 PM	#14
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	From what I understand, scientist are making steady progress in fusion (the topomak etc) and its predicted that by 2060 it will be effecient enough to compete with fossil fuel electric plants. Those new generator IV reactors being researched sure look cool though. Seems like the one of the designs might one day be applicable to subs one day:hmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man

02-05-07, 07:57 PM	#2
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Im all for it. We got a big debate going on here with the opposition saying they'll never go to nuclear power, n the govt lookin at the feasibility. Im all for it, i think that it is only a matter of time before fossil fuels are almost gone. I dont have any figures, but am of the opinion that it'll be within my kids' lifetime.

02-05-07, 08:23 PM	#3
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Im all for nuclear power because it gets us away from fossil fuels. But we must have the most strict regulations, management, and supervision of waste disposal. Not to mention powerplant operations. We don't want anymore long islands. Theres only one problem with nuclear power. That problem being the banner that every American waves no matter where they live in the country, for this and many other issues or proposals: "NIMBY"

02-05-07, 08:30 PM	#4
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	nimby??

02-05-07, 08:32 PM	#5
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	oh of course, not in my back yard. sorry, not up with internet slang. or is it down?:hmm:

02-05-07, 08:43 PM	#8
The Noob The Old Man Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: de_dust2 Posts: 1,417 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Yes, the civilisation demands more power, this is the only realistic way to produce it. The problem is, if a meltdown occurs, the results are fatal, as chernobyl has shown. Also, the waste disposal method is retarded. Do they really think barrieing the waste below the earth so you cant see it wont cause long term problems? If it would be like, shot into space, that would rule.

02-05-07, 08:57 PM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I wonder how cost effecitve it would be to just shoot the s**t into space. Not like we'll ever set aside our differences and explore it anyway.

02-05-07, 09:21 PM	#12
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Hey , you know.... dream a little dream Reality is we'll probably never switch to using more nuclear power, we wont be shooting any waste into space (let alone explore it), and we'll continue using fossil fuels tell the wells dry up. Resistance to change is human nature. Im a gross offender of that myself.

02-05-07, 10:09 PM	#13
CptSimFreak Frogman Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 291 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Fission is the only power until tokamak can do fusion properly.....and that's not going to be for sometime.

02-06-07, 05:22 AM	#15
Kapitan_Phillips Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Swansea Posts: 3,903 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	Waste disposal by firing into space, huh? Where's my Howitzer :hmm: __________________ Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode