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.

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.

Konovalov · 02-06-07, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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"

Spot on the mark.

Couldn't have said it better.

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:

STEED · 02-06-07, 05:28 AM

Drop the crap on Iran.

Yes I am being sarcastic with that remark.

Torpedo Fodder · 02-06-07, 09:20 AM

I'm all for it, because modern reactors are clean, safe, and efficient, and honestly it's the only real alternative to fossil fuels for wide-scale power generation (fun fact: coal power plants actually realease more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants, due to the uranium in the coal deposits), and the fears of meltdown are greatly overblown for modern reactor designs. What the greens who constantly lobby against nuclear power don't seem to realize is that all their efforts result in is the construction of more fossil-fuel plants. I'm all for the use of alternate sources like wind, solar, tidal etc, where they're applicable, but the output from thes is limited and unpredictable, so I have no illusions that they can replace fossil fuels for widescale generation. As for nuclear waste disposal, that can be greatly reduced if spent reactor fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, which would also help conserve uranium supplies.

Tchocky · 02-06-07, 11:05 AM

Probably not going to get too much opposition on a nuclear submarine forum....

SSK? Respect++

tycho102 · 02-06-07, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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?

Even more important than just a yes or no, I want to reduce transmission losses. This stuff where Oregon pumps 20GW to California at the cost of 2GW needs to stop. Aside from a superconductive transmission grid, I want local nuclear power production. State by state. My state would be completely served by a 3GW plant, including spare capacity. It would pay for itself at $.12/kWh, since our current (from natural gas) is about $.085/kWh. California would have to get off their socialized arses with closer to 250GW, with straight up about 15GW going to desalination for LA alone.

Electrical Consumption 2002, including resistive losses as far as I can tell. New York and California are so high because they have to buy it from 200+ miles away, which is why their rates are $0.18/kWh or more. Resistive losses are crazy. We probably use close to 3TW (that's terawatts, or 10^12) now, and the last time I saw numbers for losses, average transmission losses were around 8% -- some places it runs up to 15%, others down to 5%. Close to 250GW of loss. production.

I want local power production. City-by-city where indicated, state-by-state for the rest.

edit-- By comparison, Chernobyl had a total of nine reactors in three groups, each with a 3GW thermal capacity, 1GW electrical

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, 11:06 PM	#10
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

02-06-07, 05:22 AM	#11
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.

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:

02-06-07, 05:28 AM	#12
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Drop the crap on Iran. Yes I am being sarcastic with that remark. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

02-06-07, 09:20 AM	#13
Torpedo Fodder Ensign Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Whitby, Ontario Posts: 234 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm all for it, because modern reactors are clean, safe, and efficient, and honestly it's the only real alternative to fossil fuels for wide-scale power generation (fun fact: coal power plants actually realease more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants, due to the uranium in the coal deposits), and the fears of meltdown are greatly overblown for modern reactor designs. What the greens who constantly lobby against nuclear power don't seem to realize is that all their efforts result in is the construction of more fossil-fuel plants. I'm all for the use of alternate sources like wind, solar, tidal etc, where they're applicable, but the output from thes is limited and unpredictable, so I have no illusions that they can replace fossil fuels for widescale generation. As for nuclear waste disposal, that can be greatly reduced if spent reactor fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, which would also help conserve uranium supplies. __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war. "Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't"

02-06-07, 11:05 AM	#14
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Probably not going to get too much opposition on a nuclear submarine forum.... SSK? Respect++ __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]