Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Your opinion on nuclear power.

profile picture
ImNotARacist
Posts: 5136 - Karma: -1,032
Im currently studying the manhattan project and throughout our lecture yesterday the teacher rambled on and on about the publics attitude towards nuclear power.


So what is your opinion on nuclear power as an alternative to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels. Lessen, not replace.
Jan 25 2011 1:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Cufe.
Posts: 1950 - Karma: 262
but what about the dinosaurs?
Jan 28 2011 3:30AM
0 0
profile picture
I_Am_Mod
Posts: 13214 - Karma: 3,753
lol ewok, i know where you're going...

spent fuel rods still have a shitload of useful uranium
but imho the refining process isn't really worth the trouble, shipping uranium rods thousands of miles then refining it, extracting a whole lot of other shit, contaminating stuff and to top it off produce plutonium mox, then ship it back really isn't a very safe way ...

(let me rephrase that^^ it is actually very much worth it, but it's a ffin sketchy process)


so imho, yay to nuclear fission ! until we get those damn fusion reactors up and running and producing effective energy !

Jan 28 2011 5:37AM
0 0
profile picture
Newschool_Pope
Posts: 2473 - Karma: 267
its not so clean... the nuclear waste cannot really be siposed of. in france for example many rivers along powerplants are heavily radioactively polluted. the old uranium cores need to go somewhere... here in germany they are stored in old mines, but the mines are always leaking water. so the canisters containing the uranium eroded, spilling nuclear waste to the ground water. i agree that nuclear energy is a very effective energy source with alot of potential, but we dont have the technologies yet to make it safe and unharmful.
Jan 28 2011 5:49AM
0 0
profile picture
moonofendor
Posts: 1484 - Karma: 14

yeah. which is where we (america) kinda fucked up, when the whole nuclear technology came out it was for weapon use, and the way to do that was to refine the spent fuel rods, so when the idea of harvesting the spent fuel rods was introduced, everyone thought it was to make more weapons.

20% of the electricity in america comes from nuclear, and thats using about 4% of the fuel. they are finding ways to use more of this fuel. Yeah, it's kinda dangerous now, but who knows whats going to happen in the next 20 years.

At least you understand the the technology is out there, and not ignorant to the idea of using spent fuel rods...

Jan 28 2011 8:22AM
0 0
profile picture
VT_FLO
Posts: 3806 - Karma: 147
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay?wasRedirected=true im talking about what it decays into fucktard. you cant change those back into the parent atom. gtfo noob
Jan 28 2011 9:32AM
0 0
profile picture
VT_FLO
Posts: 3806 - Karma: 147
the info is in dangers btw incase your peanut brain couldnt figure it out
Jan 28 2011 9:33AM
0 0
profile picture
I_Am_Mod
Posts: 13214 - Karma: 3,753
this doesn't change a thing about refining used uranium rods, in a used rod more than 90% is still U253 and could be used for fission once again after refining it (i'm not talking about fusion, i'm talking about scraping together the leftover "fuel" and using it again ...)
Jan 28 2011 10:14AM
0 0
profile picture
moonofendor
Posts: 1484 - Karma: 14

it could though. I remember reading an article that said they could run the waste from a uranium plant through to create energy, and if they keep running the waste through, eventually there will be no waste.

okay there was my first post in this thread.

I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE THAT I SAY RADIOACTIVE DECAY... I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE USED FUEL RODS, AND HOW THERE IS MORE FUEL IN THE RODS...

so if you would like to think about that before you post it's cool.

Jan 28 2011 10:30AM
0 0
profile picture
H8CH
Posts: 2709 - Karma: 218

Most efficient fossil / Safe / clean /widely available fuel for Energy production = Natural Gas. Plus is easily generated (unlike oil which takes millions of years).

Nuclear - Clean - but volatile - but only power production method that can meet demand consistently, reliably, cleanly and with great control (night / day / summer / winter demand fluctutations - therefore is efficient.  

As for everything else on this planet to do with Manufacturing, products, medicines, tools, just everything around you right now that is man made - Oil.

Fact of life - get used to it. Without Oil - the world would literally grind to a halt - all economys would just fail and we would be back in the stone age. That's a scary thought....

If that happens - fuck, we won't even need mass power generation - just wood to burn on little fires in our caves again.... 

With Power production - no matter how clean the initial process is - the energy use and carbon footprints associated with that process are always moved up or down the chain somewhere... someone mentioned the mining and transportation of Uranium before... case in point - same with Hydrogen, appears very clean, but creating hydrogen is one of the most energy intensive processes known to man.

Simple answer is there is no right or wrong or EASY answer...  and to simply go - wind / solar is so ignorant to the tuth of what is happening in the world it's not true....

Jan 28 2011 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
ski93
Posts: 1279 - Karma: 83
nuclear fusion will be an efficient source of energy in twenty or so years, i think that it is a very effective and relatively harmless source of energy
Jan 28 2011 11:43AM
0 0
profile picture
ski93
Posts: 1279 - Karma: 83
nuclear fusion will be an efficient source of energy in twenty or so years, i think that it is a very effective and relatively harmless source of energy
Jan 28 2011 11:43AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)