• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nuclear power...

Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Click to expand...

We don't because it does not generate votes. Too many groups use FUD to defeat these and Hollywood spread a lot of ignorance about Nuclear Power that has stuck with us.

so, like any other good idea, unless it can get a politician votes it will not happen
 
Great....that's all we need is to give the Chinese nuclear technology. Next thing, they'll have nuclear weapons and then we'll be in trouble.
 
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
 
For. Always have been.

Im not sure if it would be cost effective however. Also, the long term effects are far more destructive than our current major power sources: wind and water. So I honestly dont know if it would be a great idea for us or not.
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?
Click to expand...

How damaging is turbines via wind or water? Just curious...
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

Huh? We're already safely transporting waste routinely as are many European nations. All the scientific evidence available finds that Yucca mountain would be a secure storage option for the next 1 million years. If it weren't for misinformation we'd be well on our way to a safe, long-term storage solution.

ps - i'm sure if you were building a house you'd always choose the contractor with the highest bid, because a lower bid always means inferior quality, right?
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

So how do you plan on dealing with the waste product of say every other way to generate power?
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

nuclear energy is by far the most clean, reliable and environmentally friendly source of energy as of now.

 
In France they have had accidents at nuclear facilities and relaeased contaminated air and not even bothered to tell the public. Or maybe you want to live in Chernobyl?
 
So, in the United States where homo sapiens have existed for roughly 17,000 years, you're ready to doom a certain part of the environment for many thousands of years to store your waste material?

The Titanic was unsinkable as well. Man is a fickle beast.
 
Originally posted by: SexyK
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

Huh? We're already safely transporting waste routinely as are many European nations. All the scientific evidence available finds that Yucca mountain would be a secure storage option for the next 1 million years. If it weren't for misinformation we'd be well on our way to a safe, long-term storage solution.

ps - i'm sure if you were building a house you'd always choose the contractor with the highest bid, because a lower bid always means inferior quality, right?
Click to expand...

Wow, someone really needs to read up a bit before posting here. Storage of waste is FAR from a resolved issue. Yucca sits on a damn fault line! But im sure there wont be any more earthquakes there for the next million years, right? Even though there have been more than 500 in the last 20 years or something. I grew up in nevada and am well aware of the serious problems (much more than what i just mentioned about the fault line). Also, on transportation, they can make containers that are pretty indestructable in test cases, but what about the corner cases?
 
See thats the problem. Nuclear is excellent *when it works*. The problem is humans arent perfect, and mistakes happen. One mistake in a nuclear facility and...well...we've all seen the results of that. The consequences of a dam failing in regards to human life, isnt anywhere near as destructive. And Im really not confidant of these *one million year* storage solutions. Sure, in theory it works, but we really REALLY dont know.
 
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: SexyK
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

Huh? We're already safely transporting waste routinely as are many European nations. All the scientific evidence available finds that Yucca mountain would be a secure storage option for the next 1 million years. If it weren't for misinformation we'd be well on our way to a safe, long-term storage solution.

ps - i'm sure if you were building a house you'd always choose the contractor with the highest bid, because a lower bid always means inferior quality, right?
Click to expand...

Wow, someone really needs to read up a bit before posting here. Storage of waste is FAR from a resolved issue. Yucca sits on a damn fault line! But im sure there wont be any more earthquakes there for the next million years, right? Even though there have been more than 500 in the last 20 years or something. I grew up in nevada and am well aware of the serious problems (much more than what i just mentioned about the fault line). Also, on transportation, they can make containers that are pretty indestructable in test cases, but what about the corner cases?
Click to expand...

The irony of these arguments is truly comedic. For example, one of the typical lines used by those spreading fear about the Yucca project is that it's impossible to predict what type of weather patterns will exist in the region in 10,000 years, so it's possible that the area will be drenched with rain and the water table will rise causing the waste materials to seep into ground water. So even though long-term modeling of weather patterns is reliable when it comes to predicting the effects of man-made global warming, they are not reliable in predicting that one of the most arid regions of the United States will remain sufficiently arid? Even in the case that the water table does rise, the storage facility has been designed to maintain its integrity. Similarly, the site has been designed with the seismic profile of the area in mind, and is capable of withstanding the effects of even a severe seismic event.

There have been billions of dollars spent by administrations of both political parties researching the Yucca project and each time, despite findings that the project is safe, politics have gotten in the way of making this happen. I think it's you that needs to do more reading.

The only reason that the storage issue is not resolve is politics. And yes, I would live near Yucca without a problem. The small risk is most definitely outweighed by the massive benefit that energy independence would have on the nation, as well as the large benefit that decreased use of fossil fuels for energy production would have on the global environment.
 
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Great....that's all we need is to give the Chinese nuclear technology. Next thing, they'll have nuclear weapons and then we'll be in trouble.
Click to expand...

uhh, they already have nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles as well.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?
Click to expand...

How damaging is turbines via wind or water? Just curious...
Click to expand...

Consider that the majority of the US's power comes from coal burning plants, which adds to the political "Global Warming" issue (I do not support the global warming stuff) just thought i would throw that out there.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and reliable. Todays reactors are much much more stable than the Soviet Russia designs which lead to their meltdown. The waste can be transported safely with shipment containers that have been built in the last oh 10 years,

I support it.
 
For the US and any allies of the US, YES. For any member of the Axis of Evil, NO. You can't trust evildoers with nuclear power, just look at the historic track record of the lunatics that have had nuclear power.🙂
 
Yucca is FAR from scientifically settled. The truth is nobody lives there . . . the political reason why it was chosen. The most stable geological formation might be under Austin, TX for all we know.

Anyway, I say we take 80% of the money DOD wastes on nukes to steal, buy, or develop the best nuclear (fission) technology for ourselves. The other 20% can be tossed into a multinational fusion project.

As for wastes, every new facility has to develop its own (onsite) facility capable of storing no less than 100 years worth of waste SECURELY for a period of no less than 500 years. Once factored into total development/operational costs it will probably make nuke FAR less cost efficient than coal or natural gas but at least the cost will be closer to accurate.

In fact nuclear will be one of the few power sources where the true cost to operate/own (TCO) is actually known b/c the impact of waste/pollution is known for a period of centuries.

Personally, I think power companies should be able to build as many nuke plants are they want under these conditions:
1) They pay for it with their current profits instead of expecting the public to foote the upfront costs entirely.
2) They use BEST available technology.
3) They use state of the art security.
4) They meet the standards previously stated for storage but also have a well-developed plan for future transfer to a permanent storage facility either regional or national (Yucca).
5) Congress gives the NRC some brass gonads and a big aluminum (you get the picture) to keep power generators sharp on both safety and costs.


Edit: Another Chernobyl is highly unlikely since the likelihood of getting a graphite reactor approved in the US is infinitesimal.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Click to expand...

I?m conflicted on this. It has great benefits, but another Chernobyl is beyond unacceptable and there is always that risk.
Click to expand...


Pebble bed reactors don't melt down like Chernobyl did.


 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?
Click to expand...

How damaging is turbines via wind or water? Just curious...
Click to expand...
Are these major sources of power in the United States? Realistically can we expect these technologies to provide enough power?

The enviornmental impact of wind and water isnt free either. Just ask the Chinese and their super dam they are building. They had to displace an entire city and its over 1 million inhabinants. Not to mention all the wildlife and ecosystems destroyed.



 
Humans are idealistic pigs. They promise the moon and leave nuclear waste in leaking barrels. I would support nuclear when and after all the nuclear waste that's laying around is safely stored. It won't be, of course, because we are pigs and sh!t om everything we touch. We want new reactors because they are sexy but cleaning up just isn't fun. Store all nuclear waste in Washington DC where the congress and senate own houses.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
See thats the problem. Nuclear is excellent *when it works*. The problem is humans arent perfect, and mistakes happen. One mistake in a nuclear facility and...well...we've all seen the results of that. The consequences of a dam failing in regards to human life, isnt anywhere near as destructive. And Im really not confidant of these *one million year* storage solutions. Sure, in theory it works, but we really REALLY dont know.
Click to expand...
The reality is this is a rather misleading statement as made. Chernobyl was simply a deeply flawed design and western designs CAN'T meltdown with the same consequences. Three Mile Island actually shows that even when people badly screwed up with an older Western nuclear plant design, there were no significant public health consequences as a result. The dangers from nuclear power with modern western designs are VASTLY over hyped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top