...please explain your stance. I just want to understand.
8/16/2007 8:33:08 PM
power? bombs? theory of nucleus? What's your deal?
8/16/2007 8:42:51 PM
Power.
8/16/2007 9:17:59 PM
well, i'm not anti-nuclearbut if I was, it would be because of thisand thisduh[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]
8/16/2007 9:51:38 PM
in other words, it would be because you are ignorant? got it...
8/16/2007 10:17:35 PM
The first is a can of radioactive waste. It has clearly been handled with the utmost of care.The second is the result of a deliberate and intentional deviation from procedures in a plant that was designed with positive reactivity coefficients and a design methodology that is 100% the opposite of today's reactors.
8/16/2007 10:19:57 PM
seriously thoughget a life
8/16/2007 10:27:09 PM
Fission power really does appear to be the way to go, at least until fusion comes along. It's sad so many are opposed to it.
8/16/2007 10:36:28 PM
^What I would like to know is why most people go ape shit as soon as they hear the word "nuclear." As if anything having to do with radioactive materials is somehow an instant cancer-causer and environmental-killer or something. The level of ignorance really is astounding. And unfortunate, considering that nuclear power is pretty much our only (realistic) option for energy after fossil fuels.The idiocy of it all really does kill me. People have no problem getting neuro-toxins injected into their faces in order to look younger, but nuclear power is somehow too dangerous? Wtf mate?
8/16/2007 11:05:01 PM
forget it[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 11:19 PM. Reason : that whole post]
8/16/2007 11:19:23 PM
^^It's because your average Joe has absolutel no understanding of nuclear energy.Ignorance rules in this world, the US is no exception. People latch on to fear and hysteria rather than logic and reason.
8/16/2007 11:23:42 PM
Solar, wind, and water power are fine too.
8/16/2007 11:41:10 PM
^I think that they would make fine supplements to the electrical grid, but I have serious doubts that they could ever supply our current levels of power consumption, even if they're all put together. And they're not without their disadvantages (solar = pwnt on a cloudy day, for instance). Nuclear has so many advantages that it really is the next logical step to take imo.
8/17/2007 12:08:35 AM
8/17/2007 12:11:21 AM
8/17/2007 12:40:34 AM
^ and ^^the reason we have any problem with waste is because in the US there are no reprocessing plants. There are a number of reasons why we don't have them, some economic, some regulatory, some propoganda. But we should have them.Even with existing plants (which are far less efficient than new designs) you only end up with about a marble of un-recyclable waste per year, per reactor. The only problem we have with waste now is that ignorant people keep blocking the Yucca mountain project. The transportation issue is a non-issue, there is ample storage for all the existing waste, and future was will be drastically less than the initial movement.The transport containers designed for nuclear waste can withstand multiple hits from short range missiles without rupture, much less a collision or improvised explosive device (being that the two big opponent arguments against the yucca transport project are terrorism or train accidents).
8/17/2007 1:15:45 AM
i'm pro nuclear power and pro whatever weapon keeps us ahead of the rest of the world
8/17/2007 1:36:21 AM
8/17/2007 2:02:20 PM
8/17/2007 4:30:33 PM
8/17/2007 6:27:56 PM
8/17/2007 6:56:02 PM
So what would you suggest we do to support the growing demand for energy? Demand on high demand days (like the past few days) already exceeds the generating capacity of utilities, forcing them to buy power from other utilities and non-regulated producers. Every year demand increases, yet utilities are blocked from building nuclear plants to increase base load capacity, or building coal/gas plants to support peak loads. Alternative power sources are not ready/capable of the large scale production neccessary to meet demand. Alternative production also has a lot political issues to overcome as well; for example, several counties in western NC have banned or are considering banning wind farms in order to preserve 'viewsheds'.
8/17/2007 7:46:58 PM
8/17/2007 8:20:37 PM
8/17/2007 10:50:29 PM
unless a reactor is super critical, no major damage is going to be caused by a meltdown
8/18/2007 1:45:11 AM
^Absolutely wrong. Meltdown is the result of inadequate heat removal. It has nothing to do with the condition of the reactor and can occur whether or not the reactor is critical, supercritical, or subcritical. Reactors operate supercritical all the time--startup, up-powers, poison depletion, etc.
8/18/2007 6:17:06 AM
For some reason most people are only looking at the new disadvantages of nuclear power, and ignoring the existing costs of the other power sources we use now because they are used to them. If we already relied primarily on nuclear power and wanted to switch to coal, people would be saying "you can't, it will put Millions of tons of SO2 and NOX into the air."
8/18/2007 10:44:06 AM
Here's a good thread on stardestroyer.net that talks about all of the pro-nuclear arguments, and covers most of the criticisms forwarded by the anti-nuclear crowd.http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=110943
8/18/2007 3:09:50 PM
A Tanzarian: I was referring to it in terms of uncontrolled/terrorist actions. But yes, you are right.
8/18/2007 3:13:28 PM