UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Nuclear Incentives
-
Date: Sun, Sep 28 2008 16:45:14
Should the US increase nuclear incentives as an alternative energy source?
I'm kind of on the fence. If we do, and the nuclear information gets in the wrong hands, it can lead to terrorists with nukes which can lead to nuclear war and extinction of humans.
On the other hand, if we do, it can revive the economy and reduce our dependancy on foreign oil supply. -
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 10:59:03
Actually with strict regulations and checks to ensure that nuclear power doesn't fall into the wrong hands, nuclear power is the most economically feasible and sustainable form of energy. Biofuels result in food price hikes, solar/hydro/wind energy is still too expensive for mass production, nothing needs to be said about fossil fuels.
-
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 11:08:03
Chernobyl is gonna happen a second time if we do..
-
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 13:28:03
nuclear thingy = we are gona be screwed mostly
fuel = we are stll screwed on money problems
so either way anything can happen and we are still screwed ( i think ) -
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 13:33:12
Not really. Chernobyl Disaster happened because one of the head was performing tests on the reactor over safety level, and when it went out of control, the workers thought a malfunction in computer, and turned the alarm off which made the situation worse.
Also, the control rod sucked. The Chernobyl rector had one of the worst facility as a nuclear power plant, and combine that with brainless workers.
No Chernobyl won't happen again. At least in USA. I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure.
As for nuclear proliferation, I don't really know. Nuclear weapons require ultra enriched Uranium, which can only be made through special processes. Natural Uranium can't even be used in Nuclear Power Plant (it requires little enrichment). And the process of igniting Nuclear Weapon and Power Plant is different.
And plus we are talking about US, not other countries.
Conclusion. Yes. US should use Nuclear Power Plant. We got better technology now such as Molten Salt Reactor (not ready though) and Thorium Nuclear Fuel Cycle(not ready though), which reduces risks and greatly reduces high-level radioactive wastes. Scientists are also researching how to destroy high-level nuclear waste by continuously hitting the nuclear waste with bunch of neutrons and burn it. -
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 13:39:12
Other disasters can happen.. those unforseen ones. You never know.
Today's technological advances only reduces the chances of these disasters happenning, not totally preventing them altogether. -
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 14:37:46QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Sep 29 2008, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Not really. Chernobyl Disaster happened because one of the head was performing tests on the reactor over safety level, and when it went out of control, the workers thought a malfunction in computer, and turned the alarm off which made the situation worse.
Also, the control rod sucked. The Chernobyl rector had one of the worst facility as a nuclear power plant, and combine that with brainless workers.
No Chernobyl won't happen again. At least in USA. I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure.
As for nuclear proliferation, I don't really know. Nuclear weapons require ultra enriched Uranium, which can only be made through special processes. Natural Uranium can't even be used in Nuclear Power Plant (it requires little enrichment). And the process of igniting Nuclear Weapon and Power Plant is different.
And plus we are talking about US, not other countries.
Yes, but that will only happen under strict governmental regulation. Which is why nuclear power should always be nationalized, not commercialized.QUOTE (Glamouraz @ Sep 29 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Other disasters can happen.. those unforseen ones. You never know.
Today's technological advances only reduces the chances of these disasters happenning, not totally preventing them altogether.
Even hydroelectric dams can fail and cause flash floods, ever though of that? There will always be necessary risks to take, and with recent advances in technology it is safe to say that nuclear energy is safe and "green". Nuclear energy just has this stigma attached with it following Chernobyl. FYI, nuclear energy in some countries such as US already takes up a small percentage of total electrical consumption, has there been major accidents reported so far?
-
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 19:32:38
Well you know, here in Japan, more than 30 percent of the electricity is made from Nuclear Power Plant...
-
Date: Tue, Sep 30 2008 23:04:04
In France unless I'm mistaken they use nuclear for well over 50% of their power.
As for whether or not I think we should use it all depends on the main con of this of if we can safely dispose of the waste. I read somewhere that it completely contradicts sustainability (using only what we need as to not negatively affect the ability of future generations to survive) because the waste will potentially last for many generations and unless they can get rid of it we are just passing on our problems to them.
If what Dark Angel-REX said is true and they are learning how to reduce nuclear waste then I don't see any other big problems with it and I think we should do it. If it will take awhile for that to actually happen then I'm undecided on whether we should start using it for our main source of power or not.
This is probably my most educated post on UPSB
-
Date: Tue, Sep 30 2008 23:19:34
I have always been a supporter of nuclear power, if maintained correctly it can be a safe, and reliable energy source.
-
Date: Wed, Oct 1 2008 03:11:32QUOTE (Logic @ Sep 28 2008, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Should the US increase nuclear incentives as an alternative energy source?
I'm kind of on the fence. If we do, and the nuclear information gets in the wrong hands, it can lead to terrorists with nukes which can lead to nuclear war and extinction of humans.
On the other hand, if we do, it can revive the economy and reduce our dependancy on foreign oil supply.
Logic about 98% of the world have nuclear warheads... and the rest are still designing them. -
Date: Wed, Oct 1 2008 03:41:24QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Sep 29 2008, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Even hydroelectric dams can fail and cause flash floods, ever though of that? There will always be necessary risks to take, and with recent advances in technology it is safe to say that nuclear energy is safe and "green". Nuclear energy just has this stigma attached with it following Chernobyl. FYI, nuclear energy in some countries such as US already takes up a small percentage of total electrical consumption, has there been major accidents reported so far?
The main problem with nuclear power is disposal. First, we can use landfills to dispose of waste (and in doing so avoid direct radiation exposure) but this is only a stopgap solution. We would be placing a great deal of faith in future generations to find permanent disposal solutions, which may not occur. Second, even if we bury waste, we are not entirely unexposed to alpha rays. We haven't studied nuclear waste long enough to determine whether lingering radiation has negative health effects in the long run. Wind and solar energy, for example, do not have these problems. -
Date: Sat, Oct 4 2008 10:55:48QUOTE (Harael @ Sep 30 2008, 11:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Logic about 98% of the world have nuclear warheads... and the rest are still designing them.
I seriously doubt that. 3rd world countries are nowhere near getting nukes. And more than 2% of the world is 3rd world.
I do agree that many countries have nukes (USA, England, Russia, China...) but not that many. Maybe 50% -
Date: Sun, Oct 5 2008 02:33:07QUOTE (Harael @ Oct 1 2008, 05:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Logic about 98% of the world have nuclear warheads... and the rest are still designing them.
You got it upside down. 8 countries have nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, India, France, UK, Pakistan, North Korea and Isreal) and there 245 countries in the world which means that roughly 3% of the world's nations has nuclear weapons.
But on the other hand I will say that I don't see nuclear power as a threat for nuclear weapons to end in the wrong hands. As long as there is some reasonable observation with projects. There is long way to go from having enriched uranium need for nuclear power and the stuff needed for nuclear bombs. And to get there you have to do a lot of hard and expensive processes. Which means a terror group would not possibly have the money or the knowledge needed to make these kinds of weapons, you need a national budget for that. So as long as we only grant the rights to make nuclear power to nations we trust, we should be safe. -
Date: Sun, Oct 5 2008 03:37:43
Well if we stop nuclear power, then global warmings gonna go out of control.
We should just wait for Microwave type Power Plants, or Fusion Reactor. Until then we should use Fission reactor. I know you guys think that these stuff are only in SF or soemthing and it's totally unreal, but trust me. That's what the people before WWII thought about Fission Reactor. Human made anything that sounded impossible, possible. So i dont think there are any reasons why people wouldn't succeed in making Fusion reactor or Microwave Plants in the future. I rather doubt that they wouldn't be able to.
Now back to the FIssion reactor. Indeed. Fission reactor was never completely safe. But that goes the same for all the other plants. Even the wind turbine. Oil are used in the joints of the rod so that it will spin smoothly, but this oil could drip on the ground, making the plants there die. This is a major problem in farms where they allow Wind Plants on farms. Hydroelectric dams can also fail causing major problems. Geothermal can also do harm, and so does other. And as long as the workers in Nuclear Power Plant don't do anything stupid, the risks go way down.
TheOnion, actually, it isn't as hard to make Atomic Bombs as long as you have Enriched Uranium. THerefore, if Enriched Uranium is stolen, they definitely have the knowledge how to make bombs. It was explained on the TV. -
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 12:04:56
I agree with Tialyis that the main problem with nuclear power is uranium disposal. If it is not tightly regulated, 1. Could fall into terrorist hands 2. Environmental hazard 3. Third world-countries bear the burden. I believe in the near future, new technology will enable us to recycle nuclear waste, or make it inert and harmless. This is one calculated risk we have to take, but weighing the pros and cons, I believe that nuclear power is the way to go in the light of the more harmful environmental pollutants, fossil fuels, and more economically sustainable then other alternative sources of power.
-
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 12:28:56
On the subject of it getting into the wrong hands, the uranium that they use in power plants isn't enriched enough to be used in a bomb, and in order to enrich it more you would need a very strong/large (?) centrifuge which most people that we are worried about getting the uranium can't afford.
-
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 14:05:21QUOTE (Darkeh @ Oct 6 2008, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>On the subject of it getting into the wrong hands, the uranium that they use in power plants isn't enriched enough to be used in a bomb, and in order to enrich it more you would need a very strong/large (?) centrifuge which most people that we are worried about getting the uranium can't afford.
That is why the US was so uptight over Iran's centrifuges that could be used to further enrich these uranium. -
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 20:01:38QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Oct 6 2008, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I agree with Tialyis that the main problem with nuclear power is uranium disposal. If it is not tightly regulated, 1. Could fall into terrorist hands 2. Environmental hazard 3. Third world-countries bear the burden. I believe in the near future, new technology will enable us to recycle nuclear waste, or make it inert and harmless. This is one calculated risk we have to take, but weighing the pros and cons, I believe that nuclear power is the way to go in the light of the more harmful environmental pollutants, fossil fuels, and more economically sustainable then other alternative sources of power.
Actually, indeed it's economically sustainable, but the building cost like hell, so it doesn't really make a difference with other plants in the end when they have to rebuild because of aging plants.
-
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 20:44:55
I prefer nuclear energy over fossil fuel energy.
-
Date: Sun, Oct 12 2008 02:00:35QUOTE (Sfsr @ Oct 6 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I prefer nuclear energy over fossil fuel energy.
QFT
i think people should design a VERY tight infrastructure for transportation, handling, and disposal of nuclear stuff before they actually build more plants though...