Clean, safe nuclear power 41 replies

Please wait...

Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#21 12 years ago

Bah, can't edit anymore. Can a moderator merge this? The largest battery bank in the world is part of the Columbia River hydroelectric generator system. The hydroelectric system generally transmits all of its energy directly into high-capacity lines which provide power to much of Washington state and its surrounding areas. The totaled battery banks of this entire project- the largest banks in the world- cannot store enough power to provide for a city of over 20,000 people without being exhausted. Hydroelectic power might work in small regions with water access, or in heavy river-nations like Brazil or Egypt. But not in America, where you have a range of over 1500 miles between rivers with enough velocity to provide hydroelectric current. Compare that to nuclear power: the plants are clean, can provide constant power to entire cities at a time, can be built anywhere, have a tremendous safety record in modern times (Three Mile Island was due to negligence and the lack of a well-built cooling system. To say we should stop nuclear power because of that would be like saying we should have stopped the Space Race because Apollo One had an internal fire. And Chernobyl was constructed really, really poorly). There is also plenty of fuel, and we can safely store it beneath a range of mountains, where it can be contained for as long as is needed.




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#22 12 years ago

From what i understand they're going to have the worlds first fusion reactor in France by 2012. When they build the first prototype you'll see fusion reactors start popping up. They say they are a source of almost unlimited energy. I personally don't see an energy problem with the next generation of power plants.




Cloak Raider

Awkward...

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

3,398 Posts

0 Threads

#23 12 years ago

I strictly believe that Nuclear power is the way forward. Don't even think about using Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power shouldn't be used. Chernobyl was caused by HUMAN ERROR, not by the reactor entirely. Marsoe, you couldn't be more wrong. Solar and wind power are not the way forward at all. The waste from Nuclear power stations is easily contained and a reactor has been created that destroys the nuclear waste. Who will be wanting to have more nuclear power plants when the rest of the world have ample amounts of power? New Zealand will. Nuclear power IS the way forward.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#24 12 years ago

There will not be a single answer for power needs, and it will certainly not be nuclear. The world will face massive energy shortages over the next 50 years, once oil and uranium run out. A lot of changes will need to happen, city design is just one of them. Energy supply is another. We can begin to soften the effect of the end of oil and uranium by thinking ahead.

Energy efficiency must come first. It's useless generating power if much of it gets wasted. Microgeneration needs to come second, as macrogeneration is already quite developed. Like energy efficiency, it can cut a lot out of any city/country's generation needs. If the potential of both energy efficiency and microgeneration is exhausted, then turn to macrogeneration.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#25 12 years ago

And I've just stumbled across this, Beijing has the goal of having 90% of street lamps powered solely by solar energy by 2008, amongst a range of renewable-energy projects.

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10412308The goal is that by 2008, up to 90 per cent of the city's street lamps will use solar power, which will also heat 90 per cent of the water used for bathing, according to Tian Maijiu, deputy director of the Standing Committee of Beijing Municipal People's Congress.



Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#26 12 years ago

Nuclear - big yes! Clean, dependable energy. France's fusion reactor should also fill these requirements, but while we wait, nuclear is the way forward.




DnC

GF's Cognitive Psychologist

50 XP

13th April 2004

0 Uploads

2,668 Posts

0 Threads

#27 12 years ago
Pb2Au;3386411America has this strange taboo about nuclear power

Well they have evey right to. Each station costs $7.7 billion to design and build. A station takes about 10-15 years to build and 50 or so years to decomission. And then afterwards it could be hundreads of years before the surrounding land land is safe to live on again. I totally agreed with nuclear energy until I found it that it costs the taxpayer many many a money.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#28 12 years ago

Nuclear power is effective but sadly the waste it produces is the main issue on why we shouldn't make us of this otherwise fantastic energy source. Sure it's more effecient then wind/solar/water power but I can't live with indisposable waste. When we can break this waste down so it's completly harmless and clean (thus making it "clean enviromental energy") I would find it an effective addition to wind/solar/water power.

For now we have to make use of the clean ("green") energy we currently have as "ineffective" as it might be.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#29 12 years ago

One of the main reasons why I specified when the technology improves.

Marble Hill Nuclear Station in Southern Indiana. The article is dated from 1984.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954108,00.html

Inspectors were horrified at the construction quality and then stories emerged about how workers were told to cover up defects so teh company would not lose more time and money. The Company was willing to build a below quality nuclear site and then attempted to deliberately hide defects.

The best part is that after being refused several times the Power Company was eventually able to raise utility rates to recover the monetary losses. We the public were the ones who paid for the Utility companies incompetence for choosing such a inept and shady construction company.

Public Service began constructing Marble Hill in 1978. The original cost estimate for the plant, situated near the small town of Madison, was about $1.4 billion. But Marble Hill ran into the same sort of quality-control problems that have bedeviled the rest of the nuclear power industry, and costs shot upward. Construction crews, for instance, routinely failed to repair properly the air pockets that formed in the concrete as it was being poured. Last month a task force estimated the total price of completing the project would be $7.7 billion or more.
Marble Hill has already eaten up some $2.5 billion, making it the most expensive nuclear power project ever to be dropped. The decision brings the total number of cancellations of U.S. nuclear plants since 1974 to 100.
The scuttling of Marble Hill was the latest in a long series of setbacks facing the nuclear power industry. Just three days earlier, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refused to grant an operating license to the nearly completed $3.4 billion Byron nuclear power station near Rockford, Ill. Regulators said they had "no confidence" in the quality-control procedures for some of the plant's construction. The NRC's move was unprecedented in the commission's history and was more surprising because Byron's operator, Chicago's Commonwealth Edison, is regarded as the most experienced atomic power generator in the U.S. Though Commonwealth is appealing the decision, the NRC'S denial undoubtedly helped accelerate the loss of faith in nuclear power among investors and consumers.



Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#30 12 years ago

Once they have yucca mountain running, we won't have to worry about the waste problem. The waste will be buried under thousands of feet of solid salt and granite.

Chernobyl was caused by human error and cheap soviet construction techniques. If Chernobyl would have had a concrete containment dome, like all US nuclear reactors, the release of radiation would have been little to none.

We should build more of nuclear reactors. We are going to run out of uranium in time, but it is the best choice for the world. I don't want to see the world continute to be enegry dependant on the Middle east.

Solar and wind are clean, but they are very inefficent and still very expensive. A wind turbine that can power about 1/4 of your house runs for $10,000. The owner of the turbine won't see a return on his investment for a long time.

Dyson spheres FTW.