Gimme 10 reasons
TychoCelchuuu
Anememone Join Date: 2002-03-23 Member: 345Members
Anememone Join Date: 2002-03-23 Member: 345Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Why nuclear power rocks</div>Debate Tuesday <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> Half of you are smarter then me, and the other half are easy to ignore. Actually, I'm debating AGAINST nuclear power, but I need stuff to attack. Thanks in advance, even if you just want to reply with some wierd post that doesn't make sense.
Comments
and go do your own homework you lazy #######. if you keep making people do your work for you your entire life you'll probably end up as some CEO or something...
He used to be the person in the control room who controlled the plant.
Now he is the person who tells the person who controls the plant what to do. That's right, he is so high up that pushing buttons is too menial! He has to tell someone else to push the buttons!
Nuclear Power is
A)Safe. Nuclear Power Plants give off less then .1% the REMs (Remius Equivilant Man) than coal and natural gas plants.
B)Cheap. Nuclear Power Plants use Uranium as fuel to heat water instead of coal or natural gas. One gram of Uranium gives as much energy as forty barrels of oil.
C)Wise. America is <b>the</b> leading producer of Uranium. The entire state of Utah can be considered a huge Uranium mine. Or would you rather import oil?
D)Clean. Nuclear Power Plants in America give out <b>no waste</b> but water vapor. That is a cloud. In some other countries, Nuclear Power Plants thermally pollute, which basically means they dump hot water into natural water sources, killing fish too stupid to get out of the way.
The downside, of course, is that the waste sticks around for a long, long time, and we have yet to dispose of the waste we already have.
And someone brought up meltdowns, which is virtually impossible with modern plants. We've learned from our past mistakes, and the cut-offs have cut-offs.
Nuclear power is vastly superior to fossil fuels, and just as vastly inferior to solar power.
-Ryan!
He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.
-- Walter Lippmann
and go do your own homework you lazy #######. if you keep making people do your work for you your entire life you'll probably end up as some CEO or something...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Silly DOOM. You people aren't my main source, I'm just using you guys as an automatic checking machine. My speech is done, I'm just looking for flaws.
And thanks guys. All the reasons you have are the ones I've got. I'm set!
then if we ever figure out a way of making nuclear waste somehow advantagesious we have a fun stockpile in orbit <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
He used to be the person in the control room who controlled the plant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homer!
ooooooooooooh too bad i deleted that document i made 2 weeks ago on debating nuclear power (400word, argumentative essay ;o)
do ur own homework btw <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
Homer's the guy in charge of safety.
Necro, do only read every other post? I <b>do</b> do my own work.
But seriously. "Virtually Impossible" is nicer than "probably not" but I still have sirens set up in the area I live in just in case TMI goes bad. (That's Three Mile Island, not Too Much Info)
It worries me that they've been having problems testing those sirens the last couple months too... <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
Oh well. Good luck Tycho!
That ticks me off. I mean, just 'cause TMI blew up once, doesn't make it more suspectible to a disaster then any other plant in the country. Or is it?
Actually, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant never blew up. Just came really, really close to going critical, mainly because we didn't have enough cut-offs installed, and too much relied on human judgement (and human error). Fortunately, Three Mile Island ended well. Chernobyl's plant was not so lucky.
-Ryan!
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, IBM (1943)
*edit for spelling*
For some reason, a lot of people draw a line linking nuclear bombs with nuclear power plants, utterly irrational. Nuclear power is the way of the future once we flatten those senseless greenies with our cunning arguments.
/me glares at TychoCelchuuu *
--Scythe--
<!--EDIT|Scythe|Oct. 20 2002,12:24-->
That said it'd still be pretty hard to make it go 'boom', there are failsafes.
But there is always the risk.
I've thus had my fair share of discussions about this topic, and guess which position I took! <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
- Nuclear power is clean / safe:
Yes, unless some idiot is in charge, and that happens more often than you'd think.
While searching for arguments in favor of their project, the Greens found out that two releases of radioactive water into rivers happened in Germany during the 90's. Both went unreported as the companies figured it'd be cheaper to pay the possible fines.
Statistically, there is about one critical mistake that could lead to a meltdown a year in Germany (and we've got a lot less and newer plants than, say, the US). Most of them go unreported, too.
Yes, those <i>did not</i> lead to a GAU due to working cut-offs, but if a leak in the inner reactor core goes unnoticed until radioactively polluted steam blows out and starts to heat the whole coolant water circle up, I for mine get itchy.
- Nuclear power is waste free:
Keep telling yourself that. I'd be happy to let nuclear plants go on under stricter security measures if we only knew where to store the waste, amongst which we've got some of the most toxic stuff on gods green glowing Earth.
Face it: None of the employed disposal methods ever was tested for its long-time efficiency - humanity simply jumped into the experiment of nuclear fisson and the improvised as it went by. Well possible that our todays 'safe' disposal will pollute the water of our childrens children.
- Nuclear power is the most efficient powersource on Earth and thus the power of the future:
Well, I can't doubt that it's the most efficient, but that's mainly due to the fact it's the best developed powersource on Earth.
If the governments started putting the amounts of money they spent on nuclear power in say, the decentralized powernet, we'd very soon see worthy opponents to your plants.
Nuclear power is the future - but it has been just that for a very long time.
And geothermal powerplants. Geothermal roxorz y0r boxorz. <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
It would seem that the nuclear power industry hasn't been doing a very good PR job yet (maybe they should call MonsE <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> ) The only thing that bothers me is the "waste" or spent "rods" (again pardon my ignorance) that must be disposed of in a safe way. People get anxious when they hear that a train packed with nuclear waste is passing through their backyard. It's not the passing by that bothers them, it's the crashing and spilling that raises their eyebrows. Then there's the dumping ground we call Utah. I'm not from there but I have driven through it. Beautiful state. Even if it is a little empty. But I'm curious what citizens who live in Utah think about everyone dumping their waste in the belly of one of their mountains. If nothing else, it sounds like the perfect opportunity for a tax break <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Whoa, this is a statement I can almost agree with! You feelin OK?
Decentralized powernets are systems in which every household tries to obtain as much of its energy as possible from local renewable energies (solar power from the roof, reduced heating costs by appropriate architecture, air conditioning by windchannels, etc.) and only uses the centralized powerplant as 'last resort'.
Some of these systems, which are usually constructed as 'nets' in a whole settlement, manage to produce up to 70% of their energy themselves - which pays off immensely.
Oh, yes. If that's the definition of a Decentralized Powernet, then I'm all for it. I am a Conservative after all. Anything that improves my "Self Reliance" and decreases my dependency on my neighbor is inherently a good thing. However, I am also a proponent of "common sense" and would be strongly against evoking stringent laws demanding such improvements.
This is an area I've been gaining interest in. The National Association of Home Builders ( <a href="http://www.nahbrc.org/" target="_blank">NAHB</a> ) and specifically the Michigan NAHB have been doing great things for improving home heating and cooling efficiency. And at the same time have developed improved materials such as Oriented Strand Board walls that use only new growth trees (which should make the tree huggers happy) and reusable plastics in insulation. Then there are form walls for foundations that protect against water leaks as well as improve insulation.
The real problem is human nature. Older builders are reluctant to use new materials and new home buyers have a tendency to worry more about the interest rates and less about the materials used in their house. I doubt if they really want a giant windmill in their backyard too. But, there are many other improvements out there for people to learn about.
I'm drifting way off topic here but like I said, I have an interest in this stuff.
Here's a nifty little gimmick I saw at a home show a few weeks ago - <a href="http://www.friendlymachines.com/" target="_blank">ROBOMOWER</a> It has too many downfalls for my tastes (and wallet) but it's pretty cool anyway.
Nuclear power right now is pretty spiffy compared to the alternatives, and is prett pollution free. But still, within the century we are definetly gonna come up with something that beats it, simply because it won't produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored in pools then buried in the desert and gaurded.
For those who don't know, fusion works by fusing 2 atoms of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen (1 neutron, 1 proton and 1 electron, compared to hydrogens 1 proton and 1 electron) into 1 atom of helium. The energy produced is used in the normal way. Now the great thing about fusion is that it produces more energy then fission (if I remember correctly) and yet produces no radiation (all reactants used up and no waste).Also the deuterium is readily availible wherever you'll find hydrogen (water for example).
The problem is that the intense heat required and generated instantly vaporises any material container, turning it into plasma. So the research is going into creating methods of fusion without material containers and the major one is using magnetic fields. The big difficulty is that the magnetic fields require more enrgy than what is produced, meaning no net gain.
Keep telling yourself that. I'd be happy to let nuclear plants go on under stricter security measures if we only knew where to store the waste, amongst which we've got some of the most toxic stuff on gods green glowing Earth.
Face it: None of the employed disposal methods ever was tested for its long-time efficiency - humanity simply jumped into the experiment of nuclear fisson and the improvised as it went by. Well possible that our todays 'safe' disposal will pollute the water of our childrens children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A short while ago, a group of Australian scientists developed a special crystal structure that could trap radio-active waste inside it. Even if you smashed it into little pieces and boiled it in water for 50 years, it doesn't leech any radiation or radio-active substances. Pretty nifty, I think it was called "Sodadite/Glass" or something like that. The only reason it doesn't get used is cost.
I personally thought up a solution to the nuclear waste issue, Neutron bombardment. This works in a similar way to nuclear bombs, a heavy isotope of uranium is hit with a very fast, high-energy neutron; this causes the uranium atom to split approximately in half, releasing an average of three more neutrons and a heap of energy. The extra neutrons fly off to split up other nuclei, perpetuating the chain-reaction. My idea is to fire neutrons at the radioactive waste, causing it to split up into less nasty substances and help it reach a stable isotope of an element faster. If this was done in a strictly controlled environment, it would be safe. Again, cost would be the issue here but it is the perfect solution otherwise, no need for long-term storage and very little risk.
--Scythe--
For those who don't know, fusion works by fusing 2 atoms of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen (1 neutron, 1 proton and 1 electron, compared to hydrogens 1 proton and 1 electron) into 1 atom of helium. The energy produced is used in the normal way. Now the great thing about fusion is that it produces more energy then fission (if I remember correctly) and yet produces no radiation (all reactants used up and no waste).Also the deuterium is readily availible wherever you'll find hydrogen (water for example).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yuhup. Fusion is my trump card in the Cross Ex.