11 replies to this topic

[Eddy01741]

Right now, theres a pretty big divide between supporters and protesters of nuclear power. Nuclear power is damn efficient (a little uranium pellet provides as much power as multiple tons of coal, and is clean besides the radioactive waste). It's efficient, it's clean, and it generates more power than any other kind of source unless you supersize the size of the facilities of conventional power. On the ohter hand, there is nuclear waste, and a potential meltdown, and also possibilities for uranium to be stolen, or nuclear waste being "spilled" when in transite to the dumping grounds or the reactor.

I have to say that I support this. It is clean for the environment, and generates a lot of power, and needs very little fuel in comparison to others. Although there is the threat of a meltdown, we've come a long way from the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine, and the chance of it happening again, at least on those sort of circumstances (TOTAL meltdown) is almost zero. The nuclear waste is put into facilities where it is sealed underground basically forever (or they can use the DU for tank armor and tank ammo lol), and reactor security, at least int he USA is top notch, and the chances of terrorists destroying or damaging, or stealing uranium from a nuclear reactor is almost none as well. As for the transport of nuclear material, it is transported on trucks and trains that are escorted everywhere by military. They have done tests that have shown that a high speed TRAIN going right at the container of the nuclear waste can't even dent it, much elss break it, and it is bomb proof as well, and it cna't be cut thorugh either. I'd say that the nuclear material is safe.


Your opinions?

NOTE: Also, supporters of nuclear reactors want nuclear reactors, just not in their neighborhoods lol, sorta ironic (so a neighborhood full of nuclear reactors supporters seems to be an ideal place to put a nuclear reactor near because of the lack of protest, but still the people don't want one next to their houses lol).

[Whitey]

Yes to the reactors. For reasons previously stated, they are efficient and clean for the most part.

[Strategia]

Tentative yes. Sure, it's safe and all, but I somehow doubt that, say, Iran will have the same kind of security for their nuclear waste storage facilities. And if something happens with nuclear waste there, the radiation will be spread over a vast area, as happened with the Chernobyl disaster.

I am firmly opposed to nuclear fission and dirty nuclear fusion bombs. Turning a city into a smouldering crater, OK, it's horrible, I won't argue with that. (I am also firmly opposed to attacking civilian targets, as has been standard practice pretty much since Slaughterhouse-Five.) Tactical nuclear weapons, deployed purely against military forces, or "terraforming" nukes (e.g. to mold the terrain, whether on this planet or some other) are less despicable goals, but the fact remains that fission and dirty fusion bombs release radiation.

So, when they build the first clean fusion bombs and finally dispose of the old fission/dirty fusion stock, most of my objections will disappear. (As long as the fusion bombs aren't aimed towards civilian targets, of course.)

[Dauth]

Good idea and i do support fusion generators.

However they wont be commercially used for 50-60 years so in the intervening time we need to us fission reactors, dirty? not any more.

[Eddy01741]

Strategia, on 23 Jun 2007, 14:23, said:

Tentative yes. Sure, it's safe and all, but I somehow doubt that, say, Iran will have the same kind of security for their nuclear waste storage facilities. And if something happens with nuclear waste there, the radiation will be spread over a vast area, as happened with the Chernobyl disaster.

I am firmly opposed to nuclear fission and dirty nuclear fusion bombs. Turning a city into a smouldering crater, OK, it's horrible, I won't argue with that. (I am also firmly opposed to attacking civilian targets, as has been standard practice pretty much since Slaughterhouse-Five.) Tactical nuclear weapons, deployed purely against military forces, or "terraforming" nukes (e.g. to mold the terrain, whether on this planet or some other) are less despicable goals, but the fact remains that fission and dirty fusion bombs release radiation.

So, when they build the first clean fusion bombs and finally dispose of the old fission/dirty fusion stock, most of my objections will disappear. (As long as the fusion bombs aren't aimed towards civilian targets, of course.)

There are only very little ways to start a nuclear fusion reactions, you need temperatures approaching and passing the temp of the sun just to get it started (and after that, it gets even hotter lol). Right now, the only way to do that in a bomb/warhead is a small fission reaction. So for a while they will still be at least slightly dirty (and the fission bombs with fusion "booster" stages will still be REALLY dirty).

[Strategia]

Eddy01741, on 24 Jun 2007, 1:28, said:

There are only very little ways to start a nuclear fusion reactions, you need temperatures approaching and passing the temp of the sun just to get it started (and after that, it gets even hotter lol). Right now, the only way to do that in a bomb/warhead is a small fission reaction. So for a while they will still be at least slightly dirty (and the fission bombs with fusion "booster" stages will still be REALLY dirty).

I am confident that some generation of scientists/engineers will find a way around using fission boosters to initiate fusion. Perhaps using some sort of magnetic compression or other semi-futuristic technology.

[Eddy01741]

Or do th eSpiderman 2 thing and have tritium float around and be activated by lasers from many sides lol.

[Crazykenny]

Nuclear Power has become allot saver the past couple of years. Mostly because all of the electronic safety measures. Its almost impossible to create a meltdown these days. Unless your such a crazy motherfucker and turn off all the safety features. For myself, im a big fan of nuclear power. Although i prefer Fusion instead of Fission

[Nerdsturm]

I support nuclear energy in general too, but it shouldn't be used in excess. Although plants are much safer than they used to be, the more we build the more likely the chance or a human or electrical error will cause a meltdown, and therefore it would work better as a backup for cleaner and safer but less reliable sources of energy like solar and wind. I actually live quite close to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and can't say it has bothered me much.

[Eddy01741]

Nerdsturm, on 24 Jun 2007, 16:40, said:

I actually live quite close to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and can't say it has bothered me much.

I dont mean a couple miles away, I mean like one block away (a couple hundred meters or less).

[Nerdsturm]

I know what what you meant, and the plant is actually pretty far away (I probably would have to evacuate in the case of a meltdown, but there most likely wouldn't be a immidate threat to my health). However, I do see your point, I really wouldn't feel comfortable living right next to a nuclear power plant even though I support them usually, although I also really wouldn't like living next to any industrial complex.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, same here, I like living next to houses, not industrial places. Power plants and airports would probably be the worst.