Thread: Nuclear power - are you for it or against it?

On one hand, it's very efficient. On the other, get it wrong, and the results could be disastrous. For me the pros outweigh the cons, and vice versa. So I'm on the fence about it. What about you?

While nuclear fusion makes much more energy, it is indeed very wasteful, but with time hopefully (big emphasis on HOPE) they'll be able to find ways to power nuclear fusion that are less hazardous. As for cold fusion, it would be nice if it were possible within our lifetime lol

Nuclear fission, I'm on the fence about. Nuclear fusion, I'm more supportive of.

Originally Posted by Jack Pschitt

Nuclear fusion, I'm more supportive of.

This, but only if we could make it efficient, say...like the sun lol.

I'm just opposed to nuclear in general primarily due to the nuclear waste and the fact that it takes hundreds if not thousands of years to break down.

I prefer solar energy because I know for a fact that the sun gives off more of it than we could possibly use. I like all the other renewable sources too, just not as much. I'd either go with those or a mice-powered generator for my radio

I'm all for nukes. They really are the least harmful to the environment out of our options now. Wind and solar are of course less harmful, but the technology is not there yet enough for it to be implemented on a large scale. Nuclear is tried and true.

The space used for storage of nuclear waste is minimal compared to the mountains destroyed by coal mining and the oceans contaminated by oil spills. France actually re-enriches their spent uranium (an expensive process, but doable nonetheless). Currently, All of the spent fuel is stored in house at the power plant in the United States.

Nulcear energy may be effecient, but I prefer hydrogen power (not hydroelectric, mind you) (even though it's virtually nonexistent in the US), as it is nearly as effecient as nuclear but has a much smaller disaster risk (if any at all) than the latter, probably because it works in the same fashion as the Sun.

Originally Posted by TheMijzelno.

I'm all for nukes. They really are the least harmful to the environment out of our options now. Wind and solar are of course less harmful, but the technology is not there yet enough for it to be implemented on a large scale. Nuclear is tried and true.

The space used for storage of nuclear waste is minimal compared to the mountains destroyed by coal mining and the oceans contaminated by oil spills. France actually re-enriches their spent uranium (an expensive process, but doable nonetheless). Currently, All of the spent fuel is stored in house at the power plant in the United States.

You might want to take into consideration that nuclear power is only popular because people decided to use it. If solar energy was popular (i.e. profitable), then people would be using it. The problem is people are too hung up on oil and other harmful methods of electricity generation (such as coal and nuclear reactors) to look into it, which is why the consumer price of a solar panel is at a polar opposite with how much it costs to make them.

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

You might want to take into consideration that nuclear power is only popular because people decided to use it. If solar energy was popular (i.e. profitable), then people would be using it.

People didn't just one day wake up and decide hey, lets use nuclear power because we feel like it. Nuclear power was developed for very good reasons. You don't just throw the kind of money that nuclear power costs at something without good reason. The fact is that solar technology is just not at the point where it is justifiable to build large arrays.

The problem is people are too hung up on oil and other harmful methods of electricity generation (such as coal and nuclear reactors) to look into it, which is why the consumer price of a solar panel is at a polar opposite with how much it costs to make them.

You say that nuclear reactors are "harmful," and yet you don't say why they are. They are actually quite clean.

Originally Posted by TheMijzelno.

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

You might want to take into consideration that nuclear power is only popular because people decided to use it. If solar energy was popular (i.e. profitable), then people would be using it.

People didn't just one day wake up and decide hey, lets use nuclear power because we feel like it. Nuclear power was developed for very good reasons. You don't just throw the kind of money that nuclear power costs at something without good reason. The fact is that solar technology is just not at the point where it is justifiable to build large arrays.

The problem is people are too hung up on oil and other harmful methods of electricity generation (such as coal and nuclear reactors) to look into it, which is why the consumer price of a solar panel is at a polar opposite with how much it costs to make them.

You say that nuclear reactors are "harmful," and yet you don't say why they are. They are actually quite clean.

I didn't mention why because I thought it was glaringly obvious why they're so dangerous: They leave behind a bunch of toxic spent nuclear fuel that won't decompose for at least another millenia, and is sitting inside a cascade of containers rotting in the Pacific Islands.

And you may not have mentioned a reason why, but my reason why people use nuclear power is because it was nearly unparallelled in effeciency. People aren't using hydrogen power because some corporate giant is sitting on the patent and waiting for someone to develop it so they don't have to spend money finding a market for it.

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

I didn't mention why because I thought it was glaringly obvious why they're so dangerous: They leave behind a bunch of toxic spent nuclear fuel that won't decompose for at least another millenia, and is sitting inside a cascade of containers rotting in the Pacific Islands.

And you may not have mentioned a reason why, but my reason why people use nuclear power is because it was nearly unparallelled in effeciency. People aren't using hydrogen power because some corporate giant is sitting on the patent and waiting for someone to develop it so they don't have to spend money finding a market for it.

This comment leads me to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost everything you've said just now is untrue. Spent fuel (in the United States anyway) is, as of right now, stored in the power plant in which it was used. Spent fuel poses no environmental danger at all. It just sits there.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "hydrogen power." If you mean nuclear fusion, the technology is not there yet. Do you mean just burning hydrogen gas? That is definitely not feasible for large scale production of electricity.

Originally Posted by TheMijzelno.

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

I didn't mention why because I thought it was glaringly obvious why they're so dangerous: They leave behind a bunch of toxic spent nuclear fuel that won't decompose for at least another millenia, and is sitting inside a cascade of containers rotting in the Pacific Islands.

And you may not have mentioned a reason why, but my reason why people use nuclear power is because it was nearly unparallelled in effeciency. People aren't using hydrogen power because some corporate giant is sitting on the patent and waiting for someone to develop it so they don't have to spend money finding a market for it.

This comment leads me to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost everything you've said just now is untrue. Spent fuel (in the United States anyway) is, as of right now, stored in the power plant in which it was used. Spent fuel poses no environmental danger at all. It just sits there.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "hydrogen power." If you mean nuclear fusion, the technology is not there yet. Do you mean just burning hydrogen gas? That is definitely not feasible for large scale production of electricity.

Spent fuel may be stored at the plant, but what happens when the plant gets full? Nuclear by-products are classified as a high-level radioactive waste, and sites that store it are marked with this, the standard ISO Radiation label, which looks like this:


Now tell me: Does that honestly and seriously look safe to you?


Also, you may want to read the Wikipedia articles on Hydrogen fuel and Nuclear waste to inform yourself.

It is extremely safe when it's behind ten feet of concrete, which it is.

In reference to your last sentence, yes, I have read those articles. Have you? If you had read the one on hydrogen fuel you would know that it "can provide motive power for cars, boats and airplanes, portable fuel cell applications or stationary fuel cell applications, which can power an electric motor." The article says nothing about it being used for large scale energy production. Why? Because it's not good for large scale energy production. I'll briefly explain why.

First, in order to burn hydrogen you need to produce large quantities of it. This is done mainly through the electrolysis of water, which itself requires energy. It would take at least as much energy to perform this electrolysis as you get from the hydrogen combustion. Of course that was all explained in the article you sent me, if you had bothered to read it.

Second, you need long term hydrogen storage. This is a problem because hydrogen has such a small mass that it slowly leaks out of the spaces between the molecules of whatever tank it's being stored in. Therefore your power plant will be operating at even more of a loss.

Originally Posted by TheMijzelno.

It is extremely safe when it's behind ten feet of concrete, which it is.

In reference to your last sentence, yes, I have read those articles. Have you? If you had read the one on hydrogen fuel you would know that it "can provide motive power for cars, boats and airplanes, portable fuel cell applications or stationary fuel cell applications, which can power an electric motor." The article says nothing about it being used for large scale energy production. Why? Because it's not good for large scale energy production. I'll briefly explain why.

First, in order to burn hydrogen you need to produce large quantities of it. This is done mainly through the electrolysis of water, which itself requires energy. It would take at least as much energy to perform this electrolysis as you get from the hydrogen combustion. Of course that was all explained in the article you sent me, if you had bothered to read it.

Second, you need long term hydrogen storage. This is a problem because hydrogen has such a small mass that it slowly leaks out of the spaces between the molecules of whatever tank it's being stored in. Therefore your power plant will be operating at even more of a loss.

Also, I'll leave you with a small tip. Don't tell someone you're debating to "inform yourself." It's extremely rude and condescending, especially when you really don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

If not hydrogen, there's always wind power, solar power, wave power, and geothermal power to look into. Hydrogen was my personal favorite.

All in all, I think nuclear power is a bad idea because of the irrevocable waste it produces – radioactive waste, concealed or not, will take thousands of years to decompose, and the only way to rid the planet of this undisposable waste is to first stop nuclear power production and the production of its waste, and then sit out the two to three millenia for our existing waste to decompose.

I know, you already said that. You've said your lines, I've refuted them, and now you're repeating them in a futile effort to make them mean something. Properly stored radioactive waste does not hurt anyone. End of story.