Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Now, i know some people who are pro nuclear power, but then again there are alot that arent.
The idea that it will be supporting us for the future, since oil is very low, and coal is due to run out in roughly 400 years, is it a smart idea to invest in another non renewable resource?
I personally believe that solar + wind farming are better choices, they are clean and safe, and renewable most importantly.
Now on the solar front, to counter bad weather, the usage of die solar cells (solar cells which absorb just as well in poor lighting conditions) would be appropriate. now, the space required on the other hand is a negative, but, if appropriatly done, this would be a much better choice.
i will point out that there is a way of renewing Uranium, but it is stupidly expensive and hard to do. for those who dont know, bombarding Atoms very close to the atomic weight of urainium with protons/electrons can make the atom change.
however, 1 glaring negative problem with nuclear power is the chance for disaster like in Chenobyl (is that spelt right?)
this topic (especially nuclear fusion) interests me, and it would be interesting to hear others opinions on the matter.
I don't think you'll find any of the leftist mob against Nuclear Power here. Benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
There would be no more Chenobyl's. Even a plane crash into the power plant won't bring any disaster level effects.
The disposal of nuclear waste will be the big issue.
A few options are being considered for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste, including: the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel burning method, the vitrification method and the subductive waste disposal method.
The MOX fuel burning option is carried out by mixing plutonium with uranium and producing a slightly different fuel than is now used for civilian reactors. The object of this is to burn up the plutonium by nuclear fission (the splitting of atomic nuclei which releases large amounts of energy). This means more of the plutonium can be used as an energy source in a relatively quick fashion. The burning of the fuel does produce a product of excess plutonium, but this product is far less dangerous to the environment and the global community than the initial plutonium is. So the amount of plutonium is actually reduced as well as leaving the remaining plutonium much less usable for weapons and easier to dispose of (Bullen and McCormick 692). However, the product would still need to be disposed of in some effective manner in order protect the environment and to keep the excess plutonium safeguarded from use in nuclear weapons manufacturing.
The vitrification method involves the mixing of weapons-grade plutonium with radioactive waste from civilian reactors and placing this mixture in borosilicate glass logs. The logs would then be buried in a deep borehole that is at least 4 kilometers deep (Bullen and McCormick 690). The idea here is that the plutonium could be suitably encased and isolated to the extent that its decay process may occur without polluting the environment, or being utilized in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. But unfortunately, the only way to know for sure if the encasement will not leak is to try it. This means that it is possible for leakage to pollute the water table also the plutonium could still be mined in the future and used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The Subductive Waste Disposal Method is the most viable means of disposing of radioactive waste. The idea is that the waste is removed from the biosphere faster than it can return. Subduction refers to a process in which one tectonic plate slides beneath another at rate of about 6 cm annually, while being reabsorbed into the Earth's mantle. The Subductive Waste Disposal Method involves the formation of a radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate. As the plate is reabsorbed, the waste will be absorbed along with the plate where it will be dispersed through the mantle. Subducting plates are naturally structured for absorption in the Earth's mantle. And the plate is constantly renewed at its originating oceanic ridge. The plate moves slowly so that any fractures over a repository would be sealed at the contact point between the overriding plate and the subducting plate. Therefore, this method would obviously need to be implemented in a geographically active region. The most accessible site would then be on the ocean floor at a point above where subducting plates meet several thousand feet below the water's surface and then another 2,000 meters beneath ocean sediment. The repositories would be virtually inaccessible once filled and sealed. Once the waste is carried into the interior of the Earth, it would take many millions of years "for the waste to circulate through the Earth's mantle before it could re-emerge in a diluted, chemically and physically altered form at an oceanic ridge (Baird)." The Subductive Waste Disposal Method would prevent radioactive waste from mixing with the water table, provide inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material, remove radioactive waste completely from its threatening position, and be completely safe for marine life.
There is also the method of storing nuclear waste in synrock, a material that you will hear very little about. It keeps the waste safely stored inside with no risks of leaks and very little radiation getting though from inside. It would take 10,000 years before there woud be significant enough erosion for there to be a risk of leakage.
how on earth in the 1st place are we getting drills down thousands of feet into the ocean?
on the matter of synrock, reason leads me to believe that if it were thousands of feet under down in the ocean, pressure would buckle the synrock, or crack, etc.
Do you have a garuntee that there will be no more chenobyl incidents?
making a statement like this is like saying the titanic is unsinkable.
wasnt Chenobyl uncontroable fission, ie, the use of heavy atoms didnt slow the splitting, and caused the massive explosion, ie, nuclear fusion?
Yeah, Nuclear power all the way. As long as Australia doesn't become a dump.No. It was foolsih Soviet Scientists trying to perform a test with with the saftey on "off". It caused a radiation leak, and a steam explosion, which killed 30 people (directly) and has great rise to the level of cancer in the area.wasnt Chenobyl uncontroable fission, ie, the use of heavy atoms didnt slow the splitting, and caused the massive explosion, ie, nuclear fusion?
But Nuclear power is certainly better, and only cruddy Soviet tech has let it down. And its better now.
ah ok my bad. but still human error such as this can still occur..
True, but only rarley. Evne in the Soviet Union (home of cruddyness) this has only happened once. Its practically fail safe.
Nothing industrial is 100% safe. People just freak when there are nuclear accidents because of the mystique of nuclear technology.
It's like shark attacks, people think sharks are dangerous, and they are, but compare them to the death toll of say car crashes, and swimming in a shark populated area suddenly appears safe as houses. But every time a shark kills someone (once or twice a year on average in Australia) everyone goes nuts and starts killing sharks and not letting people in the ocean. This is just because the ocean is primordial and scary
Do we ban cars when a drunk idiot kills a family? That would be laugh. No-one even suggests it because cars are so useful and commonplace.
So, uh, nuclear power... I say go for it. (Y)
I think it's a shame that we don't employ nuclear power to a greater extent in this nation. It's an incredible source of power and costs very little (aside from initial startup costs) to keep active.
With newer technology made available since problems such as cherynoble and three mile island, accidents would be virtually impossible. Still possible, mind you, but highly unlikely.
The military, especially the Navy, makes good use out of nuclear power. We have nuclear powered submarines, nuclear powered ships and nuclear powered facilities. Since you rarely ever hear about nuclear accidents on the many many ships and subs and other facilities that have nuclear power, then you have to concede that we can safely administer it in the civilian sector too.
The great thing about a nuclear reactor is that you can put it nearly anywhere. Since you don't have to drive truckload after truckload of coal to the furnace every day, it's possible to located these reactors quite a distance from highly populated areas while still providing them with reliable power.
In short, I think that the US is wasting a perfect opportunity just because a few nutcases here keep lobbying against it.
I am personally very much against the use of nuclear power. It is not as safe and clean as many apparently would like to believe, and the tons of radioactive waste that are being produced now will be a serious problem for our descendants for many, many thousand years. Can we really justify risking the lives of future generations just so we can have cheap energy now, when there are other source of energy available at least as effective and much less dangerous?
Here in Denmark the public voted against nuclear energy when it was suggested that part of our energy production be from nuclear power plants. Instead we have specialised in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and around 25% of our total energy production now comes from wind mills, not to mention the thousand of houses that are partially or completely powered by solar energy. With the new ocean-based wind mill parks that are soon to be constructed, the percentage of energy from wind mills will be even higher, and this without having to deal with radioactive waste or any of other problems related to nuclear power.A pity that plutonium-239, which is the isotope used in most nuclear reactors, has a half-life of some 24,000 years, then. Even after 10,000 years, or 50,000 years even, there would still be enough radioactive isotopes left to cause some serious problems, not to mention that plutonium in itself is as toxic as any heavy metal and can pollute even without its radioactive abilities.Originally Posted by onlainariSince the year of 2000 there have already been 9 nuclear accidents in the civilian sector, which is more than the average of any other decade since the 1940s, and more than twice as many accident related to military reactors. You can find a list of the most notably nuclear accidents on Wikipedia here. It would seem that accidents are not only possible, they are actually occurring with an even larger frequency than ever before. Two of these recent accidents even happened in the USA and UK, so this new technology you mention canâ€™t be all that safe after all.Originally Posted by H0urg1ass
"Girls are nice and cuddly on the outside, and freaky on the inside." ~ Lost Nemesis.
Dude! I said nutcases in my first post, but edited it out afraid someone would be offended.Originally Posted by H0urg1ass
In case you're confused, I hate leftist anti-nuclear nutcases.
There are of course intelligent arguments against nuclear power, but it's the nutcases I don't like, because they don't argue along those lines. They just don't like it, no explaination (apart from the idiodic cries of chenobyl).