Nuclear Power Discussion - General

[B]Discuss all thoughts on nuclear power generation and what effects it may have on the world, good or bad. [/B] Society will surely bottleneck if an alternative form of energy isn’t implemented hastily. As of now, nuclear power is one of the most feasible and misunderstood solutions to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, and should be utilized immediately on a larger scale in the United States to help bolster the economy with affordable and environmentally safe energy. Nuclear power is the product of a controlled fission reaction with specific fissile isotopes of Uranium or Plutonium. The fission, or separation, of these isotopes generates a tremendous amount of heat that is used to boil water into steam, which spins turbines to generate a constant supply of electricity. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, some reactors can operate for up to 24 months without refueling. This aspect alone makes nuclear energy very cost efficient at nearly $0.02 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to coal costing nearly $0.03 cents per kilowatt hour, and oil costing just above a whopping $0.17 per kilowatt hour. Not only would the generation of more nuclear power plants reduce energy costs for Americans, it could potentially create 1,400 to 1,800 jobs per power plant construction, and 400 to 700 job opportunities per plant after construction. [IMG]http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac211/MEDSONE/nuclearfission.jpg[/IMG] Most opposition to nuclear power generation is a result of misinformation and fear of a possible reactor malfunction resulting in a meltdown. On April 26, 1986, a meltdown occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the former USSR. This disaster severely contaminated the surrounding environment with radiation, and some parts of the reactor remain extremely hazardous to this day. Fortunately, scientists have learned from the design and human flaws attributing to the Chernobyl incident by installing automated cooling systems in the event of emergency, and by training and certifying power plant personnel to handle a variety of problematic scenarios. Emergency drills are even conducted on a regular basis to keep power plant staff prepared for any situation that might occur. Because of the hazards presented by radioactive material in nuclear power plants, skeptics worry about the chances for terrorist attack on such facilities, and argue that these risks alone outweigh the benefits of nuclear energy. In reality, nuclear plants are heavily guarded not only by military force, but by extreme structural reinforcements designed to withstand tornados, earthquakes and hurricanes. According to The Electric Power Research Institute, the reactors’ primary structures are even able to withstand direct hit from a Boeing 767 aircraft. Power plant security has also been increased by about 8,000 officers since the attacks on September 11, 2001, further emphasizing a work safe environment. Arguably, one of the best reasons for phasing out coal and other fossil fuels for nuclear power is lack of environmental impact. Nuclear power generation produces no carbon dioxide gas and effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions by producing large quantities of power in place of coal or natural gas. The only greenhouse gases released by nuclear power plants are a direct result of the construction processes, ore mining, and maintenances requiring fossil fuels, which apply to all other forms of renewable energy as well. Although the waste produced from a nuclear reactor is highly radioactive, it can be contained and stored safely within the confines of the facility, preventing any outside contact or contamination. This is a much safer alternative to burning coal and other fossil fuels that severely pollute our environment and poison the Earth’s ecosystems. While radioactive waste may remain radioactive for thousands of years without any outside contact, soot from coal and other petroleum wastes remain toxic indefinitely and are cast into landfills on a regular basis. This is simply unacceptable. While the United States hasn’t commissioned a nuclear reactor to go online since 1996, energy shortages in the future may result in the construction of new “breeder type” nuclear reactors which can successfully recycle up to 95 percent of the high-level radioactive waste produced in a reactor by enrichment processes. This would significantly cut down the storage area needed to house toxic radioactive waste, thus pushing nuclear power into a whole new era of efficiency. Nuclear power is the most practical way of phasing out toxic fossil fuels. In the future, its cost effective electricity production could be used in a variety of applications, including the separation of hydrogen and oxygen from water by the process of electrolysis, which has the potential to successfully create entirely new industries based on hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The United States has become a raging alcoholic who has become completely dependent on fossil fuel. If we don’t begin to free ourselves from our current dependence on fossil fuels in the near future, it could have seriously devastating economic and environmental consequences. It’s time to let nuclear energy pave the way to a better future. [U][B]The Chernobyl Disaster[/B][/U] Here is a decently filmed series explaining the happenings of the Chernobyl disaster. It aired on Discovery Channel years ago.. I'm sorry that there are no subtitles, but the narration is in english and shouldn't be hard to understand. [B]Summary:[/B] Basically the constructors of the Chernobyl reactor cut corners and supplied safety systems that didn't operate correctly. The reactor was bound to melt down at some point.. [B]Part one[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=uoEgkGNO-sQ[/URL] [B]Part two[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qe_sD7bPSvg[/URL] [B]Part three[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=WEO9JAMfWUc[/URL] [B]Part four[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVrjnYrRpuU[/URL] [B]Part five[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=OwEIX4KU7r8[/URL] [B]Part six[/B] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iDqzsTb3OM[/URL] [IMG]http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy109/blacklung-/ATT00005.jpg[/IMG]

Ok. I find my country's "clean green nuclear free" policy rather pathetic

Dude, awesome post. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

France is run by what, 90 percent nuclear power? And recycle most of their end products? Read somewhere that the U.S.A doesn't recycle it, we just store it in giant cooling tanks.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;21182959]Dude, awesome post. I agree with pretty much everything you said.[/QUOTE] I had to write a short essay regarding the topic, so I chose nuclear energy. I didn't know too much about it when I first started researching the topic, so I thought I would post it here and see what other people thought about nuclear energy. Thanks for the feedback.

Hopefully they'll be able to make nuclear fusion reactors which give more energy than they use soon. There'd be even less waste that what fission reactors produce.

aint nuttin wrong wid nookyuler power

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;21183011]Hopefully they'll be able to make nuclear fusion reactors which give more energy than they use soon. There'd be even less waste that what fission reactors produce.[/QUOTE] The study in those fields is kinda choked, though. People are still foolishly scared of nuclear power, so they don't want to fund any research in the field. The fun thing about fusion is that it would be easier to create smaller reactors for them as well. Fusion powered cars, utilizing hydrogen and oxygen to produce water vapor.. How much "greener" could you get, outside of a car powered by moonbeams and unicorn farts?

I, for one, accept our new nuclear power.

I would have nothing against it if it would come, but in our country people are like " OMG NO WE WILL XPLODE ", would help the economy, all the jobs and shit ( and cheaper energy ).Would save trees :v:

When i saw some Anti-nuclear demonstration against building a nuclear power plant in Poland, i wanted to drop a live grenade into the crowd.

I'm opposed to Nuclear Power due to the Environmental hazards. Nuclear fission generates spent nuclear fuel, more commonly known as toxic waste. This toxic waste is impossible to break down, and is buried in the Earth, causing tremendous damage to the environment. What's worse, Spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for up to 3 centuries.

If they somehow could get rid of the radiation and the radioactive/toxic waste, it would be an awesome thing to have nuclear power plants.

[QUOTE=Xyrec;21183473]If they somehow could get rid of the radiation and the radioactive/toxic waste, it would be an awesome thing to have nuclear power plants.[/QUOTE] Nothing good seems to come without a price

True.

[QUOTE=dolphinlover;21183464]I'm opposed to Nuclear Power due to the Environmental hazards. Nuclear fission generates spent nuclear fuel, more commonly known as toxic waste. This toxic waste is impossible to break down, and is buried in the Earth, [b]causing tremendous damage to the environment.[/b] What's worse, Spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for up to 3 centuries.[/QUOTE] They bury it in a fucking mountain. Do tell me what life there is 5 meters+ inside of a fucking rock solid mountain.

100% agree :science:

Erm...Rocks?

bring forth a wrath of cleansing fire here now in mankinds bleakest hour

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21183575]They bury it in a fucking mountain. Do tell me what life there is 5 meters+ inside of a fucking rock solid mountain.[/QUOTE] Well at a depth of five meters, groundwater can easily come into contact with the toxic waste and contaminate local streams, ponds, rivers and lakes causing colossal damage to local wildlife. They bury it much deeper than 5 meters so that it avoids coming into contact not just directly with life, but also with any water table. While there's nothing wrong with the safety of a nuclear reactor, they are a pain to build. One of the reasons they are so safe is that they come under huge scrutiny and regulation and even a slight hiccough that somehow deviates from the original model predictions can shut down an entire project for good. For example the Maple reactors in Canada were to be used for manufacturing radioactive isotopes for use in medicine and were advertised as having a negative power coefficient of reactivity (This would stop any hint of a runaway reaction as). However, during initial tests, the reactor was shown to give a fairly low positive power coefficient of reactivity (This in itself is not a problem and does not affect the overall safety and operatability of the reactor) and was subsequently shut down. They are also horrible to decommission since you can't really use the land they've been on for many years after they are gone. Nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuels like coal but it's far from an ideal solution. A better one would be burning hydrogen gas or possibly fuel cells since either way your only product is water. Unfortunately it makes your fill-up stations very explosive.

I have nothing against nuclear power.

[QUOTE=Lord Pirate;21183862] Nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuels like coal but it's far from an ideal solution. A better one would be burning hydrogen gas or possibly fuel cells since either way your only product is water. Unfortunately it makes your fill-up stations very explosive.[/QUOTE] Where the fuck would you get free hydrogen?

[QUOTE=Lord Pirate;21183862][b]Well at a depth of five meters, groundwater can easily come into contact with the toxic waste and contaminate local streams, ponds, rivers and lakes causing colossal damage to local wildlife. They bury it much deeper than 5 meters so that it avoids coming into contact not just directly with life, but also with any water table.[/b] While there's nothing wrong with the safety of a nuclear reactor, they are a pain to build. One of the reasons they are so safe is that they come under huge scrutiny and regulation and even a slight hiccough that somehow deviates from the original model predictions can shut down an entire project for good. For example the Maple reactors in Canada were to be used for manufacturing radioactive isotopes for use in medicine and were advertised as having a negative power coefficient of reactivity (This would stop any hint of a runaway reaction as). However, during initial tests, the reactor was shown to give a fairly low positive power coefficient of reactivity (This in itself is not a problem and does not affect the overall safety and operatability of the reactor) and was subsequently shut down. They are also horrible to decommission since you can't really use the land they've been on for many years after they are gone. Nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuels like coal but it's far from an ideal solution. A better one would be burning hydrogen gas or possibly fuel cells since either way your only product is water. Unfortunately it makes your fill-up stations very explosive.[/QUOTE] I know it's deeper then 5 meters. That's what the "+" meant. He said we're destroying the environment, I'm saying that when you go into a rock solid mountain, there's nothing breathing past 5 meters or whatever arbitrary small number you want to say. Obviously they insulate everything in every possible way.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21184157]I know it's deeper then 5 meters. That's what the "+" meant. He said we're destroying the environment, I'm saying that when you go into a rock solid mountain, there's nothing breathing past 5 meters or whatever arbitrary small number you want to say. Obviously they insulate everything in every possible way.[/QUOTE] Get rid of NORAD and shove it into Cheyenne. Eliminates the cost of building a new facility.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;21184098]Where the fuck would you get free hydrogen?[/QUOTE] Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Every liter of pure water is 1/9th hydrogen by mass. Using a very simple process it is possible to break down water into water and oxygen. Both of these resources could be sold for monies.

[QUOTE=Loompa Lord;21182885][B]Discuss all thoughts on nuclear power generation and what effects it may have on the world, good or bad. [B]That was back when the air smelled sweet in the morning[/B] [/QUOTE] no [URL="http://www.world-weather-travellers-guide.com/london-smog.html"]fresh air mmm *choke*[/URL]

The netherlands has 3 Nuclear reactors: 1xMedical. 1xUniversity 1xNormal All the waste is transported to France by train where it is refined again. All the waste we get from that is transported back to the netherlands to be stored in either a keg incased in concrete(low radioactive material) or in a specially designed building which uses convection to cool the sticks until they find a better way of storing the high radioactive matterial. I actually stood on floor where the radioactive sticks where kept (Covra building). It was about 30x5m in which they could store all the high radioactive material produced by the netherlands in the last decade. [img]http://www.zelfbouw-groenestroom.nl/files/images/resources/specials/kernafval/covra5.jpg[/img] And it is 100% passive so pretty safe. Also: If idiots from greenpeace would clog the air intake, it would still take 4 years to cause any problems. (I do support greenpeace just not their nuclear vieuws) Getting evryone to use "green" energy is unrealistic and will not be a usuable until we either find a geothermal source under evry city or increase the efficiency of solar panels ALOT.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21184181]Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Every liter of pure water is 1/9th hydrogen by mass. Using a very simple process it is possible to break down water into water and oxygen. Both of these resources could be sold for monies.[/QUOTE] It takes a lot of energy to break down water though

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21184181]Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Every liter of pure water is 1/9th hydrogen by mass. Using a very simple process it is possible to break down water into water and oxygen. Both of these resources could be sold for monies.[/QUOTE] That's nice. Except that electrolysis is massively inefficient, even if a perfect process was made, it takes 459Kj per gram of hydrogen to break it free of the bonds(Ref 1), oxidation of hydrogen via burning has an energy density of 143Kj/g (Ref 2). Hydrogen is [i]not[/i] an energy resource, it's a medium of storing energy. An okay one, but not a great one, either. 1: [url]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=H2O[/url] 2: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density[/url]

[QUOTE=Kybalt;21183575]They bury it in a fucking mountain. Do tell me what life there is 5 meters+ inside of a fucking rock solid mountain.[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Gollum.PNG[/img] Precious rodsss!