Should The Advancement of Nuclear Technology be Encouraged? - General

I'm writing a discursive essay on this topic for English and I'd like to hear some good reasons for and against it. I personally think it should be encouraged within reason, as Nuclear is a relatively clean technology that can provide large amounts of cheap power in developing countries (assuming they are given foreign aid). But then there's the problem of the disposal or long-term storage of nuclear waste, so both sides of the debate have a good argument. Anyway, discuss.

We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)

Yes, it's the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.

nuclear power is the most efficient energy source developed so far

[QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE] Someone's been watching Moon. Still, that's a good point. [editline]14th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE] But surely, the more countries with nuclear technology, the more countries there will be to contribute to nuclear research?

It should be developed, but not recklessly. Slow and steady is the better option instead of radiation-mutant-cancer-death.

Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.

[QUOTE=kebab52;35140049]I personally think it should be encouraged within reason, as Nuclear is a relatively clean technology[/QUOTE] yes [quote]developing countries (assuming they are given foreign aid). [/quote] absolutely not. developing countries do not have the appropriate regulatory frameworks to be able to safely harness nuclear power.

I think it should, as long as it's not for a weapon/incredibly dangerous.

With our current technology fusion is impossible so we got the next best thing, fission.

Nuclear fission and fusion energy are really the only viable energy sources in the long run; in terms of sustainability, cost, and power output. I honestly wish people showed more interest in it.

It's also the cleanest source of energy available.

Nuclear energy looks like it could do great things, only problem I have is the potential of a devastating accident like Chernobyl. Imagine that in a smaller area, like Long Island. The entire fucking island would be almost inhabitable (or at least more than half of it.)

[QUOTE=sgman91;35143211]It's also the cleanest source of energy available.[/QUOTE] In what way? Do you mean lifetime greenhouse gas emissions or resulting waste?

[QUOTE=Nikita;35140368]We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=King Tiger;35142044]Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.[/QUOTE] IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create. I don't know if you can ever make it truly efficient. Don't get me wrong, we should definitely try. However, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35146616]IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create. I don't know if you can ever make it truly efficient. Don't get me wrong, we should definitely try. However, I wouldn't hold my breath.[/QUOTE] This is a subject I believe very strongly in. Fusion research has, for many years in fact, made slow steady progress towards net-gain and higher efficiency. It's remarkable really, even as governments show almost no interest in it (financially). We are on the verge of striking the fusion fire, and once we do, all other power sources are of trivial importance (besides anti-matter, of course). I really think that in only a few years, the first really usable fusion reactors will be invented.

[QUOTE=Porkychop~;35146732]This is a subject I believe very strongly in. Fusion research has, for many years in fact, made slow steady progress towards net-gain and higher efficiency. It's remarkable really, even as governments show almost no interest in it (financially). We are on the verge of striking the fusion fire, and once we do, all other power sources are of trivial importance (besides anti-matter, of course). I really think that in only a few years, the first really usable fusion reactors will be invented.[/QUOTE] I admire your optimism. Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors. We should slap solar panels all over things too, for good measure.

[QUOTE=danharibo;35146753]I admire your optimism. Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors. We should slap solar panels all over things too, for good measure.[/QUOTE] What exactly do you mean? A typical Deuterium-Tritium tokomak reactor produces almost no waste, only harmless helium.

[QUOTE=Porkychop~;35146852]What exactly do you mean? A typical Deuterium-Tritium tokomak reactor produces almost no waste, only harmless helium.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean they would be producing waste, they couldn't produce waste (Even stars only create elements heavier than Iron during a supernova), I mean it might be a while before we get a good return on fusion. Then again we could do it next week, sometimes breakthroughs just happen.

It's a great energy source, but I feel we need to work more heavily on security before we start using it as a reliable power source. And we need to find a way to make the waste useful too.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35146616]IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create.[/QUOTE] That statement is very vague. What exactly do you mean by that? The same power as the power output of a star, or what? I mean, fusion has already happened in tokamaks and such, it's not like we can't do it at all. It's just that so far we haven't managed to get back more energy than was put in. [QUOTE=danharibo;35146753]Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors.[/QUOTE] You can't really say that we should focus research elsewhere until fusion is figured out; it won't figure itself out, somebody somewhere has to work on it, and the fewer people are working on it the longer it will take.

its a complete shame that people associate nuclear power with total catastrophe out of blind fear and scare words. it would do us so much good to invest in this while we still have the money. considering that nuclear power plants release little to no CO2 in the atmosphere it only makes sense that it would create balance with the amount of trees in the world compared to fossil fuels. solar and wind power is good but can't be our only dependence for energy.

On one hand I fully support Nuclear fussion given that they're only build in developed, stable countries and a lot of money is invested in ensuring they work safely. On the other hand the reactors are safer than before so the chances of nuclear accidents may become smaller and smaller but building more nuclear power plants also creates more potential ''hazards''. This wouldn't be a problem if the damage in case of a meltdown was limited but they last time there was a large accident it sent nuclear fallout in a very wide radius. But in the end there doesn't seem to be a better alternative right now if we want to ensure power after fossil fuels run out.

Nuclear energy technology needs to advance if only to replace aging reactors. Nuclear has two major disadvantages. Waste and the risk of a meltdown, but I think we can live with both of these if the proper framework is in place to minimise meltdown risks as much as is practically possible and waste is dealt with properly. (Which, in the majority of cases, is what is happening already) The problem of waste management and storage is regularly blown out of proportion. It's definitely a crucial issue but breeder reactors can be employed to transmutate a great deal of it into isotopes that are radioactive for nowhere near as long, and deep geological storage at the right sites will be safe for thousands-hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe it will have to be dealt with in a few thousand years, by which time who knows what technology we will be using for power generation or can be employed for high level waste disposal. On the other hand, the effects of coal and oil plants is causing problems that we will have to deal with within years or decades, rather than millennia. Meltdowns can have a huge effect on the environment, but there have been two major ones to date, the first being orders of magnitude worse than the second. But how do these compare to the severity and frequency of accidents like Deepwater Horizon, on top of greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel power generation? There are numerous reports and studies into the death toll of Chernobyl. Effects of fallout are very hard to quantify and there are around 15 cancer related deaths directly tied to the fallout from Chernobyl, but estimates range from a projected 4000 total deaths to almost a million. Nobody knows where the real figure will fall, and if someone's risk of cancer rises by 1% due to fallout, and they end up getting cancer, can you say it was caused by the fallout? That said, Chernobyl is something that cannot happen again. The severity of the situation was as much due to appalling reactor design as it was to horrendous decision making in the response (not evacuating anyone for hours or days, not distributing iodine tablets) The next major meltdown to occur since then (Fukushima) has turned out to be nowhere near as bad, and rather than due to a badly planned safety test (that involved the reactor operators to go absolutely full retard,) it was a 40 year old (relatively dangerous by modern standards) reactor being hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded and a subsequent tsunami. We should always worry about nuclear power. Worrying keeps safety regulations strict and stops us becoming complacent. Ultimately making it much safer.

Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire. Easy solution for the waste.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;35149709]That statement is very vague. What exactly do you mean by that? The same power as the power output of a star, or what? I mean, fusion has already happened in tokamaks and such, it's not like we can't do it at all. It's just that so far we haven't managed to get back more energy than was put in. [/QUOTE] I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I'm not sure. However, from what I've heard(from real physicists), in order to fuse atoms together the conditions need to be very similar to a star. This requires a lot of heat. If we master fusion, we harness the power of the stars themselves, which is pretty neat, but a huge undertaking.

[QUOTE=Sickle;35150365]Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire. Easy solution for the waste.[/QUOTE] I dare you to make a railgun powerful enough to provide energy that can cause the container to reach escape velocity and continue uninterrupted by gravity towards the sun.

[QUOTE=Sickle;35150365]Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire. Easy solution for the waste.[/QUOTE] Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying: "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold". In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.

I don't care, if it proves to be the most efficient energy source then so be it. If not, no. Use the more efficient source instead.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;35150983]I dare you to make a railgun powerful enough to provide energy that can cause the container to reach escape velocity and continue uninterrupted by gravity towards the sun.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Da_Maniac_;35151241]Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying: "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold". In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.[/QUOTE] i bet you two are great at parties anyways, he really does have a point, what better place to dump nuclear waste than space, if not the sun?