Nuclear Power Discussion - General

Issac Asimov practically praised nuclear power as the world's best source of energy. He espicially made this clear in "Foundation."

Tennessee has 3 nuclear power plants, but I've only seen one of them, at an area called Watts Bar. It has one unit working at the moment, which provides 1,170 megawatts of power. They're working on another unit at the moment, at the cost of $2.5 billion. It's safer than the coal plant TVA has, which had an ash spill recently. I've always wondered about fishing around it. [IMG]http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/images/wattsbar3.jpg[/IMG]

I am currently enjoying this thread.

Anyone who say's another Chernobyl is bound to happen is a fucking idiot. Chernobyl happened because the fuckers who designed the reactor and the control rods where fucking retarded. It also happened because THEY HAD NO BACKUP PLAN WHAT SO EVER.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;21226428]Anyone who say's another Chernobyl is bound to happen is a fucking idiot. Chernobyl happened because the fuckers who designed the reactor and the control rods where fucking retarded. It also happened because THEY HAD NO BACKUP PLAN WHAT SO EVER.[/QUOTE] No, they had a plan but the retard with controls just bypassed all security features and pushed the rods to the limit.

I've heard Nuclear Power is among the cleanest.

Just wanted to say a thing before anyone says something against me. I haven't read this thread [B]at all[/B], but I had to say this. What I know, Nuclear Power is the only thing that is enough sufficient for us[B] currently[/B]. And even if we placed a wind power plant in every possible place in for an example Sweden, it still wouldn't be enough.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;21226428]Anyone who say's another Chernobyl is bound to happen is a fucking idiot. Chernobyl happened because the fuckers who designed the reactor and the control rods where fucking retarded. It also happened because THEY HAD NO BACKUP PLAN WHAT SO EVER.[/QUOTE] This.

nothing wrong with a litlle background radiation

[quote=Wikipedia] In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear[/quote] So greenpeace's "safe" renewable power killed more people than coal, natural gas and nuclear combined. But maybe that greenpeace guy was right about loads of nuclear disasters. Because they are assuming that every country will use nuclear power and there a lot of countries who are far more cheap than the USSR. So if loads of poor countries use nuclear power then may be there may be a lot of nuclear meltdowns.

[QUOTE=Loompa Lord;21182885][B] September 11, 2010, .[/QUOTE] You knew it was in the future?

Decent essay, but chernobyl is not the only one, 1979 Three Mile Island had a partial core meltdown.

[QUOTE=TheForeigner;21271800]Decent essay, but chernobyl is not the only one, 1979 Three Mile Island had a partial core meltdown.[/QUOTE] The radiation that left Three Mile Island was less that the radiation produced by a computer CRT monitor.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21271818]The radiation that left Three Mile Island was less that the radiation produced by a computer CRT monitor.[/QUOTE] but the accident still happened

[QUOTE=TheForeigner;21272050]but the accident still happened[/QUOTE] A minor, easily contained thing.

I do it all for the Uranium rods

I like how no one ever mentions Three-Mile-Island in any of the Nuclor0er Disaturd threads.

[QUOTE=Sickle;21273849]I like how no one ever mentions Three-Mile-Island in any of the Nuclor0er Disaturd threads.[/QUOTE] Because the U.S. handled it fairly well. I'm going to post the Chernobyl story in videos to further emphasize why Chernobyl was a budget-cut disaster and is in no way comparable to the Three-Mile-Island incident.

11 september 2010 what. [editline]02:00AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Loompa Lord;21182885]Power plant security has also been increased by about 8,000 officers since the attacks on September 11, 2010[/QUOTE]

I'm all for nuclear power. Chernobyl was just because of Russia's communism getting to their heads. Plus, nuclear waste is not much to worry about. Any other source of power that pollutes has the bad stuff in the air, so they can't technically do crap about it. Nuclear power plants are required to take care of the waste by law, so its safely burred far underground. Also, media, movies and stuff like that always over-exaggerate how much is made. So, that's one of the reasons I'm all for it.

[QUOTE=Matt PL;21278341]11 september 2010 what. [editline]02:00AM[/editline][/QUOTE] I mixed up 0 and 1. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;21221155] But what about waste?[/QUOTE] A giant fucking vault in the middle of a giant fucking mountain fucking miles underneath the earth in the middle of fucking nowhere. Transported by near indestructible flasks.

Yea the flasks can withstand being burned in jet fuel for hours or being hit by a rocket powered diesel locomotive.

[QUOTE=Hellghast;21309645]Yea the flasks can withstand being burned in jet fuel for hours or being hit by a rocket powered diesel locomotive.[/QUOTE] Actually, they can withstand being burned in jet fuel for hours or being hit by a rocket powered diesel locomotive. They are designed to. Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not so I just posted that to be sure.

I love France for being everything I want a country to be. The government hates religion and is perfectly separated from it, the women are hot, the country-side is breathtaking, and its run by nuclear power. As of right now, Nuclear Power is the [u]only[/u] thing we have available to us that can both solve our energy needs and be 'green' at the same time. The only goddamn thing. I'm not against renewable energy either, I do believe its a great start, but its not a good provider. If anything, it should only be publicly used, not corporately/by government. If someone wants to be 'green', he can buy his own wind turbine for his own house, or his own solar panels. Very effective for powering your own home. Not so effective for powering an entire country.

We only have one nuclear reactor in Austria and all the idiots in my country voted against using it before they finished building it. About a year ago I was in a huge power plant in Germany. It was incredibly interesting. We even got to see the huge turbine from a 2m distance and the outside of the reactor building.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21309848]Actually, they can withstand being burned in jet fuel for hours or being hit by a rocket powered diesel locomotive. They are designed to. Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not so I just posted that to be sure.[/QUOTE] No I was being honest. They can, and that's fucking awesome. No sarcasm here.

I actually live near the Byron nuclear generating station, and infact, i do feel safe being within its proximity. I hear all the hype from nuclear meltdowns (Extremely (nearly impossible)), and the fuel used in these plants differ greatly from the warheads used in nuclear missiles. Also, its not a fossil fuel power station. Coal emits more radiation, harmful chemicals, and other hazardous materials in the atmosphere spreading to the outside populations. Causing acid rain, and I would assume, a higher cancer rate compared to someone that lived in a general proximity to a nuclear power station. And I know, the EPA and the other environmentalists would just love to see technology be put forth into fossil fuel generation, and even more, renewable sources such as solar and wind. However, I don't see these technologies being implemented anytime soon due to their high cost. We could "bury" the Co2 emissions into the ground, but what happens when too much pressure is generated? Gases do not live by boundaries that are confined to a simple confinement cell. We only had incidents like, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl because of poor reactor designs. Most of the western world saw the future of Chernobyl because of the design that was used in it. TMI was another experiment that went wrong in every which direction. And burying nuclear waste within a mountain is fine with me. What the hell is it going to bother as long as the containers do not break and leak into aquifers, or contaminate areas that are populated. The environmentalists would rather see the human race die, or be blown back into the stone age before they like to see us progress and have science further itself. This is a well proven fact, they hate their own species. They're more likely to go ahead and test out the security at the nuclear generating stations, or the transportation of the waste. They do have, in my opinion, a very dangerous radical wing to their association.

i wonder how the world would look like if chernobyl and three-mile never occurred

[QUOTE=Cuel;21322823]i wonder how the world would look like if chernobyl and three-mile never occurred[/QUOTE] Mini Nuclear power plants would be on every street corner, and hobos would piss in them and cause them to have a mini-meltdown. the resulting radiation would turn the hobo and anyone else in a 10 meter radius into a radioactive zombie. said zombies will bite anyone nearby, turning them to zombies, thus causing a zombie apocalypse. At least, that's what those idiots at Greenpeace probably think.