Nuclear Power Discussion - General

Nuclear power is definitely the best option we have. [B]Meltdown:[/B] Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are no longer valid arguments against it since the last couple of decades have seen such a vast improvement in reactor safety, such as electromagnetically suspended control rods. New, safer reactors are almost commercially viable and will be long before fusion, e,g thorium reactors and sub critical reactors. The latter has no chance of an accidental meltdown what so ever. [B]Waste:[/B] Nuclear waste is vastly exaggerated, we can comfortably store centuries worth of waste geologically and within a few years can transmutate the most harmful isotopes using breeder reactors. Space disposal seems far fetched but is achievable now and will most definitely exist long before storage becomes a problem. [B]Environmental Impact:[/B] When considering carbon emissions, nuclear fission is cleaner than wind, solar, hydroelectric, marine and biomass power plants. [url]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=petieng;21327150]Nuclear power is definitely the best option we have. [B]Meltdown:[/B] Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are no longer valid arguments against it since the last couple of decades have seen such a vast improvement in reactor safety, such as electromagnetically suspended control rods. New, safer reactors are almost commercially viable and will be long before fusion, e,g thorium reactors and sub critical reactors. The latter has no chance of an accidental meltdown what so ever. [B]Waste:[/B] Nuclear waste is vastly exaggerated, we can comfortably store centuries worth of waste geologically and within a few years can transmutate the most harmful isotopes using breeder reactors. Space disposal seems far fetched but is achievable now and will most definitely exist long before storage becomes a problem. [B]Environmental Impact:[/B] When considering carbon emissions, nuclear fission is cleaner than wind, solar, hydroelectric, marine and biomass power plants. [url]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] While blasting it into space might be a good idea, I vote we put it in a salt/lead vault and bury it under the ocean floor. What if there's an accident at the launch pad? The waste might just be vaporized and turn into deadly dust. Remember that the proper, super strong containers are very massive, so they might use smaller, less resilient ones to carry the most waste. Potential disaster right there.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21331787]While blasting it into space might be a good idea, I vote we put it in a salt/lead vault and bury it under the ocean floor. What if there's an accident at the launch pad? The waste might just be vaporized and turn into deadly dust. Remember that the proper, super strong containers are very massive, so they might use smaller, less resilient ones to carry the most waste. Potential disaster right there.[/QUOTE] I doubt we'll launch them with chemical rockets, which would be extremely dangerous. The technology to launch payloads into space using hydrogen gas powered cannons has been around since the 60's.

[QUOTE=petieng;21332164]I doubt we'll launch them with chemical rockets, which would be extremely dangerous. The technology to launch payloads into space using hydrogen gas powered cannons has been around since the 60's.[/QUOTE] That might work, but what if someone forgot to carry the one and the cannon blows the container up into tiny little pieces :ohdear: I prefer a Launch Loop (a.k.a Lofrstrom Loop). Great for carrying all sorts of payloads and people into space, and it only costs 10 billion!

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21332198]That might work, but what if someone forgot to carry the one and the cannon blows the container up into tiny little pieces :ohdear: I prefer a Launch Loop (a.k.a Lofrstrom Loop). Great for carrying all sorts of payloads and people into space, and it only costs 10 billion![/QUOTE] Yeah there's several solutions that don't involve irradiating a small country :v: most of which are cheaper than their absurdity would have you believe. The point is though, storage isn't a major concern and won't be for a long time.

[QUOTE=petieng;21332313]Yeah there's several solutions that don't involve irradiating a small country :v: most of which are cheaper than their absurdity would have you believe. The point is though, storage isn't a major concern and won't be for a long time.[/QUOTE] Precisely.

I don't think there is any harm shoving the containers into a mountain. We wouldn't even produce that much waste for it to be a growing problem in the first place.

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;21333767]The nuclear fuel, let alone, the spent nuclear fuel is [b]NOT FUCKING EXPLOSIVE[/b]. Stop being so ass backwards thinking that they're powering nuclear power plants with the tsar bomba.[/QUOTE] I know. But if a chemical rocket explodes, the plutonium might be turned into dust, and it's still radioactive. I know spent fuel is not immediately weapons-grade :v:

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21333799]I know. But if a chemical rocket explodes, the plutonium might be turned into dust, and it's still radioactive. I know spent fuel is not immediately weapons-grade :v:[/QUOTE] I misread your post and edited that. But you're right, if the container isn't properly engineered for such incident, we'll certainly have a outcome along those lines.

I, too, fail to see what's so bad about nuclear. It's efficent, cost-effective (once it's up and running), (Mostly) safe and doesn't pollute the air or the upper atmosphere. [editline]12:38AM[/editline] I think it's important to point out that fusion is the polar opposite of the "dangerous" nuclear power we have at the moment. People don't seem to understand just how safe it is. Once they create fusion that can generate a good deal more percentage energy than it requires, world peace will follow. I bet any money.

[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] You want to remove the thing that actually provides the energy?

[QUOTE=Chronische;21183156]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?[/QUOTE] It pretty unfortunate that most people are afraid of the thought of nuclear power. The first thing that comes to mind when most people hear the word nuclear is bombs, Iraq, terrorists attacks, and mostly the horrifying thought of radiation. But has anyone been radiated? Anyone gotten nuked yet? If so please tell me. There are so many more positive things than negative in this situation. Let's go for it. [b]EDIT:[/b] I literally just saw on TV that they're going to pass a bill that secures nuclear waste from the hands of terrorist, apparently worldwide.