NASA Scientist: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
83 replies, posted
but but but but radiation!
but but but but nuclear explosions!!
but but but but chernobyl!!!
BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!!
:downs:
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40140154]Quality control justifies the higher price tag. If there's one thing China is known for, it's not quality; it's quantity. That and the high price of having a manufacturing business in the US.[/QUOTE]
This is very true. Quality's great... But if you're looking at the cost difference between slightly less efficient panels that wear out in a couple of years versus more efficient panels that wear out in two or three decades, and you're looking at what makes the most sense for, say, temporary housing or a consumer market...
Well, what does make the most sense for a consumer market, where everyone buys a new $100 cell phone or whatever every few years? It doesn't have to work for a long time if it's cheap enough to offset the cost. I think these "cheap" solar cells would be the best solution for the rapid proliferation of solar energy. An entry-level product, something that doesn't really exist in that market yet.
Probably because we decided to ban it in order to reduce competition on American companies that produce the same product. (That is, actually, what happened. It was a plan to eliminate international competition in that market. The same laws restrict importing solar panels from anywhere else in the world, not just China.)
[QUOTE=Insulator;40134464] that's why we have the Moon! Earth's own trash bin that we for some reason never use.[/QUOTE]
Rockets have a tendency to explode. You don't want that to happen with your nuclear waste on top.
[QUOTE=MILKE;40134198]Why arn't we using thorium nuclear power yet[/QUOTE]
Thorium isn't in widespread use because of a few reasons. One is that it costs money to either build a new thorium plant or to convert one that uses uranium, and countries that use nuclear power can still get uranium for a good price. Another reason is that countries with large deposits of it aren't mining it, which means that there isn't much fuel to buy and use. I know that Australia (a country with one of the richest thorium deposits) probably won't use it soon, due to current social stigma against any nuclear power. I do think that China is beginning to implement thorium as a power source, as it has incredibly large thorium deposits, too, but there isn't too much in the terms of hindrances to building the plants.
[QUOTE=MILKE;40134198]Why arn't we using thorium nuclear power yet[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that nobody is willing to make the initial investment and that the technology behind a Thorium nuclear plant hasn't been fully vetted yet.
I did a big project about the acceptance of nuclear power in the public eye, there's a direct correlation between how much someone knows about nuclear power and how much they agree with it's use.
[img]http://puu.sh/2t0aG[/img]
[QUOTE=Kill coDer;40141396]I did a big project about the acceptance of nuclear power in the public eye, there's a direct correlation between how much someone knows about nuclear power and how much they agree with it's use.
[img]http://puu.sh/2t0aG[/img][/QUOTE]
What questions did you ask?
[QUOTE=OvB;40141467]What questions did you ask?[/QUOTE]
Are there any nuclear reactors operating in Australia at this time? Energy producing or otherwise?
Are leukaemia rates are higher near nuclear reactors?
Can a nuclear reactor explode like a nuclear bomb due to a catastrophic meltdown?
I asked a whole bunch of other questions that were opinion based, cross referenced peoples opinions with their knowledge of the topic, yielded some surprising results. People who are media sceptics are more likely to agree with nuclear power and are more likely to be knowledgeable about it. The majority of every group thinks that nuclear waste is the largest issue. The vast majority of all groups think that Australia should not accept other people's nuclear waste for disposal.
Most annoying thing for me, being Australian, is that the majority of people think that we should be using nuclear power, yet our government is against it.
My problem with Nuclear Power is that we are all fucked in 50 years if we don't switch to renewable energy.
[QUOTE=Niklas;40141564]My problem with Nuclear Power is that we are all fucked in 50 years if we don't switch to renewable energy.[/QUOTE]
How is that a problem with Nuclear Energy. If anything that's a reason to use Nuclear Energy.
[QUOTE=Niklas;40141564]My problem with Nuclear Power is that we are all fucked in 50 years if we don't switch to renewable energy.[/QUOTE]
Renewable energies are not land efficient, they're expensive, most of them are intermittent. Every estimate I've read about peak uranium has said it'll last over several hundred years. You can't just make sweeping statements about this kind of stuff, it's the reason why so many people are scared of it, it's the reason why it's not being adopted, and it's going to bite everyone in the ass in the long run.
[QUOTE=OvB;40135070]I see a future where every building has its own solar system, all selling excess to the grid. With LFTR supplying excess energy where needed.[/QUOTE]
Centralised power sources are more efficient. Same reasoning as how we have centralised food production.
[QUOTE=Animosus;40139454]Talking about solar energy, I find it funny that more countries don't use it. A good example could be Australia. A massive country with plenty of sunshine and space for solar power plants. Yet we still mostly rely on coal power plants.
It isn't like Australia can't afford it anyway, with the mining and such.[/QUOTE]
It's because of our mining industry that there won't be a move to nuclear any time soon.
[img]http://puu.sh/2t1IC[/img]
Even the windiest places on Earth are calm sometimes, the sunniest places are sometimes dark, which means we need another form of power to pick up the slack, which means we need nuclear regardless of any renewable 'solution'.
You can't cover all of Australia's 'spare' landmass in solar generation facilities and expect it to be efficient, or for it to even meet our energy requirements. Transportation of power is where the majority of it gets lost, then there's the whole cost issue.
There literally is no other choice other than nuclear, and it's a bloody good choice at that. Safer than our current system, much more land efficient, much better at actually producing energy, the misinformed are literally the only thing in its way.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40141626]How is that a problem with Nuclear Energy. If anything that's a reason to use Nuclear Energy.[/QUOTE] Uran will be depleted in about 100 years, it is better than other resources of course, but some here act like it is the energy of the future and we can solely depend on it.
[QUOTE=Niklas;40141923]Uran will be depleted in about 100 years, it is better than other resources of course, but some here act like it is the energy of the future and we can solely depend on it.[/QUOTE]
but we don't need to just use uranium. there are other sources we can use.
[QUOTE=Niklas;40141923]Uran will be depleted in about 100 years, it is better than other resources of course, but some here act like it is the energy of the future and we can solely depend on it.[/QUOTE]
Uranium required for global nuclear power in 2012: 67,990 tonnes (Source: World Nuclear Association)
There's an estimated 4 billion tonnes of uranium in the ocean alone.
That's like 58,000 years of fuel at our current usage.
Of course we need to grab it out of the ocean, meanwhile we have (as of an estimate done in 2011) 5,327,200 tonnes of the stuff in the ground in mineable areas, a good 78 years for us to refine our ocean based uranium sources.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40141948]but we don't need to just use uranium. there are other sources we can use.[/QUOTE]
Yeah then there's about 20 other nuclear fuels that we could use.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40141948]but we don't need to just use uranium. there are other sources we can use.[/QUOTE]
That, and it can be reused by breeder reactors.
Or, y'know, Thorium.
[QUOTE=Sableye;40136491]
not sure how it ever got the green glow in pop culture to begin with[/QUOTE]
Glow-in-the-dark hands on clocks and things, which contained radium and glowed green because of the radiation reacting with phosphorescent chemicals in the paint. Of course most people just thought radiation=green glow, and so in pop culture all radioactive stuff was thought of as glowing green.
[QUOTE=Kill coDer;40141761]It's because of our mining industry that there won't be a move to nuclear any time soon.
[img]http://puu.sh/2t1IC[/img][/QUOTE]
Keep the mining industry going, but export product for lods emone instead of using it locally. Build reactors to fulfill local energy needs.
There. I just saved Australia, hooray for me. :v:
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan..
If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.[/QUOTE]
Please consider the fact of how those reactors got the holy living fuck beaten out of them and improper operations in the first place. I'd consider the Japan reactors a good example of how safe they are. It took all that to make them fuck up.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40144157]Keep the mining industry going, but export product for lods emone instead of using it locally. Build reactors to fulfill local energy needs.
There. I just saved Australia, hooray for me. :v:[/QUOTE]
Sounds like what I do in SimCity...
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan..
If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.[/QUOTE]
The Fukushima Daiichi plant was opened in 1971. Not exactly "modern." It would be remarkable if a plant built in the past 20 years had a meltdown.
[QUOTE=woolio1;40149780]Sounds like what I do in SimCity...[/QUOTE]
It's also literally the reason Chernobyl NPP was built. The Soviets wanted to transport coal and oil eastward for a load of different reasons, but that would mean leaving the western region without electricity. To get around that, they built the plant that would indirectly be their downfall.
EDIT:
When you look at it, Chernobyl was way more significant than most people realize. Without the incident (and keep in mind, I'm pulling this out of my ass), the Soviets probably would have lasted awhile longer. At least a decade, if I were to hazard a guess. It didn't lead directly to their downfall, but it certainly accelerated the process.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40152792]It's also literally the reason Chernobyl NPP was built. The Soviets wanted to transport coal and oil eastward for a load of different reasons, but that would mean leaving the western region without electricity. To get around that, they built the plant that would indirectly be their downfall.
EDIT:
When you look at it, Chernobyl was way more significant than most people realize. Without the incident (and keep in mind, I'm pulling this out of my ass), the Soviets probably would have lasted awhile longer. At least a decade, if I were to hazard a guess. It didn't lead directly to their downfall, but it certainly accelerated the process.[/QUOTE]
Chernobyl wasn't the result of the government, it was the result of some idiots turning off all the safeguards to perform a risky test with untrained staff. I don't think it had anything to do with the Soviet downfall.
And IIRC, taking into account all possible radiation deaths from nuclear meltdowns, nuclear power has killed less than 500 people.
I also remember a huge emphasis in my university history class on how terrible the US' nuclear program has been in comparison to France's and Japan's. Both nations apparently recycle their nuclear waste and manage to use it again, reducing waste by over 90% (IIRC). America has apparently banned recycling nuclear waste. If America's nuclear program was as efficient as France's, then America would have its current number of reactors providing 70% of national power. Instead they provide about 20% (IIRC).
[QUOTE=Falubii;40151945][b]The Fukushima Daiichi plant was opened in 1971.[/b] Not exactly "modern." It would be remarkable if a plant built in the past 20 years had a meltdown.[/QUOTE]
To put that in perspective, Chernobyl was commissioned in 1977.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.