Nuclear power

[shalala]

So basically, the other day I was discussing with my brother whether nuclear power is a maintainable source of energy.(Here I am taking for granted that most people think that fossil and bio fuel should be phased out.)

Me and my brother turned out to have rather different opinions where he is pro, and I am con. Thus, I might have a bit too imaginary approach, haha.

Now I am turning to this forum for a better perspective. Is nuclear something we should expand or reduce? Is it positive that nuclear power now is in a offensive light due to what happended in Japan?

[Proletariat]

Nuclear fission is an intermediary step imo.

Without a doubt fossil fuels, and coal in particular, needs to be phased out. As a resident of Alberta, a province internationally know for its "tarsands", as everyone else so affectionately calls them, I recognize that these traditional industries may be economic drivers today. That's why I believe extremist positions taken by groups such as Greenpeace is reckless and idealistically utilitarian. Having said that, fossil fuels are not sustainable, and it doesn't matter if new reserves of oil are being discovered due to melting arctic ice (that's a rather cruel twist of irony); the world cannot rely upon these archaeic and destructive energy sources for too long into the future. I don't know what the eventual answer will be; not every country has river systems like Quebec, nor the sunlight of the American Southwest, nor the winds of Denmark.

That is why I think nuclear power can play an important role bridging the gap between traditional, non-renewable, greenhouse gas-emitting sources of energy, and the clean and renewable alternatives of the future. Contrary to what the media might show, nuclear power is really not that dangerous. Has anyone died in Japan because of a nuclear meltdown? Did anyone die in Three Mile Island? Chernobyl released something like 4 000 times the amount of radiation from the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, and killed 50, and that was a result of a series of serious, man-made errors (I believe >_>). None of France's reactors have imploded. Nor Canadian ones.

The other issues associated with nuclear power - waste disposal (containment) and costs - are important though. Underground containment is extremely safe, but there's only so much space. It's possible that, with the costs of space flights becoming increasingly cheaper, that space jettison may become a viable option in the future. Maybe we can just dump it in some volcano somewhere? =P Costs are also an issue, and that's what institutions like the IMF should be doing, instead of breaking the backs of villagers in Latin America.

[Lu4]

Nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, however it cannot be sustained yet because it produces radioactive nuclear waste that is just stored for now...

I also think it should not expand because it is very risky in its production (if anything goes wrong a lot is put to risk), and it is theoretically non renewable.

Furthermore nuclear power can be used unethically!

[Proletariat]

Nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, however it cannot be sustained yet because it produces radioactive nuclear waste that is just stored for now...

I also think it should not expand because it is very risky in its production (if anything goes wrong a lot is put to risk), and it is theoretically non renewable.

Furthermore nuclear power can be used unethically!

Can you elaborate on what you mean by unethically? Are you talking about the conversion of enriched uranium into potential nuclear weapons?

[Sandwich]

Wind power!

Fossil fuels are very much like this -->

Anyway, aside from the fact I think we should focus on less environmentally potentially catastrophic power sources, especially wind and solar power, I do think that nuclear power is the next obvious 'between phases' step. To be honest, I think that the problem faced by the Japanese is very tragic but equally very avoidable. If I were forward-thinking and lived in a country prone to earthquakes strong enough to raise giant tsunami waves, I probably wouldn't build my nuclear reactors on the beach. Perhaps I would've done because I'm a bit silly and wouldn't have thought about it enough, but after what happened in Japan, now I definitely wouldn't.

To be honest anything that isn't fossil fuel is an excellent step in the right direction. There are so many places in the world that could be utilised re: wind and solar energy, or tidal energy. The technology to utilise them is already there, it's just too expensive. Making it mainstream would be such a turn-around, and I think that nuclear is a step in the right direction in the sense that it focusses on the trade-off no longer being convenience but environmental impact as our first priority. Right now we're belching crap into the atmosphere like it doesn't matter (and to some shockingly high statistic of americans, or at least the people who write their environmental legislation, I suspect it probably doesn't) and I think that nuclear is far from an ideal option but it's safe enough (and I mean we've been using it for ages now) and at the end of the day, in my opinion, it's something that has to be done. It's either that, a failure to act entirely or a sudden revolutionary embracing of expensive technologies that I think very unlikely to happen in any way other than drip by drip.

[Lu4]

Nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, however it cannot be sustained yet because it produces radioactive nuclear waste that is just stored for now...

I also think it should not expand because it is very risky in its production (if anything goes wrong a lot is put to risk), and it is theoretically non renewable.

Furthermore nuclear power can be used unethically!

Can you elaborate on what you mean by unethically? Are you talking about the conversion of enriched uranium into potential nuclear weapons?

yes i am talking about the further enrichment of uranium, and governments using the excuse that they are using it for the establishment of nuclear power as an energy source while they are actually developing nuclear weapons.

[Proletariat]

Yeah that's what I thought. It's a serious concern for international relations, for sure. Just seemed rather odd to call it "unethical."

I'm not sure I have a completely satisfactory response for that one. However, even if some random nation manages to enrich their uranium, what could they really accomplish with it? The United States and Russia combined still have something like 4 000 warheads. I'm not sure any one country is going to be catching up to that arsenal anytime soon, no matter how many nuclear power reactor plants they want to plop down. It's not even guaranteed that your weapon will work, as North Korea showed. And what do you get in return? Diplomatic ostracization, crippling economic sanctions, and maybe a new ally on the Korean peninsula. I can't think of many nations who could last for very long with no international trade, nor many nations who would want to be isolated politically. With the exception of Iran, I can't name a state that even thinks it would benefit from developing nuclear weapons, let alone would actually benefit from it.

Plus there are international agencies monitoring the use of nuclear power and the supply of uranium. International inspectors visit plants, and uranium doesn't grow on trees.

But hey, my knowledge of nuclear armaments end at 1991 (thanks IB history!). Maybe nuclear power cannot become proliferate as that intermediate step because of these regulatory agencies.

[Chris Kuno]

We did this debate in French oddly enough. Most of it flew over my head but the research etc. I conducted in English (Then attempted to say in French) was quite interesting. However, there are so many different stances on nuclear power, it is difficult to find valid reliable research as every website has a different view point and therefore different facts. Even the amount of energy produced through nuclear power varies from website to website (even if they were published in the same year)

[pumkinns]

i 100% agree with Sandwich!! WIND POWER!!

soo, i wont argue against the benefits of nuclear, but i really think it's doing more harm than good, it is dangerous look at what happened in Chernobyl in 1986. it might not have cause instant deaths but it does affect the life span of people. the biggest problem they face is decommissioning. because these days the nuclear plants are designed to live for a 40 -60 year; operating very well and generating lots of energy. now the problem would be in the disposal of these plants, you cannot just bury the whole thing under ground.

and the the waste products they release still exists, ya they may be sealed and buried in safe locations but still, nothing is certain, there is still the possibility of leakages that may occur and contaminate land and bodies of water.

and the most thing i don't like about it is their use of nuclear weapons.

i think it would be better to have less nuclear plants, and more of wind, solar, and other types of renewable energy sources.

[shalala]

I am agreeing with sandwich, and pumkinns in this matter haha, but I am totally open for discussion!

The other issues associated with nuclear power - waste disposal (containment) and costs - are important though. Underground containment is extremely safe, but there's only so much space. It's possible that, with the costs of space flights becoming increasingly cheaper, that space jettison may become a viable option in the future. Maybe we can just dump it in some volcano somewhere? =P Costs are also an issue, and that's what institutions like the IMF should be doing, instead of breaking the backs of villagers in Latin America.

Building on pumkinns approach, the dispose is one of the greatest problems, since the dispose don't break down until 100 thousands of years.. So here we are with new dispose produced each year, that won't break down. I mean, hundreds thousands of years is more than humans has been around on our planet.

With digging it down in the ground the problem is that there is no other substances that we can contain the dispose that long, since the container material eventually breaks down. When it does, the consequences will be harsh, since the water will be contaminated. Though, you could argue that you could dig the dispose up again and recontain it, but will the information be passed down? for 2000 years? for 50000 years? Are we to decide that the dispose have to be handled 100000 years from now? Because surely nuclear can not be used forever, with the recycling taking that high amount of time. So because we are lazy (sorry for the harsh term) people will handle nucear dispose, at least 5 thousand generations after us?

The fact that you are proposing throwing the waste in a volcano somewhere is a bit imaginary I think.. It will probably not work:P

Also, when developing nuclear we will reach to a point where nuclear becomes that powerful that we ccould create a bomb blowing away the whole earth.. If you search for Bomb Tsar you will understand that with the technology today, the nuclear bomb will become devestating.

To be honest anything that isn't fossil fuel is an excellent step in the right direction. There are so many places in the world that could be utilised re: wind and solar energy, or tidal energy. The technology to utilise them is already there, it's just too expensive. Making it mainstream would be such a turn-around, and I think that nuclear is a step in the right direction in the sense that it focusses on the trade-off no longer being convenience but environmental impact as our first priority. Right now we're belching crap into the atmosphere like it doesn't matter (and to some shockingly high statistic of americans, or at least the people who write their environmental legislation, I suspect it probably doesn't) and I think that nuclear is far from an ideal option but it's safe enough (and I mean we've been using it for ages now) and at the end of the day, in my opinion, it's something that has to be done. It's either that, a failure to act entirely or a sudden revolutionary embracing of expensive technologies that I think very unlikely to happen in any way other than drip by drip.

Here I was thinking on is whether sun, water and wind power really can take over the whole energy market? I don't have a lot of research about it but according to my brother that is impossible (though I wouldn't trust his facts). For now. But when will it be possible? Can it? Or is it just in fantasy that we one day can fully rely on these energy sources?

With this in mind and how I know that fossil and bio fuel will have faster, great consequences, I in this moment will refer to Churchill but where he talked about democracy I will refer nuclear power to describe my thoughts. Nuclear sucks, but it is the best we got.

[shalala]

Just noticed my response sounds a bit as an essay with the conclusion and all.. Hahaha not my intension!

[Proletariat]

I am agreeing with sandwich, and pumkinns in this matter haha, but I am totally open for discussion!

The other issues associated with nuclear power - waste disposal (containment) and costs - are important though. Underground containment is extremely safe, but there's only so much space. It's possible that, with the costs of space flights becoming increasingly cheaper, that space jettison may become a viable option in the future. Maybe we can just dump it in some volcano somewhere? =P Costs are also an issue, and that's what institutions like the IMF should be doing, instead of breaking the backs of villagers in Latin America.

Building on pumkinns approach, the dispose is one of the greatest problems, since the dispose don't break down until 100 thousands of years.. So here we are with new dispose produced each year, that won't break down. I mean, hundreds thousands of years is more than humans has been around on our planet.

With digging it down in the ground the problem is that there is no other substances that we can contain the dispose that long, since the container material eventually breaks down. When it does, the consequences will be harsh, since the water will be contaminated. Though, you could argue that you could dig the dispose up again and recontain it, but will the information be passed down? for 2000 years? for 50000 years? Are we to decide that the dispose have to be handled 100000 years from now? Because surely nuclear can not be used forever, with the recycling taking that high amount of time. So because we are lazy (sorry for the harsh term) people will handle nucear dispose, at least 5 thousand generations after us?

The fact that you are proposing throwing the waste in a volcano somewhere is a bit imaginary I think.. It will probably not work:P

Also, when developing nuclear we will reach to a point where nuclear becomes that powerful that we ccould create a bomb blowing away the whole earth.. If you search for Bomb Tsar you will understand that with the technology today, the nuclear bomb will become devestating.

To be honest anything that isn't fossil fuel is an excellent step in the right direction. There are so many places in the world that could be utilised re: wind and solar energy, or tidal energy. The technology to utilise them is already there, it's just too expensive. Making it mainstream would be such a turn-around, and I think that nuclear is a step in the right direction in the sense that it focusses on the trade-off no longer being convenience but environmental impact as our first priority. Right now we're belching crap into the atmosphere like it doesn't matter (and to some shockingly high statistic of americans, or at least the people who write their environmental legislation, I suspect it probably doesn't) and I think that nuclear is far from an ideal option but it's safe enough (and I mean we've been using it for ages now) and at the end of the day, in my opinion, it's something that has to be done. It's either that, a failure to act entirely or a sudden revolutionary embracing of expensive technologies that I think very unlikely to happen in any way other than drip by drip.

Here I was thinking on is whether sun, water and wind power really can take over the whole energy market? I don't have a lot of research about it but according to my brother that is impossible (though I wouldn't trust his facts). For now. But when will it be possible? Can it? Or is it just in fantasy that we one day can fully rely on these energy sources?

With this in mind and how I know that fossil and bio fuel will have faster, great consequences, I in this moment will refer to Churchill but where he talked about democracy I will refer nuclear power to describe my thoughts. Nuclear sucks, but it is the best we got.

It sounds like we agree in principle. For the record, the volcano was meant as a tepid, (apparently) unfunny joke, not an actual policy endorsement; hence the smilie. However, the disposal of waste through stable subduction zones is not unfeasible, nor even "a bit imaginary"; in fact, it is one of the most realistic options based on current technology.

First of all, let's get real with the facts. The period in which radioactive wastes would remain radioactive is not "hundreds thousands of years"; it is ten thousand. Reprocessing then cuts that down further. Perhaps not an overly significant detail in the overall debate, but one cannot merely make up numbers in such discussions.

Also, most waste right now is stored at or close around the plant itself. I'm also not sure what kind of container you are imagining, because if there are biologists, physicists, economists, and politicians who are all going to be outlining a method for long-term underground storage (which they really haven't yet), then I would think that someone somewhere would be competent enough to pick a material that doesn't "eventually [break] down." They're also not just going to be throwing drums into some dirt pit; the storage facility (which really is the proper terminology) would be composed of steel, concrete and probably other materials of which I lack the subject-specific knowledge to tell you about, and the containers would be very much the same.

A "bomb blowing away the whole earth" is also rather hyperbolic. I challenge you to name one country other than Iran that does not currently possess nuclear weapons already, and would stand to benefit from development of even the simplest warhead, let alone this hypothetical Doomsday Device, and even with Iran it is highly debatable. Look, I understand that nuclear warfare was a cause célèbe, but that is so 20th century. It is still a concern, and this century's young enough for fearmongers to still evoke the spectre of nuclear winter effectively (such as Powell, though everyone knows who put him up to it), but even the most paranoid of the far-right do not seem to be imbuing nuclear power with eschatological properties (they're far more concerned with this Saturday, tehehe.)

Solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass, all these alternative forms of energy are still in their infancy. So no, they can't "take over" the whole market. That's why above I advocated nuclear as a transitional phase, the intermediate step necessary to wean us off of fossil fuels such as coal immediately and as fast as possible, while still maintaining energy levels for the short and medium term. Let's not forget that these alternative energy sources have their own fatal flaws (birds are not the biggest fans of wind turbines, Chinese river dolphins not the biggest fans of dams, and the billions of people starving in the world are not the biggest fans of biomass.)

Edited May 20, 2011 by Proletariat

[shalala]

I am agreeing with sandwich, and pumkinns in this matter haha, but I am totally open for discussion!

The other issues associated with nuclear power - waste disposal (containment) and costs - are important though. Underground containment is extremely safe, but there's only so much space. It's possible that, with the costs of space flights becoming increasingly cheaper, that space jettison may become a viable option in the future. Maybe we can just dump it in some volcano somewhere? =P Costs are also an issue, and that's what institutions like the IMF should be doing, instead of breaking the backs of villagers in Latin America.

Building on pumkinns approach, the dispose is one of the greatest problems, since the dispose don't break down until 100 thousands of years.. So here we are with new dispose produced each year, that won't break down. I mean, hundreds thousands of years is more than humans has been around on our planet.

With digging it down in the ground the problem is that there is no other substances that we can contain the dispose that long, since the container material eventually breaks down. When it does, the consequences will be harsh, since the water will be contaminated. Though, you could argue that you could dig the dispose up again and recontain it, but will the information be passed down? for 2000 years? for 50000 years? Are we to decide that the dispose have to be handled 100000 years from now? Because surely nuclear can not be used forever, with the recycling taking that high amount of time. So because we are lazy (sorry for the harsh term) people will handle nucear dispose, at least 5 thousand generations after us?

The fact that you are proposing throwing the waste in a volcano somewhere is a bit imaginary I think.. It will probably not work:P

Also, when developing nuclear we will reach to a point where nuclear becomes that powerful that we ccould create a bomb blowing away the whole earth.. If you search for Bomb Tsar you will understand that with the technology today, the nuclear bomb will become devestating.

To be honest anything that isn't fossil fuel is an excellent step in the right direction. There are so many places in the world that could be utilised re: wind and solar energy, or tidal energy. The technology to utilise them is already there, it's just too expensive. Making it mainstream would be such a turn-around, and I think that nuclear is a step in the right direction in the sense that it focusses on the trade-off no longer being convenience but environmental impact as our first priority. Right now we're belching crap into the atmosphere like it doesn't matter (and to some shockingly high statistic of americans, or at least the people who write their environmental legislation, I suspect it probably doesn't) and I think that nuclear is far from an ideal option but it's safe enough (and I mean we've been using it for ages now) and at the end of the day, in my opinion, it's something that has to be done. It's either that, a failure to act entirely or a sudden revolutionary embracing of expensive technologies that I think very unlikely to happen in any way other than drip by drip.

Here I was thinking on is whether sun, water and wind power really can take over the whole energy market? I don't have a lot of research about it but according to my brother that is impossible (though I wouldn't trust his facts). For now. But when will it be possible? Can it? Or is it just in fantasy that we one day can fully rely on these energy sources?

With this in mind and how I know that fossil and bio fuel will have faster, great consequences, I in this moment will refer to Churchill but where he talked about democracy I will refer nuclear power to describe my thoughts. Nuclear sucks, but it is the best we got.

It sounds like we agree in principle. For the record, the volcano was meant as a tepid, (apparently) unfunny joke, not an actual policy endorsement; hence the smilie. However, the disposal of waste through stable subduction zones is not unfeasible, nor even "a bit imaginary"; in fact, it is one of the most realistic options based on current technology.

First of all, let's get real with the facts. The period in which radioactive wastes would remain radioactive is not "hundreds thousands of years"; it is ten thousand. Reprocessing then cuts that down further. Perhaps not an overly significant detail in the overall debate, but one cannot merely make up numbers in such discussions.

Also, most waste right now is stored at or close around the plant itself. I'm also not sure what kind of container you are imagining, because if there are biologists, physicists, economists, and politicians who are all going to be outlining a method for long-term underground storage (which they really haven't yet), then I would think that someone somewhere would be competent enough to pick a material that doesn't "eventually [break] down." They're also not just going to be throwing drums into some dirt pit; the storage facility (which really is the proper terminology) would be composed of steel, concrete and probably other materials of which I lack the subject-specific knowledge to tell you about, and the containers would be very much the same.

A "bomb blowing away the whole earth" is also rather hyperbolic. I challenge you to name one country other than Iran that does not currently possess nuclear weapons already, and would stand to benefit from development of even the simplest warhead, let alone this hypothetical Doomsday Device, and even with Iran it is highly debatable. Look, I understand that nuclear warfare was a cause célèbe, but that is so 20th century. It is still a concern, and this century's young enough for fearmongers to still evoke the spectre of nuclear winter effectively (such as Powell, though everyone knows who put him up to it), but even the most paranoid of the far-right do not seem to be imbuing nuclear power with eschatological properties (they're far more concerned with this Saturday, tehehe.)

Solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass, all these alternative forms of energy are still in their infancy. So no, they can't "take over" the whole market. That's why above I advocated nuclear as a transitional phase, the intermediate step necessary to wean us off of fossil fuels such as coal immediately and as fast as possible, while still maintaining energy levels for the short and medium term. Let's not forget that these alternative energy sources have their own fatal flaws (birds are not the biggest fans of wind turbines, Chinese river dolphins not the biggest fans of dams, and the billions of people starving in the world are not the biggest fans of biomass.)

First, I'm sorry for not understanding you joke, I will blame cultural differences on that one, haha. Just by chance I chosed IB, and english.

I would want to discuss where you get your fact from, and also where I get mine from haha. You see, recently there was a debate in Sweden where a company wanted to "end-store" dispose in copper-capsules 500 meters down in the bedrock. Then there was a fact of needing to store the dispose for "hundred thousands of years" years, because it is dangerous for humans, animals and plants in that ammount of time.

Though these copper capsules apperently only lasted for 10 000 years. They are researching and will use many barriers so it will probably happen around 2013, thats the prediction. The debate was about if these stores could guarantee full security for that all those years.

Also, the fact about wind turbines I would want to recall that it is a myth that birds are troubled by them. I also see biomass almost as bad as fossil fuels, because of other toxic gases is released when burning it.

The fact that a nuclear bomb could "blow away the earth" might be a bit radical, however my point was that researching in nuclear will someday result in such a powerful bomb. Since humans will be humans and they make a lot of mistakes, a bomb like that could, I said coud, result in calamity for a huge ammount of people.

The fact I want to discuss more is how big parts of focus (money and research) should be put on nuclear compared to "green" energy?

[Proletariat]

Biological damage aside, wind power is still terribly non-reliable and inefficient in its current state, like every other alternative energy source.

Nuclear development will not result in nuclear weapons development for any country other than Iran because of the reasons I listed above. To summarize: in order for you to be able to say something will happen, you have to give a reason as to why it would. There is no benefit for the vast majority of the countries in the world to pursue nuclear armaments, and only negative repercussions in terms of trade sanctions and diplomatic isolation.

I took my numbers from the Wiki page I found in 20 seconds. It - and I - could be wrong, if you are certain in your memory. I felt that "hundreds of thousands" was an exaggeration, but perhaps not. In the end, as I mentioned above I don't think it will have a substantive impact; long-term is still long-term.

Financial allocation is the least interesting aspect of this for me >< It's not just alternative energy and nuclear energy that is receiving funding; my provincial government's spending millions of dollars experimenting with carbon capture for the Big Oil companies (interesting that Big Oil isn't paying for these themselves), for example. Actual allocation varies dramatically by jurisdiction; France would heavily finance nuclear development, while Quebec would have less of an incentive to do so. This game of "how much money should X receive" therefore depends first and foremost on location, and then on a large amount of background knowledge on the intricacies of each of these industries, knowledge that I doubt the collective IBS body would have.

Had to add this, because I had never heard of anything about thorium before:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/with-thorium-we-could-have-safe-nuclear-power/article2030383/

Interesting Canadian anecdote, to be sure, but I found it relevant to this discussion because, obviously, a switch to thorium would alleviate almost all of those concerns about safety à la meltdown as well as nuclear weaponry. It also appears to be more economic, and more sustaining. The issues with waste disposal would still be there though, I imagine.

[Kaden]

First of all, people seam to be overestimating the dangers associated with fission reactors to a significant degree. Chernobyl was a result of multiple errors that most people in today`s society would consider to be a bit unintelligent (even more so than what happened in Japan). The first thing to note is that, as one of the earlier reactors, the engineering was extremely poor, especially in the area around the control rods. On top of this, after some smooth sailing, one of the bright people in charge decided to conduct a test to see how hot they could make the reactor before it started to screw stuff up. Unfortunately, while this experiment was being conducted, there was a very large, unexpected spike in the core temperature (due to empty headed judgement calls in the safety checks) and when the workers tried to reinsert the control rods to cool down the reactor, the metal had expanded to the point that the control rods could no longer fit (as I said before, poor engineering). As a result, the exponential growth of the reaction could not be absorbed and slowed and the temperature jumped to the point of no recovery. Chernobyl is now the nuclear world`s example of why we don`t play with fission reactors. The errors that occurred which resulted in the meltdown are nearly impossible these days, and if someone even started to repeat some of the mistakes that were made back then, they would have a whole army of people knocking on their doors (probably quite literally) telling them to smarten up (and a whole whack of angry neighbors no doubt).

Second, the levels of radiation that people seem to think are dangerous in reactors are also significantly lower than what is commonly believed. Workers in nuclear reactors have about the same risk of radiation related death as pilots do (thin atmosphere provides less protection from solar radiation).

Also, any countries with the intentions of making nuclear warheads are probably doing it either for propagandistic purposes (vote for us, we`l build up the army) or out of fear of other people`s warheads. The cold war already scared people enough to keep them away from blowing each other up.

Fourth, if you research the amount of nuclear waste produced per year, any fears related to that topic will most likely diminish quite quickly.

Fifth, treatment of most nuclear wastes reduces the time that they are dangerous for from thousands of years to hundreds. In some cases, new fuel can be harvested from the old fuel when this is done.

And finally, (I could go on, but it`s dinner time (omnomnom)) Canada makes sick money from selling uranium, so i`m a believer all the way dude

[Kaden]

Heres a paragraph copied from the WNA about the amounts of dangerous nuclear waste in a year:

"In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m3 per year. In the UK for example, around 120,000,000 m3 of waste is generated per year - the equivalent of just over 20 dustbins full for every man, woman and child. The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 (i.e. a volume of under one litre). Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (with only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate-level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced (equating to around 25 cm3 per UK citizen per year), it contains 95% of the radioactivity."

Quite interesting, the connotation obviously contains bias, but they can`t lie about the facts, only make them sound nicer than they already are.

[Proletariat]

Heres a paragraph copied from the WNA about the amounts of dangerous nuclear waste in a year:

"In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m3 per year. In the UK for example, around 120,000,000 m3 of waste is generated per year - the equivalent of just over 20 dustbins full for every man, woman and child. The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 (i.e. a volume of under one litre). Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (with only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate-level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced (equating to around 25 cm3 per UK citizen per year), it contains 95% of the radioactivity."

Quite interesting, the connotation obviously contains bias, but they can`t lie about the facts, only make them sound nicer than they already are.

What your quote fails to mention is that 1: it would only be logical for nuclear power to generate less per capita waste in the UK, because only 6% of the power generation in that country is derived from nuclear generators, and 2: even the waste categorized as "low-level" is only done so out of proportion, and is still very much fatally dangerous to humans and ecosystems. So you are right that your source dresses up facts, but it does so in a blatantly shallow and condescendingly self-serving way.

I also feel that you underplay the significance of nuclear weaponry. Even if the Cold War's ended, one shouldn't forget that a good 'ol H bomb is more or less the pinnacle of human destruction. I have significant doubts to the parallels between nuclear power and nuclear weaponry, but I would never deny the impact the latter can have in international relations.

[An Almost Graduate]

Nuclear power is an amazing energy resource. It's not just 'good'; it's literally the best energy source in the world. It's much more sustainable than fossil fuels and it's still economically viable, unlike wind, hydro, etc.

The main opposition to nuclear power is fear of radiation, but a lot of it has no scientific basis. Yes, Chernobyl killed people. How many people? 4000. Everyone in Eastern Europe likes to claim their cancer is from Chernobyl, but the most accurate estimate of deaths caused due to Chernobyl is 4000. This was the only time nuclear power went horribly wrong and it only killed 4000. Considering the money saved on nuclear power compared to wind, sun, etc., that could be spent on education and health care, 4000 is a small price to pay for the many lives that could be improved or saved as a result of nuclear power.

Also, Chernobyl was an accident caused by demotivated Soviet workers in the 1980s. Nuclear power has come a long way since and they were Soviets. These people turned Eastern Germany into an industrial wasteland in less than five years with their economic stupidity. Do you know how hard that is? Of course their workers didn't care about their jobs. In civilized countries, nuclear power is perfectly safe.

There are also various cases in Medical studies (I'm not making this up - it's surprisingly true) where increased exposure to radiation has been correlated with BETTER health and LOWER cancer rates.

I want a nuclear power plant built next door.

[Ezak]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned thorium and brie- reactors? they significantly reduces the halftime of the waste and with thorium it can't continue to produce energy after you have shut it off.

But in the end I'll just wait for the fusion- reactors. Only 20 years left, as always.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Ezak

[URA BOAT]

So basically, the other day I was discussing with my brother whether nuclear power is a maintainable source of energy.(Here I am taking for granted that most people think that fossil and bio fuel should be phased out.)

Me and my brother turned out to have rather different opinions where he is pro, and I am con. Thus, I might have a bit too imaginary approach, haha.

Now I am turning to this forum for a better perspective. Is nuclear something we should expand or reduce? Is it positive that nuclear power now is in a offensive light due to what happended in Japan?

Dude ….nuclear energy is the best resource…if you think about it the amount of coil people would have to burn to produce same amount of energy…we would all be dead because of pollution..(call it global warming if you will). And the small amount of people that got effected like in japan is nothing compared to what could of happen if we still were using coil.. there are thousands of nuclear power plants and all of them are working just fine…only one in japan brakes down.. and now people are talking how bad they are…