(no subject)

[technoir]

So I had an interesting discussion last night with my grandfather at dinner concerning global warming and nuclear power. This led me to an see what other people think on the subject. Now there is very little doubt at this point that the data definitely points to global warming is occurring. Now there may be some debate as to whether it is caused by normal cycles of climate for the planet or is it caused by human industrial byproducts. Lets assume it is caused by humans. A sizable portion of the greenhouse gases in the world is from our power generation in coal burning power plants. This could easily be replaced by switching to nuclear power. Now there are other alternatives but each of them have large obstacles. Wind power, so far is of an efficiency that would make it impractical to have fields large enough to produce enough power for everyone who wants and needs it. Solar power despite having a better efficiency still is only producing during the day and it also not as great a power output as nuclear power. Hydroelectric makes a huge ecological impact by reshaping the water ways but it has good efficiency, but there are only so many rivers you can plug up. So Nuclear power is the only mature technology that could produce as efficiently or even more so than coal power that is available to us now. Which would you prefer, nuclear power or greenhouse gases? Now I tend to support Nuclear power. It is a technology that has not finished cooking perhaps but it is if done correctly it is actually quite safe. there is still debate as to whether 3mile island caused more than a couple of fatalities and it was about as bad as american nuclear power plans can get. Chernobyl was bad. Real bad. But it was also the result of an outdated design and a deliberate experiment in trying things outside the safety margins. There are some research lines to actually reduce the waste to almost nothing by extracting and reprocessing the usable isotopes and re burning them in the reactor. I am interested in what other people seem to think on this though.

Comments

[hoshiadam.livejournal.com]

Nuclear. It allows for waste to be contained easily (double steam systems release almost no radiation into the environment), and with a long term storage facility like the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, we can easily use nuclear power for hundreds of years.

That said, I also think that wind and solar are good things to pursue. Once solar gets down to the 'pays for itself in 5 years' level, I think it will become very widespread. Especially if a diesel hybrid semi truck hits. At that point, our major transportation fuel consumption will be airplanes, and we might be able to do a hydrogen fueled plane.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

i agree they are solid things to continue researching. The battery technology improvements with solar power improvements will lead to homes that pretty much power themselves being pretty common. We are not there yet though.

[bobrandon.livejournal.com]

I wish i could find the article i was reading, but I think Peterbilt has a prototype of such a thing expected to br ready for testing in 08

[digital-avatar.livejournal.com]

I would normally vote Nuclear, simply because I like the sound of having a Nuclear run world. It's a step towards alternative power sources, and makes me happy to know that technology is at least being put to use.

But in the case of pollution, I'd rather have green-house gasses. Yes, eventually they will boil the earth and destroy all life, but I really don't see how much different that would be with what waste is left over from a nuclear plant (nukr-u-lar, as my president says). If I happen to fall into a dumping site for nuclear waste, and let's say that there was a leak* in a barrel or something, I would more than likely die a long horrible death from toxic levels of radiation poisoning. Green house gasses simply try to take over the world slowly.

I wouldn't mind there being enough Nuclear plants that there was a serious amount of excess energy available. I'm more on par with more Nuclear plants, running well under full power, than few plants that are being overtaxed with energy requirements.

Babbling again.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

Burying those wastes that cant be reprocessed down more than a mile below the surface actually would never effect any life even if someone designed a shoddy container(which I doubt highly). The metals in the waste are heavy and have a tendancy sink not rise.

[hapersmion.livejournal.com]

No, no, if you fall into the nuclear waste dumping site you get super powers. Everyone knows that. It's an important argument in favor of nuclear energy.

:) I agree with hoshiadam. Nuclear power is good, but don't rule out wind and solar power. Hydrogen is promising too, I think. And as to nuclear waste, I think we can eventually find ways to neutralize it if we try - and the scariness factor of nuclear waste makes us more likely to try.

Cold fusion, anyone?

[medicine-weasel.livejournal.com]

I noticed that you didn't mention geothermal. Its actually a very viable source of power and could be available in more places than you might think. Geothermal plants can also pretty much run themselves. There are some that just have a maintenance visit once a week or so.

I lived near Harrisburg, PA during the time of the 3 Mile Island accident. You could see the plant from my school, so I am more than a little biased. I have a lot of anectdotes about the after effects of that accident, but they are just that... anectdotes... no hard facts.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

The anecdotal evidence while something you dont want to ignore is also not something you want to base objective analysis on. How many times have we heard stories of everything from psychic phenomenon to alien abduction. You cant completely cast them asside but facts are the real measure.

That being said if you want at the bad you can look at Chernobyl. Even the name should have lead to people to think a little harder. Chernobyl is the Ukranian word for wormwood according to what I have read. If your up on biblical prophesy it is practically forshadowing. But with the literally thousands of deaths it is the real horrorshow of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. Luckily it is the extreme and mainly due to some realy stupid people. Overall nuclear power has been very safe.

Geothermal while legitimate power source has not been developed well and is also harder to have in some places than others. Worth exsploring but it is not there right now.

The real question though is would you advocate nuclear over coal burning?

[medicine-weasel.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to post anything anectdotal because of the likelyhood of getting blasted. However, despite what the official reports say, vets in the area will tell you about the sky-rocketed cases of luekemia in felines (who are more susceptable) and regular doctors talk about increases in cancer in the region. Unfortunately, one person's facts are another person's playthings. Numbers can easily be manipulated and evedince can be hidden. In the end, I know the fear and terror of what I personally went through has put firmly against nuclear power. Peronally, I don't think "coal or nuclear" is a fair argument. As has been discussed here, there are many alternative sources of power. And we should pursue those alternatives. The primary reason are currently avoiding alternative forms of energy are fuel is politics. A few people with a LOT of money have that money invested in coal and oil and they want to make as much as they can for as long as they can. There is a long list of serious problems with nuclear power, such as, what do other countries do? The U.S. has forbidden some countries from using nuclear power. What should they do? In the end, we have been given numerous possibilities for providing cheap and even free energy that does not leave behind toxic pollutants (see both coal and nuclear). Why not use them?

[tomdpimp.livejournal.com]

I agree that Nuclear is a good alternative. Personally I prefer mandates to increase production for solar and hydroelectric power. TVA is a fantastic model of using all options. We need more diversity in the power sources rather than put all of our power in one source. Eliminating coal must be gradual due to the impact on the coal mining industry. Federal mandates need to be issued to automakers as well to require all future cars be hybrids or biodiesel which would definitely weaken OPEC power.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

I agree a multi power framework is what I would like as well. personally I would like to see coal removed in entirety soon. it really is dirty power. The coal would still have a roll in manufacturing certain metals and other products so it would not be eliminated.

[yarha.livejournal.com]

Nuclear! It's clean! Fun! Mr. Fission is your friend! Happy heavy nuclei for a glowing and cooler tomorrow! Plus, if anything goes seriously FUBAR, we can become inhabitants of the moon, 'cause that's where it'll blow our asses!

A double victory. :)

Oh, it's probably best for the US. Of course, going nuclear won't stop global warming, because that's been building for some time. We'd better be building those reactors high above the flood-plain.

Yarha, You Can Do Anything with Bayonetes Nuclear Waste Barrels Except Sit on Them: Thomas Hardy

[technoir.livejournal.com]

it may not stop global warming but it could certainly cut down significantly on something that may make it worse. Also the plentiful and cheap power could have some other benefits.

[koepkeb.livejournal.com]

None of the above should be ruled out. There are places where solar is very effective (say..Phoenix, AZ), there are places where wind is effective (er...places on top of mountains or in narrow valleys, etc), same for geothermal and nuclear. Fossil fuels have their place, too. I'm for using nuclear as a default, but those others need to be considered on a case by case basis.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

oh yeah definately. I dont discount the others. I amjust looking for something we know could help right now on greenhouse gases.

[evangelos.livejournal.com]

I say go with nuclear for now, while continuing research into other forms of power. The concern about nuclear waste and nuclear accidents is valid, but it's not like we'd be using them forever. Build some nuclear power plants now, then shut them down in 30-50 years when something better (wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, some/all of these, or something else) comes along.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

agreed. Though i think in 50 years our exciting new power tech may be fusion.

[smiths-hammer.livejournal.com]

Nuclear FTW! Why? Because Startech (link below) now makes a machine that, if it works as promised!, can effectively handle the waste by blasting it into its submolecular bits and letting it recombine into an inert material.
http://www.startech.net/faqs.html
Cross your fingers that it will work as promised!

[technoir.livejournal.com]

there has been alot of research into similar lines since the 70's. It is doable.

[silverdawnatl.livejournal.com]

Bah I say!

You just want to advocate Nuclear power so you can get by a radioactive something and get super powers! Admit it!

In all honesty I am against Nuclear power as a main staple. Not for any enviromental reasons, but more for political ones. It's hypocritical for us to say we can have Nuke plants but other countries can't. When you ask why it basically comes down to "because we said so." For me this is not a vaild argument for international policy. If we are going to have a power grid based on Nuclear power we can't very well tell other countries that they can't explore the same options.
And there are other countries I REALLY don't want exploring that option. So if we are going to ban it elsewhere I think we need to start with ourselves.

But that's just me.

S~