PDA

View Full Version : Do you support nuclear energy?




terlinguatx
11-12-2007, 09:12 PM
...

purepaloma
11-12-2007, 09:13 PM
Absolutely !

Adamsa
11-12-2007, 09:14 PM
If global warming needs to be combatted, I can't see it being done without nuclear energy.

son of liberty
11-12-2007, 09:14 PM
Nanotech solar cells if we can wait 15 years!

Mandrik
11-12-2007, 09:15 PM
Abso-freakin-lutely. Especially fusion research, but I'm not opposed to more fission reactors (and my mom was pregnant during TMI scare, and we live in York, Pa).

hopeforamerica
11-12-2007, 09:18 PM
Everyone needs to understand that our oil supply has peaked or will peak very soon. The End of Oil is near and we need to do something now!

http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618562117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0300230-3780071?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194923892&sr=8-1

Furis
11-12-2007, 09:20 PM
I'm all for nuclear energy. It is far cleaner and cheaper than coal and gas power plants.

terlinguatx
11-12-2007, 09:21 PM
...

Highmesa
11-12-2007, 09:22 PM
If you are talking to enviros, tell them that if we used as much nuclear as France, we would already meet the Kyoto treaty protocols.

They can't have it both ways. If we are going to reduce CO2 emissions the way the enviros want, we HAVE to go nuclear.

skiingff
11-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Everyone needs to understand that our oil supply has peaked or will peak very soon. The End of Oil is near and we need to do something now!

http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618562117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0300230-3780071?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194923892&sr=8-1

Um, the end of oil will never be near ;)

Supply and demand.

If the supply of oil starts to become limited... and demand stays high.... that means extremely high gas prices.

Extremely high gas prices = people start buying cheaper alternative fuels (yes, we already have them, such as natural gas, E-85, etc)

Duckman
11-12-2007, 09:27 PM
If global warming needs to be combatted, I can't see it being done without nuclear energy.

Yes, other "solutions" to global warming and peak oil are not really feasible IMO. Perhaps in the future, but we need a solution now. Ethanol is a bad idea all the way around.

With nuclear power and electric cars we could reduce greenhouse gas by ALOT.

Nuclear is also safer than it was in the 1970's and 1980's. There is a new technology that involves ceramic-coated uranium pellets instead of control rods. The ceramic coating won't melt even if the uranium inside does, preventing "meltdown" type accidents.

I personally think its rediculous that we can't agree on a mountain to place the nuclear waste inside. Letting it sit where it is, where it was not supposed to be for long periods, seems the worst idea.

Bryan
11-12-2007, 09:27 PM
My position doesn't fit the choices. I would not use money to fund nuclear energy but I wouldn't try to impose my will on others. There are issues with nuclear energy that I don't like-- like what to do with the waste that lasts for centuries. Currently we call it "depleted uranium"- you know where it ends up. :(

conner_condor
11-12-2007, 09:27 PM
Everyone needs to understand that our oil supply has peaked or will peak very soon. The End of Oil is near and we need to do something now!

http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618562117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0300230-3780071?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194923892&sr=8-1

A man was murdered because he made an engine run on water. Skip to the 2:40 mark of this video below if you want.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

BillyBeer
11-12-2007, 09:30 PM
The only problem with nuclear energy is nuclear waste that we have to deal with for hundreds of thousands of years.

I would like to hear Ron Paul discuss the nuclear waste issue and Yucca Mountain. It might get him votes in NV!

BillyBeer
11-12-2007, 09:31 PM
I personally think its rediculous that we can't agree on a mountain to place the nuclear waste inside. Letting it sit where it is, where it was not supposed to be for long periods, seems the worst idea.

Therein lies the problem. Would YOU want to live close to that mountain full of nuclear waste (Yucca is not too far from Vegas).

kill the banks
11-12-2007, 09:39 PM
research thorium alternative ... frankly , money talks here and new technology should make nuclear obsolete in a better less greed world

kill the banks

winston_blade
11-12-2007, 09:41 PM
Fer Sure.

conner_condor
11-12-2007, 09:45 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92194168790800

anotherone
11-12-2007, 09:45 PM
I'd love to buy one of these cars
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/honda/honda-fcx-concept-ar3091.html

Honda's really close to manufacturing a hydrogen powered car. I think a great way to produce hydrogen would be through nuclear power plants. There's already several hydrogen filling stations in my city in California. I would love to see this effort continued.

axiomata
11-12-2007, 09:49 PM
Check out Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307266567)


"Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Niels Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, 'the gradual removal of prejudice.' By 'prejudice,' Bohr meant belief unsupported by evidence."
--Pulitzer Prize-winner Richard Rhodes, author of the introduction to Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
--Marie Curie

My book is fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information.

I used to oppose nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy. A large percentage of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, that thaw Arctic ice and glaciers comes from making electricity, and we rely upon it every second of our lives.

There are three ways to provide large-scale electricity—the kind that reliably meets the demands of our civilization around the clock. In the United States:

* 75% of that baseload electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels, mainly coal, and emit carbon dioxide. Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills 24,000 Americans annually.
* 5% comes from hydroelectric plants.
* Less than 1% comes from wind and solar power.
* 20% comes from nuclear plants that use low-enriched uranium as fuel, burn nothing, and emit virtually no CO2. In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public.

When I began my research eight years ago, I'd assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we don't. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they can't provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup--usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a huge impact on public health.

My tour of the nuclear world began with a chance question I asked of Dr. D. Richard ("Rip") Anderson. He and his wife Marcia Fernández work tirelessly to preserve open land, clean air, and the aquifer in the Rio Grande Valley. Rip, a skeptically-minded chemist, oceanographer, and expert on nuclear environmental health and safety, told me that the historical record shows that nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and more environmentally friendly than any other form of large-scale electricity production. I was surprised to learn that:

* Nuclear power emits no gases because it does not burn anything; it provides 73% of America's clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an immense amount of energy.
* Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide that would contribute to accelerated global warming.
* A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.
* Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football field; it amounts to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it hazardous to health. We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually--they contain toxic heavy metals.
* Nuclear power's carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.
* Nuclear plants offer a clean alternative to fossil-fuel plants. In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a year.

I wanted to know if what Rip was telling me was true. He took me on a tour of the nuclear world so that I could learn firsthand its risks and benefits. I visited many facilities, talked to many scientists in different disciplines, and researched the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences and various international scientific bodies. As I learned more, I became persuaded that the safety culture that prevails at U.S. nuclear plants and the laws of physics make them a safe and important tool for addressing global warming. Clearly many of my beliefs had originated in misinformation and fear-mongering.

I've now met many people dedicated to saving the environment while supporting nuclear power as well as other green resources. This path is only logical. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, non-greenhouse-gas emitting electricity source that can be considerably expanded while maintaining only a small environmental footprint. If as a society we're going to reduce those emissions, we'll need every resource to do so, and we'll have to set aside our ideological blinkers, look at the facts, and unite to meet the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

The power to change our world does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunlight. It lies within each of us.

--Gwyneth Cravens

work2win
11-12-2007, 10:06 PM
Not nuclear, but of interest in the energy area.

You hear of a lot of far-out ideas or technology that won't be mature for a while, but here's one technology I read about that could be implemented today. I wonder where it is at, and why we haven't seen anything yet.

It's called the six stroke engine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke)

What it does, is reclaim much of the energy lost in an internal combustion engine through waste heat. It does this simply by adding a water-injection cycle (steam stroke) after the combustion and exhaust cycle. Claims are 40% increase in efficiency, no cooling system required, and less emissions due to cooler combustion temps. Low tech, high concept.

inibo
11-12-2007, 10:15 PM
I think it is something a free market should decide. I some entrepreneurs think they can build and operate nuclear power plant WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES let 'em have at it. Personally, I don't think it can be done.

Arkris
11-12-2007, 10:27 PM
I agree that nuclear power is necessary and should be under less control of the government, but certain safeguards are absolutely necessary that would protect the surrounding area in the case of a meltdown.

I've lived Simi Valley, CA for nearly my entire life and have never heard about the Sodium Nuclear Reactor accident untill I stumbled upon this documentary, which is very disturbing. The Atomic Energy Comission and government control over the information released regarding nuclear accidents is absolutely ridiculous! If a private company was discovered either operating without proper safeguards or covering up what happened, then they'd be up to their eyeballs in lawsuits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHmaEs5cYU

Duckman
11-12-2007, 10:43 PM
Therein lies the problem. Would YOU want to live close to that mountain full of nuclear waste (Yucca is not too far from Vegas).

Yes, except I don't want to live in Nevada. Too dry.

I really, really doubt that nuclear waste placed inside any mountain chamber could ever cause much in the way of detriment to anyone, and certainly much less than leaving it where it is. Just make sure the material can't escape into the air. It only takes a few feet of mountain rock to totally block all gamma rays.

nexus7
11-12-2007, 11:13 PM
No, it pollutes the ground too much.

terlinguatx
11-12-2007, 11:31 PM
...

terlinguatx
11-12-2007, 11:33 PM
...

terlinguatx
11-12-2007, 11:36 PM
...

nexus7
11-12-2007, 11:59 PM
No it doesn't, what can low dosages of radition (sunlight is also radiation) do to rock a mile below the earth or inside of a hermetically sealed salt mine.

Where I used to live, we had our ground water polluted with it. They had to shut it down. Thank the gods.

You should also take a look at what can happen if a section of a reactor melts. Like in Belorus. It's not pretty.

Ron Paul Fan
11-13-2007, 12:14 AM
Without a doubt. Environment schmenvironment. We need energy to function!

dmspilot00
11-13-2007, 12:20 AM
I think it is something a free market should decide. I some entrepreneurs think they can build and operate nuclear power plant WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES let 'em have at it. Personally, I don't think it can be done.

This is exactly right. I've researched this for an environmental econ class I took. Nuclear energy only exists because of massive government subsidies. Nuclear energy as we know it would never have come about in a free market, because it's cost prohibitive. Therefore, I don't understand why free market supporters would support it.

People who support Nuclear always talk about France. As if France was the ultimate country that we should be looking up to (these same people critice France for not supporting the war, so I don't get them, but that's another story). If we're going to talk about European countries, though, I might as well bring up Germany which has promised to phase out all its nuclear power plants completely within the next decade.

Anyway, here are some of the ways we subsidize nuclear: 1) Because of the Price Anderson Act, the Nuclear Industry is exempt from having insurance or having to pay for accident cleanup. This means the government has to pay for it 100 percent. 2) We subsidize the construction of the plants themsleves (I am not sure how much, but it is not insignificant). 3) The government (DoE) has taken over the responsibility for all the waste generated by the Nuclear Industry. So we also pay for that 100 percent. This is waste that will remain dangerous and toxic for thousands of years. It is inconceivable how much this will cost taxpayers.

And what about States rights? Is it fair to Nevada to force a waste repository on them, when they don't want it, and Nevada has no nuclear plants of its own?

The way I see it, nuclear energy only exists in this country thanks to perverse central economic planning.

chipvogel
11-13-2007, 12:27 AM
Governor Schwarzenegger to research Revolutionary Radiation Free Fusion Reactor (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html)

Radiation Free Fusion Reactor.....makes we want to start a technology party
Political solutions only go so far; pragmatically speaking technology really does set people free.

McDermit
11-13-2007, 03:10 AM
I live within the 10 minute zone of a nuclear plant, and it freaks me out at times. If the sirens sound, I have 10 mins to get to the other side of the mountain. I used to get panic attacks when I was alone in the house without a car. Lolz

Not a fan. I'll take my cancer causing coal any day.

framecut
11-13-2007, 03:28 AM
Just curious what the ron paul demographic thinks.

I'm totally for it. Nuclear all the way.

lucius
11-13-2007, 03:31 AM
It depends on who you are spreading it on...apply limited nuclear energy before lavishing/slothing in more of that Democracy tm. glorious days for the empire...

ps. [for energy, hell no, too toxic for monkeys to handle]

Man from La Mancha
11-13-2007, 03:36 AM
This is exactly right. I've researched this for an environmental econ class I took. Nuclear energy only exists because of massive government subsidies. Nuclear energy as we know it would never have come about in a free market, because it's cost prohibitive. Therefore, I don't understand why free market supporters would support it.

People who support Nuclear always talk about France. As if France was the ultimate country that we should be looking up to (these same people critice France for not supporting the war, so I don't get them, but that's another story). If we're going to talk about European countries, though, I might as well bring up Germany which has promised to phase out all its nuclear power plants completely within the next decade.

Anyway, here are some of the ways we subsidize nuclear: 1) Because of the Price Anderson Act, the Nuclear Industry is exempt from having insurance or having to pay for accident cleanup. This means the government has to pay for it 100 percent. 2) We subsidize the construction of the plants themsleves (I am not sure how much, but it is not insignificant). 3) The government (DoE) has taken over the responsibility for all the waste generated by the Nuclear Industry. So we also pay for that 100 percent. This is waste that will remain dangerous and toxic for thousands of years. It is inconceivable how much this will cost taxpayers.

And what about States rights? Is it fair to Nevada to force a waste repository on them, when they don't want it, and Nevada has no nuclear plants of its own?

The way I see it, nuclear energy only exists in this country thanks to perverse central economic planning.Outstanding rebutal. Nuclear cannot exsist without subsidies, end of story. Let the free maket decide.

.

nexus7
11-13-2007, 03:49 AM
Solar cells/panels on houses or even mini solar panels are starting to become a bit more common and I think it's only a matter of time before most people run their homes energy with them. They keep getting smaller, so pretty soon I think the technology will get them to be even smaller and more efficient. I'd say in about 5 years. Then there is smart house designing as well.

Electric cars will be the way to go for transport. Once those companies like Tesla or another company get their prices down, it will be a rush to buy them.

I've already seen some hi-tech portable cd players/boom boxes that have mini solar arrays or panels to power them. Wind up flashlights and radios are also quite popular.

freelance
11-13-2007, 03:56 AM
I don't know enough about the dangers vs. the benefits to make an intelligent decision.

Malakai0
11-13-2007, 04:47 AM
Yes I do, and have long before I ever knew who Ron Paul was.

If you live near a polluting power plant you would understand.

tfelice
11-13-2007, 05:50 AM
I also support drilling for oil here in the US, building refineries and an increase in the use of coal.

Matt Collins
11-13-2007, 01:15 PM
Yes.... as long as the government isn't running it.

constituent
11-13-2007, 01:24 PM
if they didn't have to destroy our water to get the fuel, i reckon it would be alright...

but until they figure that out, no. they have no right to violate my rights, or anyone
else's regardless of how well-meaning their cause, how beneficial it could be to their
pocketbooks.


THE POWER GRID IS THE EPITOME OF WELFARE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!

pcosmar
11-13-2007, 01:41 PM
Yes I am, for several reasons.
Solar is nice, but it won't heat my home. If I had a hundred collectors they could not keep my home warm in the winter. Solar is nice to run a fridge and a few lights, but not a factory. It can not power my tractors to work my farm. Nor will wind power, though it does have it's uses, and should be increased.
Nuclear energy has been a clean stable source of power, but it can be improved.
Place generating plants offshore. Use the power to produce both Hydrogen and distiled water, Cali and Florida have Water shortages. This is a viable option. Hydrogen can be stored,shiped, and used for fuel in homes, cars, trucks and planes.
Nuclear Waste is the biggest drawback, an option that is (almost) never heard is to launch it into space. Sent toward the Sun, it will be disposed of with no harmful effects.

Man from La Mancha
11-13-2007, 01:57 PM
Ocean has all the power we need. Temperature gradient, tide and wave movement and underwater currents can all be harnessed. Some will even produce clean water. Nuclear cannot compete with this.

.

pcosmar
11-13-2007, 02:21 PM
Ocean has all the power we need. Temperature gradient, tide and wave movement and underwater currents can all be harnessed. Some will even produce clean water. Nuclear cannot compete with this.

.

That is an option that could be explored. I have seen tide generators, Fine for a small house, but could not run a shop.
We Have a Hydroelectric Plant in Sault Sainte Marie. It could power the Upper Peninsula, but we have a low population(mostly rural) and NO manufacturing.
There are many ways that we all can save and even produce power.
But to produce enough power for large cities and manufacturing centers will take more than that.
Electric power has limits and losses(pushing long distance), Transportation will need other options.

Man from La Mancha
11-13-2007, 03:55 PM
That is an option that could be explored. I have seen tide generators, Fine for a small house, but could not run a shop.
We Have a Hydroelectric Plant in Sault Sainte Marie. It could power the Upper Peninsula, but we have a low population(mostly rural) and NO manufacturing.
There are many ways that we all can save and even produce power.
But to produce enough power for large cities and manufacturing centers will take more than that.
Electric power has limits and losses(pushing long distance), Transportation will need other options. There is a lot more you don't know. Please check the dozens of ways that that huge cities could use this power...http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Ocean_Wave_Energy


Depending on the contracting party the company ends up attracting, their first full prototype could be of a size anywhere between 10 and 100 megawatts output. A shore-based plant would be of the 10 MW range, while the 100 MW plant would be a plant-ship....http://pesn.com/2006/01/04/9600218_Sea_Solar_Power/

A very positive side benefit of the process is the production of copious amounts of potable water. Millions of gallons a day from a 10 MW plant, costing 50 million to build.... 100MW for just one ship, what if ships are mass propduced?

.

pcosmar
11-13-2007, 04:55 PM
There is a lot more you don't know. Please check the dozens of ways that that huge cities could use this power..
I agree that there is some potential.
However, some of these are theoretical. That is UN proved, UNtested and with the ship highly fanciful.

Ocean Energy Potential (http://www.energybusinessreports.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=294&affillink=NEC) - Ocean energy is mostly in an experimental stage but some of its component technologies have the potential to become mainstream energy sources and are now being trialed.
They are worth exploring but not ready to be put into practice as yet.
Hydrogen on the other hand is clean and proven and unlimited.

CelestialRender
11-13-2007, 05:30 PM
I'm all for whatever works. I think nuclear seems to be one of the better options, but the market could decide a whole helluva lot better than I can.