Do we really need nuclear power?

[czar85]

With rising fuel costs, concerns about global warming and the growing demand from the developing world, the burning question is whether the world really needs nuclear power.

According to Peter Hodgson, a nuclear physicist, nuclear power is the most efficient and safe method of generating sufficient energy in terms of : capacity, cost, environment and reliability.

However, the horrific and often catastrophic side-effects of nuclear power (as in the case of Chernobyl Apr 26, 1986) cast a tremendous doubt on whether it is a safe form of energy. How safe when you say nuclear energy is safe?

There is also the possibility of nuclear misuse---nuclear waste and radioactive material being used in constructing atomic bomb. In the fall of 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union came as close as they ever would to global nuclear war (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962).

**The energy crisis will be inevitable.
**And there is always the fallability of human nature.

SO, WHAT DO YOU, AS A LEARNED AND CIVILISED OCCUPANT OF THIS PLANET, THINK? DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR THREAT IS essentially A WORLD DEVOID OF NUCLEAR POWER?

[czar85]

With rising fuel costs, concerns about global warming and the growing demand from the developing world, the burning question is whether the world really needs nuclear power.

According to Peter Hodgson, a nuclear physicist, nuclear power is the most efficient and safe method of generating sufficient energy in terms of : capacity, cost, environment and reliability.

However, the horrific and often catastrophic side-effects of nuclear power (as in the case of Chernobyl Apr 26, 1986) cast a tremendous doubt on whether it is a safe form of energy. How safe when you say nuclear energy is safe?

There is also the possibility of nuclear misuse---nuclear waste and radioactive material being used in constructing atomic bomb. In the fall of 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union came as close as they ever would to global nuclear war (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962).

**The energy crisis will be inevitable.
**And there is always the fallability of human nature.

SO, WHAT DO YOU, AS A LEARNED AND CIVILISED OCCUPANT OF THIS PLANET, THINK? DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR THREAT IS essentially A WORLD DEVOID OF NUCLEAR POWER?

[__earth]

<troll>the caps lock is reachable by your left hand pinky</troll>

[__earth]

<troll>the caps lock is reachable by your left hand pinky</troll>

[dinna_g]

SO, WHAT DO YOU, AS A LEARNED AND CIVILISED OCCUPANT OF THIS PLANET, THINK? DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR THREAT IS essentially A WORLD DEVOID OF NUCLEAR POWER?

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc. It is sad that most researches on nuclear is focusing on military purposes (at least in the US, if I'm not mistaken). However, we need to find an alternative of energy source since fossil fuels resources will be go for the next i'm-not-sure-how-long years.

Nuclear power can be effective. FYI, 70% of France's electricity is supplied by nuclear power and that shows how nuclear resources are used wisely. Of course, there's always pros and cons. And the most important but unresolve issue is always where do we throw away our nuclear waste.

IMO, the notion "A world without nuclear threat" means without nuclear bomb etc. If something can be put in use wisely, why not? I don't see any reason why we should be so anti-nuclear.

Cheers!

[dinna_g]

SO, WHAT DO YOU, AS A LEARNED AND CIVILISED OCCUPANT OF THIS PLANET, THINK? DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR THREAT IS essentially A WORLD DEVOID OF NUCLEAR POWER?

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc. It is sad that most researches on nuclear is focusing on military purposes (at least in the US, if I'm not mistaken). However, we need to find an alternative of energy source since fossil fuels resources will be go for the next i'm-not-sure-how-long years.

Nuclear power can be effective. FYI, 70% of France's electricity is supplied by nuclear power and that shows how nuclear resources are used wisely. Of course, there's always pros and cons. And the most important but unresolve issue is always where do we throw away our nuclear waste.

IMO, the notion "A world without nuclear threat" means without nuclear bomb etc. If something can be put in use wisely, why not? I don't see any reason why we should be so anti-nuclear.

Cheers!

[qedx]

ever played simcity? i try to steer away from nuclear power source coz when tornados, quakes or worse godzilla hits your city a whole area can be out for hundreds of years. and thats bad. i prefer low/no risk power sources like the microwave power plant.

[qedx]

ever played simcity? i try to steer away from nuclear power source coz when tornados, quakes or worse godzilla hits your city a whole area can be out for hundreds of years. and thats bad. i prefer low/no risk power sources like the microwave power plant.

[deekay]

The only obstacle to more widespread usage of nuclear power is the safety issue.

Otherwise, the world should use more nuclear power to save the limited resources that we have.

[deekay]

The only obstacle to more widespread usage of nuclear power is the safety issue.

Otherwise, the world should use more nuclear power to save the limited resources that we have.

[__earth]

The only obstacle to more widespread usage of nuclear power is the safety issue.

Otherwise, the world should use more nuclear power to save the limited resources that we have.

how about the environment?

[__earth]

The only obstacle to more widespread usage of nuclear power is the safety issue.

Otherwise, the world should use more nuclear power to save the limited resources that we have.

how about the environment?

[czar85]

"You, the Homo sapiens are not mammals. Every mammal will, in one way or another, lives and exists in equilibrium with its surrounding. In contrast, the human swiftly spread from one place to another, exponentially multiply their population, extensively exhaust all the resources until the surrounding environment becomes such barren that it no longer supports life. In this sense, human are precisely viruses, malignant virus to this planet of earth."


Quoted and modified from: Agent Smith


dinna_g wrote:

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc.

Can you see what's wrong now? i mean, we are practically threatening our very own survival by mishandling the world most dangerous resource: nuclear energy.

i agree with _earth, who replied how about the environment?


Say, we make the wise use of nuclear energy and are hoping that it will solve our energy crisis, which has relied heavily on fossil fuels.
But, it will never bring us any farther. In the end, when we are running low on uranium and plutonium, the same situation like fossil fuels will happen. Why? Becoz both are non-renewable energy.

i would like to propose that instead of spending billions of dollars on nuclear power plant and research (which is military research actually), we should concentrate on solar power, and by doing so all activities associated with nuclear should become pointless.

The strongest reason at all is why should we pursue nuclear power when we have been abundantly and "eternally" supplied with safe natural nuclear power: the sun?

Am i making a strong case against nuclear power?
But, hey everybody, why is it not depicted in the poll????

[czar85]

"You, the Homo sapiens are not mammals. Every mammal will, in one way or another, lives and exists in equilibrium with its surrounding. In contrast, the human swiftly spread from one place to another, exponentially multiply their population, extensively exhaust all the resources until the surrounding environment becomes such barren that it no longer supports life. In this sense, human are precisely viruses, malignant virus to this planet of earth."


Quoted and modified from: Agent Smith


dinna_g wrote:

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc.

Can you see what's wrong now? i mean, we are practically threatening our very own survival by mishandling the world most dangerous resource: nuclear energy.

i agree with _earth, who replied how about the environment?


Say, we make the wise use of nuclear energy and are hoping that it will solve our energy crisis, which has relied heavily on fossil fuels.
But, it will never bring us any farther. In the end, when we are running low on uranium and plutonium, the same situation like fossil fuels will happen. Why? Becoz both are non-renewable energy.

i would like to propose that instead of spending billions of dollars on nuclear power plant and research (which is military research actually), we should concentrate on solar power, and by doing so all activities associated with nuclear should become pointless.

The strongest reason at all is why should we pursue nuclear power when we have been abundantly and "eternally" supplied with safe natural nuclear power: the sun?

Am i making a strong case against nuclear power?
But, hey everybody, why is it not depicted in the poll????

[mpalanieppan]

I think almost everybody is of the opinion that nuclear power is not favorable, that no one is very enthusiastic about voting

Maybe the alternative sources of power, like solar, how feasible are those, how much of our current consumption of can those sources replace would be a better area of discussion.


Just my personal thoughts....


M.Palanieppan

[mpalanieppan]

I think almost everybody is of the opinion that nuclear power is not favorable, that no one is very enthusiastic about voting

Maybe the alternative sources of power, like solar, how feasible are those, how much of our current consumption of can those sources replace would be a better area of discussion.


Just my personal thoughts....


M.Palanieppan

[chiunlin]

If I'm not mistaken, a nuclear fusion program has just been approved and the mega project will be completed by the year 2015. Nuvlear fission may produce radioactive waste which is hazardous to the environment, but not nuclear fusion. Besides that, heavy water is abundant in the ocean and it will be a waste not to utilize them. Therefore, I believe that we should now concerntrate on the research in nuclear fusion and hopefully, it will be saviour in the upcoming energy crisis.

[chiunlin]

If I'm not mistaken, a nuclear fusion program has just been approved and the mega project will be completed by the year 2015. Nuvlear fission may produce radioactive waste which is hazardous to the environment, but not nuclear fusion. Besides that, heavy water is abundant in the ocean and it will be a waste not to utilize them. Therefore, I believe that we should now concerntrate on the research in nuclear fusion and hopefully, it will be saviour in the upcoming energy crisis.

[__earth]

I think almost everybody is of the opinion that nuclear power is not favorable, that no one is very enthusiastic about voting

But, hey everybody, why is it not depicted in the poll??

the question asked about all nuclear reseach and its application, not nuclear application in term of weapon specifically. so, in a way, based on your opinion, i would say that you had structured the question wrongly.

[__earth]

I think almost everybody is of the opinion that nuclear power is not favorable, that no one is very enthusiastic about voting

But, hey everybody, why is it not depicted in the poll??

the question asked about all nuclear reseach and its application, not nuclear application in term of weapon specifically. so, in a way, based on your opinion, i would say that you had structured the question wrongly.

[dinna_g]

Say, we make the wise use of nuclear energy and are hoping that it will solve our energy crisis, which has relied heavily on fossil fuels.
But, it will never bring us any farther. In the end, when we are running low on uranium and plutonium, the same situation like fossil fuels will happen. Why? Becoz both are non-renewable energy.
To be honest, I used to think the other way round until I listen to a talk about nuclear power plant recently, to be specific, on Thursday 3/11. Anyways, according to the talk, U and Pu sources are in large abundance and based on the statistical study that had been made, the source will always be available until the end of human's evolution. So that is why it is good for us to make use of the resources. There's a lot of them!

Can you see what's wrong now? i mean, we are practically threatening our very own survival [in the long term] by mishandling the world most dangerous resource: nuclear energy.

i agree with _earth, who replied how about the environment?
Threatening our survival, interesting point. Have you heard about safe ways to handle nuclear? If you do, then we should apply that method. It is not impossible to handle nuclear material; it is actually doable.

Regarding environment concerns, they actually have a method to store nuclear waste. From the talk I attended, they actually keep this waste in synthetic rock at this point and they are developing a method to permanently store this material because synthetic rock won't last forever. This is just a small part of the talk. If you're interested to know more, feel free to email me or whatever.

After attending the talk, I have more positive attitude towards nuclear except for of course, nuclear weapons. I'm actually disappointed that most nuclear research focuses on military purposes rather than in power production. One other concern that nuclear power is not largely used in the US is because the Americans are less environmental concious as compared to French. France is much more advance in nuclear power plant, I should say. It's a different kind of story.

Cheers!

[dinna_g]

Say, we make the wise use of nuclear energy and are hoping that it will solve our energy crisis, which has relied heavily on fossil fuels.
But, it will never bring us any farther. In the end, when we are running low on uranium and plutonium, the same situation like fossil fuels will happen. Why? Becoz both are non-renewable energy.
To be honest, I used to think the other way round until I listen to a talk about nuclear power plant recently, to be specific, on Thursday 3/11. Anyways, according to the talk, U and Pu sources are in large abundance and based on the statistical study that had been made, the source will always be available until the end of human's evolution. So that is why it is good for us to make use of the resources. There's a lot of them!

Can you see what's wrong now? i mean, we are practically threatening our very own survival [in the long term] by mishandling the world most dangerous resource: nuclear energy.

i agree with _earth, who replied how about the environment?
Threatening our survival, interesting point. Have you heard about safe ways to handle nuclear? If you do, then we should apply that method. It is not impossible to handle nuclear material; it is actually doable.

Regarding environment concerns, they actually have a method to store nuclear waste. From the talk I attended, they actually keep this waste in synthetic rock at this point and they are developing a method to permanently store this material because synthetic rock won't last forever. This is just a small part of the talk. If you're interested to know more, feel free to email me or whatever.

After attending the talk, I have more positive attitude towards nuclear except for of course, nuclear weapons. I'm actually disappointed that most nuclear research focuses on military purposes rather than in power production. One other concern that nuclear power is not largely used in the US is because the Americans are less environmental concious as compared to French. France is much more advance in nuclear power plant, I should say. It's a different kind of story.

Cheers!

[topdog]

remember, it's not NU-klear...it's NU-ki-ler, according to george w. bush.

yay! this is my 300th post.:D

[topdog]

remember, it's not NU-klear...it's NU-ki-ler, according to george w. bush.

yay! this is my 300th post.:D

[littlebigone]

Have there been many accidents that have happened while handling nuclear waste? Are the accidents easily controlled or does it get out of hand quick?

[littlebigone]

Have there been many accidents that have happened while handling nuclear waste? Are the accidents easily controlled or does it get out of hand quick?

[dinna_g]

Have there been many accidents that have happened while handling nuclear waste? Are the accidents easily controlled or does it get out of hand quick?

I don't know because they never mention this during the presentation. The presentation was about nuclear ceramics and not environmental issues, so they did not touch much on that. However, I think it is pretty safe, as the storage space is humungous and the idea of using synroc is so that these material absorb the radiation given out by the radioactive waste.

Cheers!

[dinna_g]

Have there been many accidents that have happened while handling nuclear waste? Are the accidents easily controlled or does it get out of hand quick?

I don't know because they never mention this during the presentation. The presentation was about nuclear ceramics and not environmental issues, so they did not touch much on that. However, I think it is pretty safe, as the storage space is humungous and the idea of using synroc is so that these material absorb the radiation given out by the radioactive waste.

Cheers!

[__earth]

that was what they say before savannah river in south carolina was contaminated.

im sure the new yucca mountains site will be as safe as savannah river site.

furthermore, though the wastes site might be equipped with the latest material, all wastes from plants all across the US need to be transports to a few wastes. And all we need for a contamination is a leak in the transporting lorry.

And when contamination occurs, human full life does not even match radioactive waste half life.

I'm not really against nuclear power plant simply because its a viable alternative to the polluting coal and oil power plant and less destructive than the hydro power plant in general (if meltdown/contamination doesnt occur that is).

But there are several other better options that provide energy through cleaner method without the risk of contamination and meltdown.

[__earth]

that was what they say before savannah river in south carolina was contaminated.

im sure the new yucca mountains site will be as safe as savannah river site.

furthermore, though the wastes site might be equipped with the latest material, all wastes from plants all across the US need to be transports to a few wastes. And all we need for a contamination is a leak in the transporting lorry.

And when contamination occurs, human full life does not even match radioactive waste half life.

I'm not really against nuclear power plant simply because its a viable alternative to the polluting coal and oil power plant and less destructive than the hydro power plant in general (if meltdown/contamination doesnt occur that is).

But there are several other better options that provide energy through cleaner method without the risk of contamination and meltdown.

[dinna_g]

But there are several other better options that provide energy through cleaner method without the risk of contamination and meltdown.
Yes, this is true. One method they're thinking of is SOFC (solid oxide fuel cell). I did mention this in one forum before (at least I think so). Siemens has already built two SOFC plants, one in the US and one in the Europe. However, the problem with SOFC right now is the interconnection between cells. The current technique is using platinum wires and as you know, they are extremely expensive.

I can only list one method, since you mention it, can you list the several others? I would be interested to know...

I'm not saying that nuclear is the only answer to power sources but I don't see any reason why we should be anti-nuclear when there is actually positive reasons to support the use of nuclear power plant.

Cheers!

[dinna_g]

But there are several other better options that provide energy through cleaner method without the risk of contamination and meltdown.
Yes, this is true. One method they're thinking of is SOFC (solid oxide fuel cell). I did mention this in one forum before (at least I think so). Siemens has already built two SOFC plants, one in the US and one in the Europe. However, the problem with SOFC right now is the interconnection between cells. The current technique is using platinum wires and as you know, they are extremely expensive.

I can only list one method, since you mention it, can you list the several others? I would be interested to know...

I'm not saying that nuclear is the only answer to power sources but I don't see any reason why we should be anti-nuclear when there is actually positive reasons to support the use of nuclear power plant.

Cheers!

[Thirdshifter]

I don't think the benefit of having cheap, clean power source like nuclear outweigh the risk of contimination.

If we are really for not rotting the air quality i say stop driving and take a hike.

[Thirdshifter]

I don't think the benefit of having cheap, clean power source like nuclear outweigh the risk of contimination.

If we are really for not rotting the air quality i say stop driving and take a hike.

[__earth]

other alternative is the renewable energy, especially solar and wind energy.

denmark is a leader in wind power. in fact, they are largely dependent on wind farms (though that might not be a good idea). scotland and iceland are shifting gears too.

of course right now, the renewable energy is not as cheap as the nuclear energy. But, when there is enough production, economies of scale would take effect, renewable energy would be as cheap as carbon based energy.

in fact, it has been said, in particular by Jeremy Leggett, a former professor at imperial college royal school of mines, that this century will be the solar century simply because of photovoltaic rising efficiency. with research done by many experts like anna dyson, it will be a matter of time before photovoltaic efficiency rises to 80%.

there are some other options like fuel cell. but seeing it still in the R&D stage, it will take some time before it will come into consideration.

and of course, the dream of all nuclear physicists - nulcear fusion. but it still needs to go a long way.

One other concern that nuclear power is not largely used in the US is because the Americans are less environmental concious as compared to French. France is much more advance in nuclear power plant, I should say. It's a different kind of story.

though i am confused by what you are trying to say, i think i got what you meant.

so, actually, though 75% of France electricity comes from nuclear power, the US is the largest producer of commercial nuclear power in the world.
and i dont think you could say the French are more environmental conscious nor could you say France is more advanced in nuclear technology based on France dependence on nuclear power.

be well noted, the world has 441 nuclear reactors. the US has 104. france has nearly 60.
despite the number, nuclear power counts merely 8% of the US total energy output. fyi, renewable provides another 6%. the rest are fossil fuel based.

I'm not saying that nuclear is the only answer to power sources but I don't see any reason why we should be anti-nuclear when there is actually positive reasons to support the use of nuclear power plant.

yes but we need to consider all other factors too. not just the benefit. if we just look at the benefits, heck, nuclear weapon does have it benefits too.

nuclear plants might be seemingly safe since we rarely hear about it in the news. Tell you what, last year, there was a near meltdown in Japan. the japanese govt managed to contain the area in time. it was reported in the news though i admit, i can't give you the link because i didnt save the link when i read it last year.
In europe last year, they had to shut down some nuclear power plants due to fear of possible meltdown due to the heatwave.
there are a few incidents too in various places.

in theory, nuclear plants are safe but accidents do occur from time to time and when accident happens, it is irreversible.

[__earth]

other alternative is the renewable energy, especially solar and wind energy.

denmark is a leader in wind power. in fact, they are largely dependent on wind farms (though that might not be a good idea). scotland and iceland are shifting gears too.

of course right now, the renewable energy is not as cheap as the nuclear energy. But, when there is enough production, economies of scale would take effect, renewable energy would be as cheap as carbon based energy.

in fact, it has been said, in particular by Jeremy Leggett, a former professor at imperial college royal school of mines, that this century will be the solar century simply because of photovoltaic rising efficiency. with research done by many experts like anna dyson, it will be a matter of time before photovoltaic efficiency rises to 80%.

there are some other options like fuel cell. but seeing it still in the R&D stage, it will take some time before it will come into consideration.

and of course, the dream of all nuclear physicists - nulcear fusion. but it still needs to go a long way.

One other concern that nuclear power is not largely used in the US is because the Americans are less environmental concious as compared to French. France is much more advance in nuclear power plant, I should say. It's a different kind of story.

though i am confused by what you are trying to say, i think i got what you meant.

so, actually, though 75% of France electricity comes from nuclear power, the US is the largest producer of commercial nuclear power in the world.
and i dont think you could say the French are more environmental conscious nor could you say France is more advanced in nuclear technology based on France dependence on nuclear power.

be well noted, the world has 441 nuclear reactors. the US has 104. france has nearly 60.
despite the number, nuclear power counts merely 8% of the US total energy output. fyi, renewable provides another 6%. the rest are fossil fuel based.

I'm not saying that nuclear is the only answer to power sources but I don't see any reason why we should be anti-nuclear when there is actually positive reasons to support the use of nuclear power plant.

yes but we need to consider all other factors too. not just the benefit. if we just look at the benefits, heck, nuclear weapon does have it benefits too.

nuclear plants might be seemingly safe since we rarely hear about it in the news. Tell you what, last year, there was a near meltdown in Japan. the japanese govt managed to contain the area in time. it was reported in the news though i admit, i can't give you the link because i didnt save the link when i read it last year.
In europe last year, they had to shut down some nuclear power plants due to fear of possible meltdown due to the heatwave.
there are a few incidents too in various places.

in theory, nuclear plants are safe but accidents do occur from time to time and when accident happens, it is irreversible.

[dinna_g]

nuclear plants might be seemingly safe since we rarely hear about it in the news. Tell you what, last year, there was a near meltdown in Japan. the japanese govt managed to contain the area in time. it was reported in the news though i admit, i can't give you the link because i didnt save the link when i read it last year.
In europe last year, they had to shut down some nuclear power plants due to fear of possible meltdown due to the heatwave.
there are a few incidents too in various places.

in theory, nuclear plants are safe but accidents do occur from time to time and when accident happens, it is irreversible.
good point! i guess i didn't do any research about nuclear accidents ;). don't worry about giving me the links, with the amount of schoolwork i'm having right now, i don't think would want to read all those extra stuff. hehe..

anyways, i'm curious, what kind of nuclear power plant is that? as far as i'm concern, the nuclear power plant in used in the states utilized nuclear oxide as the fuel i.e. UO2. The way it works is, each cell is independent of each other, so if there's any problem with one cell, it won't cause extremely huge radiation and they only need to fix that one particular cell. this type of nuclear power plant is supposedly will not cause the failure or breakdown of the entire plant.

cheers!

[dinna_g]

nuclear plants might be seemingly safe since we rarely hear about it in the news. Tell you what, last year, there was a near meltdown in Japan. the japanese govt managed to contain the area in time. it was reported in the news though i admit, i can't give you the link because i didnt save the link when i read it last year.
In europe last year, they had to shut down some nuclear power plants due to fear of possible meltdown due to the heatwave.
there are a few incidents too in various places.

in theory, nuclear plants are safe but accidents do occur from time to time and when accident happens, it is irreversible.
good point! i guess i didn't do any research about nuclear accidents ;). don't worry about giving me the links, with the amount of schoolwork i'm having right now, i don't think would want to read all those extra stuff. hehe..

anyways, i'm curious, what kind of nuclear power plant is that? as far as i'm concern, the nuclear power plant in used in the states utilized nuclear oxide as the fuel i.e. UO2. The way it works is, each cell is independent of each other, so if there's any problem with one cell, it won't cause extremely huge radiation and they only need to fix that one particular cell. this type of nuclear power plant is supposedly will not cause the failure or breakdown of the entire plant.

cheers!

[littlebigone]

not sure if this is entirely right, but I read that nuclear plants have a very short lifespan and after that, the core needs to be replaced or the plant be shut down.

If the core is replaced, the used core needs to be stored somewhere safe and current measures are not too accident proof.

Anyway, is the core that is being talked about the same thing as nuclear waste?

[littlebigone]

not sure if this is entirely right, but I read that nuclear plants have a very short lifespan and after that, the core needs to be replaced or the plant be shut down.

If the core is replaced, the used core needs to be stored somewhere safe and current measures are not too accident proof.

Anyway, is the core that is being talked about the same thing as nuclear waste?

[czar85]

dinna_g wrote:
there's any problem with one cell, it won't cause extremely huge radiation and they only need to fix that one particular cell. this type of nuclear power plant is supposedly will not cause the failure or breakdown of the entire plant.

So, are u suggesting that we can take risk on matter regarding the life and death of civilian population? It won?t cause extremely huge radiation, but there is still the leakage of radioactive material.

Besides, why should we spend times and money on improving the technology of storing these highly dangerous nuclear waste when we can instead channel these money into renewable energy research? Bear in mind that nuclear energy is and never meant to be renewable. How long will it last? It is certainly absurd to think that the sun will burn out before the shortage of uranium and plutonium occurs.

i must say that nuclear power is not the solution to our present day energy crisis. Not only does it not prevent global warming (caused by fossil-fuel generator), but it creates another environmental problem: the radioactive waste. In fact, as what __earth: human full life does not even match radioactive waste half life; the radioactive waste may eventually find its way into the environment, the plants, the animals and finally, yes, human.

All of the world's future energy demands could, in theory, be met by solar devices occupying about 1% of the land now used for crops and pasture. [Dennis Anderson, Physics World June,2001]

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

[czar85]

dinna_g wrote:
there's any problem with one cell, it won't cause extremely huge radiation and they only need to fix that one particular cell. this type of nuclear power plant is supposedly will not cause the failure or breakdown of the entire plant.

So, are u suggesting that we can take risk on matter regarding the life and death of civilian population? It won?t cause extremely huge radiation, but there is still the leakage of radioactive material.

Besides, why should we spend times and money on improving the technology of storing these highly dangerous nuclear waste when we can instead channel these money into renewable energy research? Bear in mind that nuclear energy is and never meant to be renewable. How long will it last? It is certainly absurd to think that the sun will burn out before the shortage of uranium and plutonium occurs.

i must say that nuclear power is not the solution to our present day energy crisis. Not only does it not prevent global warming (caused by fossil-fuel generator), but it creates another environmental problem: the radioactive waste. In fact, as what __earth: human full life does not even match radioactive waste half life; the radioactive waste may eventually find its way into the environment, the plants, the animals and finally, yes, human.

All of the world's future energy demands could, in theory, be met by solar devices occupying about 1% of the land now used for crops and pasture. [Dennis Anderson, Physics World June,2001]

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

[Thirdshifter]

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

The next ice age could begin any day.
Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when. One day you'll wake up -- or you won't wake up, rather -- buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years.

. . . And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago . . . www.iceagenow.com/

I think nuclear research might help. We always need 2 plans.

[Thirdshifter]

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

The next ice age could begin any day.
Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when. One day you'll wake up -- or you won't wake up, rather -- buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years.

. . . And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago . . . www.iceagenow.com/

I think nuclear research might help. We always need 2 plans.

[dinna_g]

So, are u suggesting that we can take risk on matter regarding the life and death of civilian population? It won?t cause extremely huge radiation, but there is still the leakage of radioactive material.

Dude, relax.. What I meant by extremely huge radiation is radiation that will spread to the population. The radiation just going to be in the plant itself. I'm just explaining how the system works. If the total number of cell is 1000, one broken cell is small radiation compare to the entire system. Leakage of radioactive material should be under control and the cells aren't place in a simple brick building. It is much more complicated than that. It's not like a Hiroshima bomb. I'm not saying that it is extremely safe either. But when one cell is faulty, the workers in the plant can fix just that one cell. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if all nuclear power plant work this way, there shouldn't be the break down of an entire plant.

[dinna_g]

So, are u suggesting that we can take risk on matter regarding the life and death of civilian population? It won?t cause extremely huge radiation, but there is still the leakage of radioactive material.

Dude, relax.. What I meant by extremely huge radiation is radiation that will spread to the population. The radiation just going to be in the plant itself. I'm just explaining how the system works. If the total number of cell is 1000, one broken cell is small radiation compare to the entire system. Leakage of radioactive material should be under control and the cells aren't place in a simple brick building. It is much more complicated than that. It's not like a Hiroshima bomb. I'm not saying that it is extremely safe either. But when one cell is faulty, the workers in the plant can fix just that one cell. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if all nuclear power plant work this way, there shouldn't be the break down of an entire plant.

[dinna_g]

I notice that my ayat is sort of tonggang-langgang. Let me rephrase: One cell will not cause extremely huge radiation.

One cell will not cause the same radiation caused by the entire power plant. The radiation should not spread to the entire population because it is small plus the building of the plant itself protects radiation from coming out.

does that makes sense? I know I'm doing a really bad job on this. It's really hard to explain.

[dinna_g]

I notice that my ayat is sort of tonggang-langgang. Let me rephrase: One cell will not cause extremely huge radiation.

One cell will not cause the same radiation caused by the entire power plant. The radiation should not spread to the entire population because it is small plus the building of the plant itself protects radiation from coming out.

does that makes sense? I know I'm doing a really bad job on this. It's really hard to explain.

[hungwei]

Actually, the question should be "Is nuclear power safe?". It actually makes no difference from your question if you ask "Do we need solar energy?". Of course we need power!

[hungwei]

Actually, the question should be "Is nuclear power safe?". It actually makes no difference from your question if you ask "Do we need solar energy?". Of course we need power!

[__earth]

Besides, why should we spend times and money on improving the technology of storing these highly dangerous nuclear waste when we can instead channel these money into renewable energy research?

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

Though I would love to see more money spent on renewable energy, I don't think rechanneling nuclear research money to renewable is a good thing to do.

This is because only through research will nuclear energy be made safer. No progress will be made when no research is done. And we need positive progress (ie better technology) in order to save the environment.

imagine if somebody found the secret to nuclear fusion. wouldn't that solve a lot of environmental as well as economic problems?

anyways, i'm curious, what kind of nuclear power plant is that?

i dont know. I'm pretty much uninterested in its technical readout but i do know its not the water based reactor thing used in chernobyl.

[__earth]

Besides, why should we spend times and money on improving the technology of storing these highly dangerous nuclear waste when we can instead channel these money into renewable energy research?

Of course, there is no denying that more improvement has to be made on photocell to make solar power more efficient and economical. But, my point is why not use the money spent on nuclear research?

Though I would love to see more money spent on renewable energy, I don't think rechanneling nuclear research money to renewable is a good thing to do.

This is because only through research will nuclear energy be made safer. No progress will be made when no research is done. And we need positive progress (ie better technology) in order to save the environment.

imagine if somebody found the secret to nuclear fusion. wouldn't that solve a lot of environmental as well as economic problems?

anyways, i'm curious, what kind of nuclear power plant is that?

i dont know. I'm pretty much uninterested in its technical readout but i do know its not the water based reactor thing used in chernobyl.

[PeiWen]

dinna_g wrote:

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc.

yeah, i agree with you dinna_g....I mean it's perfectly fine and encouraging if we want to do research, explore in nuclear technology, however it's definitely irrational to misuse it without any serious considerations from all perspectives. We have seen the damage and the pain created when the US used the nuclear bombs in World War II. The repercussions even affected the generation now in Japan. Not only the destructive damage to the landscape, buildings, but also the radiation emitted from nuclear bombs can be harmful to living things.

[PeiWen]

dinna_g wrote:

IMHO, nothing's wrong in exploting the world resources. What's wrong is when you misuse the resources i.e. make nuclear bombs etc.

yeah, i agree with you dinna_g....I mean it's perfectly fine and encouraging if we want to do research, explore in nuclear technology, however it's definitely irrational to misuse it without any serious considerations from all perspectives. We have seen the damage and the pain created when the US used the nuclear bombs in World War II. The repercussions even affected the generation now in Japan. Not only the destructive damage to the landscape, buildings, but also the radiation emitted from nuclear bombs can be harmful to living things.

[czar85]

the question should be "Is nuclear power safe?". It actually makes no difference from your question if you ask "Do we need solar energy?". Of course we need power!

i would like to clarify about this minor confusion---
There is a vast different between an adjective and a noun. In terms of semantic, "do we need solar power?" bears a different meaning altogether from "do we need power?"

The former ask whether we must have specifically solar energy
while the latter ask generally do we need energy?

Such different question will produce the following logical conclusion: we can have energy without having solar energy.

Applying the same analysis, "do we need nuclear power" implies that there are other viable alternatives to generate power or electricity. In other words, the whole sentence should be interpreted like this: whether we must have nuclear power when we have other sources that are (say) more enverinmental friendly, efficient and safer.

Nonetheless, the question "is nuclear power safe?" is also a good issue to debate on, however, the scope will be limited only to those aspects concerning health and public safety.

thanks for your unexpected feedback!!! :D
[/i]

[czar85]

the question should be "Is nuclear power safe?". It actually makes no difference from your question if you ask "Do we need solar energy?". Of course we need power!

i would like to clarify about this minor confusion---
There is a vast different between an adjective and a noun. In terms of semantic, "do we need solar power?" bears a different meaning altogether from "do we need power?"

The former ask whether we must have specifically solar energy
while the latter ask generally do we need energy?

Such different question will produce the following logical conclusion: we can have energy without having solar energy.

Applying the same analysis, "do we need nuclear power" implies that there are other viable alternatives to generate power or electricity. In other words, the whole sentence should be interpreted like this: whether we must have nuclear power when we have other sources that are (say) more enverinmental friendly, efficient and safer.

Nonetheless, the question "is nuclear power safe?" is also a good issue to debate on, however, the scope will be limited only to those aspects concerning health and public safety.

thanks for your unexpected feedback!!! :D
[/i]

[Panda]

Hi

Personally, I think that nuclear power is very essential in our society. Although there might be some shortcoming, we still need that. This is because nuclear power is very efficient and produce a lot of power compare to other method of producing power.

If nuclear power is use for destruction, then I oppose to it. Anything else that will benifit human, I will support.

:D

[Panda]

Hi

Personally, I think that nuclear power is very essential in our society. Although there might be some shortcoming, we still need that. This is because nuclear power is very efficient and produce a lot of power compare to other method of producing power.

If nuclear power is use for destruction, then I oppose to it. Anything else that will benifit human, I will support.

:D