Nuclear Power Poll #V

[Sentinel]

Time to restart this poll and thread again, in order to revive discussion and see if/how attitudes have changed over the last years. Feel free to continue any interrupted discussions from the last thread here.

See the previous polls here:

Poll #I (2004-2006) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-t26967/index.html)
Poll #II (2006-2008) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-against-t54002/index.html)
Poll #III (2008-2012) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-poweri-poll-t71075/index.html)
Poll #IV (2012-2015) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-poll-t176427/index.html)

The most recent poll, with a total of 225 voters, ended as follows:

Support 86 - 38.22%
Cautiously, limitedly support 66 - 29.33%
Oppose totally 54 - 24.00%
Uncertain 19 - 8.44%

[PhoenixAsh]

I am missing the option to expand the hamster population and have them run in wheels for our energy...again.... :glare:

Either way. I support Nuclear Energy with the following caveat: within a capitalist structure the profit motive makes this form of energy unsafe due to cuts and safety issues resulting from them. There is also a waste storage & transportation issue which I don't see solved for quite a while.

[Thirsty Crow]

Support with the exact same caveat quoted below
with the following caveat: within a capitalist structure the profit motive makes this form of energy unsafe due to cuts and safety issues resulting from them. There is also a waste storage & transportation issue which I don't see solved for quite a while.

[Sentinel]

Being free of the shackles of democratic centralism, unlike in the last poll, I'm suddenly no longer that uncertain! :lol:

But in all seriousness, I have become a more cautious supporter than I once was. I agree with the above posters, basically, but chose 'cautiously, limitedly'.

Unproperly monitored (and who can we trust to do that), privatised nuclear power is an enormous risk.

[Heretek]

Seems like a good thread, don't know why it died. Plus there's some new guys around, maybe they'll put in.

Anyways, support all the way. Socialism builds off of whatever capitalism manages to accomplish, and nuclear energy (referring mostly to fusion, but fission has its place) is a near limitless power supply and the most logical way to power high consumption industries, houses, and projects. One reactor can cover what dozens or hundreds, depending, of other sources cannot. Usually safer too, even more with the only interest of socialists being safety and energy. Hell, take a look at atomic rockets at project rho and there's another a reason I support it. For those who don't want to chance it, its one of the most appealing ways of space travel.

[Guardia Rossa]

Obviosly yes. It's the easiest and cheapest way to achieve mass energy production. Whether it is the ultimate system or not, I don't know, but we will have enough energy to build robots to build robots [sic] to build energy reactors (Perhaps a giant solar panel in the Moon? I've heard crazier ideas)

[VCrakeV]

Full support. Meltdowns aren't a problem if you're careful. The guys at Chernobyl decided to test the generator... Without carbon rods. When you make a bomb, you want all the uranium/plutonium atoms to split to create an explosion. It's a chain reaction starting with one atom. It's fast, hot, and dangerous. It was common knowledge by then that carbon rods were needed in a reactor to absorb some neutrons to keep things from overheating.

Anyway, I see a lot in the future for nuclear energy. It's way more efficient than chemical energy. Right now, we split Uranium for energy, and it gets us plutonium leftover. Plutonium is, as far as I know, mostly practical for bombs, so I'm not sure where it's all going. However, it could be used to kick-start thorium reactors. Considering we'd be re-using otherwise toxic waste to help a thorium reactor (thorium being much more common and safe), I don't see why we haven't started yet.

As for fusion... I know close to nothing about it. I'd like to pursue advances in it myself in a few years, after I have a solid education. As for now, all I can say is that creating a miniature star and harvesting its energy is certainly a wild card...

[Abdullah Tshabal]

I hope we achieve nuclear fusion power soon. Many times more energy without the radiation and meltdowns of current fission plants.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Light and wind energy all the way. It seems the pro-nuclear speak of an endless source of power, we already got an endless going nuclear reactor, the sun. The only problem with sun energy is that we can't save energy(yet) or transport it over long distances because of electrical resistance. The way to properly get energy is to invest in developing these two shortcomings, so we can create energy without having waste we can not get rid off and have to put into cement blocks in the sea or shit like that. But alas, maybe nuclear fusion is a better option because of less waste. You have to wonder if the development of the imperfect nuclear fusion is somehow better/faster than the development of solar panels and super-conductive cables. I don't see why one would pick nuclear.