Nuclear Power - A waste all around

[praxis1966]

Apparently there's quite a few senators who think that we not only need more nuclear power plants, but that we should pay for their construction. Sen. Pete Domenici has proposed legislation to this effect, and I thought that everyone here might like to know about it.

Read more (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/25/we_435_01.html)

[Iepilei]

it's times like this when I wish the Soviet Union still existed. Atleast while it was around, the US tried to research alternative energy sources.

[kadamangudy]

Nuclear power isnt as terrible as it is made out to be. Fossil Fuel plants are much worse (especially coal) because they release pollutants directly into the atmosphere. These pollutants cause numerous environmental problems. A properly run Nuclear plant does produce a far deadlier waste, but if stored correctly it poses no risk to the environment becuase it is entirely contained. The only thing that is released into the environment is steam.
A properly run Nuclear Power Plant is much better than a properly run coal plant.
Obviously, there are even better sources of power like solar and wind. However, Hydroelectric dams are NOT environmentally safe.

[praxis1966]

Actually Kad, we have enough coal stored in the United States to power the entire country for the next 500 years. Not only that, but I heard the other day on NPR that we have the technology to make scrubbers that would render the emissions relatively harmless.

Anyway, arguments about waste disposal aside, I could argue against this measure because the kilowatt hour cost of nuclear power is exhorbitantly high when compared to thermodynamic and hydroelectric power. Not to mention solar and wind generators which trump this entire argument. They are, after all, the least environmentally impactual of all energy sources. And personally, I think that the costs of solar energy equipment are artificially inflated to reduce competition with other less clean sources of energy.

Furthermore, not only are the kilowatt hours more expensive than other forms of energy, but this idiot Domenici wants to institute 50% subsidies (totalling between $14 and $16 billion) for their construction. This money is going to come out of our pockets, my friend. Consequently, we're going to end up paying for this garbage twice.

[MJM]

Nuclear power has always been heavily subsidised. The whole "clean coal" thing is a farce. Coal is one of the worst global warming causing fuels, the clean coal process doesn't effect this. It takes the sulphur and other chemicals out of the emissions but not the carbon dioxide.


Of course wind or solar is the best bet, denmark and gemany are leading the way on this front I believe.

[kadamangudy]

The last few posts have agreed that wind and solar are our best options, but we disagree on wether or not coal is better than Nuclear. If we agree on what is best, why must we argue over what is 2nd best?
As for Hydroelectric, it may be cheaper but it is devasting to the environment. It stops aquatic life from migrating, prevents silt from being carried to regions after the dam among other things. Perhaps the most alarming fact is the fact the the Colorado River rarely reaches the sea anymore

[The Feral Underclass]

Indeed Denmark is leading the way on wind power. I am living in Denmark at the moment and there are windmills everywhere you go. They have just esgined a windmill which is twice the size as the ones they have now and can produce ten times more electricity.

At the moment the windmills provide only 2% of Denmarks electricity, but that is still considerbale considering that there is NO nuclear power plant inside Denmark. It is just not allowed.

Also, in the UK the are developing a new systen of wave power. Putting huge things out in the north sea so waves can produce electricity. Granted coal may be hazadous to the enviroment, but I also think Nuclear power plants have the potentional to be, well, nuclear and I think it is time now that government start to seriously look to new alternatives, as they are in Denmark.

[Moskitto]

To produce the same amount of electricity as 1 nuclear powerstation you need a windfarm the size of Birmingham. Wind is in essence a waste of space as a large scale energy source.
Solar panel manufacture is an extremely polluting industry, far more so than nuclear.
Coal, Oil and Gas won't last forever and are extremely polluting.
Radioactivity released by nuclear power stations is actually relatively low in comparison with background.
Hydroelectric is inefficient, but is the only powersource which can respond to peaks and troughs in demand. They are also generally built in mountainous areas where there is no natural habitat anyway.

The best options are fuel cells, biomass, tidal and nuclear fusion technologies

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from kadamangudy on 9:33 pm on June 24, 2003
Nuclear power isnt as terrible as it is made out to be. Fossil Fuel plants are much worse (especially coal) because they release pollutants directly into the atmosphere. These pollutants cause numerous environmental problems. A properly run Nuclear plant does produce a far deadlier waste, but if stored correctly it poses no risk to the environment becuase it is entirely contained. The only thing that is released into the environment is steam.
A properly run Nuclear Power Plant is much better than a properly run coal plant.
Obviously, there are even better sources of power like solar and wind. However, Hydroelectric dams are NOT environmentally safe.


Your information is false, Nuclear is considerably worse than fossil fuels. Radioactive particals are directly released into the atmosphere instead of Green house gasses, so instead of increased climatic hazards we would increase radiation dammages, etc.

Also if a Nuclear plant has a mealt down chenoval (sp) being an example the enviromental dammage is devistating.

You then come to the issue of radioactive waste, what do you do with that? Considering that some of it has a half life of thousands of years. Place it in the sea, and kill the fishes etc? Removing a major element of the global food chain? Bury it, consider how impractical that is!

In short there are no energy source which are more dammaging enviromentaly than Nuclear power.

In my personnal opinion wind is a waste of time, it is inefficiant and reliant on constant wind speeds. The same applys for solar energy sources.

The only viable alternatives are Geothermal and hydro electric (including wave). Hyroelectric being highly efficent compaired to current fossil fuels. The Hoover Dam is extreamly efficent and powers several large citys including Las Vegas alone. It does however have some short term enviromental dammages for obvious reasons. However nothing on the scale of Nuclear and fossil energy sources. Wave power is reletivly expensive and inefficent, it does however have few enviromental costs. Geothermal, highly efficent if your willing to dig that far down or move to a volcanic Zone... Not to mention the expence involved.

No energy source is perfect, but nuclear and Fossil fuels are the worst.

[kadamangudy]

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progres...uclear-faq.html (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html)

[Moskitto]

Hydroelectric isn't that efficient, more electricity is used pumping the water to the top of a hydroelectric system than is generated, however it does have the advantage of being an instant source of power. A system such as the hoover dam is a lot more efficient, however not everywhere has suitable terrain for that.

Geothermal is an excellent energy source, Iceland is currently running their whole island on geothermic energy, however not everywhere has access to geothermal energy.

Tidal is a very viable option, as are biofuels.