Nuclear Fission?

[The Children of the Revolution]

OK, here's another one for you...

What do you (in general, this is not specific) think about Nuclear Power?

This is the Nuclear Power which is used worldwide already - not Fusion which has yet to be comercially developed. Again, I shall list the pros and cons. (Feel free to point out any errors I may make)

FOR
> Low greenhouse gas emissions
> Large output for small input (fuel wise) - i.e. more efficient
> Sustainable in the long term (large reserves of fuel; U-235, U-238 etc.)

AGAINST
> Very toxic by-products produced which "hang around" for millenia.
> Danger of meltdown (Chernobyl)
> Potential for abuse - atomic weapons and suchlike.
> Health concerns?

Many countries have embraced Nuclear Power as the way forwards. France recieves 75% of its power from Nuclear sources. But should it be encouraged or held back? Comrades?

[truthaddict11]

i think currently it is the best source of reliable energy availible we should use it

[Iepilei]

should half-assed capitalists not penny-pinch when it comes to the PROPER disposal of it's waste.

[Jesus Christ]

i think that more natural ways of producing energy should be researched more heavily

[Iepilei]

COLD FUSION BABY. h34r:

I dunno. Advances in solar collecting technology might prove to work out to our benefit. The most abundant source of energy on this planet isn't even on this planet, after all.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I agree, LiberAL, in fact these natural methods are already available but can't compete with the ultra-low petrol prices. Too bad your government ensures that the petrol prices will remain low, forcing out the renewables. I have commented many times on this.

As for the proper disposal of radioactive materials, what do you believe is the best way? I think now they want to just bury the stuff inside some poor mountain. Or even better, they want to make bombs and tank armor out of it and send it to other countries. Then we can claim to fight against chemical and nuclear warfare when we are in fact fighting WITH it.

[The Children of the Revolution]

As for the proper disposal of radioactive materials, what do you believe is the best way? I think now they want to just bury the stuff inside some poor mountain. Or even better, they want to make bombs and tank armor out of it and send it to other countries. Then we can claim to fight against chemical and nuclear warfare when we are in fact fighting WITH it.

Then we can claim to fight against chemical and nuclear warfare when we are in fact fighting WITH it.

I agree. (The Uranium Tipped Shells for example, there was a thread on them a while back I think...)

what do you believe is the best way?

Hmmm, very tricky. (I know you weren't asking me but i'll give my answer anyhow...) The comment about capitalists "penny-pinching" when it comes to the issue of disposal is very apt; the cheapest way is usually NOT the best... The waste is incredibly toxic, and is a long-term problem. The "half-life" of some radioactive waste can be in the millions of years - this potential threat has to be dealt with safely. I believe the best method concerning waste is to bury it in special underground facilities with an appropriate amount of lead shielding.

I do, however, support the idea of Nuclear (Fission) Power with an increasing emphasis on natural alternatives. Excessive burning of fossil fuels cannot continue. As you [Mr. Mojo] said though, "[the] government ensures that the petrol prices will remain low". This is very true. On the positive side though, this will not continue indefinitely - prices are bound to rise as the supply dwindles. But research should be continued, stepped up in fact, to ensure that when this shortage arises we are not left to suffer.

By the way, Mr Mojo, did you realise that your initials spell "MMR"? "Measles, Mumps and Rubella"? Only wondering...

[Mr Mojo Risin]

nope, I hadn't realized that until now. I'm wondering, though, do any of you (Besides Rastafari) know where this name comes from, that is, who first used it as a title?

[truthaddict11]

Jim Morrison?

[crazy comie]

i agrre with nuclear power for now

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I think fission is horrible and unnecessary.

Fission produces nuclear waste, which will be hazardous to life for millions of years. This waste is ideal material to make nuclear weapons with. The nuclear power plant industry has been a cover for WMD production in the U.S. since the 1950s. Fission has always been incredibly expensive. The plants have only stayed in business with huge government subsidies (corporate welfare).

We have no good reason to stick to fusion when we have wind power and solar... solid sources of energy already in existence. Geothermal power should also be further advanced.

[crazy comie]

Wind power also damedges the enviroment by destroying sea birds habbitats. They also have along forseeable future.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

You make a reasonable point for being a "crazy" comie...

Perhaps we should not use wind turbines in bird migration paths, etc... I know they are a good idea here in Nebraska. Just because wind power is bad in some areas does not mean it cannot be good in others.

Unlike nuclear fission, which will always be harmful and potentially dangerous wherever it is used.

[Soviet power supreme]

We should use fission plants for now but we must develop solar power.

Wind mills are too inefficient and so we mustn't build them.

We should develop space rocketry and with that we could transport current nuclear waste to moon,mars etc,etc.

> Health concerns?

What do you mean by this?The radiation after meltdown?

[The Children of the Revolution]

By health concerns, I meant potential leakage; either of waste or from the plant itself.

Do tell us, Mr Mojo Risin', who was it that used the name first?
It is an interesting name, and not a bad one...

Wind mills are too inefficient and so we mustn't build them.

I agree, though we shouldn't exclude them entirely... There are many issues relating to wind turbines; the one about bird migration is new to me ( :P ), but they are a real eyesore - a blotch on the landscape.

I favour the continued use of Nuclear Fission because the waste CAN be dealt with. Yes, it will be around for millenia, but we'll have blown ourselves up by then so it doesn't matter. And fission bombs will always be made regardless of whether or not nuclear power is around - I don't see this as an argument for the restriction of its use.

Another good idea is hydro-electric power stations; these can be situated miles out to sea or built in conjunction with dams or reservoirs. We must be careful to consider the environmental impact of these schemes though, they often go awry.

I agree MiN, Geothermal power should also be developed. Believe it or not, George W. Bush&#39;s house utilises Geothermal power to great effect - I was reading about it in Michael Moore&#39;s "Stupid White Men". Apparently it is the most ecologically correct house in the world&#33; (But it would have to be for what it no doubt cost... <_< )

[Soviet power supreme]

Is geothermal power effective?I don&#39;t know but there aren&#39;t much places where we could use it.

Developing geothermal to be used in oceans?I don&#39;t think so.It may be too expensive.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

sps,

Flying rockets full of radioactive waste out of orbit sounds awfully risky to me. What if something happens to the rocket? There is a lot of stress on objects trying to pull out of our planet&#39;s orbit. If there was a flaw in the rocket, or it was attacked by a terrorist, we would have nuclear waste raining down on our heads. It makes me nervous to think about it.

I should say that I am not talking about windmills, but about more modern turbine technology. I have not heard complaints about these turbines being that inefficient. Even if they were, such technologies are constantly being improved. And the wind is going to keep blowing, whether we harness it or not. If the turbines do not capture enough wind, then maybe we just need a few more turbines to make up the difference.

TCotR,

Wind turbines are an "eyesore"? Do you find the cooling towers of a nuclear plant attractive?

I am not sure hydroelectric dams are a good investment. I understand that they need a lot of maintenance, and they are a tremendous disturbance to the environment around them.

[crazy comie]

I was just making a point as lots of ex pro renewables are now anti in england becuse of that effect.
Yes i do support solar power and i&#39;m in favour of hydro power but the thing wich will be ussfull will be nuclear power as it would provide inof power you could put them in isolated areas away from mases of pepole.

[Soviet power supreme]

Well I didn&#39;t mean that we send that waste to moon tomorrow.

I am not sure hydroelectric dams are a good investment. I understand that they need a lot of maintenance, and they are a tremendous disturbance to the environment around them.

Yep. In China millions of peoples had to move when they start to build their dams.Dams aren&#39;t good energy resource.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I did mention that environmental impacts should be avoided at all costs...

But hydroelectric power from out at sea - nothing wrong with this. It simply absorbs some energy from your average run-of-the-mill waves. Which is fairly harmless...

Wind turbines are an "eyesore"? Do you find the cooling towers of a nuclear plant attractive?

No, I don&#39;t. But they are only built above ground on open sites because of cost factors. They could easily be built underground and the waste gasses released elsewhere. "Wind farms" need, by their very nature, to be situated high up where there is the most wind - they will therefore be an eyesore however efficient or aerodynamic they are...

Another option, which should be embraced worldwide, is energy saving. The U&#036; currently accounts for 25% of the world energy budget - and only 4% of the worlds population. Energy saving devices reduce energy consumption by something like 33% in developed countries. These devices should be compulsory&#33; But, of course, they cost MONEY...