I believe the "pros" of Nuclear Energy outweighs the "cons"

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by rdean, Apr 14, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,006
    Thanks Received:
    6,876
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,870
    Of course I have much more "faith" in science than the occult.

    I believe the problems of nuclear waste can be overcome. Right wingers underestimate the waste problem. In spite of that, I believe it can be solved.

    All of the nuclear disasters turned out to be human error, even Japan. Built in the wrong place which is why the Japanese placed a 30 ft wall in front of it. The giant waves turned out to be 30 ft tall, but the earth quake caused the wall to drop 10 feet for hundreds of miles.

    There is more nuclear waste than what right wingers on this board let on. Sure, France has a small facility in France, but they send the bulk of their waste to Siberia. Even Germany sends 1,500 tons a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years that 15,000 tons of nuclear material that will stay dangerous for a million years, if not longer. And OH, YEA, those Siberians are SOOO "safe".

    --------------------------------

    But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

    The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.

    Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

    [​IMG]

    -------------------------------------------------

    Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

    A Labor Shortage for U.S. Nuclear Plants - Businessweek

    -----------------------------------------------

    http://www.new.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps29.pdf

    ---------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately, nuclear engineering and nuclear power plants are come under the authority of the government. Something Republicans want to shrink so small they can drown it in a bathtub. It's also part of "infrastructure". Something Republicans will never support. Can only be built by engineers and scientists, people Republicans feel are elitist, over educated and "Education is for snobs". Which means the only people who will be able to build these facilities are "immigrants", people they will never accept.

    Once I pointed out that government inspectors at nuclear power plants need to be either an engineer or scientist. A right winger on this very board ask, "Why? As long as they have a check list?" If that were the criteria, then perhaps a kitchen inspector is "good enough"?
     
  2. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    Wow was this out of your last harry potter book you read? Seriously you libs need to come back to reality. Anytime would be great.
     
  3. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,104
    Thanks Received:
    9,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,387
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    a Nuclear Power-plant is a "giant appliance"; designing Reactors that can be "un-plugged" in emergencies "ought" to be possible, e.g. "put a load-of-bricks on the control-rods, if power is cut, they jam home" ("gravity will always 'let you down', so employ 'guaranteeds' in the fail-safe").

    in the short-term, if NG is truly cheaper, then NG is economically superior (at present); can "flared gas" be captured instead? physically, Nuclear is millions of times more energy-efficient-per-mass, presumably superior for (futuristic) space applications
     
  5. Conny
    Offline

    Conny Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    Pro
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    It strikes me as a truly terrible idea to build nuclear power plants on earthquake prone land.
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,859
    Deany, it's your Batman Villain-like hatred for Republicans that makes you write your insanely funny posts.

    Leftists EnviroMarxists (the guys on your side) are against nuclear energy
     
  8. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Waste disposal is only one of the problems with nuclear power. More serious IMO in terms of environmental protection, public health, and public safety is the potential for meltdown. That meltdowns so far have been the result of human error is not reassuring; human error is a given and, sufficient time allowed, the worst consequences of human error will occur (which is also why we should do away with nuclear weapons, although that's a different topic).

    There are also economic problems with nuclear power. It's a very expensive form of energy production compared (at this point) to fossil fuels and also compared to renewable energy. Long lead times go into construction of a nuclear plant and high initial capital costs, make it a strongly centralized form of power subject to central control, unlike solar or wind which tends towards decentralization.

    There are only two good things that can be said about nuclear power, really: it's abundant and it's non-greenhouse. Unless we have no other choice, which isn't the case, we really shouldn't go there.
     
  9. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    Your part of the problem... Nuclear energy is a far better choice for energy production.

    Im not even going to try to debate it... you guys are a waste of energy
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,859
    If the US Armed Forces let the EnviroMarsists have their way, we'd be with a Navy.

    Thanks to the EM 'sNuclear reactors now cost 10 times what they used to.
     

Share This Page