Were the fuck is the disscusion on nuclear power to eliminate pollution from fossil fuels? I mean it's sitting right there but everyone is fucking blind to it! I just don't get why we arn't building reactors. I mean we have made serious advancements in that area.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How come no Canidate is discussing this? (nuclear power)
Nuclear waste. It takes eons for it to decay, And if we went solely nuclear where would we bury it?
Cuz liberals do not like nukes.
It was talked about a lot during Australia's recent election race. Rather than being seen as a Green energy solution, it was seen as a risk of potential Chernobyl disaster. The possible sites for such a nuclear plant were not revealed, because who would want a reactor in their suburb?
I would've like to have seen the technology used, in a safe and issolated area, but the result looks like other sources of Green energy will be pursued.
I would've like to have seen the technology used, in a safe and issolated area, but the result looks like other sources of Green energy will be pursued.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-02-06 21:11:53)
Nobody wants another Chernobyl.
I know that we've probably got much safer precautions here in the states, ESPECIALLY after chernobyl and how it taught us how seriously fucked up a city could get from a meltdown, but Nuclear Power Plants generally have a negative connotation associated with them.
I know that we've probably got much safer precautions here in the states, ESPECIALLY after chernobyl and how it taught us how seriously fucked up a city could get from a meltdown, but Nuclear Power Plants generally have a negative connotation associated with them.
In Yucca Mountain.David.P wrote:
Nuclear waste. It takes eons for it to decay, And if we went solely nuclear where would we bury it?
usmarine wrote:
Cuz liberals do not like nukes.
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
Certain types of reactors can transmute the waste to last ~100 years. That is manageable.David.P wrote:
Nuclear waste. It takes eons for it to decay, And if we went solely nuclear where would we bury it?
An example of two radioactive isotopes that can be transmuted into less hazardous forms are technetium-99 and iodine-129. Both of these isotopes are very long-lived and require disposal strategies that will isolate them from the environment for long periods of time. Both iodine and technetium are considered difficult to isolate because they dissolve readily in groundwater and move easily throughout the ecosystem. Irradiation of the long-lived technetium-99 isotope by neutrons will cause it to absorb a neutron and become technetium-100, which undergoes complete radioactive decay into stable ruthenium within minutes. Similarly, the iodine-129 isotope can be transformed by neutron absorption into stable xenon isotopes.
Another class of radioactive wastes that can be transmuted into less hazardous forms are the actinide elements, particularly the isotopes of plutonium, neptunium, americium, and curium. When irradiated with neutrons in a nuclear reactor, these isotopes can be made to undergo nuclear fission, destroying the original actinide isotope and producing a spectrum of radioactive and nonradioactive fission products. Isotopes of plutonium and other actinides tend to be long-lived with half-lives of many thousands of years, whereas radioactive fission products tend to be shorter-lived (most with half-lives of 30 years or less). From a waste management viewpoint, transmutation of actinides eliminates a long-term radioactive hazard while producing a shorter-term radioactive hazard instead.
Do some more research before you make these claims. Nuclear power is both safe and clean, and the dangerous radioactive elements can be transmuted into shorter-lived waste.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
Solar panels will be an option when we can eliminate night time, bad weather, and increase the efficiency far beyond today's levels. Besides, the processes required in the manufacture the high-purity silicon needed for solar cells outweighs any pollution savings.
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
It's usually lead shielding against the radiation. The concrete wouldn't do much.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
Actually i heard they were working on a way to lower down the time it takes nuclear waste to decompose even faster using but what else radiation.
Learn about how reactors work, and what is done with the waste. Maybe 50 years ago, nuclear waste disposal was a daunting task, but it isn't anymore. People just don't understand the process.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
Really? Why don't you explain it to me then.SenorToenails wrote:
Learn about how reactors work, and what is done with the waste. Maybe 50 years ago, nuclear waste disposal was a daunting task, but it isn't anymore. People just don't understand the process.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.
go look up fast breeder reactors, the next generation of nuclear plants will not leave tons of fissile garbage lying around. An the half-lives of most reactor wastes are on the order of days, not centuries, the time estimates are really unnecessary precautions at best, any isotope with a half life of 10,000 years would be considered semi-stable, only slightly more radioactive than a stable atom.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Due to the 3 mile island accident and the Chernobyl meltdown, few Americans are willing to trust something so volatile. I don't like fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear power as it currently exists. Nuclear waste disposal is a huge taks. The worst part is, it isn't really disposal. Nuclear waste sites have to be heavily guarded and will have to be heavily guarded forever. Nuclear waste will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Many people arn't willing to handle that kind of responsibility. Even long after America and every other nation ceases to exist, our radioactuve waste will still be there. Isn't that mind boggling? Scary? Nuclear energy is not clean. I think we should be building solar panels and wind generators.
As for solar, I probably get sun less than 100 days a year, and wind generators barely cover their own production costs over their life span.
Nuclear is the future.
I'd like to see some proof(citation) of how clean it is before I put my trust in nuclear energy.S.Lythberg wrote:
go look up fast breeder reactors, the next generation of nuclear plants will not leave tons of fissile garbage lying around. An the half-lives of most reactor wastes are on the order of days, not centuries, the time estimates are really unnecessary precautions at best, any isotope with a half life of 10,000 years would be considered semi-stable, only slightly more radioactive than a stable atom.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?S.Lythberg wrote:
Not clean? thousands of tons of radioactive carbon-14, Radon, Phosphorus, and Potassium isotopes are released into the atmosphere from coal plants every year, while nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside.
As for solar, I probably get sun less than 100 days a year, and wind generators barely cover their own production costs over their life span.
Nuclear is the future.
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I'd like to see some proof(citation) of how clean it is before I put my trust in nuclear energy.S.Lythberg wrote:
go look up fast breeder reactors, the next generation of nuclear plants will not leave tons of fissile garbage lying around. An the half-lives of most reactor wastes are on the order of days, not centuries, the time estimates are really unnecessary precautions at best, any isotope with a half life of 10,000 years would be considered semi-stable, only slightly more radioactive than a stable atom.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It still doesn't make it clean. It is slightly less dirty, but not clean. Solar and wind power is clean. You say that, "nuclear power plants have been repeatedly proven to have nearly the same background radiation as the outside" . Well, that is with 10 feet of steel, hugh strength plastics, and who knows how many feet of concrete. How is that nuclear waste facility going to be in 1000 years? What about 10,000 years?
As for solar, I probably get sun less than 100 days a year, and wind generators barely cover their own production costs over their life span.
Nuclear is the future.
Thorium reactorsNot only is Thorium far more abundant than uranium, reactors powered by it would not run the risk of meltdowns, and would produce little radioactive waste. Equally important these days, Thorium is not suitable for the production of weapons grade radioactive material.
Fast Breeder Reactors6000 gigawatts from liquid-fluoride thorium reactors will consume about 6000 tonnes of thorium per year, or about 1/10th as much thorium as uranium required to produce the same amount of energy
The fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor.
Out of curiosity, are there any FBRs thorium reactors in service (or plans for them)?
Last edited by cowami (2008-02-06 21:48:30)
In France, And India is currently constructing a prototype.cowami wrote:
Out of curiosity, are there any FBRs in service (or plans for them)?
Hippies shot down the American plan before it started, because it had the word "nuclear" in it...
You take your dangerous waste, like Tc-99 (half-life 211 thousand years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), and bombard it with neutrons.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Really? Why don't you explain it to me then.
Tc-99 + neutron -> Tc-100 -> Half-life of 16 seconds -> Rh-100 + beta particle
I-129 + neutron -> I-130 -> Half-life of 12 hours -> Xe-130 + beta particle
Each of these nuclei has a cross section sufficiently large enough to reliably capture neutrons, and those are the two most environmentally dangerous isotopes.
I support increased funding for the development and research of nuclear energy, but I am not going to trust something until it has been thoroughly researched and tested.S.Lythberg wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I'd like to see some proof(citation) of how clean it is before I put my trust in nuclear energy.S.Lythberg wrote:
go look up fast breeder reactors, the next generation of nuclear plants will not leave tons of fissile garbage lying around. An the half-lives of most reactor wastes are on the order of days, not centuries, the time estimates are really unnecessary precautions at best, any isotope with a half life of 10,000 years would be considered semi-stable, only slightly more radioactive than a stable atom.
As for solar, I probably get sun less than 100 days a year, and wind generators barely cover their own production costs over their life span.
Nuclear is the future.Thorium reactorsNot only is Thorium far more abundant than uranium, reactors powered by it would not run the risk of meltdowns, and would produce little radioactive waste. Equally important these days, Thorium is not suitable for the production of weapons grade radioactive material.Fast Breeder Reactors6000 gigawatts from liquid-fluoride thorium reactors will consume about 6000 tonnes of thorium per year, or about 1/10th as much thorium as uranium required to produce the same amount of energyThe fast breeder or fast breeder reactor (FBR) is a fast neutron reactor designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. The FBR is one possible type of breeder reactor.
Why don't you actually think and find out what people believe, instead of making up their beliefs for them?usmarine wrote:
Cuz liberals do not like nukes.
I personally have no problem with nuclear power. We have several million square miles of desert in the middle of Australia. Use it.
Last edited by Spark (2008-02-06 21:54:53)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well name a dem that mentioned it?Spark wrote:
Why don't you actually think and find out what people believe, instead of making up their beliefs for them?usmarine wrote:
Cuz liberals do not like nukes.
I personally have no problem with nuclear power. We have several million swaure miles of desert in the middle of Australia. Use it.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How come no Canidate is discussing this? (nuclear power)