BF2S Forums Nuclear Power

ATG wrote:

I think it needs to be abolished.

Pollution from mining and processing the fuel, failure in safe storage of the mass amounts of waste product and where the ore is located all lead me to this decision.

Wind, solar, wave power, geo-thermal and new stuff like hydrogen and cold fusion need to be the answer.

Most uranium deposits in America.     are located on tribal lands, so they will be forcibly moved again sooner or later. It is also the most heavily subsidized industry in our country.

I know you live in California where you have nice easy access to all the things you described but up here in the Northeast it doesn't fly. We don't have geothermal, it snows in the winter so solar sucks, wind would be viable but it can't be used on a big enough scale here to replace our fossil fuel usage. As for the pipe dreams of cold fusion (lol) and hydrogen... Let's talk about them when they're a reality. It's called not counting your chickens before their hatched. Nuclear is a reality and viable. Who gives a fuck about the tribes? Toss them money for booze.

Pandora's box has been opened.  It is too late.

Cybargs wrote:

ATG wrote:

I think it needs to be abolished.

Pollution from mining and processing the fuel, failure in safe storage of the mass amounts of waste product and where the ore is located all lead me to this decision.

Wind, solar, wave power, geo-thermal and new stuff like hydrogen and cold fusion need to be the answer.

Most uranium deposits in America.     are located on tribal lands, so they will be forcibly moved again sooner or later. It is also the most heavily subsidized industry in our country.

ATG wtf... I don't know how to say this but, seriously wtf have you been smoking lately.

yeah France is a completely irradiated wasteland, even more so than Chernobyl

their children all have major mutations

Nuclear is evil!!

edit: Chernobyl wasn't necessarily "too big", it was just poorly designed

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-10-22 12:39:18)

Nuclear is currently the only scalable clean energy source. While it is true, Nuclear fuel is not infinite, it will last us longer than fossil fuels, and is much less polluting. There are other, perhaps better forms of energy, but nuclear is one of the best we have available. Nuclear power is the most heavily regulated industry in the United States and as such the worst incident of a nuclear plant's failure, Three-Mile-Island, resulted in no direct deaths and all suspected illnesses were related to TMI by quite a stretch.

While storage is an issue, I believe nuclear should be a transitional energy source, that we can use until renewable sources are more scalable. Not the best source possible, but the best we can do at the moment.

nuclear is the only option, and the US has the technology, and the natural resources, and its feasible. Alternative energy is a good supplement when its available. IMO it would be great if every house should be outfitted with some solar and some wind generators.

IMO they should ban the burning of coal, did you know that burning coal spreads more radiation that nuclear plants because you are burning rock where naturally occuring radioactive material is present. One prfoessor a long time ago in a Hazmat class talked about how there were radiation detectors located around a particular nuclear plant to catch leaks from the nuclear plant BUT the detectors kept picking up the presence of radiation because of polution from a near by coal fired generator.

Hate coal, love nuclear. Like I've posted before, for the money that was handed out the wall street financial crooks, we could have built 100 nuclear plants, imagine the benefit of that weighed against those pitiful "Goldman" sachs jobs and their "Goddam" ridiculous bonuses.

California is going back to tents and campfires... So nukes aren't an issue...

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Nuclear is becoming cleaner, safer, more refined.

So far as I am aware it has become a much safer industry, it seems to share the same problems as any other (relatively) new and unresearched technology in that it takes decades of research to get it to a high level of safety and efficiency. I believe nuclear to be a very good short to medium term solution to the energy problem so long as the plants are fairly small and highly regulated. There are in fact two nuclear plants near me, one was badly controlled (Sellafield) and one is well controlled and maintained (Heysham). One is known throughout Britain, the other is not known at all to anyone outside of the area it provides power for.

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

where would you put the nuclear waste?
discussed this in math class today lol

q: where would you put the fossil fuel waste?

a: the ozone

olololol

Too risky. Rocket blows up in the air and oops! Radiation all over us.


Burying it deep inside mountains is the best idea, at least according to my environmental engineer professor last year.

mtb0minime wrote:

Too risky. Rocket blows up in the air and oops! Radiation all over us.


Burying it deep inside mountains is the best idea, at least according to my environmental engineer professor last year.

Well. I imagine they would launch over the ocean.. probably east coast.. to use the earths gravity to escape our atmosphere.

mtb0minime wrote:

And then there's radiation-proof guidance chips to worry about...

But that can be handled.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Dad is an EE for Boeing and, last I checked, is working on guidance chips for nuclear missiles that could withstand the radiation and blast so that they could be recovered and used again

Because, hell, sorting through ground zero of a nuclear blast to find a microchip only to realise it doesn't work any more is a real nuisance.