Nuclear Power

[Temerit]

In light of the recent incident in Japan and the ensuing media hysteria, are you for or against the pursuit of nuclear power?

 

[DrLeftover]

Oh, we have to be against it.



There is no way anybody can be for anything that ever puts anybody at risk.

 

[Evil Eye]

Well... there're some rather big downsides... On the whole it's fairly safe and efficient though.

More viable solutions would be nice though :/

There is no way anybody can be for anything that ever puts anybody at risk.

As long as it's personal...

 

[DrLeftover]

Overall, NONE of the green options can approach the proven reliability and generation capacity of the more traditional means of making electricity- those being coal/oil/gas/nuclear power plants, and good old fashioned hydro-electric.



Yeah, wind and solar and ocean tides and hamsters in cages are great, but if the sun doesn't shine, and the wind don't blow, and so on....



That, and geo-thermal seems to still be a ... here comes the pun.... Pipe Dream.

 

[Evil Eye]

Obviously. Though I'd say the tides are fairly reliable. And the wind blows, just not in a very useful manner half the time. Solar is only at 1/4th efficiency and fairly useless that way. I thought geothermal worked for some countries though?

 

[Temerit]

The fact is nuclear power is extremely safe and is getting better all the time. Gen IV reactors which could be built commercially by 2040 will produce waste that takes decades rather than millenia to decay, will produce 100-300 times the energy from the same amount of fuel, and will be dramatically safer. The way nuclear plants are being designed currently, there is essentially zero risk of a meltdown or chance for a radioactive catastrophe.



Hydro-electric screws with ecosystems :/ Take the Colorado River for example.



Wind and Solar and Turbines in water where ocean currents are strong etc are great, and should be pursued as well.



But nuclear is the obvious choice for a baseline source of power. Especially because there is still dramatic room for improvement.



All the reactors that we have had problems with (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima and others) have been Gen I reactors built over forty years ago. They are nowhere near as safe as new reactors (I believe current reactors are Gen III).

 

[Corleone]

The fact is nuclear power is extremely safe and is getting better all the time. Gen IV reactors which could be built commercially by 2040 will produce waste that takes decades rather than millenia to decay, will produce 100-300 times the energy from the same amount of fuel, and will be dramatically safer. The way nuclear plants are being designed currently, there is essentially zero risk of a meltdown or chance for a radioactive catastrophe.



Hydro-electric screws with ecosystems :/ Take the Colorado River for example.



Wind and Solar and Turbines in water where ocean currents are strong etc are great, and should be pursued as well.



But nuclear is the obvious choice for a baseline source of power. Especially because there is still dramatic room for improvement.



All the reactors that we have had problems with (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima and others) have been Gen I reactors built over forty years ago. They are nowhere near as safe as new reactors (I believe current reactors are Gen III).

Exactly.

 

[DrLeftover]

Damn... me and T agreed on something AGAIN!



This debate is the same phenomenon of looking at air safety after a terrible crash. The fact is that when looked at in light of passenger miles traveled, airliners are the safest thing going.



Given the accident rate per megawatt hour generated, nuclear is probably the safest of the major producers.

 

[dannn]

I agree it's bad, but considering we have limited resources of other power methods, this is the only way that we can maintain power for things.