How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

i missed it. i have seen it now, you insulting twat

actually, i was FERY shocked to read something form ames Lovelock in an article-interview. it really took mye by shock, but i forgot to note it. so i am leaft with tis nasty taste about it

IF you back nuclear nergy phlo, it can only be extremely dangerous for planet Earth.

why the fluck should i go to te trouble of presenting counter evidence to this self-promoting nuclear power is great thread when ANYthing i migh say would be classed as whining. and worse from the gross fingers of you?? tell me. you wo alreeady have made yer mind up you care jack ahit about te planet ad future generations and othe species. ALL who will (are paying) for your ignoreance concerning the interconnectedness of life

and as I repeat. you both claim suuuch knowledge about nuclear industry yet kow jack shite about the effects of depleted uranium!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference between me and you duendy right now is that it is I who is going to write that article, so it will be my word that will get out, not yours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you don't care to mention those uranium facts you so boast about, then it's worse for you and your agenda, because those facts then won't get into the article,
and I've got no intention not to mention somethig scientifically and environmentally important.

Right now my agenda is to show that a nuclear power plant is cleaner and more environmentally friendly than a coal power plant in the process mentioning other renewable energy sources. And my agenda is to show that we must work towards a rational source of power,
wind and solar power don't have enough juice to power a modern city.
And from what I have learned it seems that nuclear power (fusion especially) is both environmentally ok and very powerful,
just need more work towards managing the waste products.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where wind and solar power can shine is small communities like villages and farms which don't need much power.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

alright Avatar check this:
Exploring The Hidden Connections: Interview with green Pioneer, Fritjof Capra www.openexchange.org/archives/AMJ04/capra.html
the relevant parts are about 13 scrolls from top of page:
'BB: In contrast to Dr Bill Wattenburg...who considers himself an environmentalist, ispro nuclear...

FC: I don't know te person, but to me it sounds like somebody who is ecologically illiterate, Somebody who says that alternatives to nuclear and petrolium are impractical is just ecologically illiterate. There is abundant evidence now that solar energy, hydrogen as liquid fuel, and wind energy work! Not only is there theoretical evidence, but tose are the energy foms that grow economically..."ff

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, duendy, and you know very little.

Nuclear power plants used Enriched Uranium, not depleted Uranium.

So you are barking up the wrong tree, you old dog.

I do know a little about DU, and DU projectiles in particular, I can tell a APFSDS from a HE round, put it that way, but I shan't go into that.

 

Wind power is not an ultimate answer because you still have to be running large power stations to ensure a stable source of energy, wind power can be used only as an addition to an already functioning grid.
Or what do you think will a hospital do in a cloudy and windless day?

And in Latvia as well as other northen regions solar power is no answer because most of the year we don't see the sun because of the cloud cover.
I know the solar panels can still be used even under clouds, but it's inefficient.

 

have you had any aomed your way? have you breathed any Du into your system yet? had a baby terribly genetically deformed by it yet?

 

Depelted uranium has nothing to do with producing electricity.
I'm not writing about weaponry.

 

you re seeming to make smple excuses. i cannot convey to you the seriousness of all tis. what is decided will effect counteless gerations to come of ALL species and Nature' fabric also. ctis cant be just lurching for nuclear power if seen to be extremely bad for environment, which is what i an othersare saying.
radiation is NOT good for us or any creatures. if needs be we all need to drastically cut back on energy needs. are you imagining it will be shoppin as usual

 

What, do you suggest to flatten our sand dunes and make wind farms at the seashore?
It would be an environmental disaster!
Besides you conveniently ignored that wind power can be only supplementary and not the main power source for cities. You can not regulate how much power to produce with wind energy, however that can be done when you have control over the resources.

And as phlogistician mentioned, France is doing quite well with nuclear power,
I'm just now browsing some data on it. Last I heard they don't have any mutants around.

 

sunlight is radiation too, duendy, go, hide!!
and there is no need to cut back on energy consumption if we have nuclear power technology

I see the flaws in fission power production, but ITER is really something to look forward to

 

explain this precious 'ITER' of yours? is it your utopia hun?

 

No, it's a nuclear fusion power station that is being built in France, first of the kind that is intended for experimental tests on commercial suitability.
In simple words it will do in controlled environment the same processes that happen in a hydrogen bomb and our Sun, i.e.,
it will fuse atoms together, not devide them.

It's a fresh, new step in nuclear power production.
http://www.iter.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

 

The amount of radioactive waste produced will be hundreds of times less than that of a fission reactor, it will produce no long-lived radioactive waste, and it will be impossible for any fusion reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction. This is because the amount of fuel planned to be contained in a fusion reactor chamber (about one-tenth of a gram of deuterium and tritium) is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel (100 tons of uranium and plutonium). Proponents note that large-scale fusion power, if it works, will be able to produce electricity on demand and with virtually zero pollution (zero gaseous CO2/SO2/NOx by-products are made).

 

alright, you have presented about that. and i can tell you are enthusiastic about it. NOW, have you researched arguments AGAINST it? for your essay?

 

What arguments against?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most objections are economic not scientific, i.e., less people will have jobs, etc.
Others are just panic risers because they're afraid of new technologies.

The worst thing that can happen - it won't work or will produce some unpredicted nuclear waste resulting in high radiation, but we can not know that without doing the first large scale experiment and that will be ITER.

So good luck to them!
And if all goes well by the end of this century all power stations on Earth will be nuclear fusion ones, with small, renewable energy power stations in rular areas.

 

Duendy knows absolutely nothing about scientific matters. She's already clearly said that everything she knows came to her during LSD trips.

She's also greatly afraid of microwaves although they pose no threat at all. And probably doesn't even realize the danger present in everyday sunlight - the UV portion. It's so easy to be stupid because it takes no effort at all.

But back to your topic. The U.S. has finally realized - as France did long ago - that fission is THE only solution to both pollution and dependence on foreign oil until fusion becomes available. There is currently a big push being made here to make use of the technologies, like pebble-bed reactors, that have been developed during the past 40 years. And several of the more outspoken environmentalists groups are beginning to add to that push.

In all fairness, it should also be mentioned that work is underway to eliminate the pollution caused by the worst offending fuel - coal. Though no one knows for sure yet, there are guesses that power produced by the plants could come at triple current rates and would most likely exceed the cost of power produced by fission by a factor of two. There's still a lot to be determined, though, but the next couple or three years should be pretty interesting.

 

LIsten. 'mistakes' where nuclear radiation is concerned are irreversable!!!
i hae contacted here, telling them a bit about our conversation--witrhout the dirty bits--and await what they say.....for your article you have to repsent the 'other side' of the argument too. otherwise its jest propaganda

here www.ecoliteracy.org

 

So is the mistake of fossil fuels, and we can not continue on using them. It's polluting our planet as we speak.
There is no better alternative. Now fission, then fusion.
As said before - wind and solar are only nice additions, but they can not sustain our global energy needs.

 

Hey Avatar, I mentioned the relative environmetal damage of mining coal vs uranium. While this isn't a comparsion, it does give a few figures about Uranium mining, and might give you a few leads to discover more facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4702386.stm