Nuclear Power

Why are people against it? Its so much better then burning coal and oil. It produces so much more energy. It is alot safer then it was before. I mean we have them on submarines for god sakes. Why is thier this stigma about nuclear power?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ever heard of Chyernoble (sorry don't know how to spell it). Just because it's safer than it was before doesn't mean it's that much safe now. Yes we have them in submarines but do you know how much danger they are by being there. Ther are many threats that come from that fact alone. Yes it's a amazing source of fuel and yes it puts any other method of fuel to shame but it's just too dangerous for us to handle right now....even if we could design such a efficient plant to house nuclear reactors the matter comes down to having the capitol to undertake such a venture. The Government won't really invest in such a thing unless it becomes a dire need for them to (give them about 15 years when the near complete consumption of oil supply starts to become a real threat to the world).


Imagine Nuclear double A batteries.....you'd never have to change batteries again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chernoble was poorly funded and was producing to much energy then It could saftley Its pumps failed and so it shit hit the fan. Now there are even more safe guards such as fuel rods that expand if they reach a certain temperature haulting the nuclear reaction.

ther 4 reactors on some aircraft carriers and they never exploded or anything terrible happen to them and they have to be put in a very limited space. So why can't we use it to power our homes?

People think we need to get off oil well nuclear energy is right there!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As long as there are enough backups and the plant is well maintained you will get less radiation standing next to a nuclear plant than a block of new york state granite. A vast improvement over the coal plant..

 

It beats the hell out of me why GreenPeace is always waving placards outside nuclear plants but never seem to bother the coal industry. Look over their website and you probably wont see any reference to coal burning. Its creepy. Over ten thousand people die every year as a result of coal burning. It is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and poisons the environment. Thorium and Uranium exist in coal beds. Gets burned up with the coal and pumped straight into the atmosphere.

You have to wonder if the fossil fuel industry doesn't finance environmental groups. You really do. They would have the most to lose from a nuclear renaissance.

 

I read some article about how third world countries could theoritically extract fission material from burning coals to make a bomb. Also about a study how the usa could save energy by utilising the fission material from coal. This would spare the environment two-fold: less coal needed for electricity and no fission material in the air.

However, I don't feel very comfortable with nuclear airplanes, maybe the reactors are much more safe now, but think about hijackers, plain old plane accidents etc..

 

nuclear planes? I dont think thats even possible. You need some sort of water.

 

How would that be a problem?

 

Well like in the Navy you have an endless supply of water around you. Same with the civilian nuclear powerplants. But an airplane?

 

I agree it would seem to pose a problem not having the large body of water used in most nuclear power plants. However, I don't see it as a problem that is insurmountable. A closed system could work (I have no idea how...im no nuclear physicist, but im sure it could.)

-AntonK

 

I guess you could use some sort of air conditioning cooling water to make the reactor cool. Man this is gonna be some big plane. Serious beast to land.

 

The problem is cool water to put into the reactor. The big white towers you see near power plants cool the steam back into water, for another pass into the heat exchanger.

 

Because they would like to have their lights on when they come home

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.


As for nuclear power; sure it maybe safe now but money comes into play here. It's just not practical enough for everyday use yet considering the prices nuclear devices cost to run. Also like you mentioned salty how Chernoble was poorly funded...that's a big problem for these plants; funding....i guess coal burning plants are cheaper to run and pay for themselves quicker. The plant at Indian point, USA is also in danger of shutting down because of constant failure in maintenence tests and poor conditions. Nuclear energy may be a alternate in the future but for now the government doesn't see it as much of a hopeful contender...although they do fund money on research on fission.

 

Did you now that coal burning power plants have released more nuclear waste then all the nuclear power plants and nuclear accidents have?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

People are afraid of nuclear power because of their phobia of the word “nuclear”. “Nuclear” to common folks is a very bad thing that means mile wide craters and horrible suffering death. This is why “Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging” is called “magnetic resonance imaging” so people will actually take it.

Here is I about a new kind of nuclear reactor that’s meltdown proof, more efficient and even pack the waste away for you!
http://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_about.htm

 

WCF,
Last I heard about the pebble reactor still had some major hurdles that needed to be overcome.... mainly how to effiiently make 'pebbles' that would survive the conditions required. This was 2 or 3 years ago though, and I haven't heard any news of it since.

 

I just wanted to jump in and say that you don't need an 'endless' supply of water to run a nuclear power plant; the Russians powered their Mir space stations with small nuclear reactors for years.

 

Persol,

nope never had such a problem.

Nasor,

There called Radioisotope Generators, there not very efficient though because they don't have a working fluid by just use solid state thermoelectric generators.

 

I guess with all that said it comes down to money. I know nuclear plants arent the cheapest thing in the world.

 

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
nope never had such a problem
The largest discussion is over the use and properties of the graphite. Graphite over 550 C can start a self-sustaining graphite fire. The 2 alternatives proposed are to coat the pebbles to protect the graphite, or to immerse the pebbles in an inert gas. However, one of the PBMR's claimed benefits is it's lack of a need for secondary containment... which would lead to problems if high temperature graphite gets exposed to air. As we saw in Chernobyl, graphite fires are not nice. The german PBMR that was shutdown actually showed signs of oxidation.

I'm not assuming that any of these problems are impossible to solve (or that they haven't already), but issues had been raised various times which never seem to be addressed. Overall I think nuclear is the way to go for now, but I'm not very confident of this design.

 

Its a closes system were the hecks it going to get oxygen!?!? Even if the reactor is breech how is any oxygen going to get through the silicon carbide?