|
Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
|
Just a servey. Do you agree if a nuclear power plant is going to be build at your area to provide electricity? If you do, do tell me why? Same goes if you disagree. Doesn't matter if there's a nuclear power plant already built near your living area. Just give your opinion.
p6
|
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-01-26 23:07:08 (edited 2006-01-26 23:08:08)
|
|
At this point in human history, nuclear fission reactors are becoming safer and less polluting. Nuclear waste is a serious issue, but are carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuel. New technology will allow power plants to recycle nuclear waste and reduce the half-life of waste products by several orders of magnitude. If i were building a power plant today, I would build a nuclear fission reactor. If i were planning for tomorrow, I would invest my efforts into fusion technology. Wind and water are good sources of energy, but those technologies have not been able to produce enough energy for our increasing needs. 
|
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
 イタãƒX
on 2006-01-27 00:10:40 |
nuclear is a necessity in todays world to produce enough energy.....until us humans can find something cleaner and more efficient....its a necessary evil  |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-01-27 22:03:29 |
|
I think that an awesome futuristic alternative to nuclear power and power plants in general would be wirelessly brodcast power. Big solar arrays in space orbiting the moon or someplace broadcast power like wireless internet. Saves more than just pollution. You'd never have to use batteries again! |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
|
I live in France, where over 80% of the electricity is produced using nuclear energy (most of the remaining 20% are from wind and water). Thanks to that we have the cheapest electricity in Europe. Actually we even sell part of our production to our neighbours. I have thoroughly studied the subject and would be very happy to share my knowledge, but it would be out of the point as it is a simple survey. Now would I complain if a nuclear plant would be built near where I live? Hum... it would indeed bother me, but I don’t think I’d move out to another city if it was built. As I said, I studied the question as part of my engineering course on a security point of view and came to the conclusion that I have far more chances to be killed in a car accident than die in a nuclear explosion (atomic weapons excluded). Why being so confident? In France, electricity is produced by the state and not by companies (even though this might change soon) and three governmental agencies check the plants (and spy on each other, just in case). On a single suspicion, they do not hesitate to cease all production (which costs about a million dollar for an hour). Now, understand that safety is preferred over productivity. If just one agency says “stopâ€, the plant has to go down. Most plants in France are about 50 years old and there were some minor accidents but nothing really serious. Everyone in the villages around the plants are trained on a regular basis to know how to react if anything serious happens. Yet, we are still looking for even cleaner sources of energy: the first experimental reactor for the ITER project will be built in France (creating the same reactions that happen in the sun to create energy, i.e. to create a small star). I might have detailed to much my answer. Anyway here is my opinion: I’d rather live near a nuclear plant and breathe fresh air than near a coal or oil plant and die of lung cancer or worst. |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
|
AT this time in our history, solar energy is the main idea for a cleaner. ENERGY source, but heres my idea 99% of the visible univers is made up of plasma, I do not know if it is possible to harnas, plasma energy from the univers, although I do sermise it would be very reactive and dangerous, but if it is possible it would be some thing like a ( plasmic fusion energy plant)
a. bai
|
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
| I've been working in a nuclear power plant for the last 5 years and I really don't see the problem with having to live near them. With all of the saftey interlocks they have it's almost impossible to have any accidents. However most nuclear plants aren't nearly as efficient as people think since the quality of the fuel used is a low grade their not getting nearly as much life out of the uranium as they would if they had been using a higher enriched uranium. The amount of oil being used to dig up the uranium, process it and ship everything makes it so it's not even as cost effective. |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-02 17:12:29 |
Well, I think it's bad to have nuclear around. i'ts really dangerous, though...  Cardcaptor Sakura: Blooming Days!: Dreams and Fantasies Becomes A Reality |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by desertranger
on 2006-02-02 18:47:57
|
|
Nuclear energy is dangerous, poisonous and is the worst way you can make electricity. There is no way to dispose of the radioactive waste. Power plants in many parts of the world are not buiilt to any kind of a standard at all and in other places containment buldings are not even used. Want electricity, lots of it? Wind power, small scale hydroelectric, hot liquid solar, passive solar, direct conversion of sunlight to electricity. Gendou, hre we go back to the argument over scientist vs engineer. The sicentist sees a fantastic source of unlimited energy. The engineer sees welds damaged by to much exposure to hi level radiation. Nuclear power is an environmental and ecological disaster. There is no way to control it, especially with all of the weapons grade material available. Using nukes is like putting a gun to your head. |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
| Nuclear power is really bad, it creates non-biodegradale wastes and radiations that last for thousands of years. It is also prone to accidents, like what happened to Chernobyl. |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by hakuryu-kun
on 2006-02-02 19:17:11
|
|
the results can make lots of damage to our world. It can pe poisonous to any organisms.
VICTORY goes to the only one who is the bravest!
If you are not brave, you will lose but you still have the courage in your heart!--> |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-03 03:13:06 |
desertranger,scientist do see the effects and damages.In fact ,i think that it's scientist who discovered the reason what cause all the damages and they're also the one who find ways to reduce the damage.Nucler power is not really uncontrolable,it's just the watse that it creates that gives us the headache,maybe now we still can't get rid of it,but who knows what might happen in the future?Using nuclear as a weapon will be like pointing a gun at your head,but using it for other purpose like generating power can be beneficial too. 
'Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be The future's not ours to see,Que sera, sera' |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-03 06:30:21 |
|
Then let me ask Yabia, would you want a nuclear power plant in your home town near where you live? Ranger's right, thee are lots of ways to make elctricity without nuclear power. Yes scientists did discover nuclear power and the know abotu the damage it cause. However a scintist thinks (and I am a scientist by profession and eduation) "Eureka, I've found it but it has a bad side". It is not the scientist who tries to find ways to reduce the effects of nuclear waste, it's the engineers. It is not the scientists or engineers who say we should this, it's the politicians and thye don't care about anything except themselves. Fact: If you take a strip of land 60 miles wide arouind the world and cover it with wind turbine generators there wouild be no need to build a nuclear power plant. We live in a area that receives it electricity form windpower. The amount of energy that comes from the windfarms is over 6,000 megawatts. The Diablo canyon nuclear power plant only produices 1100 megawatts and the cost to build it was over run and cost billions and took years to build. On the other hand the wind farms where we live cost 1.3 billion and were built in 2 years instead of the 20 it took to build Diablo Canyon. Nuclear power is dangerous.  |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-03 07:21:08 |
|
i'm neither a scientist nor an engineer,i know you have all the experience and degrees in engineering,and of course i don't want a nuclear plant near my house,and yes! nuclear power is dangerous and windfarms are great,but not every country can build windfarms,hydroplant.I just couldn't agree with you when you say scientist didn't try to find ways to reduce the effects of nuclear waste,i think scientist and engineers both are trying to find ways.
'Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be The future's not ours to see,Que sera, sera' |
|
Re: Nuclear to provide electricity. Is it good or bad?
|
|
radioactive waste is very hard to get rid off
Ģöţ ñõţħįňģ Ţθ ĻÖŠÄâ€, Ä•Ã…εóұтђīŋġ ŧÅ? ĢĄİŇ, ₣řÎÂÑ‘Ä?Ã…?ü ằήđ Ĵůśťїçè, ČθóŗůÃ?ŧìÅ?Å‹ ằήđ Ä‹Å?ňƒīņěΜәÀŧ, Vâļóůѓ ịή βαŧŧļé, Ħõńòґ Êń Ä?Ä•Ä?ţħ
|