Jump to content


Nuclear Power: the future?


21 replies to this topic

Poll: Nuclear Power (16 member(s) have cast votes)

Is nuclear power the solution to the West's energy needs?

  1. Yes, nuclear all the way! (9 votes [56.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.25%

  2. No, never! (1 votes [6.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.25%

  3. In conjunction with other sources, yes/perhaps (6 votes [37.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2007 - 09:02 PM

Got nuclear?
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#2 dondon

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 March 2007 - 11:13 PM

I'd say yes and no. On the one hand its a good ting because in the short term its far more environmentally friendly than oil/coal based power but only in the short term but a lot of research needs to be done on how to dispose of it properly rather than just saying we'll dump it in the sea or in a desert in Australia, but what happens a few hundred years down the line when theres nowhere left to put it? And then thres the safety issue of it, the Chernobyl incident put a lot of people off of nuclear power, so there would need to be a lot of effort into making it safe.

On the other hand, I think we'd be far better off putting money into researching more renewable sources of energy and on changing people's unimformed views on it.

So it seems probably the last option, partly because its not a good idea to solely rely on one specific thing in any case, becasue what happens if the price of plutonium or uranium gets incredibly high or if scientists decide that actually its far too dangerous and stop us using nuclear power, or whatever else could happen. Its always good to have something else to be a back up.

#3 Alz

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 March 2007 - 11:29 PM

Fossil fuels present an immediate pollution problem. Nuclear power presents an imminent pollution problem.

Going nuclear buys us time. We're only really screwed when we can't fit anymore spent uranium in Granny's cupboard. :/

#4 Plug in Baby

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Kirkcaldy
  • Interests:Floorball, Football, Music, Drawing, Technology
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 March 2007 - 12:11 AM

Stick it under Aberdeen. biggrin.gif
It wont get through the Granite and the glass around the case wont rust away anyway.

Nuclear power is the future. It's clean, reliable and safe.

It doesn't spout out CO2.

It won't need to shut down all the time like wind power (all the wind farms in the UK are only enough to give the power of one nuclear polant and, although having 60% of Europes windfarms, wind farms only produce 0.6% of Germany's power).

It is also safe. Chernobyl won't happen again. There are dozens of back-ups, the computer system is far better and we now realise the damage a meltdown can do. There was also no existing safety culture at Chernobyl!
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

#5 smb

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 March 2007 - 12:17 AM

Its the Lewis windfarm thing thats kind of annoying me. I feel quite strongly about it and even wrote a small article about it a few months ago.

As much as I know a giant windfarm planted over entire the Isle of Lewis would be useful...just think about the poor people that LIVE there and how its going to affect them! I mean, the wind generators that they are wanting to build there are absolutely MASSIVE. Like really huge. It would undoubtedly wreck what is a stunningly beautiful landscape. sad.gif And that is quite a shame.

#6 dondon

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 March 2007 - 01:12 AM

Why is that people always assume renewable energy=wind farms? You do realise that there are many many other kinds of renewable energy. There are some people ho power their houses largely by solar panels and then the most widely used renewable power source in Scotland is Hydro-electric.

#7 Scott

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,793 posts
  • Location:Dalkeith/Edinburgh
  • Interests:Music, guitar, computing, football(I'm a Killie fan), hanging out with my friends, drinking, girls, playing pool, reading and watching TV and DVDs.<br /><br />I'm currently at Edinburgh University in my 2nd year of Computer Science.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 March 2007 - 01:26 AM

QUOTE(Plug in Baby @ Mar 17 2007, 12:11 AM) View Post
It is also safe. Chernobyl won't happen again. There are dozens of back-ups, the computer system is far better and we now realise the damage a meltdown can do. There was also no existing safety culture at Chernobyl!


Of course there was existing saftey "culture" at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island happened before Chernobyl and raised all sorts of questions regarding safety in Nuclear Power Plants.

There is nothing even the smartest computer can do about a crack in a pipe or a break in a wall. If the reactor doesn't get cooled because of a crack in the pipe then you either all hope the reactor doesn't meltdown (Like it ot not it would eventually) or ask a team of engineers to risk their lives to fix it. If part of the encasing wall has a crack on it then workers get exposed to radiation. These sort of accidents happen once every couple of years. Human Error can also cost lives in Nuclear Power Plants and it's impossible to eradicate.

Then again it really is one of those issues where you change your mind every 10 seconds, simply put nothing is 100% safe. Sure, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl taught us invaluable lessons regarding Nuclear Power, but you just have to remember the Swedish reactor incident a couple of years ago where a meltdown was avoided through luck to remember that we don't know everything about Nuclear Power.

Though, the amount of energy it generates at a fraction of the environmental cost on the other hand is amazing. So I suppose I'm in that yes and no option! tongue.gif

#8 smb

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 March 2007 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 17 2007, 01:12 AM) View Post
Why is that people always assume renewable energy=wind farms? You do realise that there are many many other kinds of renewable energy. There are some people ho power their houses largely by solar panels and then the most widely used renewable power source in Scotland is Hydro-electric.


I dont always, I was jsut giving my opinion on the proposed (and recently accepted) windfarms in Lewis. unsure.gif

#9 dondon

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 March 2007 - 01:18 AM

QUOTE(miss macleod @ Mar 18 2007, 12:51 AM) View Post
QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 17 2007, 01:12 AM) View Post
Why is that people always assume renewable energy=wind farms? You do realise that there are many many other kinds of renewable energy. There are some people ho power their houses largely by solar panels and then the most widely used renewable power source in Scotland is Hydro-electric.


I dont always, I was jsut giving my opinion on the proposed (and recently accepted) windfarms in Lewis. unsure.gif



Sorry it was a bit agressive, imeant to reply to the post above you.

And why do people vote in the poll and not post, that always gets on my nerves, if you believe something, surely you believe it strongly enough to back it up or at least try to. biggrin.gif

#10 John

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,713 posts
  • Location:In a Peripheral Estate in Glasgow
  • Interests:First the boring stuff:<br /><br />2004 Results:<br /><br />Highers:<br /><br />Computing A<br />Craft and Design A<br />Physics A<br />Administration A<br />English A<br />Maths A<br />Modern Studies A<br />French A<br /><br />2005 Results:<br /><br />Advanced Highers:<br />Computing A<br />Physics A<br />Maths A<br />Modern Studies A<br />English A<br /><br />2006 Results:<br /><br />Advanced Highers(All Crashed):<br />Chemistry A<br />Biology A<br />Business Managemnt A<br /><br />Aren't I marvellous?
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:47 AM

I voted yes, as Nuclear power is the way forward.

As the efficiency of it is humongous, well over 100%.

And either fission or fusion(can't remember in this state) only needs water to work, which we have pretty much limitless supplies of.

I hope I don't burn my chicken goujons.

#11 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2007 - 11:49 PM

I'm no expert but I think there need by little danger of deaths under the circumstances of 'another Chernobyl' where many people die from the sudden leakage of great amounts of radiation. The Chernobyl plant was not built well and although the Three Mile Island plant was clearly not the greatest engineering feat either, there were no deaths because the simple precaution was taken to build a big metal casing around it to prevent radiation escaping. On the other hand, there are other convincing arguments against the use of nuclear power. Here seemed a good starting point: http://healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm but perhaps there are feasible solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste.
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#12 Plug in Baby

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Kirkcaldy
  • Interests:Floorball, Football, Music, Drawing, Technology
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2007 - 04:57 PM

John: How can the efficiency be well over 100%.? biggrin.gif Lol, if only. It is very high, though.

bred: There are feasable solutions for the disposable waste - it's just that people think they will be killed by radiation if a the waste even if it is miles under ground, in protective casing and under impermiable rock!! The granite under Aberdeen would be perfect!

Low level radioactive waste can be disposed of as normal waste after onyl 45 years while high level radioactive waste only needs 10 years for a 100 times decrease in radioactivity.

QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 18 2007, 01:18 AM) View Post
Sorry it was a bit agressive, imeant to reply to the post above you.


I was using that as an example. I know of plenty of renewable sources but nuclear is the only one that can power on a grand scale here.

Hydro - We cannot build big enough dams.
Solar - Not brilliant for our amount of sunshine.
Wind - Useless.
Wave - Viable, should be developed more.
Tidal - I'm unsure on this.

The only renewable source that can help NOW is nuclear. Hopefully, in the future, other sources will be developed and discovered to replace nuclear. Maybe we will even develope anti-matter like in 'Angels and Demons'. biggrin.gif
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

#13 william

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Location:invergbythesea
  • Interests:mainly girls, food, football, fishing and the odd sheep ( i live on a farm)
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2007 - 05:26 PM

wind power in the western Ilses is a possibility where the average wind force is 6. trust me i know cause i spend a month of my life there each year!
"millis times ten to the power of minus 3 yeah?"

#14 The Wedge Effect

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
  • Location:Paisley
  • Interests:I'm me, I guess. I wear glasses, have short spiked hair, about 5ft 9 (I think). I left fifth year of school in 2005 and is currently unemployed. I used to go to Strathclyde University to do MEng Chemical Engineering, but I hated the course, so I quit. I've started doing MSc Mathematics, from September 2006, as I have a keen (almost unhealthy) interest in Mathematics, and its applications.<br /><br />The grades I achieved in the exams:<br /><br />1 - Standard Grade Mathematics<br />1 - Standard Grade Physics<br />1 - Standard Grade Chemistry<br />1 - Standard Grade Computing Studies<br />1 - Standard Grade Craft and Design<br />2 - Standard Grade English<br />2 - Standard Grade Geography <br /><br />A (Band 1) - Higher English<br />A (Band 1) - Higher Mathematics<br />A (Band 2) - Higher Chemistry<br />B (Band 3) - Higher Physics<br /><br />Anything else ya wanna know about me, PM me or add me to your MSN contact list and chat to me there. :P
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2007 - 05:42 PM

QUOTE(Plug in Baby @ Mar 19 2007, 04:57 PM) View Post
John: How can the efficiency be well over 100%.? biggrin.gif Lol, if only. It is very high, though.

bred: There are feasable solutions for the disposable waste - it's just that people think they will be killed by radiation if a the waste even if it is miles under ground, in protective casing and under impermiable rock!! The granite under Aberdeen would be perfect!

Low level radioactive waste can be disposed of as normal waste after onyl 45 years while high level radioactive waste only needs 10 years for a 100 times decrease in radioactivity.

QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 18 2007, 01:18 AM) View Post
Sorry it was a bit agressive, imeant to reply to the post above you.


I was using that as an example. I know of plenty of renewable sources but nuclear is the only one that can power on a grand scale here.

Hydro - We cannot build big enough dams.
Solar - Not brilliant for our amount of sunshine.
Wind - Useless.
Wave - Viable, should be developed more.
Tidal - I'm unsure on this.

The only renewable source that can help NOW is nuclear. Hopefully, in the future, other sources will be developed and discovered to replace nuclear. Maybe we will even develope anti-matter like in 'Angels and Demons'. biggrin.gif



I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call bulls**t on the bit about radioactivity. Are you not aware that there are radioactive isotopes with half lives of thousands of years? Even hundreds of years would be too much. You can't guarantee that all isotopes produced by nuclear fusion activities would drop right down to a safe level within 10 years, especially those with a high radioactivity level. Although most of the radiation would be blocked if they were buried under Aberdeen, with all that granite, so it wouldn't really matter how high the level of radioactivity was.

#15 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2007 - 08:58 PM

I would imagine if enough time and effort is put into it radioactive waste could be stored away safely. However, there was recently concern that some grapes used for making wine in the Champagne region of France may have been contaminated by waste from the nearby Soulaines nuclear waste centre.
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#16 John

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,713 posts
  • Location:In a Peripheral Estate in Glasgow
  • Interests:First the boring stuff:<br /><br />2004 Results:<br /><br />Highers:<br /><br />Computing A<br />Craft and Design A<br />Physics A<br />Administration A<br />English A<br />Maths A<br />Modern Studies A<br />French A<br /><br />2005 Results:<br /><br />Advanced Highers:<br />Computing A<br />Physics A<br />Maths A<br />Modern Studies A<br />English A<br /><br />2006 Results:<br /><br />Advanced Highers(All Crashed):<br />Chemistry A<br />Biology A<br />Business Managemnt A<br /><br />Aren't I marvellous?
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2007 - 09:12 PM

QUOTE(Plug in Baby @ Mar 19 2007, 04:57 PM) View Post
John: How can the efficiency be well over 100%.? biggrin.gif Lol, if only. It is very high, though.

bred: There are feasable solutions for the disposable waste - it's just that people think they will be killed by radiation if a the waste even if it is miles under ground, in protective casing and under impermiable rock!! The granite under Aberdeen would be perfect!

Low level radioactive waste can be disposed of as normal waste after onyl 45 years while high level radioactive waste only needs 10 years for a 100 times decrease in radioactivity.

QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 18 2007, 01:18 AM) View Post
Sorry it was a bit agressive, imeant to reply to the post above you.


I was using that as an example. I know of plenty of renewable sources but nuclear is the only one that can power on a grand scale here.

Hydro - We cannot build big enough dams.
Solar - Not brilliant for our amount of sunshine.
Wind - Useless.
Wave - Viable, should be developed more.
Tidal - I'm unsure on this.

The only renewable source that can help NOW is nuclear. Hopefully, in the future, other sources will be developed and discovered to replace nuclear. Maybe we will even develope anti-matter like in 'Angels and Demons'. biggrin.gif


I don't remember making that post, and I may or may not be right on that one, I'll look into it.


#17 smb

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 March 2007 - 10:47 AM

QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 18 2007, 01:18 AM) View Post
QUOTE(miss macleod @ Mar 18 2007, 12:51 AM) View Post
QUOTE(dondon @ Mar 17 2007, 01:12 AM) View Post
Why is that people always assume renewable energy=wind farms? You do realise that there are many many other kinds of renewable energy. There are some people ho power their houses largely by solar panels and then the most widely used renewable power source in Scotland is Hydro-electric.


I dont always, I was jsut giving my opinion on the proposed (and recently accepted) windfarms in Lewis. unsure.gif



Sorry it was a bit agressive, imeant to reply to the post above you.

And why do people vote in the poll and not post, that always gets on my nerves, if you believe something, surely you believe it strongly enough to back it up or at least try to. biggrin.gif



See that one vote on the middle option of hte poll? That was me - it was a mistake, I meant to click on the one below it.

Sorry sad.gif

So its good ot see that no one has said "no" yet!

#18 Nathan

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • Location:Aberdeen, Scotland
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:06 AM

Pfft. Skewing the vote, Macleod! tongue.gif

I voted for the 3rd option. There definately needs to be some more viable options. And in my opinion, building wind farms all over the Highlands and Islands isn't one of them. dry.gif

#19 Plug in Baby

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Kirkcaldy
  • Interests:Floorball, Football, Music, Drawing, Technology
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2007 - 07:20 PM

QUOTE(The Wedge Effect @ Mar 19 2007, 05:42 PM) View Post
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call bulls**t on the bit about radioactivity. Are you not aware that there are radioactive isotopes with half lives of thousands of years? Even hundreds of years would be too much. You can't guarantee that all isotopes produced by nuclear fusion activities would drop right down to a safe level within 10 years, especially those with a high radioactivity level.


I did not say that it would be safe within a decade; it would not be safe for thousands of years.
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

#20 The Wedge Effect

    HSN Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
  • Location:Paisley
  • Interests:I'm me, I guess. I wear glasses, have short spiked hair, about 5ft 9 (I think). I left fifth year of school in 2005 and is currently unemployed. I used to go to Strathclyde University to do MEng Chemical Engineering, but I hated the course, so I quit. I've started doing MSc Mathematics, from September 2006, as I have a keen (almost unhealthy) interest in Mathematics, and its applications.<br /><br />The grades I achieved in the exams:<br /><br />1 - Standard Grade Mathematics<br />1 - Standard Grade Physics<br />1 - Standard Grade Chemistry<br />1 - Standard Grade Computing Studies<br />1 - Standard Grade Craft and Design<br />2 - Standard Grade English<br />2 - Standard Grade Geography <br /><br />A (Band 1) - Higher English<br />A (Band 1) - Higher Mathematics<br />A (Band 2) - Higher Chemistry<br />B (Band 3) - Higher Physics<br /><br />Anything else ya wanna know about me, PM me or add me to your MSN contact list and chat to me there. :P
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2007 - 08:04 PM

"Low level radioactive waste can be disposed of as normal waste after onyl 45 years while high level radioactive waste only needs 10 years for a 100 times decrease in radioactivity."

What you said here implies that you think radioactive waste would be safe enough to be disposed of as normal waste within a short period of time. But there are radioactive isotopes with half lives of thousands of years, therefore these would not be safe for tens of thousands of years, and can't be disposed of like normal waste.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users