1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    kebab52's Avatar
    November 2009
    1,349 Posts
    I'm writing a discursive essay on this topic for English and I'd like to hear some good reasons for and against it.

    I personally think it should be encouraged within reason, as Nuclear is a relatively clean technology that can provide large amounts of cheap power in developing countries (assuming they are given foreign aid).

    But then there's the problem of the disposal or long-term storage of nuclear waste, so both sides of the debate have a good argument.

    Anyway, discuss.

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    Nikita's Avatar
    April 2005
    1,913 Posts
    We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)

  3. Post #3
    CatFodder's Avatar
    August 2010
    1,027 Posts
    Yes, it's the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    Lord of Ears's Avatar
    January 2007
    8,216 Posts
    nuclear power is the most efficient energy source developed so far

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    kebab52's Avatar
    November 2009
    1,349 Posts
    We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)
    Someone's been watching Moon.

    Still, that's a good point.

    Edited:

    We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)
    But surely, the more countries with nuclear technology, the more countries there will be to contribute to nuclear research?

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Cheshire_cat's Avatar
    September 2006
    3,813 Posts
    It should be developed, but not recklessly. Slow and steady is the better option instead of radiation-mutant-cancer-death.

  7. Post #7
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    mike's Avatar
    October 2005
    4,316 Posts
    I personally think it should be encouraged within reason, as Nuclear is a relatively clean technology
    yes

    developing countries (assuming they are given foreign aid).
    absolutely not. developing countries do not have the appropriate regulatory frameworks to be able to safely harness nuclear power.

  9. Post #9
    Articsledder's Avatar
    November 2011
    699 Posts
    I think it should, as long as it's not for a weapon/incredibly dangerous.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    TamTamJam's Avatar
    December 2008
    5,290 Posts
    With our current technology fusion is impossible so we got the next best thing, fission.

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    tyanet's Avatar
    June 2007
    3,114 Posts
    Nuclear fission and fusion energy are really the only viable energy sources in the long run; in terms of sustainability, cost, and power output.

    I honestly wish people showed more interest in it.

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,043 Posts
    It's also the cleanest source of energy available.

  13. Post #13
    ShadoWxAssassiN's Avatar
    August 2011
    278 Posts
    Nuclear energy looks like it could do great things, only problem I have is the potential of a devastating accident like Chernobyl. Imagine that in a smaller area, like Long Island. The entire fucking island would be almost inhabitable (or at least more than half of it.)

  14. Post #14
    Dennab
    September 2008
    5,613 Posts
    It's also the cleanest source of energy available.
    In what way? Do you mean lifetime greenhouse gas emissions or resulting waste?

  15. Post #15
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    We should develop an efficient form of hot fusion, because it produces harmless helium, and fuel for it is really abundant in the universe (just look at the moon's soil for example)
    Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.
    IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create. I don't know if you can ever make it truly efficient.

    Don't get me wrong, we should definitely try. However, I wouldn't hold my breath.

  16. Post #16
    Self-Proclaimed New-Garry
    Porkychop~'s Avatar
    January 2012
    231 Posts
    IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create. I don't know if you can ever make it truly efficient.

    Don't get me wrong, we should definitely try. However, I wouldn't hold my breath.
    This is a subject I believe very strongly in.

    Fusion research has, for many years in fact, made slow steady progress towards net-gain and higher efficiency. It's remarkable really, even as governments show almost no interest in it (financially). We are on the verge of striking the fusion fire, and once we do, all other power sources are of trivial importance (besides anti-matter, of course). I really think that in only a few years, the first really usable fusion reactors will be invented.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    danharibo's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,488 Posts
    This is a subject I believe very strongly in.

    Fusion research has, for many years in fact, made slow steady progress towards net-gain and higher efficiency. It's remarkable really, even as governments show almost no interest in it (financially). We are on the verge of striking the fusion fire, and once we do, all other power sources are of trivial importance (besides anti-matter, of course). I really think that in only a few years, the first really usable fusion reactors will be invented.
    I admire your optimism.

    Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors.

    We should slap solar panels all over things too, for good measure.

  18. Post #18
    Self-Proclaimed New-Garry
    Porkychop~'s Avatar
    January 2012
    231 Posts
    I admire your optimism.

    Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors.

    We should slap solar panels all over things too, for good measure.
    What exactly do you mean? A typical Deuterium-Tritium tokomak reactor produces almost no waste, only harmless helium.

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    danharibo's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,488 Posts
    What exactly do you mean? A typical Deuterium-Tritium tokomak reactor produces almost no waste, only harmless helium.
    I didn't mean they would be producing waste, they couldn't produce waste (Even stars only create elements heavier than Iron during a supernova), I mean it might be a while before we get a good return on fusion.

    Then again we could do it next week, sometimes breakthroughs just happen.

  20. Post #20
    This title is totally OVERKILLâ„¢!
    Coyoteze's Avatar
    November 2011
    8,065 Posts
    It's a great energy source, but I feel we need to work more heavily on security before we start using it as a reliable power source.

    And we need to find a way to make the waste useful too.

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    Satane's Avatar
    March 2007
    3,620 Posts
    It's a great energy source, but I feel we need to work more heavily on security before we start using it as a reliable power source.

    And we need to find a way to make the waste useful too.
    What's wrong with security ? Nuclear reactors are among the safest places on earth already.

  22. Post #22
    ffFf
    Uber|nooB's Avatar
    June 2005
    5,851 Posts
    IIRC fusion power requires the energy of a star to create.
    That statement is very vague. What exactly do you mean by that? The same power as the power output of a star, or what? I mean, fusion has already happened in tokamaks and such, it's not like we can't do it at all. It's just that so far we haven't managed to get back more energy than was put in.

    Until then we should focus research on nuclear reactors that are less volatile and don't produce such crazy waste, like Thorium and Travelling Wave reactors.
    You can't really say that we should focus research elsewhere until fusion is figured out; it won't figure itself out, somebody somewhere has to work on it, and the fewer people are working on it the longer it will take.

  23. Post #23
    Dennab
    January 2012
    270 Posts
    its a complete shame that people associate nuclear power with total catastrophe out of blind fear and scare words. it would do us so much good to invest in this while we still have the money. considering that nuclear power plants release little to no CO2 in the atmosphere it only makes sense that it would create balance with the amount of trees in the world compared to fossil fuels. solar and wind power is good but can't be our only dependence for energy.

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    cheezey's Avatar
    February 2009
    1,979 Posts
    On one hand I fully support Nuclear fussion given that they're only build in developed, stable countries and a lot of money is invested in ensuring they work safely.
    On the other hand the reactors are safer than before so the chances of nuclear accidents may become smaller and smaller but building more nuclear power plants also creates more potential ''hazards''. This wouldn't be a problem if the damage in case of a meltdown was limited but they last time there was a large accident it sent nuclear fallout in a very wide radius.

    But in the end there doesn't seem to be a better alternative right now if we want to ensure power after fossil fuels run out.

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    petieng's Avatar
    February 2005
    952 Posts
    Nuclear energy technology needs to advance if only to replace aging reactors.

    Nuclear has two major disadvantages. Waste and the risk of a meltdown, but I think we can live with both of these if the proper framework is in place to minimise meltdown risks as much as is practically possible and waste is dealt with properly. (Which, in the majority of cases, is what is happening already)

    The problem of waste management and storage is regularly blown out of proportion. It's definitely a crucial issue but breeder reactors can be employed to transmutate a great deal of it into isotopes that are radioactive for nowhere near as long, and deep geological storage at the right sites will be safe for thousands-hundreds of thousands of years.
    Maybe it will have to be dealt with in a few thousand years, by which time who knows what technology we will be using for power generation or can be employed for high level waste disposal. On the other hand, the effects of coal and oil plants is causing problems that we will have to deal with within years or decades, rather than millennia.

    Meltdowns can have a huge effect on the environment, but there have been two major ones to date, the first being orders of magnitude worse than the second. But how do these compare to the severity and frequency of accidents like Deepwater Horizon, on top of greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel power generation?

    There are numerous reports and studies into the death toll of Chernobyl. Effects of fallout are very hard to quantify and there are around 15 cancer related deaths directly tied to the fallout from Chernobyl, but estimates range from a projected 4000 total deaths to almost a million. Nobody knows where the real figure will fall, and if someone's risk of cancer rises by 1% due to fallout, and they end up getting cancer, can you say it was caused by the fallout?

    That said, Chernobyl is something that cannot happen again. The severity of the situation was as much due to appalling reactor design as it was to horrendous decision making in the response (not evacuating anyone for hours or days, not distributing iodine tablets)

    The next major meltdown to occur since then (Fukushima) has turned out to be nowhere near as bad, and rather than due to a badly planned safety test (that involved the reactor operators to go absolutely full retard,) it was a 40 year old (relatively dangerous by modern standards) reactor being hit by one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded and a subsequent tsunami.

    We should always worry about nuclear power. Worrying keeps safety regulations strict and stops us becoming complacent. Ultimately making it much safer.

  26. Post #26
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire.

    Easy solution for the waste.

  27. Post #27
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    That statement is very vague. What exactly do you mean by that? The same power as the power output of a star, or what? I mean, fusion has already happened in tokamaks and such, it's not like we can't do it at all. It's just that so far we haven't managed to get back more energy than was put in.
    I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I'm not sure.

    However, from what I've heard(from real physicists), in order to fuse atoms together the conditions need to be very similar to a star. This requires a lot of heat.

    If we master fusion, we harness the power of the stars themselves, which is pretty neat, but a huge undertaking.

  28. Post #28
    Ask me about my ex-boyfriend being raided by the FBI
    Nerdeboy's Avatar
    August 2009
    1,862 Posts
    Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire.

    Easy solution for the waste.
    I dare you to make a railgun powerful enough to provide energy that can cause the container to reach escape velocity and continue uninterrupted by gravity towards the sun.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Da_Maniac_'s Avatar
    November 2010
    5,580 Posts
    Make a railgun, put waste in ferromagnetic container, aim at sun, fire.

    Easy solution for the waste.
    Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying:

    "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold".

    In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.

  30. Post #30
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,502 Posts
    I don't care, if it proves to be the most efficient energy source then so be it.

    If not, no. Use the more efficient source instead.

  31. Post #31
    Gold Member
    Lord of Ears's Avatar
    January 2007
    8,216 Posts
    I dare you to make a railgun powerful enough to provide energy that can cause the container to reach escape velocity and continue uninterrupted by gravity towards the sun.
    Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying:

    "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold".

    In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.
    i bet you two are great at parties

    anyways, he really does have a point, what better place to dump nuclear waste than space, if not the sun?

  32. Post #32
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Anything can be made easy by oversimplifying:

    "Making cold fusion is easy, just make a fusion reactor and get it to run cold".

    In truth your solution would require massive amounts of gravity calculations, not forgetting the amount of energy and research that would be needed to make a railgun powerful enough.
    Power it with a nuclear reactor.

  33. Post #33
    SCREAMS 4 DA FURRY PORN
    RobbL's Avatar
    December 2011
    5,977 Posts

    But then there's the problem of the disposal or long-term storage of nuclear waste, so both sides of the debate have a good argument.
    But surely advancing nuclear technology would help solve the problems that nuclear energy currently presents?

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    kebab52's Avatar
    November 2009
    1,349 Posts
    But surely advancing nuclear technology would help solve the problems that nuclear energy currently presents?
    True, but like I said, I'm just thinking of the typical arguments against nuclear power.

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,059 Posts
    Cold fusion dude. It will solve all the world's energy problems.
    Shame it's virtually impossible.

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    lil timmy's Avatar
    February 2006
    2,291 Posts
    Shame it's virtually impossible.
    ah, but not completely impossible!

    On a more related note I am pro-nuclear and I think that more money should be put into nuclear research.

  37. Post #37

    August 2011
    772 Posts
    Yes, there's no better form of power as far as efficiency goes. There's a reason that stars use nuclear energy, it's the best.

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,043 Posts
    In what way? Do you mean lifetime greenhouse gas emissions or resulting waste?
    Wind and solar can actually use quite a few resources that people don't think about. Just one example is the water that's necessary to clean the solar panels to keep them even decently efficient. Nuclear reactors put out a TINY amount of nuclear waste (I believe it's about a soda can size for the entire life of a person) and a bit of heated water from the reactor itself.

    Environmentalists are going crazy over a solar farm they are attempting to build in the California desert right now because of the negative impact on the ecosystem.

  39. Post #39

    August 2011
    772 Posts
    wind and solar are just stupid and anyone supporting their use at this time is a fucking idiot, they are too inefficient based on the space they take up, money they cost and resources they require as well as the environmental impact. Yeah they're possible but they're too impractical for use. It's like saying we should all ride zebras instead of drive cars because zebras are eco-friendly and look nice.

  40. Post #40
    Repulsion's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,964 Posts
    I really love the idea of nuclear power; it seems like one of the most reliable, if not THE MOST, sources of energy that has had it's dangers been blown out of proportion by isolated events that happened for a reason. (kind of like sharks, me thinks.)

    Another thing to consider is that with the advent of nuclear energy, world governments MUST take into account the potential destruction it can cause. This will probably lead to precautions, acts, etcetera and onwards that will likely advance the general safety of the populace, and may evolve into even more kinds of acts that branch out into many more subjects, possibly advancing the... hmm, how to put this... social and political aspect of many things as to be less barbaric.

    Kind of winded thinking, but, eh.