Nuclear Energy

[RomanClock]

I just want to get this out of the way.

Would you support building nuclear power plants in America?

My response is: definitely yes!

It produces huge amounts of energy for a comparatively low amount of natural resources. The by-products, although harmful, can be contained and with time eventually become safe. And if we research more in the containment of radioactive materials with the onset of new power plants, we'll surely find better ways to get rid of it. I also beleive it would help provide new technological advances in nuclear technologies. The location would be like zoning many other power plants, maybe even build them on top of old power plant sites. The risk of something going horribly wrong in an American power plant is extremely low considering the innumerable safety measures required in building one and operations, and probably will never be catastrophic, especially if zoned in low/no populated areas and away form drinkable water supplies.

[The Spoiler]

Yes. Although if they're planned as the major energy source, the construction projects should probably be spaced out over time somewhat, due to the major construction costs. And we need to allow fuel reprocessing. Otherwise we're just wasting fuel and creating waste.

But yeah,I see nuclear power as the fuel source for between now (or the near future at least) and when we manage to get renewable energy working.

[PropagandaClock]

France is in the middle of Europe.
And have 53 nuclear plants.

It's safe, it's clean, it's wicked awesome, it's volitile and prone to explode one day, the huge cooling towers look wicked awesome and envoirmentalists hate it.
So Im a huge fan of it.

[RomanClock]

France is in the middle of Europe.
And have 53 nuclear plants.

It's safe, it's clean, it's wicked awesome, it's volitile and prone to explode one day, the huge cooling towers look wicked awesome and envoirmentalists hate it.
So Im a huge fan of it.

Something we agree on!!!!

[Heliopios]

Problem is the only way for us to dispose of the waste currently is 'make a giant hole in a mountain, fill with waste, wait thousands of years, repeat'.

[TapedeckClock]

Problem is the only way for us to dispose of the waste currently is 'make a giant hole in a mountain, fill with waste, wait thousands of years, repeat'.

or we could just dump all of it in a river and see how that ends up.

[RomanClock]

Problem is the only way for us to dispose of the waste currently is 'make a giant hole in a mountain, fill with waste, wait thousands of years, repeat'.

Except if we make more plants, we'll have more incentive to find a solution for this problem. Nobody cares right now since almost nobody needs it. The best method right now is reprocessing which cuts it down to 300 years before its safe.

[AbsintheClock]

I'm all for nuclear energy. The new plans for it are very sound, they've been tried and tested for years. (Granted the first 10 or so were rough.) We've got sound systems, and it's proven that certain amounts of radiation are perfectly safe, as is the transportation and storage. If you consider the amount of accidents that have happened to nuclear energy in the past 20 years, it's safer than fast food, coal mining, shipping oil by a tanker, or even working at a Foot Locker.

On another note burying radioactive waste is perfectly reasonable. First of all there's plenty of unused desert. For radiation of that level to be dangerous you'd have to sit in it for at least 2 weeks. Even if you burn the waste with jet fuel there is no change in the chemical property of the waste making it easy to dispose of.

Plus to all you tree hugging hippie fags, (Lemme save you the time Maltese Ad Hominem) it's a hell of a lot better than sucking off the teat of Arab countries who probably hate our guts.

[Maltese]

as long as they're safe I'm good, a lot of toronto is powered by nuclear energy

[AbsintheClock]

as long as they're safe I'm good, a lot of toronto is powered by nuclear energy

And here is a photograph of their lovely facility.

[Maltese]

And here is a photograph of their lovely facility.

lol, there was tons of things wrong with the chernobyl plant, lol

like the cooling chamber was made of wood.

[AbsintheClock]

lol, there was tons of things wrong with the chernobyl plant, lol

like the cooling chamber was made of wood.

Shut up you're destroying the only proof treehuggers have as a defense.

[Marlin Clock]

Yeah, I've always been proud that Illinois already has 11 power plants, the most of any state in the union.

We're basically the fatherland of nuclear energy in general.

I'm surprised how barren the western U.S. is of plants.

[RomanClock]

I also really like dams.

[MCWood]

Nuclear Power is definitely a very good thing, besides if we REALLY needed to get rid of the waste we could just put it in some foreign country no one cares about. OR, we can send it to the Moon, which is already completely devoid of life.

[AbsintheClock]

I also really like dams.

Now there's a bone I have to pick with you. Man has the power only to harness water for short periods of time. With something like a dam, even the smallest crack can cause a flood.

[RomanClock]

Now there's a bone I have to pick with you. Man has the power only to harness water for short periods of time. With something like a dam, even the smallest crack can cause a flood.

Yea, I know. But I don't know of any power generating dams that catastrophically broke in the US (doing research now). As long as there is constant maintenance. (Hoover dam? Amazing)

Edit: So looks like there were a few, but it looks like hydro electric dam failures have caused less than 1000 causalities over 100 years. That's comparatively few compared to other kids of disasters.

[Loki Clock]

That's still an average of 10 people a year, not to mention it's extremely destructive to the environment.

Nuclear power is completely contained and controlled, so aside from the waste it doesn't affect the environment, and even portable, as demonstrated by submarines.

Also, just because humans don't tend to live in deserts doesn't mean other plants and animals don't.

[RomanClock]

That's still an average of 10 people a year, not to mention it's extremely destructive to the environment.

Nuclear power is completely contained and controlled, so aside from the waste it doesn't affect the environment, and even portable, as demonstrated by submarines.

Also, just because humans don't tend to live in deserts doesn't mean plants and animals don't.

That's if the time frame is 100 years and that the number is 1000, technically it would be 200 years and something like 660 deaths since I'm talking about the US. And 10-3 people dead a year (though its obviously not good) is really good compared to other disasters.
Remember I'm only counting hydroelectric dams in the US that fails, not just any dam, since hydroelectric dams are much better maintained than other dams (especially earthen).

[Loki Clock]

True, but "not as dangerous as logging" doesn't mean safe. It doesn't work relatively like that.