What's the problem with nuclear power?

[Az]

Umm, DanS, diversify it to what? Fusion, and fairy dust?

[DanS]

It's already diversified. Fusion, solar, clean coal, etc. Better to keep it that way.

[Az]

Solar is, well, you know. Clean coal is still coal, still the same greenhouse problem.

Besides, I think it's quite clear that our energy economy, in the long range, will have to be based on subatomic particles.

[Az]

and not just the electrons, for all of you smartasses.

[DanS]

Besides, I think it's quite clear that our energy economy, in the long range, will have to be based on subatomic particles.

We don't know when that will be and in what form it will take. Because of this, it's foolish to put all of your eggs in one basket. Even among the fusion research (reactor, solar cells), you need to stay diversified.

[Az]

I agree that you need that. I just think that pouring money into "happy flower" projects, ala solar power is, well, a waste.

[:) Smiley]

Everyone buy more "My words are backed with nuclear power" license plate frames!

[mrmitchell]

Nuclear is probably the appropriate transition to fusion, since the ability of the environment to recieve all the coal (and oil we're using for that matter) is impossible to predict, especially for the long periods we're looking at--will we have the Nuclear & Hydrogen system in 30 years or two hundred?

The question of nuclear waste isn't anything easy to answer, but honestly, it's easier to handle a couple of tons of toxic goo than to handle thousands of times that much air pollutants plus water pollutants plus the environmental impact of coal mining (not that uranium mining is much better, I guess, but we know coal mining is bad--look at West Virginia. )

[Solomwi]

West Virginia is inbreeding's fault, not coal mining's.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
The hydrogen economy isn't pie-in-the-sky. There are hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen-powered cars, for instance. We just haven't figured out a way to make it work optimally.

In the same way that, say, solar-powered cars aren't a "pie in the sky". Yes, there are examples, no, they aren't feasible. And it's the "making it work optimally" (read: making it actually better in any possible way than gasoline-powered cars) that's the difficult part, not creating an example.

[Kirnwaffen]

Hell, all hydrogen powered cars would have to do to beat gasoline powered vehicles would be match them in performance.

[MRT144]

didnt chernobyl have graphite controlled reactors?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
water vapor a greenhouse gas?

and don't coal power plants generate steam on top of the pollutants?

yes, and not all nuke power plants create water vapor.

Navy one's certainly don't . It depends if they need a cooling tower.

[debeest]

Who are the risk assessment experts? Insurance companies. And they refused to cover nuclear power. I find that to be a compelling argument against nuclear power, for the moment.

Did any of you see the thread a couple of months ago about the woman who motorcycles through Chernobyl? You can find the thread by searching on Chernobyl and motorcycle; the thread links to this site: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

The site leads me to the same conclusion anecdotally, emotionally, as the logic of the insurance companies does.

[Dis]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Nuclear powerplant arenot design right. The safter nuclear powerplant design is than Helium cool Graphite core reactor. Water cool reactor only make sence on nuclear sub where you are surround by billion of ton of seawater, on land the water cooled reactor are have record number of accidences. That why they have so many complex back up fail saft for those reactor. The graphite core reactor shut itself off by it nature it anything go wrong and the helium even it is turn radiacted willnot react chemical with the evirorent at all an will float up into outer space quickly.

yeah graphite worked so well for chernobyl

yes I know my list a few posts down has a generation IV design using graphite as a moderator.

But after chernobyl, you can understand why I'm a bit wary.