General discussion


The Nuclear debate rages on...

By Benevolence ·
George Ou recently opened up a particularly large can of worms recently when he wrote an article discussing the myths surrounding Windows XP and power consumption. Much of the debate has turned into a discussion on how to best produce power whilst reducing pollution.

One thing many people seem to agree on is that whether or not humans are contributing to global warming, it is in our best interests to reduce the effect and protect our environment.

Some of us believe we need to move toward nuclear energy production, and some of us believe this is a bad idea.

With so many new developments in energy production, and so many differing arguments, what do you think is the direction we should head in?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

No, Perhaps the other way around?

by Benevolence In reply to Actually.

I fully understand the requirements of such arrangements. Sydney is, however, considered to be a reasonably large city on a world scale, and as such can be used as a reference against even the largest megalopolis.

You have missed the point about local power production. I am not talking about old technology spread across open spaces. Buildings themselves can be used to 'absorb' energy in multiple ways.

Collapse -

Have you ever visited New York City?

by deepsand In reply to Actually.

Does Sydney have buildings so close together, and so tall, that much of the city never sees any sunlight? And, how close is Sydney to other large cities? And, is the space between Sydney and its neighbors naught but suburbs, so that one metro area blends into the next with no visible distinction?

To try to put in into perspective, the East Coast Megalopolis is home to over 1/4 of the Total U.S. population.

Collapse -

New Age nuclear technology

by mjd420nova In reply to The Nuclear debate rages ...

Reports I've read and combined with newer metal technology with alloy, Direct Hydrogen pruduction in nuclear power plants of the future will meet the demand for both forms of power from one generator. More concentration or research and the future holds many promises.

Collapse -

Thats true

by Benevolence In reply to New Age nuclear technolog ...

Yes, the Gen. 4 reactors for example will be very safe and produce much less waste. Shame they are still around 40 years away!

Collapse -

You don't have to wait that long

by georgeou In reply to Thats true

There isn't anything wrong with the modern reactors. They're perfectly safe and they produce very little waste compared to the amount of energy they produce, and none of it leaks.

The key problem right now is the anti-nuclear lobby that will do anything to prevent successful safe storage and transport of waste material which also prevents the recycling and reconditioning of nuclear waste. The anti-nuclear lobby will sue until the end of time to make it impossible to implement any form of nuclear power. They will even sue the newest generation nuclear power designs. They are the ones that FORCE us to burn coal.

This is why you have some of the leading environmentalists like James Lovelock and Patrick Moore coming out begging their environmentalist colleagues to open their mind on nuclear power. This is why Patric Moore the founder of Greenpeace explains to you why the scare mongering of three mile island - which he calls a great success story - is a tragedy.

Stop holding your breath for the next generation nuclear plants because you're actually helping to poison us with coal in the mean time. Stop the fear mongering of existing nuclear power plant technology.

You don't see Patrick Moore and James Lovelock screaming for the next generation of nuclear power plants as a prerequisite requirement for more nuclear power.

Collapse -

Completely and utterly wrong

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to You don't have to wait th ...

The key problem right now is the anti-nuclear lobby that will do anything to prevent successful safe storage and transport of waste material which also prevents the recycling and reconditioning of nuclear waste.

No actually I'm anti nuclear (fission) because we can't store it safely, therefore we can't transport it safely and recycling nuclear waste is simply separating toxic crap we can use from toxic crap we can't.

People keep trying to sell me it's safe, we've cracked it, heigh ho lets make some money and they haven't.

I'll admit it's way better than it used to be, I'll admit if we could deal with the waste properly, it would be a definite goer.

But an industrialist with safe on his lips and dollar signs in his eyes is a liar in my opinion.

We are talking about the guys, who poured stuff in the ocean because it was safer, poured stuff in rivers because it was safe enough, poured stuff in our atmosphere because it was safe enough.

Given we are talking about people who influenced the legislature on the definition of safe enough so they could make a profit...

I notice yet again, ongoing production of other waste aside from processing rods and fuel is being ignored as is decommissioning.

The latter is very strange in my opinion for guys who are willing to talk about 200,000 years intervals.

I don't trust them with my grand children's safety and there is ample proof why I shouldn't.

Collapse -

So true

by Benevolence In reply to Completely and utterly wr ...

And what about the problem of paying other countries to dispose of the waste, creating a market where desperate 2nd and 3rd world countries will take waste for low prices and dispose of it poorly!

The Generation 4 reactors (that are still 40 years off production though) will greatly reduce waste produced and run very safely... but how about instead we just look at more renewable sources for power. Like the most renewable... solar! Yay.

Collapse -

You keep dodging James Lovelock and Patrick Moore

by georgeou In reply to So true
Collapse -

Not at all

by Benevolence In reply to You keep dodging James Lo ...

No, I am not dodging it, or saying they are sell outs. Remember, I actually agree we need to seriously consider Nuclear power in the West.

But we need to assess ALL options, not just take the easy road and necessarily resort to using non renewable resources.

I am first and foremost a scientist, and believe in broad analysis. I certainly do not agree that Nuclear is the ONLY option.

Collapse -

Which one of those two articles addresses the issues

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to You keep dodging James Lo ...

that concern me ?

Lovelock talks about CO2 emissions, which is obviously right, then at the end states an opinion in the last sentence as though it was a non issue.

As for the other

Operating safety of reactors has never been a real problem, making unsafe ones is not profitable. What Jack Lemmon did does not concern me at all.

I'm more likely to listen to these two guys than I am the CEO of an oil company, but if someone wants to give me an opinion, they best put some facts behind it and not simply rely on their reputation.

Nuclear power is cheaper. I've seen that figure George. The nuclear power industry in the UK, was 'cheap'.

Course the tax payer paid for the plants to be built, the tax payer paid for Sellafield to be built and guess who's paying for decommission George, the British tax payer.

You keep harping on about one aspect of the situation, nowhere is there an overall consideration of the factors.

Choosing nuclear power because there isn't an instant profitable solution might be the only thing we can do. I don't have a problem with pragmatic, just with being mislead.

Related Discussions

Related Forums