• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Nuclear Power Good?/Bad?

Fatchaos

Perkele!
We could blast the waste into space, never to pose a risk to humans again.

That would mean we just launched a radioactive load into the great unknown. It might go on forever, or it might hit something. Could be something harmless. Or we just destroyed a civilization. Who knows?

But the fact that we don't know is enough that we shouldn't.
 

Chuchi

Where'd the time go?
I only mentioned Chernobyl because it is the most well known accident of a nuclear power plant...
So no, I did not even refer to you indirectly :T
It is still not unreasonable that I reached the conclusion that I did. But whatever, dropping it.

@Alexxx We might as well launch Kanye West while we're getting rid of garbage. I can think of a few more, too. :V


Found another link, regarding radioactive waste management, might be a useful resource for this thread.
 

funky3000

Galactic Overlord
That may be so, but you really could be on to something here. We could blast the waste into space, never to pose a risk to humans again.

Along with all the extra water from global warming =V

I think the water would be better kept in an orbital storage tank. If we need extra water, maybe it could have a purifier before it gets actually stored. If we need more freshwater, *zip* up we go *zip* down we go here everyone lots of water.
 

Spatel

Well-Known Member
Considering the alternative to nuclear is half of the major cities flooding and hundreds of millions of people dying I'd say it looks pretty good on paper. It's crazy that that is not enough to convince environmentalists. I mean, I've seen the arguments over global warming. It's a pretty open and shut case. Considering how amazingly fucked we literally are, according to the best scientific results we can get, how are we even caring about anything else politically?

Yeah we're not gonna build a Texas sized solar farm in the Sahara. All of the nations on earth couldn't afford that. It is an important long term goal. We should absolutely be ramping up solar but we just don't have enough time to build enough of it to replace even half of our coal usage.
 

Ozriel

Inglorious Bastard
It's a mix between yes and no.
There are pros and cons to it. Much of it being lower CO2 emissions, generating enough power for a large city and industrial needs, and recycling the waste.
the cons are risks such as radiation leaks, "accidents", high construction costs to update the building to prevent any accidents or leak die to natural disasters (Hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc). Potential terrorism attacks for radioactive materials. Uranium mining and the cost for shipping, processing, etc. That and the high risk it has to miners who dig for it. And disposal. I remember a discussion about locking the used materials in a hollowed-out mountain in the middle of the Yucca desert, but you'd still run into the same thing with shipping, security...and the fact that it can still be used as a weapon if a bunch of terrorists decide to ambush a train or break into a facility.


I mean, it's an option, but there are still problems with it since it is a risky thing to consider. I am not against it, but I am not for it until we can get our technology up to par so that the risks are reduced.
 

Zirco

Member
Nuclear disastors only happen from bad planning fukushima blew up because it was bad in bad place were its was vulnerable to earth quakes and tsunami, Chernobyl blew because it was carelessly built by Russians and the workers had no common sense
 

Kookyfox

Bomb Rider
Ok so I've read the whole thread and here's what I saw:

-Nuclear Fusion (We're still workingt on it, just wait t'ill we get to use the Mégajoule Laser to start Fusion reactions)
-Antimatter Energy : XD yeah way to blow us all up! Also were the heck would you find such quantities of antimatter?
-Nuclear disasters : Human mistake sucks
-Nuclear waste : we should be able to find more viable solution to dispose of the non recycled 98% of fission products in the upcoming decades

Face it: Only nuclear power can produce energy in the quantities we consume, with such a high reliability. Also remember that while yes, nuclear power can lead to all sorts of disasters in case of human mistake, it does not rely on combustion to produce energy, thus avoiding the release of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nuclear energy is the only one to suit our needs for now.
 

funky3000

Galactic Overlord
Antimatter just has a few quirks we already know how to control.

Sure, we can't keep it in a jar, it would blow up. BUT. We can contain it with magnetic fields. Let a little through a magnetically confined tube, as well as normal matter, and capture the vast amounts of energy that come out.

As far as collection goes too, Kooky, there is a radiation belt around the Earth. There is antimatter and all sorts of other stuff here. Also, the sun produces antimatter too, and thunderstorms also produce antimatter when lightning strikes. I think the best way is to throw a magnetic "net" into orbit and collect antimatter as it flies through the radiation belt.
 

Kookyfox

Bomb Rider
Antimatter just has a few quirks we already know how to control.

Sure, we can't keep it in a jar, it would blow up. BUT. We can contain it with magnetic fields. Let a little through a magnetically confined tube, as well as normal matter, and capture the vast amounts of energy that come out.

As far as collection goes too, Kooky, there is a radiation belt around the Earth. There is antimatter and all sorts of other stuff here. Also, the sun produces antimatter too, and thunderstorms also produce antimatter when lightning strikes. I think the best way is to throw a magnetic "net" into orbit and collect antimatter as it flies through the radiation belt.

It would cost way too much to collect antimatter that way. You would have to:
Design the "net"
Put it in a very specific orbit
Have crew onboard to stock antimatter into magnetic field confined tubes
Design a space shuttle
Have the space shuttle go to the net and back to Earth over an dover again

Fusion power is a lot more interesting, antimatter power is just pure science-fiction
 
V

Vitaly

Guest
We could blast the waste into space, never to pose a risk to humans again

This will be the biggest risk to humanity ever. I mean, reliability of today's space launch - about 80%. This means that there is a 20% chance at each launch, that, instead of sending nuclear waste into space, somewhere on earth can began radioactive rain. Plus you need to think about how to send tens of tons of nuclear waste outside Earth's orbit, it will require a superheavy rockets, which means that each launch will cost as tons of gold, it's destroy the entire nuclear industry, will cause a shortage of cheap electricity -> global recession -> possible wars.

Therefore it's better to bury such waste into special bunkers in inaccessible parts of the world, much cheaper and safer
 
D

Deleted member 93706

Guest
Nuclear? Okay.

Solar / wind / geothermal? Much better.
 

Coluth

Member
Coal burning power plants put out several times as much radiation and pollution as Nuclear power plants given that they're producing the same amount of power. Is there a risk....yes, however there's a risk to everything.
 
D

Deleted member 93706

Guest
Coal burning power plants put out several times as much radiation and pollution as Nuclear power plants given that they're producing the same amount of power. Is there a risk....yes, however there's a risk to everything.

Coal needs to die....just like OPEC.
 

Gryphoneer

20 Quatloos on "disruptive"
Fanboys of nookoolar energy always want to steer discussion in the direction of Chernobyl so they can smugly state modern reactors are oh so more safe than those silly old Soviet junkheaps and make critics look like ignorant, backwards hippies who didn't do their homework. Well, fuck that. With a serrated war dildo.

What they like to withhold is the fact nuclear waste is harmful for millions of years to come. While we're at Germany and the consequences of energy productions, for decades the politicos and nuke operator companies assured us with the chant that The Final Depositories Are Safe(TM).

Guess what?! THEY LEAK. INTO OUR GROUNDWATER.

Let's see how the development of cancer rates in these regions will look like over the next decades...

There's also the economic aspect of the problem, the creation of a monopoly where the energy market is centralised, in the hands of a few operators.
 

Torrijos-sama

The Artist Formerly Known as Jesusfish
I advocate increasing the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power stations in all countries, along with adopting reprocessing here in the US through the construction of breeder reactors to recycle the fuel that is already being used.

There is a risk that comes with nuclear power, but given the number of accidents that have occurred since the first artificial reactor/pile on Earth went critical in 1942, I think that the risk is minimized both from the experience we have and the lessons that we've learned from previous accidents.

Three meltdowns and a couple of criticality accidents in the span of 72 years is pretty good. Best case scenario, we get cheaper electricity and can save some of the less renewable resources for later usage. Worst case, some tumors.
 
Top