• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

World Embraces Nuclear Energy.

Wayne Smith

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Qld, Australia.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


Power-hungry world embraces nuclear energy

By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 15, 2005

Nuclear power is on the rise here and abroad after decades of dormancy, driven by the need for a cleaner environment and steady, secure sources of power in the Internet age.
In the United States, plans are on the drawing board to build as many as six new power plants -- the first since 1973 -- while hundreds more are under consideration in China, India, Russia and other countries.
"Nuclear power is experiencing a budding renaissance," said Steven Taub, director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "High fossil-fuel prices, low interest rates, and concerns about the environment and energy security have all combined to increase momentum in the construction of new nuclear plants around the globe."
With worries about terrorism now paramount in the minds of the public and political leaders, concerns about safety that haunted nuclear utilities for decades appear to have receded, replaced by increasing confidence that after a half-century of operating without causing a major public health hazard in the United States, nuclear plants have by and large proven to be safe.
A new generation of power plants on the drawing board, some with automatic methods of shutting down in emergencies, promises to be safer than before.
I've been waiting years for this swing of the pendulum to take full effect. Finally we are starting to move forward again. Progress requires energy.

From the second page.

China, like the United States, has plenty of coal. But its coal-fired power plants have blanketed the countryside with haze and choking emissions that contribute to an estimated 400,000 premature deaths each year, according to the International Energy Agency.
Nobody died from commercial nuclear energy last year. Even one of the founders of GreenPeace now recognises that it's nuclear or nothing and we have to take drastic measures to curtail greenhouse emmisions 'immediately'.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Wayne Smith

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Qld, Australia.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
China currently has 8 new plants under construction. They plan a five fold increase in nuclear plants by 2020. India a four fold increase. Here in Australia where I live we have one test reactor in Sydney and people protesting it.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wayne Smith said:
China currently has 8 new plants under construction. They plan a five fold increase in nuclear plants by 2020. India a four fold increase. Here in Australia where I live we have one test reactor in Sydney and people protesting it.
Thank God there are still smart people in Australia.

Anyone who believes nuclear energy is clean shoud ask himself where all the radioactive waste goes, and as nuclear plants grow exponentially, what the results are going to be.

Remember: nuclear waste stays radioctive for several thousand years.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The current method of disposing nuclear waste is to store it in huge lead containers and bury it in the ground. The lead containers are several inches thick, yet they need to be replaced every 100 years for the next 10,000 years, because the radiation eats through.

The accidents at Tchernobyl and Three-mile island were caused by knowingly cutting corners in the safety procedures. So nuclear energy is clean and safe, except for the problem of what to do with the spent rods. I personally don't understand why we can't launch them into the sun to burn up, but I guess maybe it's too expensive or something.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well,

actually,

there are new methods developed to store the waste. My friend is into nuclear energy, he says they can easily store them in big garage like structures lined with lead and in lead containters.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Binary_Digit said:
The current method of disposing nuclear waste is to store it in huge lead containers and bury it in the ground. The lead containers are several inches thick, yet they need to be replaced every 100 years for the next 10,000 years, because the radiation eats through.

The accidents at Tchernobyl and Three-mile island were caused by knowingly cutting corners in the safety procedures. So nuclear energy is clean and safe, except for the problem of what to do with the spent rods. I personally don't understand why we can't launch them into the sun to burn up, but I guess maybe it's too expensive or something.
You recognize the problems of storing nuclear waste here in the U.S. Now imagine all those Third World countries that are building nuclear plants. Do you think they are going to follow our safety procedures in storing that waste? And......how about the operation of their nuclear plants? Is another Chernobyl impossible in countries which are technologically less advanced than Russia?

I think it's not just possible, or probable...it's a certainty.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
MiamiFlorida said:
You recognize the problems of storing nuclear waste here in the U.S. Now imagine all those Third World countries that are building nuclear plants. Do you think they are going to follow our safety procedures in storing that waste? And......how about the operation of their nuclear plants? Is another Chernobyl impossible in countries which are technologically less advanced than Russia?

I think it's not just possible, or probable...it's a certainty.
To correctly answer that, one must ask two questions...neither of which I can answer.

1)When was the last time there was an accident anywhere in the world?
2)Is there enough prevention methods and new technology NOW that would
insure that major accidents can't happen again?

TMI and Chernobyl happened many years ago...I would THINK that there are security measures to prevent them from happening again...
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:
To correctly answer that, one must ask two questions...neither of which I can answer.

1)When was the last time there was an accident anywhere in the world?
2)Is there enough prevention methods and new technology NOW that would
insure that major accidents can't happen again?

TMI and Chernobyl happened many years ago...I would THINK that there are security measures to prevent them from happening again...
Sadly enough he has a point. But I don't see 3rd World Countries as a problem, the can't get Nuclear Energy, it costs too much. But if they do get it, how could they afford to have all the SAFE routes when using Nucelar Energy? I don't think another Chernobyl is going to happen.
 

Wayne Smith

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Qld, Australia.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anyone who believes nuclear energy is clean shoud ask himself where all the radioactive waste goes, and as nuclear plants grow exponentially, what the results are going to be.
Yes he should. Nuclear waste can be recycled. No, that's not right. Nuclear waste SHOULD be recycled. Unfortunately a bunch of dead head protestors persuaded the president of the US to ban recycling. Nuclear energy should be cheaper than coal. Unfortunately it isn't.

This is because:
1) Stupidly wasting money on unnecessarily transporting "unrecycled fuel" costs a lot.

2) Finding sites to bury "unrecycled fuel" costs money.

The tree huggers love to complain about nuclear waste but what even they seem to have forgotten is that GREENPEACE CREATED THE WASTE PROBLEM!

Did I shout? Sorry, the radio was on. I'll turn it down.

Chernobyl didn't slow down the Russians so why does it bother us so much? Nobody died or got ill from three mile island. The technology has been through it's trial of fire already. It would be stupid to throw away the only practical solution to the energy crisis and governments are now forced to adopt nuclearisation. The noisy minority greenies can screech until their tiny little heads explode. Survival overrides your ignorant concerns.

Sorry but I've had a gutful of hearing Earth First propaganda and correcting it.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
To correctly answer that, one must ask two questions...neither of which I can answer.

1)When was the last time there was an accident anywhere in the world?
2)Is there enough prevention methods and new technology NOW that would
insure that major accidents can't happen again?

TMI and Chernobyl happened many years ago...I would THINK that there are security measures to prevent them from happening again...

"Safe" reactors are a myth. An accident can occur in any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of deadly fission products into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water.

Large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes in liquid or solid form require a disposal route, and the highly radioactive spent fuel rods (which by the way, cannor be "recycled") have to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of years.

When a nuclear reactor is shut down, many of its component parts have become radioactive. They have to be treated as nuclear waste. The process of dealing with the power station at this point is called "decommissioning". Over 400 reactors and many other nuclear installations worldwide have to be decommissioned over the next few decades, and there is not much technical expertise in this field.

You ask when was the last time there was a nuclear accident? The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents. Many people in different parts of the world suffer from health problems caused by accidents, which happened years or decades ago. Chernobyl and Three-Mile were just the most obvious....and could have been much worse.

And let's not forget that the generation of electricity in nuclear reactors produces substances than can be used for the fabrication of nuclear weapons.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I just don't understand the anti-nuclear protesters.

If you want to live in the energy hungry society the we live in, then we have to generate the energy. Radiation is all about doseage. Nobody seems to freak out everytime they use their cell phones, sit infront of their TV's, use their wireless laptops.

Did you know that coal power plants actually produce a lot of radiation, because coal contains radioactive isotopes of carbon. And when you burn the stuff it goes straight into the atmosphere.

Nuclear waste can be recycled, nuclear power plants can be safe if the design includes passive safety features.

And if we develop new methods of dealing with the waste, or develop fussion reactors, nuclear fission may not be such a problem.

Here's a choice. Do we continue to produce a lot of electricity via coal fired plants, which produce CO2. And not use nuclear power because of the risk? Even though we seem quite happy to tolerate the hazard of global warming.

Or do we finally accept that to maintain our standard of living, we must accept that nuclear power is an option to generate electricity?
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Australianlibertarian said:
I just don't understand the anti-nuclear protesters.

If you want to live in the energy hungry society the we live in, then we have to generate the energy. Radiation is all about doseage. Nobody seems to freak out everytime they use their cell phones, sit infront of their TV's, use their wireless laptops.

Did you know that coal power plants actually produce a lot of radiation, because coal contains radioactive isotopes of carbon. And when you burn the stuff it goes straight into the atmosphere.

Nuclear waste can be recycled, nuclear power plants can be safe if the design includes passive safety features.

And if we develop new methods of dealing with the waste, or develop fussion reactors, nuclear fission may not be such a problem.

Here's a choice. Do we continue to produce a lot of electricity via coal fired plants, which produce CO2. And not use nuclear power because of the risk? Even though we seem quite happy to tolerate the hazard of global warming.

Or do we finally accept that to maintain our standard of living, we must accept that nuclear power is an option to generate electricity?
I understand that at this time we have to rely on nuclear energy....but we have to look for alternatives instead of building more and more nuclear reactors.

The cost of building a windmill is roughly $ 250,000. and it provides enough electricity for 30 homes. Given a 20 year life span before the turbine has to be replaced, you are looking at $417. per year per house, plus maintenance costs.

Solar collectors covering the rooftops of half the homes in Nevada could provide enough electricity for the entire United States. You don't have any shortage of sunlight in Australia, do you?

There's biodiesel, hydrogen cells, hydroelectric energy...and if we look hard enough, I's sure we'll find a few more sources.
 
Top Bottom