By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Nuclear Power

 

Nuclear Power is...

The source of energy of t... 15 17.24%
 
A fine source of power th... 24 27.59%
 
Its ok. Let's use it for now 21 24.14%
 
We should replace it with renewables asap 22 25.29%
 
Shut'em ALL down right now! ITS EVIL! 5 5.75%
 
Total:87
JEMC on 09 June 2011
Dr.Grass said:
JEMC said:
Dr.Grass said:
silicon said:

Expensive financially or also energetically?

Both. The energy yield is just about positive, but it costs an enormous amount of money.

As far as I know there is only 1 fission nuclear, the ITER project in France, and they are still building the facilities. Acording to Wikipedia, the cost is around € 15 billion and allegedly will produce 500 MW while consuming 50 MW.

Ja that's the one they're trying to get working. Those figures are open to speculation though.

True. It will probably end up costing € 18-20 billion, producing 400 MW and consuming 80-100 MW. ;)



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
Acevil on 09 June 2011

I think it needs more control around the world but it is perfectly fine method of energy.



 

d21lewis on 09 June 2011
Porcupine_I said:
d21lewis said:
Porcupine_I said:
 

actually i believe that is part of the problem with nuclear power plants. there are too many old ones buildt in the 60's. There are so many new technologies and ways to make them safer then they used to be built now.

i do believe in using nuclear power, because it is a cheap source of energy. but safety should always be first. and Nuclear power plants that can not whitstand a airplane crash are not safe in this day and age, regardless how many fail safes are in place to eliminate human error.


In defense of the old plants, we do have "outages" every few months.  The plant (or part of it, anyway) is totally powered down and everything is inspected.  Lots of components get replaced or improved.  It's not perfect, by any means.  It's like replacing parts of an old car instead of buying a brand new car.  Still, I've only been there for a couple of years and the amount of changes and improvements that have happened in just that small amount of time (I think I've seen about five outages) is pretty impressive.  And for the record, our plant is reportedly able to withstand earthquakes and a direct hit by a commercial airplane.  The key word is, reportedly--not quit sure how that would hold up in practice.  Most of the key components are in hardened structures far underground with automatic systems designed to kick in if something goes wrong.  I'll quit now because certain things are considered protected information so I won't go into it.  From what I've seen and the propaganda they push on us, we're fine.  Again, I can only speak of our particular plant and not every nuclear plant in the world.

of course, and i have no intention to imply that your plant is dangerous.

i believe though, what fukushima has shown, is that you can't just "power down" a nuclear power plant. some of the reactors haven't even been in use and still  the used rods pose a great danger, and i bleive that is something that scared people a lot.

 


True.  That's why I know I have job security.  By powering down, I meant that they deactivated the component's energy producing capabilities.  The radiation and such are still contained and if the containment is breached, then there's trouble.  In an ideal situation, the containment walls will hold--but even then, those irradiated parts have to be protected and stored for years--probably decades.  If my plant shut down today, I'd still have a job protecting it.  And no, you didn't imply my plant was dangerous.  I just didn't want to appear to be the spokesperson for the entire nuclear industry since I only have experience with only one plant. 



darthdevidem01 on 09 June 2011

If used for energy its great, or for space exploration.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Acevil on 09 June 2011
darthdevidem01 said:
If used for energy its great, or for space exploration.


Still in love with the idea that we will get back to trying space exploration soon! T_T



 

Around the Network
Aprisaiden on 09 June 2011
Porcupine_I said:
d21lewis said:
Porcupine_I said:
 

actually i believe that is part of the problem with nuclear power plants. there are too many old ones buildt in the 60's. There are so many new technologies and ways to make them safer then they used to be built now.

i do believe in using nuclear power, because it is a cheap source of energy. but safety should always be first. and Nuclear power plants that can not whitstand a airplane crash are not safe in this day and age, regardless how many fail safes are in place to eliminate human error.


In defense of the old plants, we do have "outages" every few months.  The plant (or part of it, anyway) is totally powered down and everything is inspected.  Lots of components get replaced or improved.  It's not perfect, by any means.  It's like replacing parts of an old car instead of buying a brand new car.  Still, I've only been there for a couple of years and the amount of changes and improvements that have happened in just that small amount of time (I think I've seen about five outages) is pretty impressive.  And for the record, our plant is reportedly able to withstand earthquakes and a direct hit by a commercial airplane.  The key word is, reportedly--not quit sure how that would hold up in practice.  Most of the key components are in hardened structures far underground with automatic systems designed to kick in if something goes wrong.  I'll quit now because certain things are considered protected information so I won't go into it.  From what I've seen and the propaganda they push on us, we're fine.  Again, I can only speak of our particular plant and not every nuclear plant in the world.

of course, and i have no intention to imply that your plant is dangerous.

i believe though, what fukushima has shown, is that you can't just "power down" a nuclear power plant. some of the reactors haven't even been in use and still  the used rods pose a great danger, and i bleive that is something that scared people a lot.

 

IIRC though the Fukushima plant was over 30 years old, was due for a reactor upgrade (reactor one was actually less than a month away from being turned off and replaced) AND it was only built to survive a 7.4 Earthquake without a meltdown or a 5.7 metre tsunami, and it took a 9.0 Earthquake and 14 metre tsunami on the same day! After all the design was badly flawed (back-up generators were outside the main reactor buildings, and thus were destroyed) and what did we get? A few raditation leaks -- mostly stuff that had a half life of seconds or minutes over the course of days and an expensive/long recovery process.

In the end it is hard to argue that nuclear power isn't incredably safe when if a natural disater of that kind hit other energy sources the power plants would be wiped off the map and oil rigs would have a horrible effect on the enviroment (just look at the massive BP oil spill from 2010 -- it took them almost a month to control the spill and 4 months to offically seal the spill and it'll take decades for the wildlife to recover! 



darthdevidem01 on 09 June 2011
Acevil said:
darthdevidem01 said:
If used for energy its great, or for space exploration.


Still in love with the idea that we will get back to trying space exploration soon! T_T

Yes, NASA says so!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Dr.Grass on 10 June 2011
darthdevidem01 said:
Acevil said:
darthdevidem01 said:
If used for energy its great, or for space exploration.


Still in love with the idea that we will get back to trying space exploration soon! T_T

Yes, NASA says so!

Yes, space exploration is what we should focus on right now. Definitely. I mean, it only costs billions of dollars and uses about a gazillion litres of fuel to get to Mars. Nevermind the starving people of the world, MAN MUST EXPLORE!

(just another point of view)



Dr.Grass on 10 June 2011
Aprisaiden said:
Porcupine_I said:
d21lewis said:
Porcupine_I said:
 

actually i believe that is part of the problem with nuclear power plants. there are too many old ones buildt in the 60's. There are so many new technologies and ways to make them safer then they used to be built now.

i do believe in using nuclear power, because it is a cheap source of energy. but safety should always be first. and Nuclear power plants that can not whitstand a airplane crash are not safe in this day and age, regardless how many fail safes are in place to eliminate human error.


In defense of the old plants, we do have "outages" every few months.  The plant (or part of it, anyway) is totally powered down and everything is inspected.  Lots of components get replaced or improved.  It's not perfect, by any means.  It's like replacing parts of an old car instead of buying a brand new car.  Still, I've only been there for a couple of years and the amount of changes and improvements that have happened in just that small amount of time (I think I've seen about five outages) is pretty impressive.  And for the record, our plant is reportedly able to withstand earthquakes and a direct hit by a commercial airplane.  The key word is, reportedly--not quit sure how that would hold up in practice.  Most of the key components are in hardened structures far underground with automatic systems designed to kick in if something goes wrong.  I'll quit now because certain things are considered protected information so I won't go into it.  From what I've seen and the propaganda they push on us, we're fine.  Again, I can only speak of our particular plant and not every nuclear plant in the world.

of course, and i have no intention to imply that your plant is dangerous.

i believe though, what fukushima has shown, is that you can't just "power down" a nuclear power plant. some of the reactors haven't even been in use and still  the used rods pose a great danger, and i bleive that is something that scared people a lot.

 

IIRC though the Fukushima plant was over 30 years old, was due for a reactor upgrade (reactor one was actually less than a month away from being turned off and replaced) AND it was only built to survive a 7.4 Earthquake without a meltdown or a 5.7 metre tsunami, and it took a 9.0 Earthquake and 14 metre tsunami on the same day! After all the design was badly flawed (back-up generators were outside the main reactor buildings, and thus were destroyed) and what did we get? A few raditation leaks -- mostly stuff that had a half life of seconds or minutes over the course of days and an expensive/long recovery process.

In the end it is hard to argue that nuclear power isn't incredably safe when if a natural disater of that kind hit other energy sources the power plants would be wiped off the map and oil rigs would have a horrible effect on the enviroment (just look at the massive BP oil spill from 2010 -- it took them almost a month to control the spill and 4 months to offically seal the spill and it'll take decades for the wildlife to recover! 

Its a shame the masses don't think as clearly as you...



Rath on 10 June 2011

Fusion is nuclear power, it's just a different form to fission.

Anyway, it has it's place in the future alongside the other renewable energies. Thing with nuclear power is it requires a very high population to be workable, which kind of rules it out of small island nations like mine.