Do you think nuclear power is a good, or bad, thing?

[Qwepir]

You know nothing if you think a few images and the testimony of a forum member seals the debate.

It's not just some forum member, it's Yuki. Unlike most of the idiots here he actually does his research before making a long-winded post.
If he's so wrong, then show me exactly how nuclear waste is so bad and how it affects me.

[Ad Bot]

[Tingalz]

No, you are.

Radioactive waste doesn't just disappear. Its buried, and it sits there for years and years due to a hideous half life. You know nothing if you think a few images and the testimony of a forum member seals the debate.

Nuclear power is dangerous, unrefined, and REMAINS to leave a horrible bi-product that exists for a long time. Its a bad albeit powerful source of energy, it should be abandoned.

>implying coal and oil dont leave horrible by-products

[Sarge]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Ford Nucleon.

[Sheath]

>implying coal and oil dont leave horrible bi-products

No I'm not. They are also dirty sources of energy. I believe I wrote how I support hydroelectric.

Someone put a muzzle on that dog.

.
If he's so wrong, then show me exactly how nuclear waste is so bad and how it affects me.

Well...

Nuclear power is dangerous, unrefined, and REMAINS to leave a horrible bi-product that exists for a long time. Its a bad albeit powerful source of energy, it should be abandoned.

Power plants like that only effect you if you live near them. If you don't, so what. Just because YOU aren't directly effected doesn't justify it.

[Tingalz]

No I'm not. They are also dirty sources of energy. I believe I wrote how I support hydroelectric.

Someone put a muzzle on that dog.

You said you supported hydrogen, but whatever.
Hydroelectric also causes drastic changes in the ecosystem by damming rivers, so yeah.

[Qwepir]

The Ford Nucleon was a scale model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958 as a design on how a nuclear-powered car might look like.

okay?

I believe I wrote how I support hydroelectric.

You must be daft if you think everyone can benefit from hydroelectric power. Not everyone lives on a river.

Also you still haven't said how bad nuclear waste is. From what I know, nuclear waste is just a bunch of depleted uranium rods that aren't even that radioactive anymore that are sealed away in a concrete cask somewhere. That doesn't sound that bad.

[Sheath]

You said you supported hydrogen, but whatever.
Hydroelectric also causes drastic changes in the ecosystem by damming rivers, so yeah.

Eh...

I posted the wrong thing, please refer to the edit.

Sure, they have environmental effects, but none compared to the dumping of radioactive waste. They don't pollute, while their effects on rivers are acknowledged and being scrutinized now its a problem that isn't comparable to nuclear waste.

You must be daft if you think everyone can benefit from hydroelectric power. Not everyone lives on a river.

Actually such power is being used more and more. New Zealand alone operates something like 50 power plants efficiently. You clearly don't understand what the power source is if you think you have to live on a river to access it. 

[yuki]

Radioactive waste doesn't just disappear. Its buried, and it sits there for years and years due to a hideous half life.

No stuff, read my post. It can be safely disposed of and cause no harm to the environment around which it is buried. We create facilities in remote locations away from drinking water and wells, and away from the rest of society so no one loses their loving head over some depleted fuel rods.

Sure, they have environmental effects, but none compared to the dumping of radioactive waste.

Again, the amount of radiation given off by depleted rods can be trivialized by appropriate disposal measures. We're not loving orangutans, we've designed structures specifically suited to contain depleted fuel rods.

Actually such power is being used more and more. New Zealand alone operates something like 50 power plants efficiently. You clearly don't understand what the power source is if you think you have to live on a river to access it.

Solar/Wind power re not efficient. While they are stable and non-polluting, they simply don't generate the necessary amount of power to offset their costs. Hydroelectric works a bit better, but that destroys ecosystems, is EXTREMELY expensive, and can only be built in locations suitable for damming (hint: There's really not that many). You forget that New Zealand is a small island-nation, it's not a loving continent.

Nuclear power is safe, it's non-polluting, it's extremely cost-effective. Literally the only issue (which really isn't one) is fuel rod disposal, but if having radioactive elements on earth is such an issue, shoot them into space. I mean, we can't have something that dangerous on earth!

[Daenth]

Anything with the word(s) "Nuclear" or "Radiation" is exaggerated by the media and movies. Nuclear Power is really efficient, safe, and clean. Now, like most sources of energy, something could go wrong. In this case nuclear energy is probably the worst for disaster by far, which is why it's exaggerated by the media. But the chances a disaster occurs at a power plant is VERY small, but that power plant must be properly maintained.

[Sheath]

New Zealand is a small island-nation

/facepalm

[devildogelite]

Is he really this handicapped or is he just trolling us? Also I read that the coal ash puts more radioactive materials into the environment than a nuclear power plant

[Sheath]

Is he really this handicapped or is he just trolling us?

Raging friend alert.

[Tingalz]

Any sort of efficient power generating plant can go wrong, like coal plants can catch on fire, dams can break, solar powerplants explode the sun, etc.

[The Titanium]

umad sheth

[Otis Da HousKat]

Small rods of radioactive waste that can be easily contained (and even reused in cases), or billions of tons of carbon-dioxide, sulfur-dioxide, and hundreds of other dangerous byproducts from coal and other fossil fuel plants?

As said, hydro power destroys ecosystems and is very expensive to maintain. Wind and solar (especially solar) do not currently generate enough energy to offset the cost of making them and the energy that goes into producing them (solar cell manufacturing is very energy costly and leaves more than a few toxic pollutants). Current solar and energy transmission technology is not developed enough to place solar generation facilities anywhere besides a desert environment that is constantly pelted by the sun (the southwest in the USA).

I'm not against the development of new energy sources (hurf durf I'm getting involved with power systems engineering), but with what we have now I think that nuclear power generation is the most viable option for the coming decades.