Turn on thread page Beta

How can anyone be against all Nuclear Power? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    According to the CDI:

    Global Security:

    A good article by the NCI.

    I would rather not have the risk of having nuclear power plants, quite obviously. I would prefer green energy like most, but currently it lacks in energy and is expensive to achieve what a nuclear power station could achieve. But it is still is dangerous. So you have to weigh what is needed most, safety = cost or energy to power millions of homes.

    Honestly? Uninformed speculation and biased rubbish.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Honestly? Uninformed speculation and biased rubbish.
    Says the guy who said this:

    (Original post by py0alb)
    A jumbo jet smashing into the reactor building would bounce off like a paper plane
    So of course my sources are biased to you. These are sources which actively do research in these fields and I guess your word is better than theirs? Sure. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    Quite agree with this. Same with the Severn Barrage. Patently a good idea, providing masses of renewable, clean, efficient energy, in a polulated part of the country.

    But it will kill some fish.

    Who cares?
    QFT
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    Says the guy who said this:



    So of course my sources are biased to you. These are sources which actively do research in these fields and I guess your word is better than theirs? Sure. :rolleyes:
    Yes, because I'm a qualified scientist, whereas they are political activists. See the difference?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who is against all nuclear power is grossly ignorant. Firstly, fusion is 'nuclear' and while there are potential downsides of it (the biggest being that we can't find a way to extract energy from it in a controlled environment), there are few others.

    Secondly, nuclear fission is not restricted to Uranium.
    Pretty much the only reason Uranium is favoured over other fuels is that when the technology was developed, and most of our power stations build, we wanted to build nuclear bombs. They require Plutonium which is produced by the fissioning of Uranium.
    I don't suppose that most people opposed to 'all nuclear' are aware of the pros and cons of, say, Thorium fission reactors.
    They do not produce any nuclear waste, and the decay of Thorium nucleii does not produce Neutrons capable of making a chain reaction (thus no risk of meltdown).

    Fission reactors have the potential to be waste free, as you can produce energy at the same time as converting inert rocks into pure iron and other metals. No greenhouse gases, no radioactive waste, no propping up oppressive regimes in the Middle East to secure supply.
    A miracle fuel? no.
    Oppose 'all nuclear' now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    Anyone who is against all nuclear power is grossly ignorant. Firstly, fusion is 'nuclear' and while there are potential downsides of it (the biggest being that we can't find a way to extract energy from it in a controlled environment), there are few others.

    Secondly, nuclear fission is not restricted to Uranium.
    Pretty much the only reason Uranium is favoured over other fuels is that when the technology was developed, and most of our power stations build, we wanted to build nuclear bombs. They require Plutonium which is produced by the fissioning of Uranium.
    I don't suppose that most people opposed to 'all nuclear' are aware of the pros and cons of, say, Thorium fission reactors.
    They do not produce any nuclear waste, and the decay of Thorium nucleii does not produce Neutrons capable of making a chain reaction (thus no risk of meltdown).

    Fission reactors have the potential to be waste free, as you can produce energy at the same time as converting inert rocks into pure iron and other metals. No greenhouse gases, no radioactive waste, no propping up oppressive regimes in the Middle East to secure supply.
    A miracle fuel? no.
    Oppose 'all nuclear' now.
    Query: if thorium doesnt decay to cause a chain reaction, how can it obtain criticality needed to produce power?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Query: if thorium doesnt decay to cause a chain reaction, how can it obtain criticality needed to produce power?
    You have nodes inside the reactor which which continuously produce Neutrons to case decay.

    It's fantastic because it means if you get a situation like in Japan where power to the reactor fails, the reaction just stops.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But most people don't know what ionising means, or even know that visibile light is technically "radiation". They just see the word and think "OMG that's dangerous!!".
    yep very true, people are quite ignorant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Honestly? Uninformed speculation and biased rubbish.
    I couldn't agree more.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,487

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.