Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    Look at your red gems. That's enough evidence.
    Excuse me? Could you please back up your statements without resulting unnecessary comments?
    Offline

    15
    Nuclear Power Contaminates Water Supplies: Cases of water contamination with radioactive substances has occurred around over a dozen different nuclear sites around the country. The process of mining materials used in nuclear power plants such as uranium and titanium run a very high risk of water contamination to near by rivers and streams as well as ground water supplies.
    At im so academic- Does your computer or phone allow you to see your join date, look next it on the left...red gems.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    Nuclear power is extremely costly. Building or restarting the number of nuclear power plants that the industry is pushing for would cost trillions of dollars. For example, there was an estimate created by the Florida Power and Light company to create a new reactor plant with a price tag of between $12 and $18 billion dollars for a single project. This sticker shock would be passed on to consumers already struggling in a weak economy.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7180539.stm

    The Olkiluoto project is Western Europe's first new reactor in a decade and is expected to cost about £2.25bn ($4.5bn), but there have been serious delays there.

    Other analysts put the cost of a plant at £1.5bn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Solar and wind is the way forward

    Simples!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    Nuclear Power Contaminates Water Supplies: Cases of water contamination with radioactive substances has occurred around over a dozen different nuclear sites around the country. The process of mining materials used in nuclear power plants such as uranium and titanium run a very high risk of water contamination to near by rivers and streams as well as ground water supplies.
    At im so academic- Does your computer or phone allow you to see your join date, look next it on the left...red gems.
    Source? Once again...

    Does it matter have I have red gems? How is it relevant to the discussion? The fact is that you want people to agree with what you say, yet you are sprouting out invalidated statements that simply have no worth.

    How can people take you seriously when you have to reliable sources to back up your claims?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    If a tusnmai hit some solar panel their would not be U.S. officials recommending citizens stay at least 50 miles (80 kilometres) away.

    Oh and by the way nuclear power is extremely costly. Building or restarting the number of nuclear power plants that the industry is pushing for would cost trillions of dollars. For example, there was an estimate created by the Florida Power and Light company to create a new reactor plant with a price tag of between $12 and $18 billion dollars for a single project. This sticker shock would be passed on to consumers already struggling in a weak economy.
    And how much of that cost is actual construction and how much is the cost of the bureaucracy to appease ignorant people that watch FOX news?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driving-me-mad)
    Solar and wind is the way forward

    Simples!
    Two words.

    Base. Load.

    Neither of those technologies can supply the grid with the base load. Come back when you can come up with something more credible.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    And how much of that cost is actual construction and how much is the cost of the bureaucracy to appease ignorant people that watch FOX news?
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Two words.
    Base. Load.
    Neither of those technologies can supply the grid with the base load.

    Come back when you can come up with something more credible

    The Soviet government is renowned for its lies and failure to put people's safety first.
    For a mod you are some what self-opinionated in terms of the view you have towards people.
    "Fox news" I don't have that channel but watching "fox news" doesn't mean your "ignorant."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you actually click on some of the links you will realise:

    a) Many of them aren't from Chernobyl.

    b) Some of them aren't even from nuclear incidents.

    c) Most of them are from depleted uranium weapons which is a whole different issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Is that why they implemented more than a 12-20 mile exclusion zone in japan for the nuclear plant.
    Is that why they were testing people for increase in iodine levels.
    If it was that safe they wouldn't need to do that.
    Everything we can achieve with nuclear, we can achieve with renewable sources and best of all if they break they don't endanger loads of people nor do they have a 20 mile exclusion zone. :yep:
    Nuclear power can be dangerous if we are not careful with it. But so can the power sockets that we all use everyday. So can the cars the majority of our country drive everyday.

    If we got rid of every traffic light in the country just as many people would die as if we got rid of every nuclear power fail safe. Yet your not recommending that we get rid of cars.

    No one is denying that improper use of nuclear power is unsafe, we are simply saying that safe use of nuclear power as we do it now is very very safe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't like to live right next door to a Nuclear power station but I don't think there is any other way of supplying the countries energy needs.
    Solar,wind and wave are great but don't produce enough power.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    I do.
    I know you do.

    I've seen you arguing against the rest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    For a mod you are some what self-opinionated in terms of the view you have towards people.
    "Fox news" I don't have that channel but watching "fox news" doesn't mean your "ignorant."
    Blueray, instead of making disparaging remarks against other people, why not defend your opinion and present us with some facts relating to the discussion in hand? ISA's totally justified in their points that you seem to be a heavy on opinion but light on evidence to back it up.

    I'm a member first and a mod second. When I'm debating in a thread like this, I'm entitled to my opinions. Me being a mod doesn't make me a liberal fence sitter, nor does it compel me to be.

    FOX News is the mouthpiece of the (often) ill-educated deeply conservative and paranoid religious right-wing of America. My statement may be pretty generalised, but at least it's backed up by substance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here's why it's not as green as people think:
    1. Uranium mining itself produces more greenhouse gases than most renewable energy sources with up to 50% more emissions than wind power
    2. Even if we doubled our nuclear power use as a country, we'd only cut 8% of our carbon emissions.
    3. It’s not sustainable - there is only 50 years worth of high uranium ores left in the world.
    4. It produces enormous amounts of toxic, carcinogenic radioactive waste, which is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years
    5. The uranium mining industry has killed miners all over the world and caused environmental contamination, cancers and nuclear waste

    And here's why it will do our economy and society more harm than good:
    1. A new nuclear power station will take at least 10 years to build and longer to generate electricity
    2. Sizewell B, the UK’s most recent power station cost the taxpayer around £3.7billion just to install Decommissioning
    3. Cleaning up all of our current nuclear sites is costing more than £70 billion (that seems like a lot to me, especially in a recession when we're cutting important parts of the public sector to "save" money)
    4. There's always the risk of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands and being used by terrorists for dirty bombs
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marinated_in_Joy)
    Here's why it's not as green as people think:
    1. Uranium mining itself produces more greenhouse gases than most renewable energy sources with up to 50% more emissions than wind power
    2. Even if we doubled our nuclear power use as a country, we'd only cut 8% of our carbon emissions.
    3. It’s not sustainable - there is only 50 years worth of high uranium ores left in the world.
    4. It produces enormous amounts of toxic, carcinogenic radioactive waste, which is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years
    5. The uranium mining industry has killed miners all over the world and caused environmental contamination, cancers and nuclear waste
    1. Mining in general is a dirty industry - this isn't unique to nuclear. Bauxite, iron, copper, limestone and rare earth minerals mining (all required in the construction of renewable energy generation) are horrendously carbon intensive and dirty. Also, the amount of raw Uranium required to fuel reactors is actually pretty small - we reprocess a great deal of the waste products from reactors and re-use them.

    2. Nice manipulation of the statistics. What you fail to disclose is that in the UK, only 18% of our electricity generation is done using Nuclear. If we doubled that to 36% it'd reduce our OVERALL carbon emissions by 8%. Electricity generation doesn't account for 100% of our carbon output. So looking at it from that perspective, it's actually a massive step forward in reducing our carbon footprint.

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium...a_nuclear_fuel

    4. Again, we reprocess a great deal of our waste, so only the useless waste products are sent for disposal. The annual production of high level waste for the entire world is about 12000 tonnes but remember, nuclear waste is very dense and heavy, so really, in terms of the actual quantity, it's really not that much, compared to the 22.1 Million tonnes of CO2 that Drax Power Station churned out in 2007. We're always getting told how irreversible CO2 pollution is becoming and how damaging it is to the climate...

    5. Again, this isn't an issue unique to Uranium mining, so this point is moot.

    And here's why it will do our economy and society more harm than good:
    1. A new nuclear power station will take at least 10 years to build and longer to generate electricity
    2. Sizewell B, the UK’s most recent power station cost the taxpayer around £3.7billion just to install Decommissioning
    3. Cleaning up all of our current nuclear sites is costing more than £70 billion (that seems like a lot to me, especially in a recession when we're cutting important parts of the public sector to "save" money)
    4. There's always the risk of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands and being used by terrorists for dirty bombs
    1. Because of the bureaucracy needed to appease the ignorant. We need to get started now.

    2. The upcoming fleet of reactors won't cost the taxpayer anywhere near as much as that, as they'll be built, operated and decommissioned by EDF and E-On - private companies with extensive experience of making profit from nuclear power.

    3. The decommissioning of publicly owned sites like Sellafield has cost so much because these reactors were experimental and were not designed for profitability. They were designed with 1 purpose in mind - proliferation of Plutonium to build bombs. These days, reactors are almost designed backwards so that they can be dismantled as economically as possible and produce as little waste as possible.

    4. Very unlikely. The whole process is heavily controlled from source, to processing, to fuelling, to reprocessing, to disposal. The disposal process - arguably the biggest opportunity for terrorists, is done in such a way (Vitrification) that it makes proliferation so difficult that it would be too dangerous and too costly for them to do it.
    Offline

    15
    Vlad this thread is filled with your goons all who support love nuclear and neg me every time I make a decent comment. Read the first page.

    You want substance? Here you go.

    Nuclear power is extremely costly. Building or restarting the number of nuclear power plants that the industry is pushing for would cost trillions of dollars. For example, there was an estimate created by the Florida Power and Light company to create a new reactor plant with a price tag of between $12 and $18 billion dollars for a single project. This sticker shock would be passed on to consumers already struggling in a weak economy.
    Nuclear Power Will not Reduce our Dependency on Middle East Oil Supplies: One of the arguments used to support nuclear power is that it will reduce our oil use. This is simply not true because most of the oil that we use is for gas in our automobiles and nuclear power has nothing to do with that since it is producing electricity not fuel.
    Nuclear Power Contaminates Water Supplies: Cases of water contamination with radioactive substances has occurred around over a dozen different nuclear sites around the country. The process of mining materials used in nuclear power plants such as uranium and titanium run a very high risk of water contamination to near by rivers and streams as well as ground water supplies.
    There is No Safe Way to Mine, Store, or Process Nuclear Materials: Even though energy moguls claim that nuclear energy is safe, the truth is that there is no guaranteed safe means for containment of nuclear materials. The risk of an accident and exposure increase exponentially through each step in the process of mining, transportation, storage, refinement, and use or nuclear power which then leaves you with enormous amounts of nuclear waste that must be contained and disposed of. Every step of this process carries great risk for the environment and the community.
    Nuclear Power Will Not Reduce Carbon Emissions: While the plant itself at the point of producing energy may not be emitting as much carbon pollution as a coal plant, it does create equal or greater amounts of carbon emissions during the entire process leading up to that point.
    Exposure to the Radioactive Material Can Be Deadly, Causing Health Problems and Cancer: Through the history of nuclear disasters we have had a living lab to see the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear power plants along with infertility, health problems, and deadly cancers among people in communities even far away from the original site.
    Viable Sources of Clean Renewable Energy Already Exist: We already have the technology available for clean and renewable forms of safe energy that have lower costs than nuclear power including wind and solar which could create thousands of new jobs, boost the economy, and give us a safer solution for the future.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    Nuclear power is extremely costly. Building or restarting the number of nuclear power plants that the industry is pushing for would cost trillions of dollars. For example, there was an estimate created by the Florida Power and Light company to create a new reactor plant with a price tag of between $12 and $18 billion dollars for a single project. This sticker shock would be passed on to consumers already struggling in a weak economy.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7180539.stm

    Nuclear Power Will not Reduce our Dependency on Middle East Oil Supplies: One of the arguments used to support nuclear power is that it will reduce our oil use. This is simply not true because most of the oil that we use is for gas in our automobiles and nuclear power has nothing to do with that since it is producing electricity not fuel.
    Same could be said for renewables?

    Nuclear Power Contaminates Water Supplies: Cases of water contamination with radioactive substances has occurred around over a dozen different nuclear sites around the country. The process of mining materials used in nuclear power plants such as uranium and titanium run a very high risk of water contamination to near by rivers and streams as well as ground water supplies.
    Source?

    There is No Safe Way to Mine, Store, or Process Nuclear Materials: Even though energy moguls claim that nuclear energy is safe, the truth is that there is no guaranteed safe means for containment of nuclear materials. The risk of an accident and exposure increase exponentially through each step in the process of mining, transportation, storage, refinement, and use or nuclear power which then leaves you with enormous amounts of nuclear waste that must be contained and disposed of. Every step of this process carries great risk for the environment and the community.
    :lolwut: Again, please back that up?

    Nuclear Power Will Not Reduce Carbon Emissions: While the plant itself at the point of producing energy may not be emitting as much carbon pollution as a coal plant, it does create equal or greater amounts of carbon emissions during the entire process leading up to that point.
    Same could be said for the carbon emissions produced for the production of wind turbines, solar panels etc.

    Exposure to the Radioactive Material Can Be Deadly, Causing Health Problems and Cancer: Through the history of nuclear disasters we have had a living lab to see the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear power plants along with infertility, health problems, and deadly cancers among people in communities even far away from the original site.
    Heard of something called background radiation?

    Viable Sources of Clean Renewable Energy Already Exist: We already have the technology available for clean and renewable forms of safe energy that have lower costs than nuclear power including wind and solar which could create thousands of new jobs, boost the economy, and give us a safer solution for the future.
    One word: inefficiency.

    OK, I want numbers and I want statistics. Prove to me that we can live in a world through renewables alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear power is absolutely great for producing energy. However it would be worth investing in a lot of lead, aluminium and possibly paper.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Vlad this thread is filled with your goons all who support love nuclear and neg me every time I make a decent comment. Read the first page.

    You want substance? Here you go.

    Nuclear power is extremely costly. Building or restarting the number of nuclear power plants that the industry is pushing for would cost trillions of dollars. For example, there was an estimate created by the Florida Power and Light company to create a new reactor plant with a price tag of between $12 and $18 billion dollars for a single project. This sticker shock would be passed on to consumers already struggling in a weak economy.
    Nuclear Power Will not Reduce our Dependency on Middle East Oil Supplies: One of the arguments used to support nuclear power is that it will reduce our oil use. This is simply not true because most of the oil that we use is for gas in our automobiles and nuclear power has nothing to do with that since it is producing electricity not fuel.
    Nuclear Power Contaminates Water Supplies: Cases of water contamination with radioactive substances has occurred around over a dozen different nuclear sites around the country. The process of mining materials used in nuclear power plants such as uranium and titanium run a very high risk of water contamination to near by rivers and streams as well as ground water supplies.
    There is No Safe Way to Mine, Store, or Process Nuclear Materials: Even though energy moguls claim that nuclear energy is safe, the truth is that there is no guaranteed safe means for containment of nuclear materials. The risk of an accident and exposure increase exponentially through each step in the process of mining, transportation, storage, refinement, and use or nuclear power which then leaves you with enormous amounts of nuclear waste that must be contained and disposed of. Every step of this process carries great risk for the environment and the community.
    Nuclear Power Will Not Reduce Carbon Emissions: While the plant itself at the point of producing energy may not be emitting as much carbon pollution as a coal plant, it does create equal or greater amounts of carbon emissions during the entire process leading up to that point.
    Exposure to the Radioactive Material Can Be Deadly, Causing Health Problems and Cancer: Through the history of nuclear disasters we have had a living lab to see the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear power plants along with infertility, health problems, and deadly cancers among people in communities even far away from the original site.
    Viable Sources of Clean Renewable Energy Already Exist: We already have the technology available for clean and renewable forms of safe energy that have lower costs than nuclear power including wind and solar which could create thousands of new jobs, boost the economy, and give us a safer solution for the future.
    Almost all of which have been debunked by myself or others within this thread. Repeating what you've already said without backing it up with evidence doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I'll address each of those points in detail if you want, but I don't have time now - I have work.
    Offline

    15
    This is pointless.
    Once a nuclear plant blows up near you, you will realise what I mean.
    Here's a great quote that I use in times like these.

    "Do not try to teach those that can't be taught."

    I shall not waste any more time trying to teach you all.

    Class is dismissed.

    P.S. At Im not so academic (I once again ask you to refrain from talking until you learn how to use google )
    http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...and-the-nation

    (Original post by im so academic)
    Source?
    :lolwut: Again, please back that up?
    .
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.