Should we build nuclear power stations?

Watch
TheScienceBoy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hmm?
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Nuclear energy is the future. It's clean, and the goal of nuclear fusion is the best chance of stopping the severe effects of climate change.
1
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Wellzi)
Nuclear energy is the future. It's clean, and the goal of nuclear fusion is the best chance of stopping the severe effects of climate change.
Sure very clean; what about the nuclear waste then? Ever heard of a place called Onkalo, if not check it out...
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by alexkol)
Sure very clean; what about the nuclear waste then? Ever heard of a place called Onkalo, if not check it out...
What's your point about Onkalo? I'm confused...
0
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Wellzi)
What's your point about Onkalo? I'm confused...
My point is that there is no safe way to get rid of the nuclear waste...
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by alexkol)
My point is that there is no safe way to get rid of the nuclear waste...
There are ways of keeping it isolated and out of the way, and it's no reason to disregard the power of the atom.
0
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Wellzi)
There are ways of keeping it isolated and out of the way, and it's no reason to disregard the power of the atom.
Even if you keep them isolated they need to be buried for 100,000 years...do you think this is a viable solution??
0
reply
Zargabaath
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
For the time being, yes. Anything that distances us from the Saudi's is a good idea for me. It means we can stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and stop appeasing dictatorships for the sake of political relations.

Long term however we need to start making renewable sources like solar, wind ect much more efficient. Most importantly, I think we really need to put way more resources into cracking nuclear fusion as well, because I feel ultimately that would solve humanities power issues forever.
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Zargabaath)
Long term however we need to start making renewable sources like solar, wind ect much more efficient. Most importantly, I think we really need to put way more resources into cracking nuclear fusion as well, because I feel ultimately that would solve humanities power issues forever.
I can't rep you yet but this is essentially what I came on this thread to say.
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by alexkol)
Even if you keep them isolated they need to be buried for 100,000 years...do you think this is a viable solution??
Yes. Or at least until another way of disposing of it comes to fruition.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Unfortunately, it's probably necessary. Nuclear power (at least nuclear fission) is not the fuel of the future, but nuclear energy will probably be needed in the short-term as a bridge technology between fossil fuels and renewables.
(Original post by Wellzi)
Nuclear energy is the future. It's clean, and the goal of nuclear fusion is the best chance of stopping the severe effects of climate change.
Nuclear fusion doesn't exist yet though, so calling a fuel that we don't know is ever going to be a viable source of energy "the future" is a bit silly.
1
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Wellzi)
Yes. Or at least until another way of disposing of it comes to fruition.
All these years, there has not been a proper way to dispose them...initially dumping them in the sea (we will see the consequences of that in the near future) or now burying them underground....this is stupid and extremely dangerous...
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Plagioclase)
Unfortunately, it's probably necessary. Nuclear power (at least nuclear fission) is not the fuel of the future, but nuclear energy will probably be needed in the short-term as a bridge technology between fossil fuels and renewables.

Nuclear fusion doesn't exist yet though, so calling a fuel that we don't know is ever going to be a viable source of energy "the future" is a bit silly.
They're already planning to build a fusion reactor in France.

(Original post by alexkol)
All these years, there has not been a proper way to dispose them...initially dumping them in the sea (we will see the consequences of that in the near future) or now burying them underground....this is stupid and extremely dangerous...
Can you give me your source showing how this is extremely dangerous if carried out properly?
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Wellzi)
They're already planning to build a fusion reactor in France.
Yes, and they've been planning that for the last half a century. Once they've demonstrated the feasibility then wonderful, but they've not managed to do that yet. Nuclear fusion is always 20 years away.
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Plagioclase)
Yes, and they've been planning that for the last half a century. Once they've demonstrated the feasibility then wonderful, but they've not managed to do that yet. Nuclear fusion is always 20 years away.
Though they're actually building it now. I think it's a very exciting prospect, but a shame they didn't build it in England.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Wellzi)
Though they're actually building it now. I think it's a very exciting prospect, but a shame they didn't build it in England.
Yes, and they have yet to demonstrate economically viable nuclear fusion. The general view of academics working in energy, according to the head of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and ex-President of CERN (who I assume knows what he's talking about), is that nuclear fusion would be wonderful if it works but that's a very big "if" - you absolutely cannot rely on it becoming feasible because it is very possible that it won't be. It is much more likely that the future energy mix will be renewables dominated.
0
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Wellzi)
Can you give me your source showing how this is extremely dangerous if carried out properly?
There is no proper waste disposal my friend, if they are buried somewhere; they have to stay there for 100,000 years...how will you make sure that no one will access them in that time frame??
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by alexkol)
There is no proper waste disposal my friend, if they are buried somewhere; they have to stay there for 100,000 years...how will you make sure that no one will access them in that time frame??
Nuclear energy is unfortunately going to be necessary to get away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and I think the risk from nuclear waste disposal is probably smaller than the damage caused by any decisions that result in delaying the transition away from fossil fuels. More people are killed from the pollution from a single large coal power plant than the cumulative deaths from all nuclear power plant accidents in human history.
0
reply
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by alexkol)
There is no proper waste disposal my friend, if they are buried somewhere; they have to stay there for 100,000 years...how will you make sure that no one will access them in that time frame??
Put them in a big secure vault, like they actually do in real life. It's not that difficult
0
reply
alexkol
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Plagioclase)
Nuclear energy is unfortunately going to be necessary to get away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and I think the risk from nuclear waste disposal is probably smaller than the damage caused by any decisions that result in delaying the transition away from fossil fuels. More people are killed from the pollution from a single large coal power plant than the cumulative deaths from all nuclear power plant accidents in human history.
Invest all the money to renewable energy then, instead of something else which is going to cause even more problems in the future...nuclear waste is a real danger...you should look into the story of where we used to dump the waste until the 80s, or the story behind Somali pirates or even a more today issue...what are we going to do with the waste?? Don't tell me that nuclear energy is cheaper, as all these reports don't take under consideration the waste disposal...and these figures show that onshore wind is at the same price with a nuclear powerplant...ow wait, they destroy your scenery...what about offshore wind then?? there are many alternatives mate..
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (85)
14.1%
I'm not sure (27)
4.48%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (190)
31.51%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.16%
I'm not a current university student (288)
47.76%

Watched Threads

View All