Nuclear Power --- The Way to Go?

Warbsywoo

Warbsywoo

Hellodia.
Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
4,891
Age
35
Location
California
Gil
2
Is nuclear power the successor to the fossil fuels, is it our best alternative?
I mean think about it, fossil fuels are running out, wind power and hydroelectric power are limited and are dependent on various factors and require large tracts of land.
Solar energy cannot produce nearly as much as anything out there and would take up loads of space.

So for now, is nuclear power our best bet if we plan to keep our energy grid going?
The main factor with opponents of this would have to be the danger and fear factor, even though the reactors have been proven to be safe.

Personally, I'm all for it. It gives us the most bang for our buck.
 
Nuclear power? Perhaps if you want to have cancer.

As for solar power - space is limitless. ;) We're currently working on (1) smaller solar panels & (2) creating a way to make satelites with thousands of solar panels that gather the energy & then transmit it back down to Earth.
 
Nuclear power is much better than fossel fuels providing we trust the manufacturers, bare in mind that thousands have died mining coal in my country alone.

I pray that solar/wind/hydro power may one day replace our current methods.

Renewable, sustainable fuel is the only way we, as a species can survive. Dramatic statement but true.
 
Okay, okay, I see where you guys are coming from with this.

Nuclear power is limited as well, unlike solar/wind/hydro power. However, it does provide us with the best efficiency rate to suit our purposes. I mean, once the fossil fuel sources crash, we would have to find some way to replace the crash in energy as well, and where do we get that ---- nuclear power.

Sure, solar, wind, and hydro power are all economically and environmentally friendly, but for our purposes, nuclear power should pose the best alternative --- for now. I mean, powering the vast populace of the planet with just solar, wind, and hydro power would take up vast amounts of space on a planet that is quickly running out of it.

That's my take.
 
Nuclear power is the best damn option we have. Solar panels are horribly inefficient and hydroelectric dams only work in limited areas. However, we should be launching that nuclear waste into space, not hiding it in mine shafts.
 
Notice how many British people are for nuclear power...

It's a great thing that America has never fully developed in. Accidents like 3-Mile Island scared us off. Back then it really wasn't very safe. Nowadays it's the primary source of power for a lot of countries... especially when they have limited space. They're way ahead of the curve and we're still sucking down fossil fuels like men gone mad. I think the stats are that we use nearly 50% of the world's oil and yet we bitch when the prices rise.
 
I'm for it... unless someone can tell me how we are going to get massive amounts of power without fossil fuels...

Thats right, i doubt there is any method.... yet.

So i wish people would stop bitching about nuclear power and let the country move forward. We NEED nuclear power.
 
Ambiguity said:
Nuclear power is the best damn option we have. Solar panels are horribly inefficient and hydroelectric dams only work in limited areas. However, we should be launching that nuclear waste into space, not hiding it in mine shafts.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's the one of the main arguments against nuclear power, is where to put the waste. As of now, we have no idea, where to permanently store it. I know that there isn't that much nuclear waste being stored permanently, but it's obviously going to increase in later years.
Another argument is transportation of the waste?
How would you feel if a nuclear truck was driving right next to you on the freeway?

To answer my own question, there are many many precautions.

Aztec Triogal said:
It's a great thing that America has never fully developed in. Accidents like 3-Mile Island scared us off. Back then it really wasn't very safe. Nowadays it's the primary source of power for a lot of countries... especially when they have limited space. They're way ahead of the curve and we're still sucking down fossil fuels like men gone mad. I think the stats are that we use nearly 50% of the world's oil and yet we bitch when the prices rise.
Click to expand...

I think the same way too.
Chernobyl was a drastic failure of the Soviet design --- it was rather cruddy.
Three-Mile Island killed no one, though that sparked the fear factor.

Grimoire Valentine said:
Look, Im not FOR nuclear power, but it is the only option in our world of ever decreasing natural fuels.
Click to expand...

--- for now, of course. ;)

Clyde said:
I'm for it... unless someone can tell me how we are going to get massive amounts of power without fossil fuels...

So i wish people would stop bitching about nuclear power and let the country move forward. We NEED nuclear power.
Click to expand...

I agree as well. We need nuclear power now, at least to supplement the dying fossil fuels. The crash would be less worse.

My best bet would be a combination of all the major sources to make everyone in the least bit satisfied...just less fossil fuels.
 
Lucifer Morningstar said:
I'm personally holding out for cold fusion.
Click to expand...

Still being researched, but that would be a better option if they can prove that it works in terms of producing energy... not bombs...

Good thing is it doesn't require so much heat and pressure so it could be safer...


A much safer option would be to make all prison inmates pedal for power. Not pedaling will result in a lashing... or summary execution
 
I think nuclear power is the best option for the future thus far. People usually cite Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as reasons for why nuclear power is a terrible idea. Chernobyl was just piss poor planning on the part of the Soviets. It was unbelievably bad designing and even worse management that caused the disaster. Three Mile Island was contained and no one died. While solar and wind energy are environmentally friendly, unfortunately, they just don't seem realistically feasible. They don't supply enough energy.
 
Yes, plus they take huge tracts of land to even power a city the size of New York. Much less cities like Tokyo.

Nuclear power is the most feasible, or at least, until they finish the research for the cold fusion technology.

The fear factor, of course, was born by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, like Mystrila said, and that is because people are scared of new things, just like they were scared with steam technology 200 years ago.
Thing is, this fear might just grow out of us eventually, but it likely won't subside for a while.
Problem is, we're thinking way too much about our present condition and not the condition our planet will be in decades from now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top