Nuclear power

[The Shaggy D.A.]

I've just read a quote saying "Earth has enough uranium to provide humans with all of their electricity needs until the sun blows up in 5 billion years, assuming that we develop large-scale breeder reactors".

Are you pro or anti nuclear power?
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5

[instigator]

Pro. We don't act now we'll have power shortages in no time.

I just started my MSc in sustainable energy in buildings, found this idea quite interesting...fuck knows if it's feasible at all..... https://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

[ms51ves3]

It's cool.

[AngelGrinder]

All we need is a big fat rocket we can fire into the sun with all the radioactive left overs....oh look, they are trying to launch a new one right now.

Problem solved.


I'm sick of all the 'green' minority bastards making the government think it is the majority.

Most of us aren't stupid enough to be trying to legislate the country/world into the dark ages.

Stem cells? Yes, I'll take 3.

Nuclear power? Send me 8?

Some other crazy new invention that makes me able to fly, never need to eat, and makes me immortal, while being able to make the most awesome lego creations? But in doing so upsets the greens and the all powerful 'god'?

Yep, send me a few of those aswell.


Government, eco-fags, religion
____________________
Currently Riding - 2002 Aprilia RSV1000 Mille

[oldpink]

I worked for british energy formally british nuclear fuel
but all the Uk nuclear industry is now owned by EDF a french company
as the UK doesn't want to deal with it
so it sold it to the french

if done right nuclear fuel is good but you need to store the waste
if done wrong well you may end up with a nice glow esp in the dark
they need to spend money on fusion rather than fission but I suspect in the current climate investment is a low priority
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR

[LeeR]

I'm neither but see it as a necessary evil, the tonnes of earth/rock that has to be moved to produce a tonne of ore is immense.

If we're honestly going down the nuclear route we may as well start coal mining and build coal fired power stations as the consequences, costs etc... are virtually the same bar a Chernobyl style incident.

In truth there is no such thing as a "green" energy as all of them have an impact on the environment.
____________________
My claim to fame: Austin Vince nicked my pen...

[Ariel Badger]

In a way nuclear power is very green as it is carbon negative however if it goes wrong it goes very wrong.
in 2000 I was going through a difficult patch and found myself working on a voluntary basis in the Gomel State University in Belarus. Gomel is just one of a thousand ex Soviet cities and is famous for a few things, its defiance of the Nazis in WW2, the beauty of its girls ( I was unwaged but the job had its perks) and its proximity to a very small town 50 miles to the south in the Ukraine.

On April 26,1986 the Chernobyl reactor number four exploded the wind was a gentle northern one. At about one in the afternoon ash started to fall on Gomel. The town was not evacuated but people were told to stay indoors.

Believe me when things go bad they go very bad.
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.

[.Chris.]

Count me as a pro.

I'd rather not have nuclear power as obviously the consequences of things going wrong are pretty horrific, but the reality is we have little choice. The other options consist of:

1. Continue to rely heavily on gas, a dependency that will get worse with time as the older nuclear stations are shut down. Given that North Sea gas is running out this could easily leave us at the mercy of Gazprom for our energy supplies, not something that I particularly fancy.

2. Build more coal-fired stations. Not likely to be popular with the eco-lobby. Our domestic coal industry is no longer big enough to supply us with enough coal to meet a large proportion of our energy needs.

3. Import the electricity. Too expensive to consider.

4. Attempt to use wind turbines and such like. Not an option - far too expensive, probably wouldn't work anyway and would destroy our landscape.

5. Attempt to make up the shortfall by using less energy. Wouldn't work without even more massively authoritarian policies than we have at the moment. Would also appear to contradict the government's (rediculous) stated aim of shifting people into electric cars in the near future.

6. The lights go out.

All in all I'd rather build more nuclear stations than any of the above. I'm confident that it could be done safely - after all the French manage to generate 80% of their electricity from nuclear and haven't had any big accidents.
____________________
Chris
1985 Kawasaki Z550F

[damz]

considering there has only been one major nuclear accident, which was in the soviet union it has a pretty good safety record. as the poll suggest the majority of people think its neccessary for us to carry on living the way we live. France can depend on it, why cant we?
____________________
Current Bikes RVF400 - 94
Cars: RX7 FD, Eunos Roadster
Former Bikes: FZR 250R 89, ZX7R 98

[MarJay]

[Ariel Badger]

[Ariel Badger]

Marjay, you is de google king
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.

[Paulington]

Until a viable alternative is released that DOESN'T include covering the entire fucking Earth in solid white windmills or ridiculous amounts of solar arrays then I think Nuclear energy is most obviously the way to go.

We have enough reserves for around 600 years of uranium fuelled power at today's rate of consumption. However if in those 600 years we find a much better way to remove Uranium from water that it is dissolved in, we have about another 67000 years worth of fuel.

Bear in mind this is strictly Uranium, in practice we use other fuels too so nuclear fuel is on the time scale of a human, nigh-on inexhaustable.

By the time all this is exhausted, we will have figured out something else that isn't stupid and fail like wind/water/solar power or is some combination of those just not the extremes involved in loads of windmills/dams/solar arrays.

In a few billion years this planet will be engulfed by the Sun anyway, by which time we'll either be dead or will have fucked off to another planet/place in space anyway.

Two pennies. .
____________________
"Four wheels move the body, two wheels move the soul."
Current Vehicles: '89 Kawasaki KDX200, '99 Yamaha XV535, '00 Honda ST1100 Pan-European, '08 Suzuki GSX-R1000, '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GS4 2.0 TDCi, '15 BMW 1 Series 116d Sport Turbo.
CBT: 27/08/08. Theory: 04/09/09. Module 1: 16/09/09. Module 2: 01/10/09.

[5v3d3b0]

I think we should kill off all the people from:
Greenpeace
Big Brother
I'm a celebrity blah blah blah
The hills
Sweet sixteen
All the chavs
etc
etc
etc.
That'll cut power needs down significantly. We then use the bodies for fuel. Do you know how much energy can be extracted from a fat pregnant 16 year old chav?

[Dr. DaveJPS]

[pits]

[Alexio]

[el_oso]

nuclear is the way to go for the moment.
bear in mind that a fuel pellet this size produces roughly the equivalent of one ton of coal.
plus no carbon dioxide going into the air (at least negligible compared to coal)
Uranium doesn't have to be used in nuclear power. anything above Molybdenum in the periodic table can be used in fission. Just a lot harder with atoms with a mass number <<238 which is the limit before things become unstable and is therefore quite easy to add one more particle to make it unstable and release energy.

https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/images/intro_fig3.jpg
____________________
Duke 390
Previous: '05 XR125L | '96 XJ600S Diversion |'05 Suzuki GSXR1000 | '05 Honda CBR125-R | '97 YZF 600R Thundercat | '11 Honda CBR250
Car: Jeep Wrangler 4.0L

[The999Kid]

If they ever crack cold fusion it will be a bright bright day in the power world... also.. whats wring with turning nuclear waste into rounds for the Army.. I.E somewhere along the lines of Depleted uranium rounds but made from nuclear waste products.
____________________
NDB 19/10/1989 - 1/11/2010 |Nowhere.Elyseum wrote: I get the distinct feeling that Tim should be our secret weapon for future trolling. I don't know many people that can rip the piss in Iambic pentameter

[Robby]

I understand that fusion is currently expected to be 50 years off. Allow for 200 years to have plenty of margin for error.

So if you expect a nuclear power plant to do 50 years, prior to extensive refurb or just shutting it down and building a new one next to it, you have space to build them.

Nuclear waste need to be disposed of or stored, but that's what the sellafield complex is for. That or shoot it into the sun. the guy who mentioned the melting point of aluminium has a point, but if the waste is bound in something with a high melting point then by the time the casing melts the waste will be near enough the sun to be sucked in my its gravitational pull.

Nothing else is particularly efficient or effective. Fossil fuels will run out at some point, and as they run out they'll become more expensive. Biofuels show some merit, but the energy put in to grow and harvest is too high a proportion of the energy released on combustion.
Renewables can make up a portion of electricity generation, but again the energy expended in building, transporting, erecting and maintaining them may well be more than the total energy generated in their working lifetime. Very expensive in terms of money as well.

Anyone who complains about what to do with nuclear waste should remember this. 50 years ago it was dumped in the sea in barrells or down mine shafts because no one knew what to do with it. Then around 20(ish) years ago the facility as sellafield was built to store the waste underground, encased in glass. This is light years ahead of the old solution and still quite rudimentary. Future generation will find better ways to handle it, quite possibly involving re-using it for energy generation somehow.

Also the issue of the 3 disasters so far. Technology has improved since those disasters making the current generation of nuclear power stations very safe. Future generations will be even safer.

Not building nuclear power stations because of mistakes made in the past would be like stopping production of cars because in 1910 they were dangerous and leaked oil.

[Mushroom]

[Villers]

Im pro.

I think we are behind the times though and need to catch up quickly. The amount of time it takes to build these things is immense, not to mention the cost. Also take into account that virtually no-one (pro nuclear or not) want one of these reactors over their back fence make it incredibly difficult.

Furthermore, the general population are in a lot of cases ignorant to the effects of nuclear material and think that at the slightest jolt the whole place will go up like Hiroshima's just went off again. Ths leads to mass hysteria, even in well educated people who should no better. The national media (who seem to control a lot of people in this country) love that sort of thing. Take, for example, an inident recently at sellafield where a pipe broke inside a closed cell and spilled liquor onto the floor. This was described in Parliament as an accident 'Worthy of Homer Simpson'.

I sit not 12 miles from where the Windscale fire took place. I sit a lot closer during the day. It worries me not one bit. Going onto the Chernobyl incident, from what I believe it was a result of operating outside of prescribed conditions that led to the disaster, not entirely a billion to one chance. Many industries have the potential to do just a thing, for example Piper Alpha. Just in the case of Nuclear materials there are more widespread consequences. when dealing with this you have to understand how intricate and complicated the procedures and engineered protections are that are involved in such installations. In the nuclear industry, simple tasks that have even just industrial safety hazards cost thousands to carry out, whereas the same tasks elsewhere could take just an afternoon and a few hundred pounds. This is because the indusrty is so petrified of bad press its unbelievable. I have seen this kind of thing first hand.

I wont continue because Im waffling, but look back at some newspaper headlines such as 'Radiation Leak at Sellafield' and you understand that there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding the nuclear industry.
____________________
RS125 > CBR6 > SV650S > ZX636R > GSX1300RZ Hayabusa > 06 RSVR Mille > SV1000S > Street Triple 765 RS

[smegballs]

I think the sad fact is that the planet is not "designed" (not in a religius way) to provide masses of electrical power...

I can see drawbacks with all energy generation on our current massive scale. Even re-newables have the chance to cause massive climate change if overused....

Sooner or later the lights will go out, is just a matter of time.....

[damz]

[Wafer_Thin_Ham]