World Nuclear Association

Are they right ?

  • yes

    Votes: 22 78.6%

  • no

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • maybe (who gives a damn?)

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Total voters
    28
Sprafa

Sprafa

Tank
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
We live in a world that has only begun to consume energy. Today India and China are gaining rapidly on Europe and America in per capita energy consumption.

During the next 50 years, as Earth's population expands from 6 billion toward 9 billion, humanity will consume more energy than the combined total used in all previous history.

With carbon emissions now threatening the very stability of the biosphere, the security of our world requires a massive transformation to clean energy.


"Renewables" like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale.

Fortunately, this urgently needed expansion can now build on a half-century of tremendous advance in the safe and secure operation of nuclear technology.

We are confident that an informed public debate - focused on facts rather than myths - will demonstrate that nuclear energy is indispensable to sustainable global development.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/whyu.htm
 
As dangerous as nuclear power can be I have to agree, at the moment totally clean energy sources will not be able to get anywhere near meeting the demands that will arise for energy, and of course we don't want to use fossil fuels any more than we have too.
 
I hope they complete the nuclear fusion technology soon.
 
Sprafa said:
"Renewables" like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is totally clean. It certainly is cleaner than oil and coal, but I believe it does produce highly radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel rods and radioactive water.
 
Yeah they are right but to an extent, other renewable resources should be used as much as possible. I dont like the idea of all our power coming from nuclear sources, incase of more chernobyls.
 
The Chernobyl reactor worked fine and was safe, but the engineers wanted to try an experiment and shut off most of the important safety systems.
 
Sweden is the top country for waterpower in the world, in my little town of 2000 people, we have 2 plants.
But almost every plant is in the north, since when the spring will come and all the snow melt, it is water. :)
 
affen said:
The Chernobyl reactor worked fine and was safe, but the engineers wanted to try an experiment and shut off most of the important safety systems.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it was a great example what happens if anything goes wrong.

It blew radioactive dust all over Europe, and it could happen again in any country that have a NP-plant.
 
Anti-mass is the power-source of the futere.
Expensive? Naa, only some 4000 times the whole US BNP to lit one light. :p
 
moppe said:
Yes, but it was a great example what happens if anything goes wrong.

It blew radioactive dust all over Europe, and it could happen again in any country that have a NP-plant.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. If you compare soviet nuclear plants to modern "western" plants, you will find that the security here is some 200 000% higher than it was in russia at the time for the catasproph.
 
Nuclear Fusion will be here in 10 - 20 years, hopefully. Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric can not produce enough energy to meet the global as the technology stands now, also, sighting things such as wind farms is extremely difficult due to the problems the locals cause.
 
DarkStar said:
Nuclear power is totally clean.
Click to expand...

No thats not really true. The concentration of radioactive particles around the NW coast of Wales is higher than elsewhere, mainly due to the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing plant. Mind you, Chernobyl isn't nearly as dangerous as made out, wildlife is flourishing in that area. You don't really see many 5 legged wolves out there.

The basic problem as I see it, is that energy is too cheap. Its like somebody has given society a credit card, saying "SPEND SPEND SPEND ITS FREEEE!!!!", and not mentioned the enormous APR that they'll be hit with after a few years.

Turn off the lights you're not using. Enable the power saving mode on your monitor. Turn the car engine off in a traffic jam. They're simple things, but it all helps.
 
moppe said:
Sweden is the top country for waterpower in the world, in my little town of 2000 people, we have 2 plants.
But almost every plant is in the north, since when the spring will come and all the snow melt, it is water. :)
Click to expand...
Hydroelectric power is clean, but dont forget that you need to flood a huge area in order in order to have a big reservoir of water, thus destroying this area. If you flood trees, then they will create mercury that renders the water undrinkable (killing fish and animals drinking too much). Good thing is that after a few years (30 to 50 years, I think) the mercury is not a problem.

I just wanted to point that even hydro power is not 100% clean (nothing is), but I believe it is the best we have to produce large amounts of energy. Wind or solar is just too weak.

btw, in Quebec (province of Canada) we have 38 000 MW of hydroelectric power, which represents 98% of all the electricity we produce.

Nuclear fusion should be availlable in about 30 to 40 years. It is safe (no meltdown), it does not have any dangerous waste and it can produce a hell of a lot of power.
 
I'm definitely in favor of nuclear energy until we have fusion plants or some other REAL environmentally friendly energysources. The hippies make it sound a lot worse than it is, only real problem is properly disposing the waste, but if we put enough effort into that, it shouldn't be too hard.

It takes some 5000 windmills to replace one nuclear plant, bye bye pretty view on the landscape, not to mention all the birds being shredded by those meatgrinders. They suck to look at, are very costly (will take years before any profit is made over one) require a lot of maintenance.

I just wanted to point that even hydro power is not 100% clean (nothing is), but I believe it is the best we have to produce large amounts of energy. Wind or solar is just too weak.
Click to expand...

Look at that dam in China, a huge area is being flooded, millions of people have to move. And it's not really possible for smaller countries. I think that will do more damage than any nuclear plant could ever do.
 
What about that perendev's magnetic generator thingy? If that works, to hell iwth nuclear power I say!

( I voted yes)
 
Parrot of doom said:
No thats not really true. The concentration of radioactive particles around the NW coast of Wales is higher than elsewhere, mainly due to the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing plant. Mind you, Chernobyl isn't nearly as dangerous as made out, wildlife is flourishing in that area. You don't really see many 5 legged wolves out there.

The basic problem as I see it, is that energy is too cheap. Its like somebody has given society a credit card, saying "SPEND SPEND SPEND ITS FREEEE!!!!", and not mentioned the enormous APR that they'll be hit with after a few years.

Turn off the lights you're not using. Enable the power saving mode on your monitor. Turn the car engine off in a traffic jam. They're simple things, but it all helps.
Click to expand...

If you would have read the rest of my post you would have realized I made a typo. I meant "Nuclear power ISN'T totally clean."
 
The problem is alternatives. If anyone bothered to read the damn article I linked they show that we're running out of alternatives to nuclear power.

By the way, did you know that if the entire world started relying on nuclear power, we would end the fissile material in 100 years?

Thorium might fix that, but for now Nuclear power doesn't have much future without it - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm
 
i think they do have a point...cars aren't save either, but ppl still drive em...so...and we need it
 
DarkStar said:
If you would have read the rest of my post you would have realized I made a typo. I meant "Nuclear power ISN'T totally clean."
Click to expand...

My apologies.

BTW, as early as next year, miniature wind turbines will be available at a cost of around £1 500, I'll certainly be looking at getting one.

We're just so wasteful in this country. Honestly, if everybody had to deal with the consequences of the waste they produce, you'd see much less of it. There are some very simple things we can all do to reduce the damage we cause, but government doesn't consider it a priority:

1) tax packaging on food
2) force energy companies to introduce tiered consumer packages (like mobile phone contracts so if you use too much energy, you pay a higher cost)
3) charge people for bin collection per weight of rubbish, ie the more rubbish you want to dispose, the more you pay
4) give out free organic waste composting bins
5) give tax incentives to car sharing schemes
6) ban PVCu windows, doors, fascia boards, guttering, and offer sustainable alternatives
7) market a big drive to raise awareness of grants for renewable energies in the home (solar, wind, heat pumps, etc)

Its not hard, is it?
 
Well...Its extremely difficult because politicians like posing and the masses like their crap :D

Some of those points are good, but placing tax on packaging would jsut mean we have to pay more. Instead there should just be more rules on what can be used.

Energy bills aren't always flat rate, but those that are are based off the size of the household I believe.

Banning PVCu windows and so forth would be very difficult because of the infrastructure that has built up around that business.
 
The incentive for companies to reduce the amount of packaging they use would be more custom. The next time you open, say, a packet of cakes, take a look at how much packaging there is. Chances are:

1) Comes in a plastic bag from the shop, that you didn't ask for
2) Cakes are in a box (coated to make it shiny)
3) Open the box, cakes are in a plastic tray or individual wrappers

Do we really need all those? How about putting the cakes in a cardboard box, like eggs arrive in, and printing the details on the box with ink, as opposed to placing a label on the box?

Another one is cereal. Why oh why hasn't somebody designed a cereal box that doesn't require a bag on the inside? Or, call me stupid, why not dispense with the box altogether, and just sell cereal in bags?

Regarding banning PVCu, those companies would just switch to wood instead, a much more viable material. The only reason people don't like wood, is because it needs painting every few years (a job that takes about 3-4 hours). My windows have lasted 100 years. PVCu? 15 tops.
 
Ban non-biodegradeables (sp?)

Switch to solar power

nuff said.
 
it would still be alot of hardwork to develop enough nuclear facility's to supply all 9 billion of us at that time ,, plus all that possible nuclear waste.

I think it could be a solution but it will struggle,

I dont think nuclear power is the way, from what ive seen anyway.

edit: dont you just love the way people vote who gives a damn, :|

for their notice, without energy you wouldnt be using your computer's right now. or cooking your food in the way that you do, or watching TV , or enjoying central heating in the winter. Or even getting fuel for your car would be difficult, because first of all most fuel pumps are electrical, and if it was a worry at that time fuel would be scarce in production anyway.

or even worse! not being able to play HL2
 
clarky003 said:
I dont think nuclear power is the way, from what ive seen anyway.
Click to expand...


You may have to stop using electricity then. It is very likely that fossil fuels will become exhausted this century and renewable energy simply can't cope with the demand. It has been calculated that you couldn't meet todays energy requirements with solar power, even if you covered the entire earth's surface with solar panels.

Be it fission or fusion, nuclear power may well be the only way to generate sufficient energy in the future.
 
Matthias said:
You may have to stop using electricity then. It is very likely that fossil fuels will become exhausted this century and renewable energy simply can't cope with the demand. It has been calculated that you couldn't meet todays energy requirements with solar power, even if you covered the entire earth's surface with solar panels.

Be it fission or fusion, nuclear power may well be the only way to generate sufficient energy in the future.
Click to expand...

believe it or not ill be fine :), a few engineer friends of my dad are helping out in creating a house generator based on Perendev principles, but instead of it powering a generator, to avoid drag of an attached motor, the rotor has a section with coils layed round it, so the actual rotor movement induces the electricity and therefore becomes the generator aswell.

its good stuff.
 
clarky003 said:
believe it or not ill be fine :), a few engineer friends of my dad are helping out in creating a house generator based on Perendev principles, but instead of it powering a generator, to avoid drag of an attached motor, the rotor has a section with coils layed round it, so the actual rotor movement induces the electricity and therefore becomes the generator aswell.

its good stuff.
Click to expand...


I would rather make my own solar power plant, that is actually proved to work.
 
well you see that there are not enough research projects to develop wind and shit. Perhaps if they did that they might make it more efficient? I dont really know.
I voted yes
 
pardon me if i'm wrong but don't you spend quite a lot of energy creating the solar panels themselves, not to mention the sheer number of panels you would need to power the most minute of things, you'd end up spending more energy than you've saved in the end right.
 
Parrot of doom said:
My apologies.

BTW, as early as next year, miniature wind turbines will be available at a cost of around £1 500, I'll certainly be looking at getting one.
Click to expand...
You wont go far with this. With 1500 Watts of power you can maybe use your toaster, but nothing more. And that is only when its windy outside, so dont plan on using it to heat your house.

clarky003 said:
believe it or not ill be fine :), a few engineer friends of my dad are helping out in creating a house generator based on Perendev principles, but instead of it powering a generator, to avoid drag of an attached motor, the rotor has a section with coils layed round it, so the actual rotor movement induces the electricity and therefore becomes the generator aswell.

its good stuff.
Click to expand...
What source of energy is this device using to make electricity?
 
nicrd said:
You wont go far with this. With 1500 Watts of power you can maybe use your toaster, but nothing more. And that is only when its windy outside, so dont plan on using it to heat your house.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that one of these will reduce my electricity bills over several years, so that purchasing one becomes profitable. What energy the turbine generates that I don't use at that time, is sold back to the national energy grid, by turning my meter backwards (something which in the UK they are legally bound to allow).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top