• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Nuclear Power Is On the Brink Of a $1 Trillion Resurgence

william

william

Power Poster III
Donator
Major Contributor

MSN

www.msn.com

"Thanks to new nuclear technology and the increasingly urgent need to fight climate change, nuclear energy is getting a second shot at becoming a prominent part of the global energy grid. That's because nuclear energy generation does not create any of the dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."
 
I guess the disappearing water crises won't matter as long as we get rid of the dangerous greenhouse gases :rolleyes: A large nuclear power plant uses up to 1 billion gallons of water a day.
 
Incognito said:
large nuclear power plant uses up to 1 billion gallons of water a day.
Click to expand...
That 1 billion gallons gets (almost) entirely returned back to the source usual a river, ocean, or lake safely that many people drink, swim, or shower in.

It doesn't work like the way you imply. 1 billion gallons of water doesn't just disappear. It gets turned into steam, THEN cools down primarily in cooling towners where it condenses on the walls turning it back into water and trickles back to its source. Only a very small fraction is evaporated into the atmosphere.

That's the whole purpose of those big giant iconic towers at nuclear power plants. Not where the power is made but where the hot water/steam cools down to become cooled liquid water again and return to the source.
 
I don't think the cooling towers are freezers, so the water would go back to a liquid
 
Nuclear energy is, in my opinion, one of the best solution we have to climate change and our energy needs in general.
The plants themselves pump billions into the local economy, provide thousands of jobs over many decades.
I will never understand why some people don't like nuclear power, we have ways of dealing with the waste and serious accidents are very rare, often due to multiple errors both design and human.
When I think nuclear, I think clean limitless energy. We have enough uranium on the planet for the foreseeable future (and that's not even taking thorium into account!).
 
Friendly Engineer said:
Nuclear energy is, in my opinion, one of the best solution we have to climate change and our energy needs in general.
The plants themselves pump billions into the local economy, provide thousands of jobs over many decades.
I will never understand why some people don't like nuclear power, we have ways of dealing with the waste and serious accidents are very rare, often due to multiple errors both design and human.
When I think nuclear, I think clean limitless energy. We have enough uranium on the planet for the foreseeable future (and that's not even taking thorium into account!).
Click to expand...
How do you get around the problem nuclear power plants present with their incredibly toxic waste?

As The Simpsons once said, "Nuclear power is the safest energy. Except for once in a while. Then look out!"
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Nuclear power is the safest energy
Click to expand...
It is the safest. If you compared all other power and resources for energy production, all other forms of power kill more then nuclear by a very huge landslide, even wind and solar is more dangerous and causes more deaths from maintenance/construction/accidents.

Coal, gas, and oil has killed more through mining/drilling accidents, and other on site hazards at fossil fuel power plants and the mines that feed them. (Not even mentioning the deaths from pollution)

Every single nuclear power plant related death from the very begging of its creation has killed less people than fossil fuels by a stupid ridiculously giant landslide.

It is not opinion but pure statistical fact that hands down nuclear power is the most safest form of power out there.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
How do you get around the problem nuclear power plants present with their incredibly toxic waste?
Click to expand...
That isn't a problem and nuclear waste is entirely safly secured/stored on site and isn't what you think either. This guy does a very great job explaining with credible sources:
There is zero data out there of environmental contamination or human deaths from nuclear power plant waste. Nuclear waste is not what people think and is always stored safly.

I encourage everyone to watch the video above and expand your knowledge.
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
It is the safest. If you compared all other power and resources for energy production
Click to expand...
So far. But the potential is there and that can not be denied.

DarkNoon said:
entirely safly secured/stored on site and isn't what you think either.
Click to expand...
Until it isn't.

Waste from coal, wind, solar, etc., is nowhere near as dangerous as nuclear. That also is a fact.

I'm not against nuclear power. I am just understanding the arguments.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
So far. But the potential is there and that can not be denied.


Until it isn't.

Waste from coal, wind, solar, etc., is nowhere near as dangerous as nuclear. That also is a fact.

I'm not against nuclear power. I am just understanding the arguments.
Click to expand...
Waste can be reprocessed.
Also when handled properly the waste it is quite harmless to the general public.
Let's break down what happens to waste from reactor to storage.
-> Waste is cooled down in pools
-> Waste is then sent off for reprocessing into new nuclear fuel and extracting useful isotopes (e.g. Americium-241 is used in smoke detectors)
-> non-useful waste is then vitrified with lead and then packaged into secure containers and buried. although this depends from country to country.
it's quite safe as it's handled very carefully. It's usually either vitrified then stored in reinforced concrete blocks for a while, or stored in extremely tough containers designed to last for thousands of years and buried deep underground in old mineshafts.
really it's only harmful if mr nutty 'mc jihad' face gets his hands on it and puts it into powder form and straps some C4 to it and drives into a city.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
So far. But the potential is there and that can not be denied.


Until it isn't.

Waste from coal, wind, solar, etc., is nowhere near as dangerous as nuclear. That also is a fact.

I'm not against nuclear power. I am just understanding the arguments.
Click to expand...
Coal waste is the pollution it gives off, really. And that has caused hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths.
Yea, until it isn't. But we cant just live in fear of our own mistakes, we got to just learn from them. I'm sure a few places will be radioactive from our mistakes. But we already have a lot of industry related "deadzones", and accidents happen in all industry, including things like catastrophic chemical leaks, which may just be harder to safely evacuate than radioactive locations.
www.hsph.harvard.edu

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide

New research finds that deaths from fossil fuel emissions are higher than previously thought—more than 8 million people per year, worldwide.
www.hsph.harvard.edu www.hsph.harvard.edu
 
I suppose you could die from radioactive waste if you A) broke into the secured facility where it's being processed and swallowed some.
or B) blast mined through concrete in the places where it's been buried, then cut your way through containment vessels using acetylene cutting gear then eat some
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top