nuclear power plants for generation of energy

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by forumrating, Sep 19, 2007.

?

nuclear power plant be allowed to made to generate energy ?

  1. yes

    8 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. no

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. poor question

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. #1
    should nuclear power plants be allowed to work up for generation of electricity and energy ?
     
    forumrating, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  2. ::Mike::

    ::Mike:: Peon

    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    When they try and build a nuclear power plant i will be with any protectors and not moving for anything.
    the 'green' power is cheaper to maintain and faster to build.
     
    ::Mike::, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  3. Jackuul

    Jackuul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #3
    Nuclear power is safe, efficent, and produces no greenhouse gasses or emissions. I support the building of NEW facilities and the decomissioning of the OLD faciklities built FOURTY AND THIRTY YEARS AGO - as new ones would obviously be safer and better. All this broo-ha-ha over the bullshit propaganda about how dangerous they are is just that, a bunch of bullshit. We are not the Soviet Union, we do take care of our plants, and we will never have a Chernobyl. Three Mile Island happend back in a time when regulations were still underway - and it didnt do much. Today if we built nuke plants they would be more efficent, powerful, safer, and better - but no, the goddamn moronic idiots who say "Nukes are like, totally bad, like, dude" want to go off and STOP PROGRESS. So fine, we build more Coal and Oil plants. Happy? HAPPY? Lets look at how many NEW COAL PLANTS there are. Hmmm. Thousands.

    Know why we don't do solar? Too expensive, and not enough energy output. What about hydroelectric? Yay, kill more fish - you guys stop those too. Biofuel? Costs too much to do at this point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology#Current_technologies

    Go ahead, keep on stifling our ability to research and bring about better nuclear technologies that make it safer, better, powerful, and a solution to the pollution we pump out daily, or better yet, go stifle yourself Meathead.
     
    Jackuul, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  4. hanz

    hanz Peon

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    agree with Jackuul, nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of generating electricity and possibility of some kind of disaster is extremely small, so why should we ban it?
     
    hanz, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  5. forumrating

    forumrating Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #5
    what about nuclear wastes generated while running the plant ?
     
    forumrating, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  6. Jackuul

    Jackuul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #6
    BECUZ IT IS TEH EV0L!!!!! LAWL!

    That's the reasoning right there. They'd rather impede the nuke plants that have no emissions of any kind, than the coal plants that belch out more carbon emissions than an L.A. highway at 5pm individually.
     
    Jackuul, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  7. Pauline

    Pauline Peon

    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    can you rephrase the question? I voted poor question. :D
     
    Pauline, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  8. ::Mike::

    ::Mike:: Peon

    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Have you seen the amount of nuclear waste produced?
    its stupid, it takes thousands of years untill it is safe to dispose of.
    green things like wind turbines do not create any emissions.

    we all know nuclear is safe, but it is not the most efficient for out economy its the cheapest to run and the fastest to build.

    go on green peace's website.
     
    ::Mike::, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  9. Jackuul

    Jackuul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #9
    Nuclear power is expensive, not cheap. It is expensive because it is powerful, and our technologies now insure that nuclear waste is taken care of effectively without any byproducts reaching other areas or contamination. Coal is the cheapest to build and fastest to run, and it belches out more emissions than a nuke plant ever would - because nuke plants make no emissions. Wind is too weak, water too scarce, the sun too expensive - Nuclear is out best option, and investments into it will lead to Fusion Nuclear Power rather than our current Fission based power plants.
     
    Jackuul, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  10. forumrating

    forumrating Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #10
    u mean whatever waste is generated will be dumped in the power plant back so there is no wastage ?
     
    forumrating, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  11. judetheobscure

    judetheobscure Peon

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    nuclear power, as any physicist will tell you is the cleanest most efficient way to produce energy today. as for green energy, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. they can produce some energy but not nearly enough and it is idealistic though understandable that some would want to pursue this method, however it will never work on a large scale.
     
    judetheobscure, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  12. davewashere

    davewashere Active Member

    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    33
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #12
    The nuclear option is the best one. The fact is no nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. in decades, so the ones that are running are based on some very old technology. Using modern technology and many more safety standards than before, I think nuclear power could be the green solution that everyone has been looking for. The power than can be generated is huge, and new technologies cut down on the waste produced. If the U.S. could get some new nuclear power plants and start switching over to electric cars (with much of that electricity coming from nuclear power), the world would be a much cleaner place. It sure beats using our #1 food product (corn) to make fuel for our cars. I still can't believe that some so-called environmentalists support E85 and are anti-nuclear power at the same time.
     
    davewashere, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  13. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #13
    I think nuclear costs something like 2 cents more per kilowatt hour than coal does. It's negligible. Plus, nuclear power produces less waste than coal. And next to no pollution. If France can recycle its nuclear waste, surely we could too.
     
    lorien1973, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  14. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #14
    All of our electrical energy should come from nuclear plants.

    Especially when we have these asshats buying electric cars and proclaiming to be "green" even when the electicity used to power the cars comes from coal fueled power stations.
     
    stOx, Sep 19, 2007 IP
  15. SunnyDE

    SunnyDE Peon

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Sooner or later someone will figure out a safe way to split the atom and all problems will be solved.
     
    SunnyDE, Oct 8, 2007 IP
  16. Jackuul

    Jackuul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,972
    Likes Received:
    115
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #16
    ...it already is safe.
     
    Jackuul, Oct 8, 2007 IP
  17. tesla

    tesla Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,840
    Likes Received:
    155
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    203
    #17
    I voted yes, but only if the plant is located in:

    1. An area that is uninhabited, and far away from cities or towns.

    2. Procedures are used to contain the meltdown if it occurs.

    3. The plant has security to guard against terrorists.
     
    tesla, Oct 9, 2007 IP
  18. crownrahul

    crownrahul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #18
    I also vote yes, I very much agree with tesla's thinkings..
    regards
     
    crownrahul, Oct 9, 2007 IP