Nuclear Power? Yes or No

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Is nuclear power a good thing?

Yes
11
58%
No
8
42%
 
Total votes : 19

Nuclear Power? Yes or No

Postby Dork_Lord » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:22 am

What would you think of increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the UK (or elsewhere for that matter)? I personally like the idea of nuclear power plants because of the massive amounts of power they produce from little fuel. The fuel is small and easy to mine unobtrusively and the power produces almost no greenhouse gas emissions. The power plants are quite safe when managed properly (the design has been significantly improved since chernobyl.) The main problem is the waste is highly dangerous and must be disposed of safely. What does everyone else think of nuclear power?
User avatar
Dork_Lord
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Cardiff

Postby Kentigern » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:21 pm

Unfortunately nuclear power (for electricity generation) is absolutely nescesary in the short to medium term, in my view. There is no way we can produce all the electricity we need from renewables, and clearly we cannot go on burning fossil fuels because of issues regarding greenhouse gases. For this country nuclear power, however unpleasent, is necesary. The reasons outlined by Dork_Lord explain why it is so good at the moment.

However nuclear power stations are unsightly and difficult to locate due to (slightly paranoid) fears over safety. There are issues we need to address regarding the links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. If we are banning Iran from building Nuclear Power facilities due to fears over Nuclear weapons, can we really go building nuclear power stations ourselves? That would appear hypocritical. Complex issues that must be addressed...

Nuclear power stations generate unsavoury waste. The really nasty stuff is only produced in small quantities, a lot of nuclear waste (things like gloves etc) is not so seriously harmful. However all nuclear waste has to be safely stored in such a way as not to cause inconvenience to future generations, and so not to harm us. The Scandanavians favour burying it deep underground (this can only be done in a geologically stable area). Apparently feasible until we can come up with a better way of disposing it or preferbly neautralising it, which we must try and find.

Ultimately if we do build new nuclear power stations as is necesary, we MUST fund and encourage research into long term alternatives, so that we can move on from nuclear, which is unpoular, generates unsavoury waste, and has links to unsavoury weapons.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Bladen » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:34 pm

I support it but there's going to have to be sky high safety measures to go with these plants. It's pretty much 90% that a chernobyl equivilant wont happen so there's really not much to worry, it's much cleaner than fossil fuel burning too.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby intowiz » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:50 pm

i dont support it but until we start building more renewable sources blair is going ahead with it (the ****) i think the money he wants to spend on trident subs and funding wars and paying the goverments 10000 pound wine bill should be spent on creating more renewable energy ways, alot of the money the goverment abuse should be used on the nhs and solar pannels and wind mills.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby Kentigern » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:58 pm

Chernobyl happened (apparently) because the stringent safety controls in British plants were not in operation.

I agree with Intowiz that there are better ways of spending money than Trident, Wars and the like, however the problem the country faces is that even if Blair (or Brown or anyone else) did decide to spend this money today, we would be suffering from power outages before anything practical had been developed from it.

Modern day renewables do not produce much electricity, I advocate building nuclear power stations to cover uswhile spending money to come up with a clean environmentally friendly alterntive (which may be a vastly improved model of a renewable source we use at the moment, or something completely dfferent).
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Kentigern » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:59 pm

Have a look at this people. It allows you to play with the options available and demonstrates the choices which need to be made.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/u ... html/1.stm

Gordon
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby mattie » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:27 pm

I find myself agreeing with Gordon. Nuclear plower may be potentially harmful to people and there is the issue with disposing of waste, but it is currently the best source of power to reduce global warming.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Katielauren2001 » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:49 am

I think Nuclear Power is a good thing and I think what happened in Chernobyl was plainly a mistake.Also we have more safety here in Britain but it is not the best source of energy that we could use.
Dyspraxia is me I would never change that :)
Katielauren2001
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby monkey » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:05 pm

nuclear power is dangerous. i know that New Zealand has a lot less people but we have no nulcear power stations. we are mianly powered by wind and water (water makes up 60% i think). it is alot safer. we are nuclear free. so we dont alow nuclear powered ships in our water etc.

i think that becuase of the number of people that you need power for in the UK it might be diffiuclt to get the needed power form water and wind. nuclear might be the only way for this to happnen at the meoment.
monkey
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:21 am

Postby Dan » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:20 pm

Only about 7 people died from Chernoybl, it's hyped up.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Postby Kentigern » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:24 pm

The results of Chernobyl are not hyped up. It had (and still has) catestrophic consequences for the population of Ukraine and further afield. Not only in terms of fatalities, but in terms of the number of people (and new born babies) affected by radiation poisoning.

It's important to realise though that Chernobyl was apparently the result of mass incompetence which would not happen in a UK power station.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby eastlondonluke » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:39 pm

Its to risky,its not safe at all
eastlondonluke
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: london

Postby Radioactive_hairgel » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:44 am

i find all thease very confusing by think due to the fact we do have knowledge and means of other ways of generating a safer and kinder method of generating electricty it could be embraced more and encourged more by the goverment, but i do not know the ins and outs of this industry and that is probably much more easily said then done, even though i watched a penn and teller BS ep and they gave loads of valid points to why recycling is actually more damaging to the envirnoment then land fills??
I would link it so show you but it's got loads of swearing in it so it's proably not worth it GOOGLE it if your interested though :D
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. --Will Rogers

www.myspace.com/marthaduncanmusic
Radioactive_hairgel
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:42 am

Postby druchi » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:58 am

im giving it a cautious yes but in *a place with a desert* they tried setting up solar pannels and reflectors and it would only take so many of these to produce the worlds energy

ill actually need to find it and post it here

but untill such things are givein a yes ill stick with nuclear

and Trident keeps my dad ina job hes a nuclear engineer
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

Postby Steph » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:25 am

I didn't vote as I am unsure as to where I stand with regards to this issue but I will say that far more than 7 people died as a result of Chernobyl. It still has huge effects on the residents over there now and what's worse is that the government in Belarus are actually rehousing the poorest people in Belarus on the waste site of the Chernobyl plant-we learned all about it in environmental criminology. Even now, babies are being born with severe neurological and physical conditions, there is a far higher rate of cancer, particularly in children, a lot of the women have had difficulty conceiving following the disaster (miscarriages are frighteningly common over there) and random chromosomal abnormalities keep appearing even though it happened 21 years ago as well as random symptoms such as repeated nosebleeds with no known external cause. Chernobyl was horrific and people are still suffering today.
Steph
Forum God !
 
Posts: 7854
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Surrey, south east England

Next

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron