Thought this would stir up some interesting conversation
(considering several people on these forums happen to work at, around, or with nuclear energy)

You shouldn't believe everything that is written...
It's just some excuse to say nuclear fission is natural so we can build fission powerplants.

Same with you bub.

The only nuclear "accidents" I recall hearing about were due to the people in charge doing stupid things. And from what I heard recently the new style plants don't let you do stupid things, at all, so your boss can't decide to turn off all the safeties to do something he knows will make it blow up.

I'm not sure if its true, but I read that theres more toxins and radiation entering the biosphere via burning coal and natural gas than would be if we used mostly/all nuclear energy.

burning coal frees radioactive isotopes that's true..
but much less than a Nuclear power plant will do.

the radioactive waste products are still a big problem. and you can't be sure a meltdown will never occur.

as for a gas plant there are no radioactive waste produsct but it does add to grlobal warming.

but offcourse there are other options.

- Nuclear fusion
- wind energy
- solar energy
- Geothermal energy
etc.

Might be ok but it's a lot of work

O RLY?

I suppose if we think along the anything is possible lines then sure.

But with negative feedback reactors, the only way to cause meltdown is to disable the negative feedback system without preventing the rods from continuing to heat each other, or by putting in rods that are more pure than they should be and it becomes too much to handle.

I like the IFR design ("Compared to current light-water reactors with a once-through fuel cycle that uses less than 1% of the energy in the uranium, the IFR has a very efficient (99.5% usage) fuel cycle" for example).

The negative feedback system in the IFR design is also implied by the fact that the materials expand when heated, which pushes the rods apart, slowing the reaction, and making it cool down. So if it were "badly tuned" it would oscillate between hotter / cooler states.

I dont know if Geothermal might be bad or not.

I am assuming that we dont really need to worry about mantle cooling. If that is the case then simply drilling REALLY deep, adding some plumbing and pouring water down there to boil and run turbines = free power as far as we are concerned.

No open cut uranium ore mines, no fuel disposal woes, just heat -> power with zero consumption as far as we care. Sounds soo atractive in theory.

(Emphasis added)
Hell no. Coal plants belch enormous amounts of activity into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants, OTOH, release absolutely squat.

Not as big as people make it out to be.

Actually, yes you can, and - most important of all - meltdown != "BIG NUKULAR KABOOM!!!ONEONE". Build 'em right and the worst-case scenario is a scrapped reactor.

Enormous land usage / W.

See previous point, plus cost (financial and environmental), plus that it's just not feasible in many parts of the world.

Even fewer feasible places.

And don't even think about hydro power...

You should read up on the chernobyl "Accident". I alluded to it in my second post. It wasn't an accident. It was intentional.

Whatever you call it .. it was ( still is) a disaster .
and don't think that won't happen in the west. That's why I pointed out sellafield.

there's a same story in france.

By the way france did nuclear weapon tests on mururoa the fact that it destroyed and contaminated the neighbouring islands where people lived didn't stop them.
So don't tell me that anyone can be trusted with this.

@ gnolam

It's about nuclear power and trusting companies and the gouvernment to do it the right way instead of the cheap way.

And I don't trust them with that. They make a mess now, they will make a mess in the future

Yes, but irrelevant.

Actually, I will think just that. You can't compare an old Soviet RBMK to anything remotely modern. Hell, people already knew those were bad ideas even back when Chernobyl was built. I will repeat myself: positive void coefficients == bad idea.

And that's why I pointed out that SELLAFIELD'S SHIT DOES NOT COME FROM A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

And what the hell does that have to do with nuclear power?
Answer: absolutely nothing.

Why would it not be done "the right way"? The power plant isn't really going to be that useful if it just blows up right away, is it?

You don't accidentally bypass safety features.

In Soviet Russia, you didn't play the jukebox, the jukebox played you....

How can anyone argue against nuclear power? Compared to burning fossil fuels it's a no brainer. Either die from global warming in 50 years or radioactive waste in 5000 years. It's just math people.