Staredit Network

What is your opinion on this matter ? Will nuclear power serve us good, or...not?

It's actually the safest form of energy and incredibly cheap, it also last very long (submarines), even though we've harnesed it for destructive means, it still benifits society.

It's very hard & expensive to make Working uranium from depleted uranium.
So it's not cheap. If it's cheap, why dodnt they start using it in all poor countries ?

+after it works out you need LOT of money to make it less-dangerous & berry it underground. Many countries dont have money for taht & dump it somewhere.
It benifits sosiety until we fully polute earth with radioactive shiz, after that happens it will do bad to the sosiety.

Its expensive to get, but once you have it, its cheap to maintain and lasts a long time.

I think its kinda good and kinda bad, I mean with the things that can go wrong with it... wow. But the things it can do right... [If there are any ]

We need some good ol' fashioned energy, Hamsters-on-a-wheel FTW!

Haha, j/k but yeah, nuclear Plants are good... until something goes wrong...

Does anyone think that building the plants underground with only the gasses and heat being vented out above ground would a safer idea? (Not environmentally speaking of course)

Obviously it's not because those nuclear engineers would have thought that.

Actually A LOT of stuff is released. Rich countries dont want that waste in their territory. They see it to poor countries wich need money. But poor countries CANT afford wasting much money on recycling that stuff, so they just dump it somewhere.
They do like that in Africa, A bit in Russia allso, & in many "countties of the third world".

When they find out how to keep a nuclear fusion reaction stable and use that to harvest nuclear energy, we can expect this to be a very efficient method of producing energy.

However, nuclear waste remains a problem. After all, these are radioactive and have a veeerrry long half life. If I can remember properly, nuclear fission wastes break down faster than nuclear fusion wastes... So fusion would have more harmful waste...

If we could store all the waste in a huge container, then ship it into outer space every year, I think that would be a possible solution... Maybe NASA could like strap the nuclear waste to the rockets.

I totally agree with you.. its safe and cheap and u can place em almost anywhere..

theres only 1 way that is better than nuclear power..

and it comes with a huge negative point..

hydro electricity..

it makes huge ammounts of energy using nothing but the power of water..

but u cant place em anywhere.. u need the lakes and rivers to do it..

note that its 100% clean

hmm but it costs a lot to build too..

so i think hydro electricity is better if you can afford it (no water, no energy roflol)

beside this.. nuclear power is the best since u can use it anywhere and its always the same cost.. (the cost doesnt vary based on where u build)

I'm supried no one brought up the whole 'It'll meltdown!' issue. I guess it's because of a scant bit of common sense. The only times that there had been disastrous nuclear meltdowns were when the proper precautions were not taken. Take trinople for an example.

I dont understand this logic. You treat space as if it can become full. lol.

Well yes and no. You see the United states is attempting to achive uranium to use nuclear power as a resource for electricity. This is what is said. It wil also made to make uranium bombs(forget code name) which is really scetchy when everyone is attempting to get it.

One study I thought was interesting was one conducted at chernobyl recently. Many of the animals that have developed in the region around the radioactive area are much healthier than counterparts who had never come in contact with the event. So while the meltdown may have seemed tragic, it eventually boosted wildlife. (The study was conducted with deer, and may not be the same for all species.)

This is similar to the african prostitutes who developed an antibody to aids.. This may suggest that evolution can take place in a generation worth of time!

Just aim it towards the Sun. Nothing will stop it (unless you get really, really farking unlucky) and it will eventually fry and become part of the big bright ball that gives us light and warmth.

Like everybody has said, it's got it's upsides and it's downsides. It's efficient but dangerous and it isn't exactly the healthiest form of energy. I think later on, if we can perfect our methods of using it, it'd be really useful.

Is nuclear power good or bad. My own opinion, it is good. However it would depend on which countries have nuclear power plants. Take Iran for instance. They only say that they want "peaceful nuclear power." However as we all know they only use that as a coverup for nuclear weapons. So my opinion, only trusted countries should have nuclear energy. As for the side effects of it? Any power-plant will have bad things about it, unless of course we turn to solar power or wind energy. However the bad things about those is the cost. Nuclear power has it pros and cons.

Nuclear reaction is when Uranium Splits. Scientists are working on Thermonuclear Reaction now - when hydrogen (H) Merges. It gives less radiation & no radioactive waste. I think Japanese(1 year ago), if i recall, got a thermo-nuclear reaction going for a fiew minutes. I think it is a big sucess, that can lead to minimizing nuclear waste dumping.

Nuclear fission is when uranium splits, and is the current method in all nuclear power plants. Nuclear fusion is when Hydrogen merges to form helium, as I said before, it has its badness too.

Nuclear fusion is the same process used in hydrogen bombs, which had devastating effects on hiroshima and nagaswaki, it is actually worse. The wastes of nuclear fusion have a longer half life, able to live for 100 years +.

Hmm, not many people seem to know to much about nuclear plants.

First of all there are different types (they all work basically the same way), they all need a body of water near them and they all produce plutonium (which has a half life that will last thousands of years).

Nuclear energy is cheap and other then the plutonium there are no other emmisions except for heat. The plutonium is relatively safe to store, all radiation from it can be blocked by a sheet of paper. But you still need the space.

Chernobyl happened because the engineers there decided to test how many safety precautions they could turn off before a meltdown occured. They thought they could stabalize it in time but obviously they couldnt. The side effects on humans there has been terrible different types of cancer appear very often.

Really nuclear energy is very safe, reliable and cheap but like all other types of energy there are still kinks.

Nuclear fusion is still a while off