|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the world's nuclear power industries face greater prohibitions & legislative penalties? |
| Yes |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 7 ] |
| Tough call |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| Don't care |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| Whazah? new-clAy-Hair ... ? yuck yuck yuck |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
 |
|
Britain Has Plutonium For 17,000 Nagasaki Bombs
By Jeremy Lovell
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has amassed a stockpile of more than 100 metric tons of plutonium -- enough for 17,000 bombs of the size that flattened Japan's Nagasaki in 1945, a report from the country's top science institution said on Friday.
The toxic stockpile, which has doubled in the last decade, comes mainly from reprocessing of spent uranium fuel from the country's nuclear power plants, so to stop it growing the practice must end, the Royal Society said.
CONT'D ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070920/wl_nm/climate_britain_nuclear_dc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder how France has dealt with this problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| I wonder how France has dealt with this problem. |
... etc etc  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| I wonder how France has dealt with this problem. |
... etc etc |
It's a fair question. There is the question of storage and logistics of wasted material. We only need to store it for a period of three hundred years before it can be used again, which means we can keep using the fuel indefinitely. Like I said, the initial investment and planning are the only hurdles. After that, costs and pollutants will be kept to a minimum.
If you are against nuclear energy, have you thought of any other alternatives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| If you are against nuclear energy, have you thought of any other alternatives? |
Darwin said it the best folks:
DIVERSIFY OR DIE!! 
1) Wind
2) Geothermal
3) Tidal
4) Solar
5) Cool Telsa stuff
etc, etc
Can you think of any more? Almost surely are.
Constant problem of course is many solutions, progressive "alternative" energies, "back to the future" resources etc are deemed by the man essentially:
" ... too good to be true ... "  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| If you are against nuclear energy, have you thought of any other alternatives? |
Darwin said it the best folks:
DIVERSIFY OR DIE!!
1) Wind
2) Geothermal
3) Tidal
4) Solar
5) Cool Telsa stuff
etc, etc
Can you think of any more? Almost surely are.
Problem is some solutions, alternative energies, resources etc are deemed by the man essentially:
" ... too good to be true ... " |
Absolutely, there are markets for all of these things. In fact, there are quite a few homes that have their own windmills for electricity. The problem is that, as the nuclear industry has to mature, so do these other alternative sources. At the moment, they are still a bit expensive and not always reliable. However, we will see more energy from sun, wind and water in the future as those industries mature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not religious - fervently anti-religious actually - but, if I was religious, I'd hail nuclear energy as the second coming.
Nuclear energy (a) has saved humanity from WWIII, (b) provides the ONLY way of maintaining our way of life with no c02, (c) guarantees the destruction of the Middle East and religion, (d) invests in Canada and Australia (biggest Uranium suppliers) and the many benefits that come from that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Question:
How many major/minor nuclear accidents has the world thus far known?
3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, couple in Japan, yes?
There there's all the military testing, Bikini island etc etc, so much clearly keep out of mainstream awareness.
Stock investments asides, is it really worth the risk?
Time is ripe to harness & promote other more progressive & safe means.
Nuclear dinosaurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Question:
How many major/minor nuclear accidents has the world thus far known?
3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, couple in Japan, yes?
There there's all the military testing, Bikini island etc etc, so much clearly keep out of mainstream awareness.
Stock investments asides, is it really worth the risk?
Time is ripe to harness & promote other more progressive & safe means.
Nuclear dinosaurs. |
People are devolping and testing new means of electricity everyday. Sun, wind and air are legitamite alternitive sources of energy that I fully support. However, these industries still need time to devolop. The only viable alternitive source that can produce energy on a massive scale is nuclear energy. Moreover, nuclear energy produces less than half the CO2 of even solar energy according to the IAEA. I'll repost the article from The Economist, the graph is inside. Right now, the choices seem to be coal, (very messy, carcinigous and spews greenhouse gases like crazy) oil, (continue to deal with the Saudis and Chavezistas of the world) or uranium( clean energy that comes mainly from Canada and Australia, though spent uranium still worries people). those seem to be the alternatives at the moment. That is why I hope the nuclear industry really gets its feet off the ground.
"Nuclear power's new age"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767699
[/quote]The latest boost to nuclear has come from climate change. Nuclear power offers the possibility of large quantities of baseload electricity that is cleaner than coal, more secure than gas and more reliable than wind. And if cars switch from oil to electricity, the demand for power generated from carbon-free sources will increase still further. The industry's image is thus turning from black to green.[/quote]
"Nuclear Dawn"
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719029
Also read further into the article and you'll find this gem:
| Quote: |
A demonstration plant of a completely different type, a �pebble bed� reactor, is scheduled to be built in South Africa starting in 2009. Based on technology that originated in Germany, its design is unique in several ways. For one thing, its small size (165 megawatts) should make it comparatively fast and cheap to build; depending on power needs, several units sharing a single control room could be constructed on one site. And the uranium fuel is encapsulated in rugged �pebbles�, the size of tennis balls, which are designed to withstand a loss of coolant without disintegrating, making the reactor extremely safe. Andrew Kadak, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has been developing a smaller, alternative pebble-bed design with his students, is convinced that �these reactors cannot melt down.�
|
The nuclear energy industry is becoming safer and more practicle everyday. 
Last edited by Pluto on Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| The nuclear energy industry is becoming safer and more practicle everyday. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| The nuclear energy industry is becoming safer and more practicle everyday. |
|
I don't know if Mr. Burns is behind this resurgence of the industry. It has more to do with customer demand and preference.
You do understand that Canada stands to win from a revival of the nuclear industry while dangerous ME nations will have to readjust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| It has more to do with customer demand and preference. |
While demand is one thing, you failed to mention market fixing, legislative controls, limited "free-market" options.
ME nations?
Still say the risks are not worth it ... period.
*shrugs* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
They have the plutonium...but do they have the uranium?
Bad title. Plutonium is used as a detonator...that's it. It's the U that gives the bomb it's bang. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Question:
How many major/minor nuclear accidents has the world thus far known?
3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, couple in Japan, yes?
There there's all the military testing, Bikini island etc etc, so much clearly keep out of mainstream awareness.
Stock investments asides, is it really worth the risk?
Time is ripe to harness & promote other more progressive & safe means.
Nuclear dinosaurs. |
Well lets be realistic. Coal kills a lot more people every year thorugh accidents and premature deaths through pollution than nuclear has ever killed. The common examples of how dangerous it is are pretty poor. Anyone who's read about the engineering of Chernobyl knows that it was a very poor design, shoddily maintained. Using it as an example is misleading to say the least. Modern designs are intrinsically safe.
And comparing coal to nuclear is the only realistic comparision using current technology and economics. It's one or the other, you can't introduce technology in development and say 'lets use it.'
I would agree that other methods should be explored, especially fusion which is where the future of mankind lies to be honest. Wind, solar and biofuels have a pretty important part to play as well, but nuclear is the best for large amounts of realiable energy.
And that's it. It's coal or nuclear. Which one would you rather have and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
They have the plutonium...but do they have the uranium?
Bad title. Plutonium is used as a detonator...that's it. It's the U that gives the bomb it's bang. |
Are you sure about this? Plutonium can be used as a bomb, they leveled Nagasaki with one of the first. If you're talking about an H bomb then they use tritium IIRC in the second stage. And a coating of Uranium around the whole lot to enhance yield and radiation. But you can level a city using Plutonium alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
