What is Digg?108 Comments
- awa64, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41Dugg because nuclear energy is cool.
Trying to figure out how to undigg because "The Nuclear Energy Institute" publishing a survey that says people like nuclear energy doesn't seem that credible. - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Soviets, SOVIETS! Chernobyl is in the Ukraine, but the country was the Soviet Union, not Russia. Using the term Russia to describe the USSR is like saying Texas when referring to the US.
- daigakuinsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21There's a old book written by one of the Chernobyl scientists (if I can find the title, I'll post it) that claims that the Chernobyl disaster occurred because obvious safety regulations were neglected. It's the opinion of the author that those higher up wanted to see what would actually happen if they didn't take necessary precautions. They were in essence just asking for a catastrophe. Thus, Chernobyl is a really bad example of the implementation of nuclear power.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I would love to see the heavy polluting(coal) electrical generators replaced with nuclear and those that use oil. Getting the US off of the imported oil tit would have benefits on so many levels.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"There's a old book written by one of the Chernobyl scientists (if I can find the title, I'll post it) that claims that the Chernobyl disaster occurred because obvious safety regulations were neglected."
Forget an old book, try the official report, and every investigation since. The design was inherantly dangerous ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK ) and the WRONG DOCUMENTATION was suplied for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
With current designs, it'd be nigh-impossible to even deliberately cause a meltdown without intimate knowledge of and access to the safety mechanisms around the reactor itself, and some designs (such as the pebble bed) shut down when coolant is removed due to the very design of the reactor core (i.e. meltdown-proof). - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16iranians aren't brown.... they're actually fairly similiar to europeans in looks
... but the Indians and Pakistani's are "brown". And they both have nuclear weapons. - edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm suprised it was that high. Most americans I've met (either in person or online), upon hearing the word 'nuclear', immediately ink it to nukes, and kneejerk against any explaination that modern nuclear plants are safe.
- Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I personally like Nuclear energy, I don't think I would worry about meltdown happening in the plant near my city, they have that stuff under control. The major downside currently is the radioactive waste that they produce. If we ever found a way to convert that waste into something non toxic or non radioactive I think Nuclear Energy would be unstoppable compared to the horrible pollutant energy currently dominating the market.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14We already have a way to get rid of most of it: Fast breeder reactors. Problem is, there's a small chance that the products of fast breeders could be refined to the degree that they can be sued to create nuclear weapons, so most plants have been shut down (never mind that refining nuclear material to weapons-grade is a really difficult thing to do, far more so than getting a reactor up and running in the first place). The remaining products are all of either incredibly short half life, or incredibly long (i.e. they require minimal shielding, if any, and simply need to be kept away from drinking water sources). Plus you get extra power out of your waste.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@Socialist:
Really? Are you a nuclear scientist? Do you have any training in nuclear technology? I do, thanks to the U.S. Navy.
So, tell me, what are these "renewable and sustainable energy" sources that will provide as much power as nuclear enegy? Existing technology please. Nothing that harms the environment, like wind turbines that kill birds.
Some have suggested developing a technology to tap into the power of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. Yet, how would that effect the climate? After all, one would be directly affecting one of the primary heat distribution systems of the world.
I have the perfect solution to nuclear waste. Drill 5000ft deep holes into the abyssal plain of the Pacific ocean fill with 4000ft of pelletized nuclear waste, top with 100 ft of radioabsorbative material, 500ft of concrete, and 500ft of sand. - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'd like to see the exact wording of the poll.
- Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If you do a little research you'd quickly discover it's not the nuclear power plants that need so much research & development (although they do). But *massive* work needs to be done in the field of reprocessing spent fuel. This is the area that the US needs to develop the furthest…. Calling a fuel rod “spent” when as little as 4% of the fissile material is consumed is ridiculous. Not reprocessing in the US because of proliferation concerns, no longer makes any sense (if it ever did). It's time to start reprocessing and it’s time to learn how get every calorie out of this fuel instead of sticking in the ground somewhere.
- MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Nuclear power is cool because it doesn't pollute and its very high tech - not everything has been invented yet when it comes to nuclear power, and there are massive amounts of research into producing the latest and greatest technology. And nuclear waste? All nuclear waste can be used in breeder reactors as a fuel source for the future.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11not sure if it was a serious question or not, but to undigg go to your profile and on all of the stuff you have dugg, 'digg it' is replaced with 'undigg'
- remotecontempt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Nuclear powers great, until something goes wrong, then you're screwed."
You know, the same could be said about coal mining, but you don't see anybody using it as an argument against using coal-fired power plants. - zoxed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Question 1: Do you
a) support nuclear power
b) prefer to live in a cold cave. - LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't think most people know enough about nuclear power to make a solid decision on the subject. Maybe this is just a push poll. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll )
Now if only we spent more resources trying to find methods to deal with the waste (and hopefully even neutralizing it), I don't see why shouldn't we go for it. Given maintance costs and space-efficiency, nuclear power would be the way to go if a proper waste management was in order. - hokieaudi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Socialist - What's cool about nuclear energy is that, given proper recycling, we have enough fuel on hand for several thousand years worth of energy production. In addition the "problem" of disposal of used nuclear fuel is greatly blown out of proportion. If one took all of the used nuclear fuel from the entire 50 year's worth of production in the U.S. you would fill the area of a football field to a depth of about 12 feet. That's the rough volume of waste we're talking about. Yes it is radioactive and yes, it is dangerous if not properly handled but these are problems that have existing engineering solutions, using today's technology and resources that we can produce domestically and import from friendly nations around the globe.
Per Kilowatt-hour coal power releases about three times as much radiation to the environment as nuclear power in the form of trace amounts of radioactive elements that become concentrated within furnaces. If fly ash came from a nuclear plant it would be regulated as nuclear waste by the NRC. Not to mention the millions of tons of CO2 emissions that are avoided, along with smog production NOx and SOx compounds, mercury, arsenic, etc that are all byproducts of coal combustion.
Food for thought. - fdw2006, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I'd be curious to know if 7 out of 10 Americans even understand what Nuclear Energy even is. (yes, I am an American and not US-bashing)
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Look up Pebble Bed Reactors (PBRs). Something CANNOT go wrong. The hotter they get, the slower fusion goes, until they enter an idle state ands top getting hotter. For this reason, they are physically incapable of melting down. So, even if everything went wrong, and all the safety equipment failed, the thing just shuts down.
- VTStevenVT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@OBDriftwood
"C'mon. It's the Russians! The Russians could screw up Jello"
Our (Unitied States) nuclear record isn't as clean as you think....
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
But taken the thousands of employees and workers that deal with nuclear material having these few accidents across the years is considered extremely safe compared to most industrial operations. - AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9yeah, the first people in space didn't know the difference between a flushing toilet and what they where going to be using to get out of the earths atmosphere.
- mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10the exact wording of a bunch of polish people?
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10If people only know how much radiation coal-burning released into the atmosphere, maybe they'd cry over that too.
Nuclear waste is a problem, but its a solvable problem.
Id have a nuke reactor in my backyward, and get rid of all the coal fired plants. Help clean up the air. - flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We have found a way to convert waste, at least partially.
It's called Nuclear Reprocessing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
But Jimmy Carter was afraid of nuclear weapons proliferation, so he said we can't do it. We're the only country that doesn't refine our nuclear waste to pull out useful material. I think if money were dumped into recycling the waste instead of just sticking it in a hole in the ground, we wouldn't have a nuclear waste problem at all.
I've also read somewhere about technologies to make radioactive material inert... I think it was in the UK and used lasers or something. - thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Breeder Reactors.. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor - OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Despite the source the survey may be accurate. It's been almost 2 generations since Chernobyl and the fallout was not as dire as initially predicted. Plus, with all the push for alternative energy sources nuclear energy is a viable alternative.
Coulter had a good take on nuclear energy in Godless. To paraphrase: When anti-nuclear energy people voice their opposition always bring up Chernobyl as an example of why to not pursue nuclear energy. C'mon. It's the Russians! The Russians could screw up Jello. They go to the Worlds' Fair and look at a flush toilet like it's a rocket ship. Of course the Russians screwed up nuclear power. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Trying to figure out how to undigg because "The Nuclear Energy Institute" publishing a survey that says people like nuclear energy doesn't seem that credible."
As opposed to whom publishing a survey? Do you think an group opposed to nuclear energy would publish a survey showing most people disagree with their position? In all actuality, I would have more doubt about a survey from a group who opposes nuclear energy showing support for their side because I have experienced their underhanded behavior. Their question for whether someone would support a nuclear power plant being built:
"Would you support the building of a dangerous nuclear plant that could release radiation near your community?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I love how Luddites (and hippies in general) try to make an argument against the logical solution to a problem (be it world hunger or energy) by pulling the most bizarre scenario out of their asses.
- dualscreenman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The thing is it can't go wrong nowadays.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Thats a nice fairy tale, but wind turbines simply do not provide enough power.
- Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@jerbaker
Nuclear power plants don't leak radioactive waste you 'tard. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@azzageddi:
Pelletized nuclear waste does not generate heat. I am fairly certain that there is little to no methane hydrates in the abyssal plains. And, if that is really a concern, we can drill to 10,000ft and cover the top with 5000ft of backfill - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I grew up near Fernald, one of the uranium enrichment plants run by the DOD. Well, former, there is nothing there anymore. Talk about radiation contamination. That site alone leaked more uranium than all the nuclear accidents in the world. And the funny thing is, it was all contained onsite. Even the groundwater contamination was extremely limited.
- AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This guy gets it.
It's not a fallout anyone should be worried about, it's the waste.
There is evidently a very bib PR problem that nuclear energy is having. Strangely the Chinese where able to look past that and have embraced nuclear energy with open arms. - LordBytor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nice straw man you've constructed there, I like many people believe in global warming and support nuclear power.
You do realize that nuclear power has killed far less people in its entire history than conventional power sources do in a year right? - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Besides, it isn't like Chernobyl was the absolute safest design of nuclear reactor possible anyhow. Pebble-bed reactors make meltdowns impossible, because (unlike a normal reactor), when pebble bed reactors heat up, fission slows down. If you shut down every single piece of equipment in the power plant (Hit it with an EMP, or cut all power to all equipment, whatever), it doesn't melt down. It just heats up to an idle temperature where nothing happens. In order to restart the reaction, they cool it down so that fission starts up again.
The whole concept behind a pebble bed reactor is that whereas adding heat to a normal reactor speeds up fission, in a pebble bed reactor it SLOWS DOWN fission. Really, the only issue with a PBR reactor is what to do with the waste. And as DaveV has pointed out, disposal isn't a problem. Heck, I figure one day we'll be able to do something with that waste anyhow. If it's still emitting radiation, there's still energy potential that can be exploited. Unless I'm mistaken, NASA uses radioactive decay to power some unmanned spacecraft. Besides that, who knows what power generation and processing techniques might be developped in the future that allow radioactive waste to be used for further power generation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I've been all for Nuclear Energy. Now if the damn greenies would let us BUILD more without bitching and moaning and telling us to use solar power and granola to power our homes...
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@NoHandle
It is true that Nuclear Power is basically a steam engine. You are incorrect that massive amounts of water are contaminated in producing nuclear energy. Traditional nuclear plants (which are very dirty by comparison to modern ones) had two separate systems to channel the heat. One mass of water was in more-or-less direct contact with the fuel rods. That water did become contaminated. However, that part of the system was usually closed and reused over and over. They were not pumping new water into that part of the system on any frequent basis. That part of the system was separated from the water that was used to spin the turbines. The water used to spin the turbines was (if done right) never contaminated.
Those were the old, dirtier nuclear generators. The newer designs are a lot cleaner. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would like to see the exact wording of a number of poles. Especially those done by activist groups.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Arkonnan:
Name some other country we are trying to prevent from developing nuclear capabilities? - gathas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What we really need is a more heterogeneous energy infrastructure. We need Fossil, Nuclear, Wind, Cow Flatulence, etc. This hedges against the ills of reliance on a single source (geopolitical, environmental). That's why electric cars are so useful, not that they save energy, but that electricity is a common carrier of energy generated from any source.
- flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am in total agreement. It's not the technology that's been the problem for all these years, it's the policies surrounding it. The government should be dumping money into recycling and reclaiming as much of all the resources it uses. It's not just nuclear waste that's a problem, but waste in general. Don't you think our tax dollars should be spent keeping as much garbage in general out of the ground?
- ninjasquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm assuming that you're referring to using a breeder reactor to process the spent fuel... although they can have this effect, they are more commonly used to reprocess weapons grade fuels. CANDU reactors are a better solution, as they can use 'spent' fuel that is at an energy level too low to be useful in a regular reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu
I guess you'll have to copy the link... Digg wants it for it'self. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Nuclear powers great, until something goes wrong, then you're screwed"
And what training do you have in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant operation? - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@"And what training do you have in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant operation?"
If your radiation badge turns red then take the cyanide pill. - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Nuclear power generation is the only realistic solution to attaining a hydrogen economy where the power generated could separate hydrogen from H2O and all our cars would run clean and we wouldn't have to shovel money into oil rich countries.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why would you waste all the uranium by dumping it a mile below the ocean floor? I have said this in here before, and I will say it again, the nuclear waste problem is only a temporary problem. Here is why I say that:
When we first started refining crude oil, we used the heavy oils and even up to kerosene. Gasoline was a dangerous volatile waste product. At the time there were no uses for it, it was burned off, or dumped into the rivers and streams. Nowadays, we use it like mad. I strongly feel as nuclear energy get out of the infancy it still is in, then we will find ways to make that waste into new types of nuclear fuel. Besides the reprocessing that is done now.
Not too mention, that pebble bed reactors are designed fail safe from the start. - Gammage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Then, on 28 March 1979, on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, there was the most serious nuclear accident in American history. Actually, there was no broadcasting of any significant quantity of radioactivity, and no danger to human life, even though there was near panic for a few days" (Asimov Asimov's 479).
"Spent nuclear fuel-the stuff intended for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain- retains 95 percent of its energy content. Imagine what Toyota could do for fuel efficiency if 95 percent of the average car's gasoline passed through the engine and out the tailpipe." (Schwartz and Reiss 1). The solution used by France, Japan, and Britain is recycling. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@"I have the perfect solution to nuclear waste. Drill 5000ft deep holes into the abyssal plain of the Pacific ocean fill with 4000ft of pelletized nuclear waste, top with 100 ft of radioabsorbative material, 500ft of concrete, and 500ft of sand."
Bad idea due to tetonic shifts and earthquakes in the Pacific area.
There are reasons they put nuclear waste into areas that never had earthquakes in the past 500 years.
Not that nuclear power is bad... I live within 40 miles of 2 of them and we get more polution from the oil refineries.
But one of the better methods of alternative energy will be solar when they can get the price of cells down. Mostly because we only need to get 1% of the energy that hits the earth's surface to get the amount of power we use today.
The real beneift to solar is decentralization... Otherwise known as not relying on the powercompany for most of your energy consumption.
But we won't see cells getting cheap enough til 2008 or 2010. -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is