The Power of the Atom.

[Libertarian California]

While fusion is harder to do, more expensive, and requires a controlled environment, it is a lot safer than fission. Fusion has failsafes against dangerous meltdowns and doesn't release as many radioactive particles.

Fusion is also more powerful.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

And we're many years away from being able to produce net energy from fusion. Until then, nuclear fission is the best energy source we've got.

But are the risks worth the reward?

[Pandeeria]

And we're many years away from being able to produce net energy from fusion. Until then, nuclear fission is the best energy source we've got.

But are the risks worth the reward?

Yes, they are worth the reward.

[Regnum Dominae]

And we're many years away from being able to produce net energy from fusion. Until then, nuclear fission is the best energy source we've got.

But are the risks worth the reward?

Nuclear fission causes the least deaths per energy unit of any current energy source.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

[Pandeeria]

On a side note, has anyone else first thought of the church from Fallout 3 when reading the title?

I read the title in Confessor Cromwell's voice.

I don't know why, but I hate that guy so much.

[Libertarian California]

But are the risks worth the reward?

Nuclear fission causes the least deaths per energy unit of any current energy source.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

Well bravo!

Still, I'd feel safer if a nuclear plant weren't built in San Jose, at least for the next 20-30 years.

Build it in Gilroy and send us the power

[Yes Im Biop]

I'm saying that phase angles are important when launching a craft. Launch windows are fleeting.

Not if you use a torchship.

We do have Titan...Saturn5's that didn't ever explode. We could just drop the shit into the sun

Rocket failures are very common.

I'm against uranium/plutonium reactors because we don't know how to eliminate a waste that can be extremely dangerous for millions thousands of years

Corrected.

plus Fukushima is really a good example of what happens when a power plant gets some damage...

That is quite rare.

I'm absolutely pro Thorium nuclear reactors and quite favorable to fusion.... mainly because thorium decades in "only" 500 years and it should be much more safer (I'm not so enthusiast about fusion because it'll need hydrogen to work and probably in the future will start a "water rush" instead of a "oil rush")... plus my country is the second main financier after the USA of these two projects so...

'Water rush'!?!

No Saturn 5 ever blew up.

[Yes Im Biop]

Did I say it was likely?

So in other words you admit that the likelihood of all rectors run by governments who will adhere to standards is low... Now tell me again about why nuclear power is so great?

NO, You may say that. But less than a dozen meltdown's, All of which has caused less death than Coal explosions, In 60 years is a better track record than Airplanes.

It's clean, It's much more environmentally Friendly, Especially with Breeders and Thorium reactors, and uranium has an energy density I think a Million times greater than Coal And best of all. It's so much more clean than even Natural Gas plants.


All that "Waste" Can be reused in Breeder reactors or in Tank shot and Armor, Very little radioactive waste is created anymore, Though Cancer Treatment, and Radioactive Tracers create quite a bit of it. You gonna go against Radiotherapy to?

[AiliailiA]

Developing nations will build nuclear plants. I'd rather they copy a modern design, tested in practice by developed nations, than build copies of a 1969 Pressurized Water Reactor. Developed nations should build, and test in practice, the newer designs even if it is uneconomical, just to set a good example. Call it foreign aid if you will.

[Grenartia]

Lots of Thorium reactors would be good.

I prefer Pebble Bed reactors.

Nuclear power is dangrous

Not when done properly.

Because you have written half a dozen research papers over 7 years proving this yes?
(I was a very strange child okay?)

just look at what happended to chernobyl

As has been pointed out MULTIPLE times in this thread, Chernobyl is what happens when you give barely literate idiots outdated and idiotic designs for a nuclear reactor, along with the book "101 Ways to Meltdown Your Shitty Reactor", with orders from incompetent (and arguably equally idiotic superiors, along with a system that discourages questioning authority) leaders to follow the book to the letter.

Basically, instead of being the posterchild for "Why we shouldn't have nuclear plants", Chernobyl is actually (and should be known as) the poster child for "How NOT to design, build, and run a nuclear plant".

I would be in favor when better safeguards are in place as well as disposal of nuclear waste that has ZERO chance of contaminating the planet.

Drop unusable waste into Mariana Trench in heavy metal/lead capsules.
Problem=Solved.

Ladies, gentlemen, people of third genders, and the genderless, I present to you, the Lord of the Rings Option.

Send it back to the fires from whence it came.

Drop unusable waste into Mariana Trench in heavy metal/lead capsules.
Problem=Solved.

Are you crazy? The lead could get out of the container.

Just vitrify the waste, put it in a stainless steel container and dump it into a deep hole in a geologically stable area far above the water table.

Y'know, like Yucca mountain.

I hate to break it to you, but the Marianas Trench IS a deep hole, and although its not exactly geologically stable, and is, by all definitions, beneath the water table, it is STILL a good option.

Its recycling in its purest, simplest form. Anything that gets left in the trench for too long gets subducted back into the Earth's mantle and core. Not to mention that its so deep that the chance for biological contamination is slim to none, and slim just went to South Central and yelled out the N-word at the top of his voice.

Much more dangerous and expensive than burying it in old bedrock.

Not really. Yuccan is not a good place to bury Waste anyway. Nowhere is. Except probably the earth's core.
Neither are cheap. But both will get rid of ti forever

Again, I resubmit Immy's 'Back to the fires from whence it came' option.

So in other words you admit that the likelihood of all rectors run by governments who will adhere to standards is low... Now tell me again about why nuclear power is so great?

NO, You may say that. But less than a dozen meltdown's, All of which has caused less death than Coal explosions, In 60 years is a better track record than Airplanes.

It's clean, It's much more environmentally Friendly, Especially with Breeders and Thorium reactors, and uranium has an energy density I think a Million times greater than Coal And best of all. It's so much more clean than even Natural Gas plants.


All that "Waste" Can be reused in Breeder reactors or in Tank shot and Armor, Very little radioactive waste is created anymore, Though Cancer Treatment, and Radioactive Tracers create quite a bit of it. You gonna go against Radiotherapy to?

Indeed. Between Breeders, medical therapy, DU rounds and armor, and dumping what can't be reused in deep ocean trenches, I fail to see much of an issue with nuclear "waste".

[Ashihara no Nakatsukuni]

I agree with Grenartia & Biop here that when done right, Nuclear energy is a very great source of energy. The only issues currently today is the lack of strict regulation on Nuclear plants throughout the world. Equally so, there is extreme lack of punishment against those that do not follow these regulations.

[Blakk Metal]

Nuclear fission causes the least deaths per energy unit of any current energy source.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

Well bravo!

Still, I'd feel safer if a nuclear plant weren't built in San Jose, at least for the next 20-30 years.

Build it in Gilroy and send us the power

Kings County exists y'know. It barely has anybody already polluted too, so no one will care.