NationStates Jolt Archive

I do. Compared to current and alternate power sources, nuclear power is the best option we have until something like fusion comes along.

*Fossil fuel power plants need not have their shortcomings listed, but even coal burning power plants release more radiation into the atmopshere than nuclear power plants ever have:Link (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147894)

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

*Solar power is impractical, relying on an absurd amount of land, an unreliable source (better hope there's no clouds that day) and enormous cost of cleaning the cells and maintaining them from the weather (thunderstorms/ tornados anyone?)

*Wind power is just as impractical, using an even more unreliable source, chops up the pretty birds nicely, possibly affects global weather patterns, and it's an eyesore.

*Hydro is clean, but they cause environmental damage on a large scale destroying river systems, and they are very limited in where they can be used.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is clean without any of the other's disadvantages. It emits no carbon dioxide, produces a large amount of electricity reliably, and is economically feasible. With the right technology, such as reprocessing (something ol' Jimmy boy banned) you can dramaticly reduce the half life of nuclear waste. Accidents like Chernobyl could never happen in a modern nuclear plant (and even a crappy Soviet plant like Chernobyl never would've went up if they were using any of the then-modern safety features). In my opinion, the only reason we don't have more nuclear plants is because the Greens are very good at PR and demonizing the atom.

I don't so much support nuclear power. I support warm green glows. :)

I prefer wind and solar, rigged to batteries. Imagine if instead of leaving tombs behind for our ancestors to drool over, we left them wind farms?

But nuclear power is relatively safe, and certainly building more nuclear power plants would put more money into the security industry.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient and vastly misunderstood. My own government can’t even get past its superstitions. Most of the Nuclear waste that they claim must be stored forever will actually only be radioactive for five to ten years. Too bad they believe their own lies.

Nuclear is good, It's probably the best option right now except that so called 'environmentalists' have been fed propaganda from somewhere that makes them fight like rabid dogs over it.

For now Natural gas is a good alternative to other fossil fuels, and if we think smart we can start saving the emmissions of Natural gas plants because one of the major emmissions is Hydrogen, and in a few years that technology will be on its way to replace Gasoline.

I support nuclear power, but many existing plants need to be modernized. My state had several close calls in the last 20 years that could have been avoided with better practices and equipment.

I support nuclear power, but many existing plants need to be modernized. My state had several close calls in the last 20 years that could have been avoided with better practices and equipment.
I agree, aging plants need to be modernized, but we also need to educate the public better so that they don't think that all nuclear plants are ticking timebombs waiting to happen:rolleyes:

You would think that an increased commitment to nuclear power would be inevitable. Sadly people have irrational fears about it.

Added to that you regularly hear the same idiots banging on about how magic new energy sources are just around the corner, and use this as an excuse to block the necessary development of the nuclear power industry.

Well, they've been promising these new sources since the seventies, and by and large nothing has materlized. We are more dependant on fossil fuels than ever, so I say it is time to face facts, drop the renewable bollocks, and get to work on the expansion of nuclear generating capacity.

I do.I do as well, but...
Compared to current and alternate power sources, nuclear power is the best option we have until something like fusion comes along.Fusion has problems. Fast neutrons from the process, either irradiating the surroundings or irradiating the shielding protecting the surroundings. Unless you can contain the neutrons (or use a fusion reaction without bare neutrons and contain the alphas/betas) you'll end up with something being radioactive... Although it is friendlier 'per quantity of energy'.

*Fossil fuel power plants need not have their shortcomings listed, but even coal burning power plants release more radiation into the atmopshere than nuclear power plants ever have:Link (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147894) A good point, that I personalyl use to support fission-power, though doesn't seem to take into account irradiated materials/low-level waste, and quantities of such that are currently dumped/lost.



*Solar power is impractical, relying on an absurd amount of land, an unreliable source (better hope there's no clouds that day) and enormous cost of cleaning the cells and maintaining them from the weather (thunderstorms/ tornados anyone?)There's the orbital method (thought he disadvantage to that is that the transfer of power is a little... conroversial... ;)


*Wind power is just as impractical, using an even more unreliable source, chops up the pretty birds nicely, possibly affects global weather patterns, and it's an eyesore.Not constantly reliable, certainly (though i wouldn't go so far as to say 'unreliable'), but studies have shown that birds are not statistically affected by the blades (they tend to avoid them, rather then go all red and gooey in mid-flight), you'd need a lot of turbines, densley packed over a huge area to affect wind patterns (unless you're talking butterfly-effect writ-large) and personally (living not far from a wind-farm, though admitedly not within direct sight) I don't find them an eyesore.

*Hydro is clean, but they cause environmental damage on a large scale destroying river systems, and they are very limited in where they can be used.I do think that people do underestimate the methane-creation of a new dam (if forests/etc are flooded), but re-usable Hydro (Dinorwig (http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/pumped.htm)-style) is a useful type of standby-power station.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is clean without any of the other's disadvantages. It emits no carbon dioxideIt does if you include the carbon-footprint for building/maintaining/dissassembling it...
produces a large amount of electricity reliably, and is economically feasible.Depending on figures.
With the right technology, such as reprocessing (something ol' Jimmy boy banned) you can dramaticly reduce the half life of nuclear waste.Was going to pick you up on that, until I realised you said "reprocessing", but long-term vitriously-encased storage is going to be the fate of a lot of the radioactive scrap, and you can't reducet he half-life of that (only 'clean' fuel that can be 'reburnt' to quicker isotopes... Which are the more dangerous ones).

Accidents like Chernobyl could never happen in a modern nuclear plant (and even a crappy Soviet plant like Chernobyl never would've went up if they were using any of the then-modern safety features). In my opinion, the only reason we don't have more nuclear plants is because the Greens are very good at PR and demonizing the atom.Dont get me wrong, I do (as stated right at the top) think that Nuclear is a viable option, but you're glossing over some of the problems/unduly emphasising the problems with the 'green' alteratives (though if you look at a study of the carbon-footprint required to create a wind turbine, the Greens would be quite shocked as well ;)) and thus giving grist to the mill of the opposition.


It's a complex question. But we do need something, and I believe a mix of 'alternative' and nuclear power is what's going to support the UK, if the politicians don't dilly-dally too much in the decision-making...

Hell yes. Nuclear power is the best way.

I'd have to disagree.

Although nuclear power is certainly more than feasible (one might even call it efficient!), I think that a combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power generation could meet our energy needs just fine.

First, solar power is very feasible:Maintenance costs are comparable to those of fossil fuel based power plants, and land use isn't a big problem, either: simply make every building a power plant by requiring roofs to be constructed from solar cells. Then, subsidize the construction of these cells through the government. Now we've got great energy generation wherever there's human settlement, and economic encouragement to further develop solar energy technology, which helps fuel economic growth in the market of power generation (that being an almost untapped market).

Also, it should be considered that solar power is quite reliable: we know very well how much sun certain areas get... there will be some areas with a surplus, and some with a deficit, but all told, there's enough solar energy to go around. Plus, we might consider just not building cells where they wouldn't be used to full advantage.Second, hydroelectric power is also feasible:To make good use of hydroelectric power, location selection is key: there are some places that are perfectly suited for it. Most notably, deep rivers in cold, wet climates. Such locations provide excellent energy generation, with almost no impact on the environment. Sure, such ideal places are limited, but every little bit helps -- and their contribution isn't so "little".

Also, lets not forget Tidal Power. Channels into land with high, bare rock walls and deep chasms into the ocean provide huge tidal shifts, and these locations are relatively common throughout the world.Most significantly, wind power is especially feasible:Wind power is perhaps the most efficient and environmentally sound form of energy production ever created: the winds from three states in the U.S. would be enough to fulfill the energy needs of the entire population of that nation. I can't remember what three, but I can get the information out of a borrowed text, easily enough.

And, in fact, wind power is very reliable, in the same way as solar power: we know where there's a lot of wind. Why bother build anywhere else?At any rate, I think that the combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power (in that order) can provide us with more than enough energy, without us even considering... I don't know... using less energy...? So, why bother investing in a power production method with drawbacks as severe as nuclear power, even if they're not as severe as they once were?

It's a cost benefit analysis -- why do nuclear, when there are cleaner and safer methods out there? That's not to say that nuclear power doesn't have its place... I just don't think it's on Earth. Maybe... and I'm totally making this part up... in orbit over the moon, with excess materials being launched at the sun.

Yes, but I still don't think it's a good solution. Quite many of you speak about the waste but what about the raw material? Do you know how bad for the enviroment those uranium quarries (?) are. Does your country produce its own uranium or is it imported from some -hmm- not so great country? Like Russia.

In Finland they say that we should build more nuclear power plants so that we wouldn't be so dependant of Russian gas. But all raw material for our power plants come from Russia...

I support Solar Power.

Pst... fusion is nuclear power as well.

Nuclear power is a viable alternative to other power sources. Especially in America, where coal provides most power. It just so happens that most coal reserves these days contain a fairly good portion of uranium in them, and so, our coal power plants are actually pollute more radioactiveness than a nuclear power plant would. Uessay! Uessay! Uessay!

Meh, the point is moot because Big Oil won't allow the Coal and Gas Power plants to end, or make Hydrogen powered cars. Can't profit off of it.

Meh, the point is moot because Big Oil won't allow the Coal and Gas Power plants to end, or make Hydrogen powered cars. Can't profit off of it.
Yes. But that's why we have to raise hell about it.

Meh, the point is moot because Big Oil won't allow the Coal and Gas Power plants to end, or make Hydrogen powered cars. Can't profit off of it.
That's just dumb. Energy infrastructure is energy infrastructure. It doesn't matter which option you go for, the contracts go to the same people. Wind or nuclear for example, makes little difference as far as the orderbooks go. Offshore wind and oil/gas platfroms - again, fundamentally same technology, same contractors. There is no conflict of interest in the energy industry. It just looks like there is.

Renewables aren't going to happen for technical and personal political (ie - public opinion) reasons rather than some vast conspiracy.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on this.. Meh, maybe.

No it is too risky

nuclear electrical generation is preferable only to the use of combustion. it is not the free lunch it was once fantacized to be and many of its proponents continue to misrepresent it as.

i don't see it as ever likely to meet more then 5 to 15% of energy demand.
this does give it a roll however. in making up the 27% gap left by wind/solar 32% + hydro (including small scale) 41% = 73% 100 - 73 = 27 WITHOUT having to continue at all to rely upon combustion, let alone oil and coal.

togather with the odds and ends like geothermal, conservation and biomass(which is still combustion, unless we're talking biomass fuel cells, now that would be a trip and perhapse a sensible one, one that could take over from nukes and the real problems there are with them once developed to the point of having the capacity to do so)

=^^=
.../\...

I don't support the extension of nuclear power, but it makes sense for the UK to replace our ageing nuclear power stations with more modern stations. Canadian Deuterium moderated reactors can react unenriched uranium and possibly some waste, so they kind of make sense.

Personally, im more worried about our oil, coal and especially gas (Especially if we have to get it from Russia) first. Replace the nukes, and then replace the real polluters with renewables. Then replace the nukes.

But, I doubt the fossil lobby wll be happy about that. They killed off the Salter's Duck project personally under Snatcher Thatcher, and I worry that they could do it again.

nuclear electrical generation is preferable only to the use of combustion. it is not the free lunch it was once fantacized to be and many of its proponents continue to misrepresent it as.

i don't see it as ever likely to meet more then 5 to 15% of energy demand.
this does give it a roll however. in making up the 27% gap left by wind/solar 32% + hydro (including small scale) 41% = 73% 100 - 73 = 27 WITHOUT having to continue at all to rely upon combustion, let alone oil and coal.

togather with the odds and ends like geothermal, conservation and biomass(which is still combustion, unless we're talking biomass fuel cells, now that would be a trip and perhapse a sensible one, one that could take over from nukes and the real problems there are with them once developed to the point of having the capacity to do so)

=^^=
.../\...

At least 70% of France's energy demands are met with the use of Nuclear Power Plants.

I do support nuclear power, but with the following remarks:

- security should be taken very very seriously, no nuclear plant should be operated by for-profit corporations who are under constant market pressure (from both customers and stock holders) to lower costs, which always comes at the expense of security

- safe storage of the waste (and maybe, why not, sending them to space ? did someone ever studied the enegertic cost to send 1 ton of waste into space, compared to the energy produced by the plant ?) is critical

- other energy sources (wind, solar, hydroelectric, ...) should be used, when possible, instead of nuclear, when the situation is appropriate (very sunny land too dry to be used for agriculture ? why not putting some solar panels ? ...)

- economies of energy should be done, too: better isolation instead of more heater, not abusing of air conditioning, public transports over private vehicules, ...

That said, nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels and most of the so-called clean energies (solar panels pollute a lot to produce, hydroelectric can destroy ecosystems, ...), and most reliable (that's a source of energy you can always count on, not like sun, wind or water).

PS: I live in France, where 80% of the eletricity is nuclear, and I'm glad of it... or at least I were, until they started to privatise EDF... I'm scared now, let's hope it won't be like train in UK...

I support Nuclear power in isolationist or Peaceful countries.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient and vastly misunderstood. My own government can’t even get past its superstitions. Most of the Nuclear waste that they claim must be stored forever will actually only be radioactive for five to ten years. Too bad they believe their own lies.

isnt it more like 30 - 40?, i dont know, im not an expert

There is no such thing as a perfect power source outside of theoretical physics/thermo books. I support any power system that is 'clean' and efficient; especially nuclear. Pebble bed reactors will probably lead the atomic renaissance; and anyone concerned about meltdowns should read about them. All-in-all I think a combination of clean power systems is best and the proportion of solar, wind and nuclear depends on geography, demand and resources.

isnt it more like 30 - 40?, i dont know, im not an expert

It really depends on what fallout you have. It can go from a few seconds to a few thousands of years.

I can't predict what you'll get as nuclear waste, but just estimate that it'll be around half of the atomic size of the fuel used. Then go from there and use some chemistry book to guide you on how long it will take.

From a purely scientific nuclear power is unsafe, unreliable and uneconomic.

basicly if you do a cost benifit analysis and leave out nuclear weapons then for most countries it gets beaten by fosil fuels and renewables.

Also it is extremely possible for countries to generate all their power through non-nuclear means while still protecting the environment.

Firstly the EU did a study into britain and found that 3 times our energy needs could be met by a mixture of wind, hydroelectric, solar and tidal.

one project alone (the severn barrier) would be able to provide 10% of britains power needs (also it would provide at least some protection against major tidal surges (though i'm not sure what it would do to the severn bore))

the only nation that can claim with a straight fact that it needs nuclear power for purely peaceful purposes is Japan and that is due to a number of quirks to do with the economy, geography and government of Japan.

i think that the question isnt what is available right now, but rather what will probably be available in the near future. if we can find out a way to make solar and wind more efficient, then we would have all of our problems solved as long as there is life on earth. we can always run out of resources like uranium, coal, gas, but we know that as long as there is life on earth, there will be a sun shining down. also its clean. if we can make batteries more efficient somehow, and get a more efficient rate of absorbing the suns rays, solar will be the way to go.

Yes. I support nuclear power.

Evoleerf
From a purely scientific nuclear power is unsafe, unreliable and uneconomic.

Depends on circumstances and depends on which country.

If there had been more nuclear cooperation, there would have been more sharing of stories and benchmarking and general improvement of safety due to the very process of different people looking at the process.

And economy depends on scale and what you are comparing with.

It maybe uneconomical for a country like India to go for nuclear power (it is on the verge of sealing a deal with US for nuclear tech and fuel supply from NSG) but it sure makes political sense.

It was either a nuclear powered energy security or a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan.

The pipeline may be economically cheaper, but it is politically costlier, since it gives leverage to Pakistanis who still view relationships in a zero sum game.

We could just buy the oil off Saudis but the more the money we give the Saudis for oil, the more they fund terrorists against us.

So, nuclear power is probably the best choice under the circumstances.

i think that the question isnt what is available right now, but rather what will probably be available in the near future.
Alas, now is what is important.

The UK needs a "solution" on the order books by the end of the decade. Basically straight after the next elections, we need to be digging the foundations of whatever it is. That's the time we've got to play with. If someone has an idea of how we can build 15GW of renewable capacity within the next ten years, including time spent on the planning process, they would be the most powerful individual in Europe.

It's nuclear or nothing. Technologically the debate is already won.

one project alone (the severn barrier) would be able to provide 10% of britains power needs (also it would provide at least some protection against major tidal surges (though i'm not sure what it would do to the severn bore))


There was a feasability study of tidal estuary power done a few years back on the Severn and the Mersey.

Apparently they would arse up the ecology of the rivers hugely.


I say go for Fission until something better comes along. Whilst bunging cash at renewables to improve them.

By the way, regarding the decay of nuclear waste...

The environmentalists impose an impossible standard for storage - No leaks for 10 times the longest radioactive half-life in the waste. This comes to a quarter million years. Tricky specifying a facility for that.

But most of the radioactivity comes from short-lived isotopes. So if you ask, how long before the nuclear waste becomes less radioactive than the original uranium ore that was mined, you get 15,000 years.

That's still longer than recorded human history, but today we can be pretty sure of building a 15,000 year rated facility.

- safe storage of the waste (and maybe, why not, sending them to space ? did someone ever studied the enegertic cost to send 1 ton of waste into space, compared to the energy produced by the plant ?) is criticalThe big reason I can think of is that need to make sure it doesn't abort pre-orbit and come back down again....

(And if you encase it in reentry-survivable casing, that makes the launch harder, less efficient, and requiring more launches with more of whatever environmental damage balistic rocketry may cause, for a given era's technology...)

Maybe when we have a space elevator we could 'drop' it off of the counter-balance end, though!

hell yes, nuke em all i say!

Maybe when we have a space elevator we could 'drop' it off of the counter-balance end, though!

Whoo! Big catapults!

TWANG! it into the sun :P


Also on radioactivity and whatnot. By definition the long lived isotopes are not as dangerous. If it has a long half life it is decaying slowly. this means it is giving off radiation slowly.

I'd have to disagree.

Although nuclear power is certainly more than feasible (one might even call it efficient!), I think that a combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power generation could meet our energy needs just fine.

First, solar power is very feasible:Maintenance costs are comparable to those of fossil fuel based power plants, and land use isn't a big problem, either: simply make every building a power plant by requiring roofs to be constructed from solar cells. Then, subsidize the construction of these cells through the government. Now we've got great energy generation wherever there's human settlement, and economic encouragement to further develop solar energy technology, which helps fuel economic growth in the market of power generation (that being an almost untapped market).

Also, it should be considered that solar power is quite reliable: we know very well how much sun certain areas get... there will be some areas with a surplus, and some with a deficit, but all told, there's enough solar energy to go around. Plus, we might consider just not building cells where they wouldn't be used to full advantage.Second, hydroelectric power is also feasible:To make good use of hydroelectric power, location selection is key: there are some places that are perfectly suited for it. Most notably, deep rivers in cold, wet climates. Such locations provide excellent energy generation, with almost no impact on the environment. Sure, such ideal places are limited, but every little bit helps -- and their contribution isn't so "little".

Also, lets not forget Tidal Power. Channels into land with high, bare rock walls and deep chasms into the ocean provide huge tidal shifts, and these locations are relatively common throughout the world.Most significantly, wind power is especially feasible:Wind power is perhaps the most efficient and environmentally sound form of energy production ever created: the winds from three states in the U.S. would be enough to fulfill the energy needs of the entire population of that nation. I can't remember what three, but I can get the information out of a borrowed text, easily enough.

And, in fact, wind power is very reliable, in the same way as solar power: we know where there's a lot of wind. Why bother build anywhere else?At any rate, I think that the combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power (in that order) can provide us with more than enough energy, without us even considering... I don't know... using less energy...? So, why bother investing in a power production method with drawbacks as severe as nuclear power, even if they're not as severe as they once were?

It's a cost benefit analysis -- why do nuclear, when there are cleaner and safer methods out there? That's not to say that nuclear power doesn't have its place... I just don't think it's on Earth. Maybe... and I'm totally making this part up... in orbit over the moon, with excess materials being launched at the sun.

Not quite

Solar Power
It doesn't exactly work that way, so called 'solar cells' are actually the leaste fficieant way to generate solar energy, a single story house with its roof covered in cells will not generate enough electricty to power itself, and multi story buildings would be even less efficient. Also, solar energy is only available on average twelve out of every twenty four hours at any given plant, no matter how much electricity they generate during the dayat night it doesn't produce anything. And, in the places where sunlight is plentiful, so is sand, which has a nasty tendency to scratch the mirrors used in solal electric generation. Thats a lot of mirror to be polished almost daily and Mirrors aren't exactly cheap when they eventually get too worn to use.

Hydroelectric Power
places like that are very few and far between.
Hydroelectric dams, even under ideal circumstances, can rarely provide more than a few cities with even partial power, and they are extremely expensive to build.


Tidal power
It's good, clean and fairly inexpensive but it just doesn't have the efficiency to produce much power, it can only produce during tidal shifts, and thats a relatively short period of time every day to be producing

And finally
Wind Power

Wind power is the worst of all, sure there's plenty of wind, there are even plenty of places where its pretty consistently windy. However, wind farms are incredibly inefficient, it takes a huge number of windmills to generate enough electricity for even just a few houses in a small town. and WIndmills break almost daily, have you ever actually seen a wind farm, at any given time only maybe fhalf of the windmills are ever actually running, the rest are in need of repair.

A lot of people harp on how unsafe nuclear power is, and that's simply not true. take all the nuclear plants in the world ever, the total is maybe a couple of hundred, now, how many accidents have there ever been, in total, maybe five, of which all were either early generation plants or plants that haven't been maintenanced as they should or should have been decomissioned but weren't due to (ironically) pressure from environmental groups. Coal plant are constantly catching on fire, equipment colapses, explosions, there are so many fassil fuel plant accidents a year it's not even news worthy any more except in a local setting.

Hydroelectric Power
places like that are very few and far between.
Hydroelectric dams, even under ideal circumstances, can rarely provide more than a few cities with even partial power, and they are extremely expensive to build.

Plus the resettlement of people and the ecological changes resulting in the unundation of the dam areas etc.

No responsible govt can build big dams like in the past...well except the Chinese with the "Three Gorges" dam.

I support nuclear power, but many existing plants need to be modernized. My state had several close calls in the last 20 years that could have been avoided with better practices and equipment.

What if one of those "close calls" had not worked out so nicely? If Nuclear power is so safe, how come no insurance company will touch it, and governments have to pass special legislation to protect nuclear producers from actually being liable for the full costs of any nuclear mishap? The day that nuclear power accepts full responsibility for all of its potential problems (thereby putting it on an even footing with other power sources) will be the day I support it. It is only "efficient" because it is able to externalize these costs on the rest of us.

Besides, the real issue is not how to produce more energy, but why we use so damn much of it. Our use of energy is still incredibly inefficient, and we could make up most of the difference through demand-side management.

I support nuclear power as a major component, but not the end-all of power generation. I'd rather have a mix of renewable, nuclear, and if necessary some clean coal/natural gas to supply power. More diverse sources lower power costs through technology and provide more opportunities for a revolutionary breakthrough.

Wind Power

Wind power is the worst of all, sure there's plenty of wind, there are even plenty of places where its pretty consistently windy. However, wind farms are incredibly inefficient, it takes a huge number of windmills to generate enough electricity for even just a few houses in a small town. and WIndmills break almost daily, have you ever actually seen a wind farm, at any given time only maybe fhalf of the windmills are ever actually running, the rest are in need of repair.



So much misleading info about wind on this thread I don't even know where to begin. Firstly, the evidence is that it does not chop up birds. There are some concerns that it chops up bats, but the research is still incomplete on that one. Second, it is only "inefficient" compared to other forms of energy which keep their costs down by externalizing them. Third, early windmills broke down alot, modern ones do not. I could keep going ...

And where do people get the idea that nuclear is unpopular because environmentalists have been succesful in demonizing it? Enviros have demonized lots of things, and it hasn't done much to shift popular opinion. If nuclear is so unpopular it is because it has a nasty track record of "close calls" and the odd meltdown. Writing that off to "poor maintenance" just isn't going to fly. Especially since the power producers have an incentive to minimize costs, and (as ntoed above), they are never going to pay the full costs of a disaster anyway.

What if one of those "close calls" had not worked out so nicely? If Nuclear power is so safe, how come no insurance company will touch it, and governments have to pass special legislation to protect nuclear producers from actually being liable for the full costs of any nuclear mishap? The day that nuclear power accepts full responsibility for all of its potential problems (thereby putting it on an even footing with other power sources) will be the day I support it. It is only "efficient" because it is able to externalize these costs on the rest of us.

Nuclear power is expensive because the disasters that can occur can be very damaging. That's an indisputable fact, that there can be disasters. However:

Also, many nuclear plants use older technology which was less reliable and more dangerous. However, given the vast improvements in nuclear technology along with waste disposal these rates will fall and nuclear energy is a perfect solution to large scale energy needs.

I support nuclear power in most places, but I think that geothermal should be used when possible (Iceland, for example).

Besides, the real issue is not how to produce more energy, but why we use so damn much of it. Our use of energy is still incredibly inefficient, and we could make up most of the difference through demand-side management.

The rise in power consumption can be directly linked to the large increase in the use of technology at all levels of consumption; the Internet and PC in particular have a lot to do with it, and given the low amount of market penetration in these industries, it is likely that demand will continue to grow.

More efficency would be beneficial, but a lot of inefficency is due to the design of preexisting structures and infrastructure, so to replace it would be incredibly expensive.

One simple way to curb supply that involves very little cost would be to introduce marginal cost pricing. As your consumption increased, you would pay more for each unit of energy (e.g. the first 1000 kwh would costs you 5c, the next 1000 would cost you 10c and so forth). It would not only make people think twice about wasting electricity the way we do now, it also makes economic sense: on the production side it costs more to produce every additional kwh, due to decreasing returns.

So much misleading info about wind on this thread I don't even know where to begin. Firstly, the evidence is that it does not chop up birds. There are some concerns that it chops up bats, but the research is still incomplete on that one. Second, it is only "inefficient" compared to other forms of energy which keep their costs down by externalizing them. Third, early windmills broke down alot, modern ones do not. I could keep going ...

And where do people get the idea that nuclear is unpopular because environmentalists have been succesful in demonizing it? Enviros have demonized lots of things, and it hasn't done much to shift popular opinion. If nuclear is so unpopular it is because it has a nasty track record of "close calls" and the odd meltdown. Writing that off to "poor maintenance" just isn't going to fly. Especially since the power producers have an incentive to minimize costs, and (as ntoed above), they are never going to pay the full costs of a disaster anyway.

I could care less wether windmills chop up birds or not, though I doubt that they do.

The only thing Windfamrs can be said to bereliably more efficientthan is other 'green' power supplies, such as Solar and Tidal

I live not thirty miles from a windfarm which I drive by about once or twice a week, don't tell me that those things don't rea more often than old people hips, cause I see it on a weekly basis.

The truth is, it is environmentalists that demonize the Nuclear plants, if yout ake a look at the track record, enviro lobbyists are the ones in fron of congress demonizing them, its not Oil lobbyists, or OSHA lobbyists, or Union lobbyists, its always Environmental lobbyists. Ironically, the very environmentalists that believe in the evils of nuclear power, are responsible for most of them. Nuclear powerplants are OLD these days, we haven't built a new one in like twenty or thirty years because Environmentalists won't let us. and then they won't let us tear down the ones we have when they get too old to maintain, if it weren't for environmentalists telling us that the contamination casued by decomissioning plants is unacceptable, then maybe three of the currently operating plants would still be around, the rest would have been replaced by modernized, safer plants years ago, and maybe even replaced again since then. Its no wonder there are so many 'close calls' when we aren't allowed to fix the problems that cause them.

Technically fewer people have died or been hurt in nuclear powerplants than coal powerplants, including the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters. Nuclear power is very safe, very clean, expensive, but very efficient. It also uses a very abundant resource. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than a nuclear powerplant disaster, pretty good huh? If you look at Chernobyl, the disaster was because the safeties were manually turned off, so the worst disaster for a nuclear powerplant was because human error really. The safeties should never be turned off.

What if one of those "close calls" had not worked out so nicely? If Nuclear power is so safe, how come no insurance company will touch it, and governments have to pass special legislation to protect nuclear producers from actually being liable for the full costs of any nuclear mishap? The day that nuclear power accepts full responsibility for all of its potential problems (thereby putting it on an even footing with other power sources) will be the day I support it. It is only "efficient" because it is able to externalize these costs on the rest of us.
I think the bigger disaster is being caught up in the middle east. Forty-eight dead and several hundred cancer cases in Chernobyl (http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm), and no deaths or increased cancer rates so far at Three Mile Island (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2385551.stm) compared to, what, over 2000 dead in Iraq? Heck, put one in my backyard, can't be any worse than the oil refinery a few miles away.

Nuclear is good, get in a bit from other things too, geothermal, wave perhaps.

Heck doesnt France get something like 85% of its electricity from Nukes? Crimony, if the French can...uhhh no offence to the French, but...well..you know...

Just thought i'd put in my thoughts on the issue:

Our govt does seem to be going for new nuclear plants with a vengeance. However, since we are a bloody ISLAND, we've got plenty of coastline, and there's been some talk recently of having lots of offshore wind turbines. Even so, a little research provides:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/infrastructure/19185/WindMythsExplained for Scotland, and http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/MythsvsFacts-FactSheet.pdf for you guys (seems to be all Americans on this thread. I think its a good idea, andf thought I'd help dispel some of the myths.

If you take the time to think about it, there are more ways to gain power for the modern life of most industrial countries other than nuclear power. However I do concur that the fossil fuel and coal plants are destroying the environment too much. The main problem with nuclear energy however is the fact that it is now easily disposible. It needs to sit and dissipate for quite a long time, say hundreds of hundreds of years. In that time radiation will have effected the environment, which, as I am sure you know, is never a good thing. So, really, I don't really support nuclear power but I am not really against it either. As for you, it all depends on what is more important to you.