Kindof based off The O' Reilly Factor, I want to take a topic, and casualy see how you feel about that topic. I'm not going to go into things that would cause me as many put it "turn into a raging troglodyte" like abortion and religon. But the more passive views I have of say, the economy, ceartain programs, and ethnic choices. For instance..
NUCLEAR ENERGY:
What's wrong with it? The left has this nearly mythological idea about it. Like it's the devil's work and even the meationing of it's name can give you cancer. Nuclear energy is relatively cheap and could make a great source of alternate fuel supply. It wouldn't break our bank like "natural" forms of energy, and we'd no longer have to worry about oil running dry, nor for that matter having to negotiate with terrorists for said oil.. But then as I said, the left is stubborn in thinking nuclear energy is just some radical evil thing that should not even be considered a possibility, and the right seems to think it should only be used so we have dangerous weapons incase we ever need them, then again that's what they think about everything..
How do you feel about nuclear energy?
__________________ Smile, tommorow is going to be worse..
Well to me, I feel it shouldn't be used only because the simple fact it can explode really easy. It would give terrorist an easier means to kill us by targeting a Nuclear power plant. and also say natural disasters could also be harmful. Like say there is a power plant in CA, what if there happens to be a major earthquake and it explodes. I don't know if that is possible but it seems like it could happen.
But to address the issue, it is simply a matter of nuclear waste. We stop adding carbon dioxide to the air and start adding waste to the land? I don't remember any mention of such by-products in solar or wind powered plants. Better yet let's hurry up in the fusion market.
hey spelljammer, wow your like everywhere. anyway, i dont have an opinion, well yes i do. i think people dont like it because it is a little unstable, but i do agree it is a great source of energy, and it should be harvested, although cautiously, maybe a long way away from any city...
I honestly don't like the idea of more nuclear plants...There are quite a few here in Michigan...If one should have an over reaction, it would totally effect the Great Lakes....I would rather find other means for energy...more natural ones...Montana seems to do well with Hydro Power amongst others, and is one of the cleaner states.
Also, it is a great target for terrorists...
Last edited by debbiejo on Sep 24th, 2005 at 09:27 AM
Well, in USA the price for every kWh produced by a nuclear powerplants is about twice as expensive as powerplants that use coal. This is due to strict demands of safety, long constructiontime, operating costs etc.
A nuclear powerplant has a life expectancy of about 20-40 years, then they should be demolished, and the radioactive buildingmaterials must be handeled with care --> this costs alot of money, but isn't included in the price of nuclear power, which can be deceptive.
The uranium (U-235) must be excavated from mines, and is rarely found in high concentrations, usually some tenths of a gram per ton (0,000000x of the excavated material is uranium (replace x with a number)). Both excavating and enhancing the consentration produces radioactive spillwater, and heavymetals (?) get spread in the nature.
After use, the uranium and generated plutonium (Pu-239) has to be stored away. Since the half-life of plutonium is 24 000 years, it's not considered safe untill 200 000 years have passed. One can reuse some of the plutonium and uranium, but this can be pricey. Often the waste is melted inside glas and kept in containers of steel, then incapsuled in lead- or titaniumcontainers. They then store it deep in the earth for decades. Still many think this isn't safe enough.
So I'm against it, even though it doesn't produce any CO2 etc.
Concerning the fusion alternative, the plants will become VERY high priced, and even though the prosess itself doesn't produce any waste, the high energy neutronradiation (?) produced will weaken the parts in the reactor made of metal making them radioactive. Thus they are expecting to change many of the parts after just 2-10 years. And 40 years of research hasn't yet yielded any results.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 23rd, 2005 04:31 PM
