Nuclear Power

[Blackmage]

I'm writing an argumentative research paper for my English 191 class and it's on why we need to switch to nuclear power. So who all agrees and why? If you don't agree why?

I'll post my paper when I'm done writing it in the showcase forum.

[GAAZ]

Agreed. France gots themselves like 72 plants..I say we catch up.

[Silver Adept]

Without a credible alternative that produces less pollution and waste than nuclear power, go for it, definitely. Build the plants with the idea that at some point, someone's going to develop a better power scheme.

In terms of bang for buck, nuke power is pretty impressive.

[Blackmage]

The only power cheaper than nuclear is hydro. Nuclear is around 2.16kWh and Hydro is around 1.60 or so per kWh.

Fuel wastes created by nuclear reactors are around 3 cubic meters for a larger reactor (those that produce well over 1 gigawatt) and less for those that are smaller.

ITER or Internation Thermonuclear (fusion) Experimental Reactor is supposed to go online in 2016 and make 500mW for at least 400 seconds and lead the way for its predecessor the DEMO. DEMO is excepted to maintain a constant 2gW power output.

For reference the largest single reactor in the world is in France and outputs 1,455mW. The entire power output of the states of Vermont and Rhode Island is slightly under 1,650mW. Also Mitsubishi have plans to build 2 1.7gW reactors in Texas for Texas Utilities assuming the project gets approved by the NRC.

[Ming]

I say yes. From what I've heard and read, nuclear power is a lot safer than people seem to believe. As long as responsibility is taken for proper disposal of waste, I think we should start making the switch. We're getting nowhere fast with our curent energy production.

[Akuko]

I say no simply to the fact of the waste. We barely take care of our garbage waste in a heathful and safe manner. Nuclear waste is even more toxic and can do huge harm if not disposed of properly. It would seem like too much of a threat to our health and well being to think about nuclear power. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, et cetera are far more safe.

[Blackmage]

[Kudasai Hiroki]

Much of the nuclear waste these days can be processed and disposed of as opposed to years ago when they would just bury the stuff or dump it in the ocean. That and it's a hell of a lot cleaner to produce than oil and coal. I do think that more wind power generators could be used in the mid-west though. There are a ton of those things over here and a sizable chunk of Germany's power is produced by wind.

[RivaOni]

I think alot of people are still scared of anything Nuclear after the events of the Cold War and also Chernobyl, but what happened at the latter (as the Cold War was just a load of willy waving really...), was the extreme of what could happen, especially if the plants aren't taken proper care of, the chances of that happening again are probably very slim, especially with the enhancements of monitoring technology amongst other things.

With everything else running out, or costing far too much to import, it seems to make sense that nuclear energy is the way forward for those area's of the world that can't produce enough power from Hydro farms, afterall, not everywhere can build something as large as the Hoover Dam.

[Blackmage]

In the US we have the NRC which does regular tests on equipment and staff at nuclear power plants here in the US. I'm sure you guys have something like that in England. And from everything I've read the chances of having another meltdown that did as much damage as Chernobyl are 1 in a million odds because of safety measures taken by the IAEA in all countries around the world that use nuclear energy. In the US we have a requirement for multiple redundant safety systems on our reactors.

Hydropower would be even better if making dams did not cause such an environmental change. It has been proven on the west coast of the US that salmon populations have dwindled severely due to damming of rivers for hydropower even with have multiple fish ladders at each damn.