Which type of power plant should the US/Canada build?

[madhaha]

First you take a "we're going to screw up the environment because its all ours" slant and now you try and back out of it. Make up your mind.

[Yupa]

First you take a "we're going to screw up the environment because its all ours" slant and now you try and back out of it. Make up your mind.

 

...?

 

I did what?

[G.T.O The Judge]

some powerplants in Japan use human -*BAD WORD*- as fuel.

 

those japs are so techy.

[Aileron]

the use of coal and nuclear power plants (among other things) presents a threat to the environment - most life on this planet cannot live without a healthy environment around it and the rest probably would prefer to just keep it healthy

 

That is the correct opinion. The only point I disagree with you is that I think that the large amount of habitat destroyed by wind and solar plants hurts the environment more than nuclear meltdown, when you factor in the actuall odds of a nuclear meltdown occuring.

 

There was one nuclear leak from a power plant in history, Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was a close call, but no radiation escaped the plant. So basically, the ONLY time nuclear material ever escaped was in the 60s where nuclear science wasn't as advanced and in a country where things such as safety systems were routinely skimped on. Not only that, but they were running experiments on a full size reactor. What they were most likely doing was seing how much plutonium the reactor could make before it went awall. Basically, they were testing the limits.

 

Chernobyl won't happen again. We don't need large amounts of plutonium anymore because it is only used in weapons and practically all countries are disarming their nuclear arsenals. Even if we weren't, we wouldn't want to resort to such desperate tactics to build them. That is !@#$%^&*uming, of course, that the process works, which it doesn't.

 

Basically, the chances of nuclear plants having a meltdown at this time is almost nothing.

[madhaha]

There have been other leaks (check Japan). The effects of Chernobyl were extreme and are still persistent today. You cannot rule out another leakage, especially if you factor in deliberate attempts to cause a leakage for whatever reason (disgruntled employee, sabotage, terrorism etc.)

 

Countries can only be considered to be disarming if you're looking at America/Russia. India and Pakistan, North Korea, god knows how many other countries are arming up. I would say that the odds favour of at least one of these countries experimenting with reactors.

 

Wether nuclear power is safe or not is debatable but the bad press has lead to the scaling down of the construction of nuclear powerplants. I do not see the trend reversing without a major campaign, definately not in the next few years which means that nuclear power will probably not become the dominant source in the US/Canada.

[Aileron]

Well, "scaling down" isn't a very good description. In terms of the US, the term would be "complete halt". I don't know about the situation in Canada.

 

Point being however, that nuclear power is a lot less dangerous than its reputation.

 

You do have a point with the other countries, but that is a seperate issue.

 

As for the terrorism idea, I really do not know how it started. I guess with the suggestion that the plane that crashed in western Pennsylvania was aimed for a nuclear plant.

 

However, the concept just doesn't fly. Nuclear power plants are hardened targets defended by armed guards. Terrorists don't attack such things. If given a choice between an army base and an emb!@#$%^&*y, they would choose the emb!@#$%^&*y. Why? Because terrorists are simply too cowardly to attack anything that has people who will shoot back at them and are too weak to attack anything that has exterior walls made of something stronger than glass Want proof? During the flight of the above mentioned plane, it passed over about six or seven nuclear plants, including the infamous Three Mile Island. While it is unlikely that the terrorists were in charge for the whole flight, it is likely they had an opportunity to crash into at least one.

 

Besides even if they did, the containment building of TMI was designed to withstand a direct hit from an airplane with no damage to the building. I don't know if this is standard, but I assume it is. Admitingly, the plane wasn't a 747, but a made up size between it and a regular jet. However, the jumbo jet would barely overcome the safety factors of the outer well, and definitely would not breach the reactor vessel.

 

As for sabatage, first off there probably won't be many disgruntled employees. Nuclear engineers make a very high salery, highest of all engineers right out of college. Secondly, it order to successfully pull it off, they would need to disengage a few dozen safety systems, and it would be unlikely they would have security access to all of them.

 

Long story short, nuclear plants have so much security that terrorsts are probably making plans elseware.

[madhaha]

The supply of nuclear material is insecure (its just on normal unguarded/low sec freight trains) so whether there is a direct attack on the station is irrelevant. The fact is that the more nuclear material you use the greater the chance that something goes wrong, intentional or otherwise.

 

Of course you get the same scenario with oil spillages but its easier to clear up and it is less likely to kill humans.

 

A solution based on nuclear power will not gather enough support to become viable and we still have disposal and control problems that aren't being fixed any time soon.

 

As a side note, planes can be filled with explosives oddly enough but thats beside the point because you would need a reactor leak to occur at the same time. I'd be more worried about the disgruntled employee. Sure there are failsafes but there are ways round them and I'm willing to bet that nuclear technicians know all about them.

[Kadith]

Well to Fix some problems with nuclear why not build them deep in the ground below the water table? That way if the unthinkable happens they can be contained by a self inflicted "cave in".

 

Etheral(Corn fuel): cost too much energy to produce to actually be of much benefit.

 

Wind: We would need alot of land to produce enough electricty? Why? Since when do we have to put them on land? Why not build floating windmils in the ocean? Isn't the wind out there stronger anyway?

 

Solar: I think it's a good idea to use with another power sorce as it is slightly affective if you put panels ontop of large buildings for extra electrictiy

 

Cold Fusion(Like in CHain Reaction): Did you watch that movie? yikes! Altho I am sure that is HollyWoodiesed*. If it were possible to get the chain reaction under control then we wouldn't have to worry about energy ever again. We would have a vast almost unending source. Noone will ever have to pay for electricty again. Sounds to me like a fary tale. First there is the containment problem. Seconds we have government/electricty providers to deal with that are just plain gready.

 

Thermal(Capping an underwater valcano): I think this is an interesting idea. Altho not sure exaclty how far off this is or even if we have an idea on how it might be pulled off.

 

So As of what we currently have I think we should use some nuclear but try to use a combination of solar/wind/water as much as possible/viable in order to reduce the need for more nuclear power plants.

[Yupa]

look, there is nothing that can make nuclear power completely safe - the consequences of an accident (or whatever) are - I think - not worth the risk

[Aileron]

A solution based on nuclear power will not gather enough support to become viable and we still have disposal and control problems that aren't being fixed any time soon.

 

Actually, the disposal problem IS being solved soon. The Federal Governmnet is considering building a disposal site in Utah or Nevada in an old salt mine below the water table. It is big enough that it could store material permanently.

 

As for transport, no enriched Uranium is on unguarded freight trains. It would only be on mere trains if in hasn't been enriched yet, and if it hasn't, it really isn't nuclear fuel yet. It wouldn't be worth stealing in such a state, because no terrorist organization has or likely will ever have capabilities of enriching Uranium. It isn't full proof, but it is far easier to get ahold of some rogue bomb left over from the Soviet Union.

 

However, my point about the failsafes was not weather the employee knew how to disable them, but rather that he/she would be capable of running around the plant and damaging each one without notice. Security around these places is tight, and it is likely that no one person would have that kind of access to the entire facility. Also, every time he turns off one, a light turns on in the control room. The first one may go unoticed, but by the third or fourth, everyone in the plant will know what he is doing, and he will still have five or six more systems to disable. Point being, it takes a lot more than "one disgruntled employee" to take out a whole power plant, nuclear or otherwise.

 

As for your main point, more nuclear plants do increase the odds of disaster. However, with every other type of power plant, the consequences do not have a chance of happening, they DO happen. If fossil fuel plant is built, it WILL produce pollution. If a solar or wind plant is built, there WILL be massive habitat loss. Nuclear power is the only type that has no major environmental consequences under normal cir-*BAD WORD*-stances.

[MonteZuma]

...Chernobyl won't happen again...

"Wont happen again" are the most famous last words in history. I would never say that about anything.

 

The probablilty of a catastrophic failure at a nuclear plan might be small, but the consequences of such a failure would be huge. Where talking continental and maybe even global impacts.

 

The counter argument is of course that the consequences of using fossil fuel (global warming) are also global.

 

The best solution that remains is to cut down energy use and don't build new plants at all.

 

Monte.

[madhaha]

One of the consequences of using fossil fuels which I regard as horribly neglected is that a majority of our polymers are based on Oil. No oil means no "plastics" as we know them today. No PVC, no Polythene, Polystyrene, Perspex, PET (as in the bottles) etc.

 

We might find replacements for a lot of them but there are some things that we will lose if we devote all our current oil supplies for fuel consumption. Also note that almost all schemes for recycling plastics as of now are small scale/unsuccessful due to the difficulties of bulk sorting and reprocessing them.

[Yupa]

Actually, the disposal problem IS being solved soon.  The Federal Governmnet is considering building a disposal site in Utah or Nevada in an old salt mine below the water table.  It is big enough that it could store material permanently.

I bet you sweep the dirt on your floor under your rug

Dumping tons of hazardous waste into a hole in a mountain is not a clean disposal solution - it's simply the best they can do with the material they've created.

 

...and if you actually think the material stored there will be there forever ("permanently") then you are dreaming

 

However, my point about the failsafes was not weather the employee knew how to disable them, but rather that he/she would be capable of running around the plant and damaging each one without notice.  Security around these places is tight, and it is likely that no one person would have that kind of access to the entire facility.  Also, every time he turns off one, a light turns on in the control room.  The first one may go unoticed, but by the third or fourth, everyone in the plant will know what he is doing, and he will still have five or six more systems to disable.  Point being, it takes a lot more than "one disgruntled employee" to take out a whole power plant, nuclear or otherwise.

 

just because it probably hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it cannot happen

 

If a solar or wind plant is built, there WILL be massive habitat loss.

...bahahahaha...massive habitat loss? I'm going to assume you're referring to specifically non-human habitats...in which case you're still totally pulling this all out of your -*BAD WORD*- -

 

I said it once already...

humans have claimed every last inch of known land on this earth as their own AND in case you missed it, most humans care nothing about most animals until THEY ARE HUNGRY - and then they don't care whether or not the animals they're eating lived in nice places

 

(if you meant human habitat and not non-human...well, then you're just looney)

 

regardless, there will be even more possibility for clean energy soon that doesn't require much space - whether or not it is used (if it's pricey, for instance) is probably completely up to the ignorant masses

 

Nuclear power is the only type that has no major environmental consequences under normal cir-*BAD WORD*-stances.

 

in the short run perhaps, but they're all bollix to me

 

-------

 

The probablilty of a catastrophic failure at a nuclear plan might be small, but the consequences of such a failure would be huge.  Where talking continental and maybe even global impacts.

 

global

[Trained]

-*BAD WORD*- akai.

[Aileron]

Actually, the disposal problem IS being solved soon.  The Federal Governmnet is considering building a disposal site in Utah or Nevada in an old salt mine below the water table.  It is big enough that it could store material permanently.

 

I bet you sweep the dirt on your floor under your rug

Dumping tons of hazardous waste into a hole in a mountain is not a clean disposal solution - it's simply the best they can do with the material they've created.

 

...and if you actually think the material stored there will be there forever ("permanently") then you are dreaming

Actually, it doesn't have to last forever as you put it. It only has to last a few hundred years. More importantly, radioactive materials come from deep underground. If the thickness of the ground at its thinest point is strong enough to contain natural sources of raditaion for thousands if not millions of years, why is it so implausible that deep underground can contain similar sources of radiation at one if its thickest points for only a few hundred? Basically, we got the stuff from deep underground. All we are really doing is putting it back where we got it. This isn't sweeping dirt under a rug, this is dumping dirt outside with other dirt.

 

 

If a solar or wind plant is built, there WILL be massive habitat loss.  

 

 

...bahahahaha...massive habitat loss? I'm going to assume you're referring to specifically non-human habitats...in which case you're still totally pulling this all out of your -*BAD WORD*- -

 

I said it once already...

humans have claimed every last inch of known land on this earth as their own AND in case you missed it, most humans care nothing about most animals until THEY ARE HUNGRY - and then they don't care whether or not the animals they're eating lived in nice places

So, you are saying we should merely give up trying to protect the environment?

 

just because it probably hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it cannot happen  

All I'm saying is that we can probably rule that scenario out as a possibility because it would take a miracle to happen.

 

If this was subspace, it would be like one player attacking a base that has a few hundred defenders. Not only that, but that player has to get ALL the flags, and all of the flags are spread in multiple locations throughout the base. On top of that, the bot would display a macro every time a flag was picked up (safety systems themselves are monitored). And to be even more realistic, guns aren't allowed on power plants, so one can assume that the intruder will only have stealth OR a weapon, and if he snuck one in, it wouldn't be on par with the ones the guards are carrying. On top of all that, there would be a mod on the defending team that could and would be willing to flagreset (shut down the reactor) at any time (and yes, nuclear reactors CAN be shutdown in a few seconds).

 

I mean, ->I:p

 

Yes, it could happen. I only consider it impossible because it is more probable that the universe collapses on itself spontaniously.

[Yupa]

Actually, it doesn't have to last forever as you put it.

that's how YOU put it - thanks for supporting MY point

 

It only has to last a few hundred years.  More importantly, radioactive materials come from deep underground.  If the thickness of the ground at its thinest point is strong enough to contain natural sources of raditaion for thousands if not millions of years, why is it so implausible that deep underground can contain similar sources of radiation at one if its thickest points for only a few hundred?  Basically, we got the stuff from deep underground.  All we are really doing is putting it back where we got it.  This isn't sweeping dirt under a rug, this is dumping dirt outside with other dirt.

 

you're kidding yourself

 

So, you are saying we should merely give up trying to protect the environment?

no, if I was saying that...well, I would have said it

just countering your jazz about habitat loss

 

All I'm saying is that we can probably rule that scenario out as a possibility because it would take a miracle to happen.

 

all I'm saying is that it could happen along with many other dreadful things

[Aileron]

So, you think it already has been lost. Well, you are mostly correct in terms of legal ownership, and in the fact that animals and ecosystems do not have rights. However, there is a desire among humans to preserve at least a part of the natural world for its own sake.

 

I see your point in that radiation and pollution hurts people, not just ecosystems. However, like animals, people need room too. Humans have a psycological need for territory as well as exploration. If this is not fulfilled, the effects can be just as dangerous as physical problems. I'm no expert, but this is probably the source of many inner city problems. I could prove it, but I'll stay on topic. Thus, we need to preserve land for humans as well.

 

Aileron wrote:  

Actually, it doesn't have to last forever as you put it.  

 

 

that's how YOU put it - thanks for supporting MY point

 

What I was saying is that radiactive waste depletes itself of time. We don't need to store it "forever"; we need to store it until it decays. However, the mine has the capabilities of storing radioactive materials for as long as we need it to. The site lasts forever, the materials don't.

 

Put it this way. Most radiation cannot penetrate a piece of paper. There is no way in heck that any of these particles could p!@#$%^&* through a denser and more importantly thicker layer of rock. However, the true threat is that fragments of materials get into air or water and then inhaled or swallowed. First off, it can't leak into the water supply from the site, because water flows downhill and this is below the water table. It can't get into the air because it is sealed (several times), put inside airlocks, and reverse pressurized. Basically, the biggest thing preventing leaks from this site is that all forces such as gravity and pressure will push it back in.

[madhaha]

Aileron: 1 Akai: 0

[Yupa]

if only we had an infinite supply of mountains in unpopulated areas

 

(aileron doesn't understand I didn't claim "it has already been lost" and he wins? - get a new hat, mad )

[Aileron]

We have a lot more volume under mountains to store nuclear waste than area to build solar power plants when you factor in the size of a solar power plant verses the size of nuclear waste.

[»nintendo64]

This isn't about Win or Losing... This is about Discussing, by using thruthful arguments that are clear, precise, concise and coherent to prove your thesis.

 

-nintendo64

[madhaha]

Yes and Akai doesn't do that, he just comes here to -*BAD WORD*- at people and boost his ego hence:

 

Aileron: 1 Akai: 0.

 

Very little nuclear waste is actually produced and much of it is reprocessed for reuse or recycled for other products. The military are particularly fond of DU because it has so much m!@#$%^&* that it can easily punch through tanks and the sparks themselves weld through metal.

 

While waste is produced however, there will still be bad press for nuclear powerplants and this very little investment in them. I think we will see new ways of using todays waste being much more likely than huge windfarms, solar furnaces or other forms of alternative power being used.

[Yupa]

pffft

 

the problem is a lot of my posts are just to help people that don't understand English so well (from my earlier posts)

[Kadith]

not one person commented on my post :X

[madhaha]

Hey, at least you didn't get a reply from Akai

 

Buring nuclear waste below the water table.... It'd cost a lot of money and it MIGHT work providing you can find somewhere suitable. You'd have to go very deep just to play it safe. I think they'd want to be sure they could retrieve it if they wanted to.

 

The etheral is usually mixed with petrol to greatly extend it and burning is not the same as using it in a fuel cell. They'd have to run tests to see if its viable, perhaps you could give figures.

 

Anything offshore is horrible to maintain and the environmental effects are pretty hard to monitor. I'm not saying it isn't doable, just not very cost effective and considering the troubles we're having with marine life (or the increasing lack of it) at the moment I think that offshore windfarms are unlikely to be realised. Also, getting the power back inland isn't going to come cheap or easy. It'd take years to pay back all the infrastructure you'd need and the maintenance costs will be prohibative.

 

Photovoltics work but it doesn't come cheap, it carries its own environmental problems in the manufacture and disposal and they aren't easy to repair/replace. Maybe those problems will disappear in the future but that'd mean we would need serious funding now. This is not happening. Also the power would not be sufficient or reliable enough to be your primary source.

 

Cold fusion IS science fiction. None of the experiments have successfully been duplicated by two or more teams of researchers. The movie is a complete fabrication, isn't that a shame, there is No chain reaction. If there were. the military would be piloting cold fusion bombs by now (what a horrible thought, people making nukes from seawater). Related sciences including bubblefusion and sonoluminescence have also failed to produced results of note.

 

Geothermals are very location dependant. Also, judging from the country that uses it most (Iceland), it can't be maintained for more than a few decades because you cool the area too much causing a skin of lava to build up very quickly. Definately not a long term solution and the vents tend to come and go as they please.

 

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned fusion plants but given the amount of progress these last few decades with the reactors I'm not surprised.

 

Remember that the Bush administration gains its power from oil. As long as Bush runs America and Canada supplies America with oil there is no real hope for alternative power.