Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind

I am for nuclear power - yes there have been two very notable accidents but that has been over a period of 50 years. Yes they can be dangerous but in statistical terms (and I don't have access to the stats) the over all safety record of nuclear systems is better than oil/coal based systems. Of interest is a stat that a coal powered pwer station actually releases more radioactive material into the environment than a running nuclear station - but the stat does not take into account the neclear waste management issue. Burning the coal releases the radioactive substances inbedded in the coal.

I think that the use of nuclear bombs before the development of nuclear activities for peaceful purposes has not helped the argument - neither has the Chernobyl incident - but One Mile Island does indicate that accidents can happen without the sky falling in.

I accept that there will always be emotive or other arguments for and against nuclear power but I would be happy to have one near me - as long as it is in an industrial area.

Garry

I'm for N-P.

A lot more efficient than coal and might stop the summer black outs.

Waste disposal does concern me though.

Yes build it.

if we serious about cutting pollution then build it now.

Michael.

Heres an interesting question to ask yourself -

If i had to live next to a power station would i prefer to live next to a windmill, coal or nuclear power station?

(im ignoring solar, as its not really viable yet)

Originally Posted by rangieman

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind

Solar and wind will never supply enough.

Im inclined to think that the energy and materialls required to build either will far out weigh the benifits.

many years ago I worked for a company that made solar lighting and it was found that the costs to produce the lighting was far greater than the gains.

Michael.

Originally Posted by rangieman

im unsure on this one but im on the edge of no
what about solar or wind

It has been proven time and time again the the items used to make power from the sun/ sea/ wind. use more power to make them than they will ever produce in the their life time. So not really that green are they. Also do not procduce enough power to really make a differance still would have to run with something else, as can not be counted as a regular power sourch. Ie it is not sunny no sloar p[ower, if it not windy no wind power and if it is claim as sea then no wave power.

Living within only a few km's of two coal power stations i voted for the nuclear option.

Nuclear is the most efficient means of producing power, wind and solar just isnt feasible for the power demand this planet has, whilst it is a viable suplement we need more.

300grms or so of nuclear material (plutonium, uranium whatever) will produce the same amount of energy as 300000 tons of coal, thats alot les CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.

I think to many people think that a nuclear power plant is going to be like the one on the simpsons, nuclear power plants dont effect the environment all that much, appart from the waste which has strict laws controlling its handling.

In the end everyone wont agree but coal wont be around for ever and it is the most inefficient means of producing power, we need an alternative.