What do you think of nuclear power?

Jolene

Jolene

Your huckleberry friend
  • Poké Ball Great Ball Ultra Ball Premier Ball
    • 1,289
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Age 29
    • Seen Apr 18, 2025
    What do you think of nuclear power?

    I am worried about nuclear power. I live near a nuclear power plant and sometimes I worry that it will leak and kill me and also everyone else. People say that it is perfectly safe but my friend's dad works at the nuclear plant and he doesn't seem very responsible to me. Like one time he forgot to pick us up from the train station. If nuclear power plants let people like that work at them then how can we be sure that the nuclear power plants are in safe hands?

    Although I have heard that nuclear power is better for the planet than other powers because it does not make greenhouse gases.

    You must consider both of these things I think.
     
    Nuclear power is safe, and unlike its alternatives, it is efficient, cheap, and clean. Coal power and gas power pollute the environment. Wind power is clean, but extremely inefficient and rather expensive. Water power is great, but very situational; obviously it can't be used unless there's a sufficient source of water nearby, and damming a river can lead to pollution in the river and changes in ecosystems, which is undesirable.

    It's really the best possible solution. Nuclear meltdowns are extremely rare and are only a result of gross negligence.
     
    I would be less against nuclear energy if it weren't for the fact that high-level waste takes thousands of years to get rid of. That's the biggest problem I have with it, the other being that there are still much better sources of energy to use than nuclear.

    twocows said:
    Nuclear power is safe, and unlike its alternatives, it is efficient, cheap, and clean. Coal power and gas power pollute the environment. Wind power is clean, but extremely inefficient and rather expensive. Water power is great, but very situational; obviously it can't be used unless there's a sufficient source of water nearby, and damming a river can lead to pollution in the river and changes in ecosystems, which is undesirable.

    It's really the best possible solution. Nuclear meltdowns are extremely rare and are only a result of gross negligence.
    Click to expand...

    Inefficient? Wind turbines have much lower failure rates than coal or nuclear plants. Last time I checked, wind was everywhere.

    Expensive?
    https://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html
    https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGDZMpv5Y9Vo&pos=13#

    I'll just leave those right there.

    Edit: Just because I feel like it, here is some Daniel Kammen.
     
    Last edited:
    One word: Chernobyl...

    ^If you don't know what I'm talking about, google chernobyl
     
    Nuke said:
    Most places have strict safety procedures in case of a meltdown now so it wouldn't be on that scale.
    Click to expand...

    This. Chernobyl was...not-well-staffed in the safety procedures department. I mean, it was the Soviet Union. They simply didn't have the money.

    I'm all for alternate energy resources such as wind power (the reason I hear against wind power the most is 'omg it ruins the scenery!'. Apparently these insane people think that nuclear power plants are pretty?), solar power (although useless in the UK) and tidal power. But the moment, too many large corporations* are invested in oil and other non-sustainable sources. I mean, jeez, Iraq anyone? If funding was being poured into alternate supplies of energy, I doubt America would have invaded. People don't invade one another over the direction of the wind or currents. Yet.

    ...Anyway, that's a whole other rant. So: yes, I support researching alternate energy sources, and naturally I'm worried about nuclear power, but at the moment there ain't a whole kettle of fish I can do about it. :| But, er, Jolene, if you were dead serious in your OP, I wouldn't worry about being killed or whatever. The chances are slim.

    * And it's always the large corporations.
     
    Luck said:
    Inefficient? Wind turbines have much lower failure rates than coal or nuclear plants. Last time I checked, wind was everywhere.
    Click to expand...
    It's true that wind turbines have less problems than nuclear power plants, but seeing as power plants are far more complex than a simple turbine, this is hardly surprising. It also takes literally hundreds (if not thousands) of wind turbines to produce the same amount of power that a nuclear power plant is capable of creating. Obviously building these power plants is expensive and waste material is produced, but it is by far the most efficient way of producing energy. Yes it would be ideal if we could get enough energy from renewable sources like wind and solar power, but it's just not realistic because people use so much energy that these power sources would never be able to meet the demand.
     
    Luck said:
    Last time I checked, wind was everywhere.
    Click to expand...
    lololol


    Nuclear power... Generally speaking, I like it; the most major problem is disposal of the waste, which has almost nil uses and is damaging to the enrivonment, but this can and is being handled safely.

    Personally though, I'm one for geothermal power.
     
    Luck said:
    Inefficient? Wind turbines have much lower failure rates than coal or nuclear plants. Last time I checked, wind was everywhere.

    Expensive?
    Click to expand...
    It is inefficient and expensive because it requires thousands of turbines to generate the same level of power as a traditional power plant, you need a large, open area to put them (which can cost a lot of money in itself), they can break if the wind is abnormally heavy, and they can fail to generate enough power if the wind isn't powerful enough for a long period of time.

    Don't get me wrong, I think they're a great way to take pressure off a more traditional plant, but unless you live in a very specific area, they're not feasible as the sole means of power.
     
    i cant seem to say i hate nuclear power. It seems like it can kill us but at the same time its good for us
     
    i don't hate nuclear power, the only problem is that you have to heat Uranium rodes to 10,000C and use destiled water to create the steam to power the turbines. but that water you have to get somewere
     
    chikorita125 said:
    i don't hate nuclear power, the only problem is that you have to heat Uranium rodes to 10,000C and use destiled water to create the steam to power the turbines. but that water you have to get somewere
    Click to expand...

    and thats more and more water being wasted
     
    twocows said:
    It is inefficient and expensive because it requires thousands of turbines to generate the same level of power as a traditional power plant, you need a large, open area to put them (which can cost a lot of money in itself), they can break if the wind is abnormally heavy, and they can fail to generate enough power if the wind isn't powerful enough for a long period of time.

    Don't get me wrong, I think they're a great way to take pressure off a more traditional plant, but unless you live in a very specific area, they're not feasible as the sole means of power.
    Click to expand...


    i agree, wind has a limatation to how much Mhw it can produce thats why countries like here in Australia whe use Coal. it can create the power we need but it also has to use coal. nuclear power can last how long the uranium rodes produce energy, 10 years i think.
     
    twocows said:
    Nuclear power is safe, and unlike its alternatives, it is efficient, cheap, and clean. Coal power and gas power pollute the environment. Wind power is clean, but extremely inefficient and rather expensive. Water power is great, but very situational; obviously it can't be used unless there's a sufficient source of water nearby, and damming a river can lead to pollution in the river and changes in ecosystems, which is undesirable.

    It's really the best possible solution. Nuclear meltdowns are extremely rare and are only a result of gross negligence.
    Click to expand...
    Wind power is actually pretty efficient. It's just less reliable since (as far as I know) there's no great way to store the energy for when there's no wind blowing. Wind turbines are relatively cheap and easy to make. They've got tons of them in the wastelands beautiful scenery around LA and all they'd need is more wires bringing that power to the metropolis and helping reduce the amount it need to rely of coal, gas, etc.

    Nuclear power is okay. It's not a constant polluter, but it can be a problem. I don't mean meltdown, but the occasional release of irradiated water can happen. They also take a long time to build, not to mention that only safe and stable countries should even think about using nuclear power so that doesn't do much for a lot of people around the world.
     
    I think the risks from nuclear power will go down as we develop the technology further. If we can get it to work without significant risk, then I'm all for it. It's clean, it's renewable.
     
    PPS Morphine said:
    Nuclear Power is amazing, but, it's near impossible because of the waste D:
    Click to expand...
    Actually, it's not, it's one of the most common forms of power currently used. The facility that powers my city is, I believe, a nuclear power plant. Perhaps you are thinking of fusion or fission power.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top