Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:09 AM   #1
G51989
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
What is your opinion on nuclear energy?

I am curious as to what the fellow board members feel about nuclear energy.

Are you for or against, why or why not?

I understand the risk's of nuclear energy very well.

However, in an age where Oil, Coal, and Natural gas cause much environmental harm, and are becoming more and more expensive, and we deplete these resources more and more, faster and faster.

It is clear that we need to start investing in Solar, Wind, and Hydro. While these are great power sources, they don't pack enough punch to power the nation.

Nuclear does pack that punch, and when done correctly is a very safe and very clean way to produce power, yes there is the risk of a meltdown, but that is mostly solved with newer reactor designs ( Such as the AP1000 from Westinghouse ), newer reactors also produce less waste.

I feel that if the waste can be disposed of and buried properly, and strick safety guidelines are followed. Nuclear energy can be a great stop gap until the advent of fusion.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:16 AM   #2
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
I'm proud to present to you the following 30-minute talk show in favor of Nuclear power.

P & T: BullS*t! - Nuclear Power, Renewable Power and Lesbians

I'm in favor of Solar mostly. Yes solar doesn't have a strong punch right now. But if every household in the US had 4 solar panels, then we'd have a strong solar production.

That is besides the solar farms we can build out in sunny places like Arizona/New Mexico/Texas.
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:27 AM   #3
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
The problem with nuclear power is that it is not actually all that "clean". There is quite a bit of auxiliary energy required to support nuclear power that cannot adequately be supplied by nuclear power itself. Manufacturing the facilities, mining and refining the fuel, retiring and replacing old units (a fission reactor has a useful life of a few decades before the radiation severely compromises its viability, and they are rather costly to replace – a theoretical fusion reactor would be even much worse).

Our energy needs can more easily be met simply by reducing how much we waste. A large amount of our energy consumption goes to making garbage, including disposable products like Bic pens, happy meal toys and iPhones, trimming the waste stream to a reasonable level would go a long, long way toward addressing our basic energy requirements to the point where sustainable sources might be better suited to handling the nation's needs (which would also entail reshaping the economy to fit the situation).

Of course, the "green" energy production devices themselves require a lot of energy to construct in the first place, perhaps more than they themselves could supply. Our comfort and relative wealth is saturated in oil, escaping it will a much bigger deal to hopping over to a different source, what ever that might be.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:27 AM   #4
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
I'm proud to present to you the following 30-minute talk show in favor of Nuclear power.

P & T: BullS*t! - Nuclear Power, Renewable Power and Lesbians

I'm in favor of Solar mostly. Yes solar doesn't have a strong punch right now. But if every household in the US had 4 solar panels, then we'd have a strong solar production.

That is besides the solar farms we can build out in sunny places like Arizona/New Mexico/Texas.
I am in favor of solar as well, however it just is not feasible as a main power source for the country, it is a great supplemental source.

I feel that we will always need a strong core source of power, like Nuclear. When the wind isnt blowing and the sun isn't shining.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:28 AM   #5
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Nuclear does pack that punch, and when done correctly is a very safe and very clean way to produce power, yes there is the risk of a meltdown, but that is mostly solved with newer reactor designs ( Such as the AP1000 from Westinghouse ), newer reactors also produce less waste.
I don't know if they're actively being built yet, or are still in the planning phases, but newer plants not only produce less radioactive waste, but can consume the waste from older plants as fuel. Considering the only other waste produced by nuclear is simple water steam, you can't ask for a cleaner high yield energy source this side of fusion, which is only now starting to become viable, and still has a ways to go before it can be put into widespread use.

Nuclear supplemented with renewable energy sources like solar and wind is THE way to go.

Though the threat of a meltdown is something to be seriously considered, that one potential negative (and it's a big damn negative, admittedly) is outweighed by the actual positives of nuclear energy.
Renzatic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:28 AM   #6
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Article from Time magazine sums up the problems with nuclear energy: even if one figured out a safe way to store waste, the economics just don't add up.

http://content.time.com/time/magazin...059603,00.html

That article is corroborated with greater detail on the economics of nuclear energy in this article ...

Quote:
Even while the nuclear industry is able to externalize its costs for insurance (which are federally limited), loan guarantees (which are federally backstopped), decommissioning (which is pushed onto ratepayers) and waste handling (which is pushed onto taxpayers), it still lost. If it had to stand on its own and pay its full insurance costs like every other energy source, we could never build another nuclear plant in America, because no private investors would be willing to take that kind of risk. It’s hard to imagine how the economics could be more tilted in nuclear’s favor (although I’m sure its proponents have ideas on that).

The reason nuclear is dying is economics, not tribalism, as Shellenberger and Nordhaus claim. The UCS study found that if the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System were updated using 2009 utility cost estimates for building new nuclear plants, instead of EIA’s old over-optimistic projections, nuclear plants would not be the most economical way to add new capacity. The economics have shifted even farther away from nuclear since then.

http://qz.com/94817/the-real-reason-...-health-risks/
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:30 AM   #7
kingalexthe1st
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
I'm a fan of nuclear. The two main issues people have with it are the fear of meltdown and waste disposal. The meltdown fear is kind of legitimate, just look at Fukushima. All in all, it's a very safe technology though. As for waste disposal, well you highlighted in your post how tech has become better at this.

It's an incredibly efficient process, much more than coal, oil and gas, and provides a lot of energy to people. This is all in reference to fission though, and fusion is where the future is at. A few months back scientists managed to extract for the first time more energy out of the fusion process than was put in. Keep your eyes peeled, we'll have more energy than you can wave a stick at soon

Alex
__________________
Mid-2011 13" MBA, Moto X, 32Gb 5th Gen iPod, Apple TV, Fuji X100s and a partridge in a pear tree
kingalexthe1st is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:39 AM   #8
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Article from Time magazine sums up the problems with nuclear energy: even if one figured out a safe way to store waste, the economics just don't add up.

http://content.time.com/time/magazin...059603,00.html

That article is corroborated with greater detail on the economics of nuclear energy in this article ...
That does make valid points.

However, with the rising costs of fossil fuels, and increased emissions from fossil fuel plants. Public dollars being put into loans and insurance for nuclear plants may be the only viable option for generating large sources of energy.

Wind, Hydro and Solar are great supplements, but simply will not power the country by themselves.

Also we can ad into the equation that new generations of reactors will be much cheaper to build than the old ones.

I understand that some people want to power the world with windmills and drum circles, but that simply isn't possible.

Last edited by G51989; Jan 6, 2014 at 03:10 AM.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 03:57 AM   #9
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Here in the UK the government seems to be heading towards more nuclear plants. I am not so sure that is a good idea. We live on an island with limited land space, and as we now know, a single nuclear accident can contaminate large swaths of land. I prefer wind, solar, and even natural gas.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 04:18 AM   #10
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I am in favor of solar as well, however it just is not feasible as a main power source for the country, it is a great supplemental source.

I feel that we will always need a strong core source of power, like Nuclear. When the wind isnt blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Despite its potential, few in the U.S. ever seem to mention geothermal energy and even fewer mention enhanced geothermal systems as viable alternative energy sources.

__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 05:04 AM   #11
Wardenski
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Personally, I am in favour of all non-fossil fuel energy sources.

I am in favour of nuclear technology in general but I am not so convinced by its economics or long term strategies. To me, it takes far too long to achieve anything meaningful in the nuclear industry. I considered a job in it once upon a time. In the UK, there is a lot of talk about new reactors, which is fine but I am still yet to see any long term strategies for waste.

I would like to see more efforts into recyling nuclear waste (fast breeder etc) but no-one is willing to fork out the dough for a commerical facility and this is nuclears biggest issue.

On another side note, if I could afford it (and if I had a house) I would make it in my best efforts to become as self dependant as possible by producing as much energy as possible (solar, mini-wind turbines, batteries etc).

I am not anti fossil fuel. I wish to reduce the impact of our activities on the planet but at the same time I want to be realistic.

As for fusion, its a pipedream at the moment. Its not even worth discussing. At the end of the day, nuclear fission and renewables work. Fusion doesn't.
Wardenski is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 06:00 AM   #12
MyMac1976
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
I'd rather we keep spending on "green" energy and tech.
MyMac1976 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 06:57 AM   #13
juanm
macrumors 65816
 
juanm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Send a message via MSN to juanm Send a message via Skype™ to juanm
My opinion?
Short term, it's much better than fossil.
Long term, it's a very, very bad idea.
juanm is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 08:53 AM   #14
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Until they can come up with an adequate waste disposal scheme, I am against nuclear energy. You've got poison that persists for not just millennium, but basically forever in human terms (for Plutonium 239, it's 240,000 years). That is just not acceptable. And no one wants this waste stored in their back yards, NO ONE, even in France which I believe has the largest number of reactors.

As far as alternative sources not having "enough punch", they do if they were built. I don't have the link, but a Popular Science solar power article mentioned that a 10x10 square mile solar farm would produce enough electricity to power the entire USA. Ultimately due to transmission distance, a single farm like this placed in the Western desert could not power the East Coast, but the point is made.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 09:36 AM   #15
Scrub175
macrumors Demi-God
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Jensen Beach FL
Nuclear is an interesting option if you disregard the long term waste storage. The costs associated with nuclear is killing the industry. Nuclear grade everything was the mentality. Now we are seeing a more sensible approach with components that protect nuclear safety.

From a business perspective, utilities are having unique problems based on their regulated or non regulated nature. Regulated is having to streamline their operations to be as cost effective as other cheaper methods of energy production. Non regulated is feeling a serious price crunch on wholesale energy pricing based on natural gas production costs. Utilities are now idling or closing plants based on the competitive market for nuclear versus other sources, as opposed to the old days where nuclear was the base load and other plants cycled for demand ebb and flow. This is a big departure for nuclear.

Having lived in areas that are relatively pro nuclear, I don't see the political demands on a plant located in areas not as pro nuclear. In the north east plants will be shut down based on age and the politics. The importance of the local politics is important on how events are reported and spun.

Nuclear had its time and place in meeting the demands of customers for many years. I think well valued and efficiently operated plants will always be utilized in the base load for America. Plus I don't really trust the low costs of natural gas to hedge our energy production on for the long term. It's almost to good to be true.

With all that said, industry events around the world will eventually price nuclear out of the equation. The retro fit post Fukushima is going to be staggering. Companies that aren't as diversified in other energy productions will have to sit down and weigh their options. Exelon has some serious issues with their fleet which is heavily invested in nuclear and is in a non regulated competitive market. They cancelled uprate plans based on market prices. I hate to see what happens when federally mandated upgrades are required to protect against Fukushima type events. I would hope that non coastal plants would have some requirements relaxed, but when it's the government one can never be sure.

My two main concerns with nuclear have been waste storage and what happens when we are done with the areas where we operated. If those were easier to handle and answer, nuclear would be a better political answer. Times have changed and alternative energy sources are the rage. Just don't forget about us nuclear plants when gas prices soar again. We'll be waiting, if we can last that long.
Scrub175 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 10:52 AM   #16
prostuff1
macrumors 65816
 
prostuff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Don't step into the kawoosh...
In general I am for nuclear power. With that being said the waste disposal needs to be tackled head on and we need to come up with good ways of getting rid of the waste.

The next home I own will hopefully be one I build. That house will use a combo of geothermal and solar for most/all of the electricity and heating/cooling requirements.
__________________
Vista: It's the blond version of OS's; pretty and fun, just... not functional for everything
prostuff1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:06 PM   #17
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prostuff1 View Post
In general I am for nuclear power. With that being said the waste disposal needs to be tackled head on and we need to come up with good ways of getting rid of the waste.
Read my link again. No, IFRs won't curtail waste entirely, but since newer reactors built with this technology can use the waste of old reactors, and burn them for far longer, it'll slow down its build up by a tremendous amount.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:09 PM   #18
Cave Man
macrumors 604
 
Cave Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neander Valley, Germany; just outside of Duesseldorf
The Pros:
  • Very little greenhouse gas footprint
  • A lot safer than coal

The Cons:
  • Extremely expensive
  • Waste disposal
  • Potential for catastrophic event
  • Terrorism

The reduction of reactor sizes has progressed very well over the decades. I'm sure the US Navy has a lot of secret info on their ship reactors. It would be nice to leverage that technology such that smaller but more reactors could be used. This, of course, reduces the risk of a catastrophic event but also provides more targets for terrorists.

It's too bad fusion energy hasn't progressed further. That would be a lot safer and more efficient than fission.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini; i5 Quad Core ITX Hackintosh with Blu-ray playback HTPC; 1 TB eSATA Apple TV; 3.8 gHz i7 Quad Core Hackintosh, 2GB HD5870; MacBook Pro i7; MacBook Air; iPhone 4s; 1st Mac=Centris 610
Cave Man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 12:20 PM   #19
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
If a terrorist managed to sneak a large amount of explosives into the core of a nuclear reactor, we'd probably deserve the ensuing meltdown for being so lax with our security.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 01:05 PM   #20
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
That does make valid points.

However, with the rising costs of fossil fuels, and increased emissions from fossil fuel plants. Public dollars being put into loans and insurance for nuclear plants may be the only viable option for generating large sources of energy.

Wind, Hydro and Solar are great supplements, but simply will not power the country by themselves.
Source?


Quote:
...Also we can ad into the equation that new generations of reactors will be much cheaper to build than the old ones.

I understand that some people want to power the world with windmills and drum circles, but that simply isn't possible.
Careful in presenting such a straw man, the pro-nuclear group tend to ignore the harsh reality that nuclear power is very expensive and inefficient. The industry ignores externalities—digging up uranium has many of the same costs as finding rare earth metals—and use handwavium any time someone mentions the storage issue, which is huge.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 01:17 PM   #21
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
If a terrorist managed to sneak a large amount of explosives into the core of a nuclear reactor, we'd probably deserve the ensuing meltdown for being so lax with our security.
Yeah, with how secure the plants are, and they are VERY secure, typically with decent sized groups of guards armed with automatic weapons. I don't foresee that happening. And the amount of screening that goes on just to get into a plant is insane as well.

As far as crashing a plane into it, Western reactor containment buildings are pretty much immune to that.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 01:31 PM   #22
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
Yeah, with how secure the plants are, and they are VERY secure, typically with decent sized groups of guards armed with automatic weapons. I don't foresee that happening. And the amount of screening that goes on just to get into a plant is insane as well.
Yup. Nuclear plants are built with failsafes upon failsafes upon failsafes, which make for perfect security checkpoints. You don't even need guards armed automatic weaponry to keep a terrorist out of a nuclear plant. Just a few security guys carrying side arms in a little booth next to the giant 3 foot steel doors. If a terrorist managed to kill that guy and open the doors, he still has to get through the next one...and the next one...then take the elevator down 3 stories underground...then the next one...

If he does manage to get to the reactor, it's less "this is a problem with nuclear power", and more "how the **** did we let this happen".

Quote:
As far as crashing a plane into it, Western reactor containment buildings are pretty much immune to that.
Yeah, the only thing a plane crash would do is damage the outer shell of a cooling tower, which are all reinforced steel and concrete, easily stronger than the Pentagon. And we saw how much damage a direct plane crash did there.

The worst case scenario would be someone managing to fly a small plane directly into a cooling tower, which would mean the plant would have to run at half capacity for a few month while they fix the damage. It wouldn't cause a meltdown directly.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 01:44 PM   #23
G51989
Thread Starter
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Yup. Nuclear plants are built with failsafes upon failsafes upon failsafes, which make for perfect security checkpoints. You don't even need guards armed automatic weaponry to keep a terrorist out of a nuclear plant. Just a few security guys carrying side arms in a little booth next to the giant 3 foot steel doors. If a terrorist managed to kill that guy and open the doors, he still has to get through the next one...and the next one...then take the elevator down 3 stories underground...then the next one...

If he does manage to get to the reactor, it's less "this is a problem with nuclear power", and more "how the **** did we let this happen".



Yeah, the only thing a plane crash would do is damage the outer shell of a cooling tower, which are all reinforced steel and concrete, easily stronger than the Pentagon. And we saw how much damage a direct plane crash did there.

The worst case scenario would be someone managing to fly a small plane directly into a cooling tower, which would mean the plant would have to run at half capacity for a few month while they fix the damage. It wouldn't cause a meltdown directly.

Indeed.

The cooling towers are pretty sturdy, let alone the containment buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

I call that terrorist proof. It should be noted that containment buildsings are made of even thicker and stronger domes than that wall.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 01:58 PM   #24
sviato
macrumors 68000
 
sviato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HR 9038 A
Does it still take more energy to make a solar panel than that panel will generate over a decade? If so, then technically it's a waste of resources.
sviato is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2014, 02:02 PM   #25
barkmonster
macrumors 68020
 
barkmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lancashire
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
Does it still take more energy to make a solar panel than that panel will generate over a decade? If so, then technically it's a waste of resources.
It's meant to be the same for the energy used to create the cells in a Prius too.

I've never understood the hostility to nuclear energy. Sure, like anything that goes bang, it was weaponised. What hasn't been? Everything people invent that does that eventually ends up used against their enemies, it's why most of Europe arn't speaking Japanese or German right now.
__________________
16Gb iPhone 5 • 2.53Ghz Mac Mini (8Gb, 60Gb Vertex 2) • Icy Box IB-328U3SEb with Toshiba DT01ACA300 HDD
Mbox2 • LG W2343T • Samsung SyncMaster 913n
barkmonster is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Hires Former NV Energy VP to Serve as Renewable Energy Manager MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 5 May 3, 2014 12:48 AM
Should you be able to buy an ICBM? Or nuclear weapons? G51989 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 81 Jan 20, 2014 11:36 AM
Nuclear Powered Smartphones SomeDudeAsking Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 10 Jan 21, 2013 08:17 AM
Nuclear Explosion Panoramic Picture batmangorden Picture Gallery 26 Jan 4, 2013 05:56 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC