Would this change your mind...

[kenandkids]

...on nuclear power? I'm primarily in the pro-nuclear camp. Having completed a rather thorough report on comparing the waste from coal and nuclear plants, I much prefer nuclear. If coal had to hold to the same restrictions and regulations as nuclear, it would be just as expensive. I'd very much like to see industries push more sustainable forms, but until then I want these types of reactors built.

 

[Inferno]

OR we could use Thorium. I'm a pro-nuclearist too, but I seem to be the only one in my country.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

I'm a supporter of nuclear power as a near-term solution as well.

I'm a pro-nuclearist too, but I seem to be the only one in my country.

Are you in the Ukraine?

 

[sgrunterundt]

I am in favor of nuclear power too, as one of the few in Denmark, although the number is growing.

 

[australopithecus]

Anything that ups the chances of radioactively gained super powers gets my vote.

 

[Inferno]

Are you in the Ukraine?

Austria. Very close though.

 

[BrainBlow]

I'm pro-nuclear.
The social stigma caused by Chernobyl needs to end. It isn't valid at all.

 

[scienceguy8888]

i agree with everyone here it seems, doesn't add much of a discussion though :?

 

[Salphen]

I'm sure the arguments will begin in due time.

But not right now. I'm pro-nuclear power as well...

 

[nasher168]

Once again, I'm staunchly pro-nuclear. The UK government is foolish in its anti-nuclear stance.

 

[BrainBlow]

It is frustrating actually.
We get some insane electricity prices here in Norway during the winter.
In fact, we buy electricity produced by Swedish nuclear factories, and when the nuclear factories once had to temporarily halt, our prices rose quite notably.
And then we resume to bitch and complain.
But make some nuclear factories ourselves? "no, nocler powor es baed, buwt wes likes ta buy frum zem swedes, yesh"
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[shadowXvalkyrie]

I was anti-nuclear... but lately I've been on the fence, able to see the positives but still worried about the waste and all that.

However, this is absolutely amazing. If this could be implimented, I would absolutely be 100% for it.

So yes, it would definately solidify a positive-nuclear opinion from me, and I think it could sway a lot of people to at least neutral ground.

 

[WarK]

Bill Gates explains Terrapower ( Traveling wave reactor )



I don't know much about nuclear power but this sound interesting and almost too beautiful to be true

 

[BrainBlow]

God, this incident in Japan is being so god damn overdimenzioned by the media.
They have titles comparing it to Chernobyl, but in the same god damn articles they say that it is nothing of the sort.

 

[MineMineMine]

i quite like the rational wiki on that topic:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arguments_against_nuclear_power

 

[kenandkids]

i quite like the rational wiki on that topic:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arguments_against_nuclear_power

It seems that most of those arguments are overly simplistic at best. The expense one is often used but they fail to take into account that if coal plants had the same restrictions and regulation, it would be the more expensive. Many of the other arguments are basic fear-mongering imho.

 

[MRaverz]

The issue I have with nuclear power is getting rid of the waste.

To be, dumping it in a hole in the ground or at the bottom of the ocean is just asking for trouble.

It's wind turbines and hydroelectric dams for me.

 

[BrainBlow]

The issue I have with nuclear power is getting rid of the waste.

To be, dumping it in a hole in the ground or at the bottom of the ocean is just asking for trouble.

It's wind turbines and hydroelectric dams for me.

Special facilities in mountains like they are doing in Finland.
Those things won't resurface while humanity exists.

Wind turbines are, and will never be anything more than supplementay powersources.

 

[Inferno]

The issue I have with nuclear power is getting rid of the waste.

To be, dumping it in a hole in the ground or at the bottom of the ocean is just asking for trouble.

It's wind turbines and hydroelectric dams for me.

* Reprocessing can dramatically reduce the lifetime of nuclear waste - from 10 000 years[2] to about 300.[1] Currently it's uneconomical on its own as means of producing more nuclear fuel, but makes sense from a long-term waste management perspective.
* Certain designs of reactors that are not cost effective yet, but known to be practical, can reuse the waste as fuel, because it still contains around 95% of its energy. Two of them are already operating in Russia and Japan.

This is also assuming that we'll be using the same materials that we're using now. As I've said, we could just be using Thorium, where less is needed in absolute terms and the current waste materials could be (as I understand it) used.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I'm neither pro/anti nuclear power, I don't know much about it. Isn't it dangerous? I'm talking about explosions and such. I'm aware that the dangers are way over-estimated, but still...?