This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I just find it ominous to think that there is an ever increasing stack of hazardous materials that could go nuclear at a moment's notice if the power turns off, or a water pipe gets knocked out, and that we're only now seeing the first of the current stockpile become safe from the reactors that started 20 years ago. I don't think it needs to be banned outright, but I don't the the technology is advanced to the point where it should be widely used yet. We need to figure out a more permanent and less lengthy solution for spent fuel before we go full conversion.
In the car example, we don't put new models out until they've been tested to be reasonably safe. I think that until we find a more reasonable way to deal with the fuel, we shouldn't just keep racking up stockpiles of it at an exponential rate.
I think you have an inaccurate view of the nuclear waste situation. The nuclear waste that is produced isn't just put anywhere, but put into storage. The amount of waste produced is also quite small compared to other sources of energy.
I like your part about cars too. Do you think the nuclear energy field is increasing its safety as well as its efficiency? I think it's a good sign when the largest nuclear accident in the US was three mile island. How many deaths did that incident cause?
I can't think of many US deaths caused by nuclear accidents. Really the only one that comes to mind is
Louis Slotin
. I know that it seems like an ominous technology, but it is relatively safe.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I do think they're getting better. I wasn't saying that it should be banned- just that people are very dismissive about the waste situation, which I consider a much larger consideration. I do think we'll be moving forward to nuclear energy, and that's a good thing. But until the technology is there to handle the waste effectively, I worry about countries with less stable governments, or less stable economies, or in natural disaster "belts" going full conversion.
Post by
MyTie
Valid concerns I share with you. I thought your assertions were in the context of a desire to ban the technology.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that introducing it on a larger scale before the containment issues are dealt with is a mistake- I am more saying it needs to be delayed until it's ready.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than essentially every other power generation technology. (Yes, even cleaner than so-called "enviro-friendly" power tech, when you add up just how many rivers you'd have to dam or how many square miles of land you'd have to consume with wind turbines to equal one nuclear plant.)
The problem is that the reactionary lunatic fringe of the environmental movement captured the public eye by playing up relatively minor incidents, along with the Chernobyl disaster which was a combination of human error and an ancient reactor design that had a catastrophic failure mode. As a result, we are now saddled with reactor technology that is positively neanderthal. Most reactors in the US are over 40 years old, and they're now trying to extend some of those to 60. They were never designed to run this long -- if there's going to be a major nuclear accident in the US,
this
will be why.
There are plenty of promising advances and research that have been stymied. There are newer designs that are fail-safe by nature, even in the face of a complete loss of coolant -- a couple don't even
need
coolant. There are reactors that can use the waste products from other reactors as their fuel (take that, Yucca Mountain). The problems with nuclear power that everyone likes to point to would solve themselves through research if it were able to continue at a proper pace, but it's pretty much dried up in the US, and Japan is now facing the same schism due to the Fukushima incident.
Post by
gnomerdon
1. natural disasters that would put nuclear plants at risk and endanger people
2. nuclear pollution and waste on humans.
if it's as clean as it is, why does the media portray it as if it's just as poisonous and deadly.
what about japan when the tsunami hit their nuclear plants. the procedures that they had to go through to stop and clean the plant definitely shows that nuclear power isn't as clean as it is.
Post by
Adamsm
1. natural disasters that would put nuclear plants at risk and endanger peopleAnd you can say the same thing about any power plant.
2. nuclear pollution and waste on humans. Again, other fossil fuel power plants cause waste and pollution...a lot worse then what happens from the nuclear plants.
if it's as clean as it is, why does the media portray it as if it's just as poisonous and deadly. Because the media enjoys blowing things out of proportion and making things that are good into evil and scary?
what about japan when the tsunami hit their nuclear plants. the procedures that they had to go through to stop and clean the plant definitely shows that nuclear power isn't as clean as it is.
Yes....because a natural disaster happening is such an expected thing. Considering that Japan is already working to tsunami proof their nation, just as they did after the earthquake in the 80's, they are more then likely already preparing new safety measures to keep that from happening again...and in all honesty, you'll see those security measures spreading through the planet; Japan has always been on the cutting edge when it comes to things.
Post by
gnomerdon
forgot to put a question mark on all of those statements i made.
still green on the topic so just throwing out things that come to my mind.
i need to read up on fossil fuel power plants vs nuclear plants.
the simpsons may have had an impact. lmao
Post by
gnomerdon
okay. im copy and pasting some disadvantages from a site i dont want to share. could have a virus,
* Nuclear power plants have dangerously high radioactive levels. The radioactivity is entirely
contained within the plant, but the possibility exists that some of it might leak to the outside
environment during an accident. Over time, new designs, stricter regulations and better
technology are reducing the risk of radioactive leaks.
* Waste produced by the power plant must be disposed somewhere, but it remains intensely
radioactive for long periods of time. Therefore, nuclear waste must be permanently isolated
from society in special facilities. Building suitable facilities requires a lot of time and money
to ensure complete isolation.
* New nuclear power plant designs take a long time to implement. This time delay is due to
multiple regulatory agencies and boards of approval that the nuclear industry must satisfy.
* At the end of their lifetimes, usually about 40 years of operation, nuclear power plants must
be decommissioned. Plant materials remain fairly radioactive for many years after operation
has ceased, so disassembly cannot occur until the levels return to a safe range. This waiting
period usually takes about 20 years.
* Anti-nuclear activists believe that the nuclear industry greatly increases the chance of
plutonium theft. Conceivably, terrorists could steal stores of plutonium and attempt to make
a nuclear weapon. To deter such an endeavor, plutonium is weighed before and after
shipment. Furthermore, constructing a nuclear weapon requires extreme expertise. Still,
the possibility does exist.
nuclear plants have high radioactive levels..... in a case of a natural disaster, and there is a leak, what could possibly happen to the general public if they are exposed to it? is it as bad as it really sounds, or is just like the same typical day in los angeles.
should i compare exposure to radioactive the same as the documentary i saw about japan after hiroshima? is it that severe? acid rain?
where's the fine line that radioactive nuclear waste is safer than fossil fuel waste. is it?
what's ur take on this information. this only points out the disadvantages of nuclear plants the writer was portraying. he had 2-3 times more information on why nuclear power plants are far better than fossil fuels, a few points that i also agree upon.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Levarus
It should be banned from every country but America.
Post by
MyTie
It should be banned from every country but America.
I like this idea. While we are at it, wouldn't it be great to ban oil drilling everywhere but the US. That would cripple the world economy and jumpstart the US. Lol. The opposite of what the environmentalists are doing to us.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#42: Should higher education should be offered to all for free?
Mind you, with this question, the qualifications of said students would still be in place. They'd still have to go through an application process, have the required GPA, experience or what-have-you that said college/university normally requires. But as long as they can meet those requirements, have the cost factor removed.
I know there are scholarships, grants, loans, etc... available. But even then... most students are still left with a tremendous debt upon graduation and unless they can break into their field right-away, that debt isn't going anywhere.
Post by
pioneers14
#42: Should higher education should be offered to all for free?
Mind you, with this question, the qualifications of said students would still be in place. They'd still have to go through an application process, have the required GPA, experience or what-have-you that said college/university normally requires. But as long as they can meet those requirements, have the cost factor removed.
I know there are scholarships, grants, loans, etc... available. But even then... most students are still left with a tremendous debt upon graduation and unless they can break into their field right-away, that debt isn't going anywhere.
The only thing that should be significantly less is the price of books. Should higher education be free? No because who is going to pay to maintain the school, pay the professors, help with student activities, etc. etc.
There are so many things you can do to cut down the cost! I walked away with less than $10K in loans and I went to a state university. (And no I did not have a ton of scholarships and grants)
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
#42: Should higher education should be offered to all for free?
Mind you, with this question, the qualifications of said students would still be in place. They'd still have to go through an application process, have the required GPA, experience or what-have-you that said college/university normally requires. But as long as they can meet those requirements, have the cost factor removed.
I know there are scholarships, grants, loans, etc... available. But even then... most students are still left with a tremendous debt upon graduation and unless they can break into their field right-away, that debt isn't going anywhere.
The only thing that should be significantly less is the price of books
. Should higher education be free? No because who is going to pay to maintain the school, pay the professors, help with student activities, etc. etc.
There are so many things you can do to cut down the cost! I walked away with less than $10K in loans and I went to a state university. (And no I did not have a ton of scholarships and grants)
This, pretty much. In response to the actual question, I wouldn't say give it for free, but potentially reduce the costs that college incurs by a bit.
Post by
Orranis
I'm going to say yes.
Post by
Adamsm
Cut down on the prices of the extras(books and the like) but leave in the tuition costs.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think it's more a matter of "Can it be free?" than "Should it be free?" Can we afford to pay for all of the things that would be required to offer college education to everyone- the facilities, the staff, the supplies, etc. If someone could show me a comprehensive plan where we could afford to pay for it out of taxes and not slide further and further into debt that will eventually freeze the capital flow of the government, then I would say it should. But until I see a budget where that is logistically possible, I don't think that it can.
Post by
Azazel
In my country, we pay people to study. Love that.
Pretty sure it's only up to and including university though.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.