Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Nuclear Power

mekrobmekrob Registered User Posts: 865 Member
edited February 2006 in College Confidential Cafe
Progress Energy is planning on building a new nuclear power plant at Shearon Harris near Raleigh, NC. It will be the first in a long time if it is approved. If this passes through, then it may trigger a new age for nuclear power in the US. Do you think that we should be spending more on nuclear power plants or go with coal and NG as we have recently?
Post edited by mekrob on
«1

Replies to: Nuclear Power

  • TuftsPleaseTuftsPlease Registered User Posts: 990 Member
    Nuclear Power. Without a doubt.
  • Papa ChickenPapa Chicken Registered User Posts: 2,841 Senior Member
    I'll second Tufts.....I'm anxious to hear more about the newest reactor designs from a safety standpoint. Gotta fix the Yucca Mountain long-term disposal thing too.
  • allenaallena Registered User Posts: 1,716 Senior Member
    Nuclear Power is efficent and clean as long as nothing goes wrong.
  • iwantwhartoniwantwharton Registered User Posts: 165 Junior Member
    Nuke Power is sooooooooo the way to go.
  • GoldShadowGoldShadow Registered User Posts: 6,160 Senior Member
    Yeah, nuclear power.

    Now we just need to find a way to perform cold fusion. Being CCers and all, one of you chemists should do that. For an Intel STS/ Siemens-Westinghouse thing. That'd be fun.
  • B_BB_B Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    Am I the only one here who think that nuclear power is definitely not the way to go?
  • TuftsPleaseTuftsPlease Registered User Posts: 990 Member
    Explain why? You a certainly a minority here.
  • kman1456kman1456 Registered User Posts: 4,045 Senior Member
    I think that solar and wind power would be far better. The main problem to getting both is that we would need superconductors to store the power and better solar cells (need around 62% efficiency to equal oil-the closest we are is 25% in extremely expensive high-grade silicon cells). If we had both of these (along with stronger copper wires, perhaps doped with other metals), the country could easily supply itself for a few million years by merely covering an area about the size of AZ with cells-which cold be done in the Outback of Australia or in the Southwest.
    I do not like nuclear power because of the type of metals it involves-the reactors need U, which is hard and dangerous to mine. The other power types would be far more productive and have zero impact on the environment-whether from emissions or mining.
  • B_BB_B Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    The main problem I see with nuclear power is the storage of nuclear waste, where are we going to send tons and tons of nuclear waste?
  • TuftsPleaseTuftsPlease Registered User Posts: 990 Member
    The tons and tons of nuclear waste are but a ball compared to the pollutants that are released from current power resources. Nuclear power is so much more efficient and useful. It is truth that it takes thousand of years for nuclear waste to be determined to be unradioactive. However, creating deep areas secured for nuclear wasted away from the "commons" (Ref. to Tradegy of the Commons) is still much easier than facing a eminent enegy crisis. Such areas proposed do include deep caves or areas sequested for mankind. Space is not the limiting proposal of a hypothetical carrying capacity of mankind, (if everyone was to live on block streets with nonextravagent housing but fair housing, we could fit all of 6 billion people of the Earth into the state of Texas.) The carrying capactiy results that we are polluting and using the Earth's certain resources at a far faster rate than they are being created on this finite system.

    kman, a sheer few pounds of Uranium has more energy than a million pounds of coal. The proposal of using solar power and wind is notable but it's not worth it. Such a plan would be proposed into the hundred of billions of dollars to create such a large power generating area. Chances are, creating such an enormous power plant powered by either wind or solar, or both (if the company has a few leftover Einsteins .. :)) would probably have more impact on the environment than dozens of nuclear power plants.
  • Papa ChickenPapa Chicken Registered User Posts: 2,841 Senior Member
    bush just said in the state of the union thumbs up to clean safe nuc energy, among other energy initiatives
  • GoldShadowGoldShadow Registered User Posts: 6,160 Senior Member
    Nuclear energy can be used indefinitely with little relative waste. The only thing that forces nuclear submarines to surface, for example, is that crews need food and supplies. The only downside to nuclear power is potential risk that it leaks, or breaks down, like Chernobyl among other events. Of course, safety is a major issue and there would probably be few problems concerning it.


    Ah... Bush and his "nukyular" energy. Six years and he still says it wrong.
  • mambamamba Registered User Posts: 28 New Member
    Nuclear is good and I think we learned a good lesson from Chernobyl.
    Other countries are already developing other infinite sources of energy.

    "China to Build World`s First 'artificial sun' Experimental Device"
    http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=409853
  • beprepnbeprepn Registered User Posts: 829 Member
    the country could easily supply itself for a few million years by merely covering an area about the size of AZ with cells-which cold be done in the Outback of Australia or in the Southwest.
    I do not like nuclear power because of the type of metals it involves-the reactors need U, which is hard and dangerous to mine. The other power types would be far more productive and have zero impact on the environment

    Cover an area the size of AZ with zero environmental impact.

    A good trick.
  • kman1456kman1456 Registered User Posts: 4,045 Senior Member
    Never mind, I was wrong with that area figure...one needs to use up 18,000 square miles in various places if the efficency of the solar panels was 90%. This means one could cover an area about twice that of Vermont.
«1
This discussion has been closed.