Resources and our environment

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I think nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels in the future. I know the Bush administration is considering building new nuclear power plants in the US, which I think is a good idea.
Nuclear energy is clean, cheep and gives great amounts of energy. The supplies of uranium or thorium that is needed in the plants won't be exhausted for a very long time, unlike oil. With the best kinds of power plants, the supplies of uranium and thorium could last for billions of years.
So go ahead and throw up new nuclear power plants! Just make sure they have a shell of concrete around their reactor. We don't want risking another Chernobyl, do we?

One problem there - liberals are now against nuclear power plants. New Jersey itself has two Nuclear Power Plants - there is one right across the border in NY State. In California they want all nuclear power plants closed - they're now fighting to have Indian nulcear power plant closed in NY. Thye seem to want us to just live in the dark ages I think.

I support nuclear - until something better comes along. The only problem is the nuclear waste it generates - not to mention if it has a meltdown.

My 1100th post. In binary numbers, that means 12. Take 12 times 2 and you get 24, which is today's date

I like it.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I support nuclear - until something better comes along. The only problem is the nuclear waste it generates - not to mention if it has a meltdown.

Like I said: "Just make sure they have a shell of concrete around their reactor". With a lot of concrete you can prevent radioactive material from leaking out. When the plant in Harrisburg had a meltdown, the plant's concrete walls managed to contain the radioactive substances.

What happens in Sweden (and in other countries in Western Europe) is that nuclear power is to be phased out. As a result we must buy electric energy from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe.
In other words, Western Europe is shutting down it's safe, well-managed reactors saying "nuclear power is bad!". Eastern Europe gets to sell more electricity to the West and therefore, they throw up cheap, unsafe power plants Ã* la Chernobyl to supply us with energy. Not to mention Western Europe becomes more dependant on fossil fuels which are way worse than nuclear energy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Like I said: "Just make sure they have a shell of concrete around their reactor". With a lot of concrete you can prevent radioactive material from leaking out. When the plant in Harrisburg had a meltdown, the plant's concrete walls managed to contain the radioactive substances.

Three Mile Island (the one in Harrisburg) would have affected at least half of New Jersey. Luckily it was contained - for all concerned.

What happens in Sweden (and in other countries in Western Europe) is that nuclear power is to be phased out. As a result we must buy electric energy from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe.
In other words, Western Europe is shutting down it's safe, well-managed reactors saying "nuclear power is bad!". Eastern Europe gets to sell more electricity to the West and therefore, they throw up cheap, unsafe power plants Ã* la Chernobyl to supply us with energy. Not to mention Western Europe becomes more dependant on fossil fuels which are way worse than nuclear energy.

That makes no sense - the East still doesn't have the most modern clean equipment - liek the West does. They have old coal burners I'm sure. NJ just sued Pennsylvania to get a coal burning plant shut down that is right over our border. It was causing heavy amounts of pollution in NJ. Pennsylvania didn't have to worry about the pollution it caused because the jet stream just carried it away from them.

[mithrand1r]

Solar, wind and tidal power gerneration could go a long way to reduce the amount of fosil fuels used.

If they were used in on existing buildings, where practical, you would not need as large a solar panel as you may think to make a significant difference. Especially if the panals are attached to your house or are close to where you wish to use the power generated. (this is due to the lack of power loss due to delivering the power to your house. for example: power is wasted (lost) in the power lines used to deliver electricity to homes and businesses.)

If all vehicle engines used Diesel fuel that could reduce the daily amount of transportation fuel used by 20-35% depending on which figures you wish to use.

Diesel does have some negatives which need to be worked on, but with better diesel fuel most of these problems can be solved.

Part of the reason some of these technologies (solar, wind, tidal) seem more expensive than fosil fuels is that the total cost is not always factored in to the decision process. Fosil fuels cause pollution that must be cleaned up or dealt with at some point.

Nuclear power is a good choice, but must be handled with caution.
If proper precautions are used, then nuclear power is a good choice. There are 2 main caveats however.

1) what to do with the waste products and
2) terrorism. If more nations gain nuclear technology, there is a greater chance that the nuclear knowledge could fall into the wrong hands.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by mithrand1r

Nuclear power is a good choice, but must be handled with caution.
If proper precautions are used, then nuclear power is a good choice. There are 2 main caveats however.

1) what to do with the waste products and
2) terrorism. If more nations gain nuclear technology, there is a greater chance that the nuclear knowledge could fall into the wrong hands.

I agree. Clearly, if not handled with sufficient care, radioactive waste material can be/is very dangerous. Not only the by-products extremely detrimental to the environment and living organisms, but it also often remains thus for very long periods of time. Plutonium, a by-product which is extremely hazardous, has a half-life of 24,360 years. That is, it takes that long for it to halve its current amount. It can also be used in the production of nuclear weapons. If not managed properly, radioactive materials can easily infiltrate nature..getting into the atmosphere, food- just take a look at the effects on Chernobyl, years later. And not all nuclear by-products can be reprocessed.
And there are other issues directly related to the disposal of nuclear waste material.

I'm all for solar power, hydroelectricity etc. Wind-generated electricity also seems good, but there are some downsides. Here, the windfarms are known for killing large numbers of birds that accidentally fly into them. They apparently also generate little electricity (I'm not quite sure) compared to coal. Windfarms are eyesores, and they disturb the local environment. But I guess everything has its negative sides. Luckily, here in Australia, solar rays are aplenty, so we can relatively easily manage with solar power. I'm not sure about other countries.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
... NJ just sued Pennsylvania to get a coal burning plant shut down that is right over our border. It was causing heavy amounts of pollution in NJ. Pennsylvania didn't have to worry about the pollution it caused because the jet stream just carried it away from them.

I think that is terrible. I believe there was a problem similar to this between the US and Canada many years ago. The sulfur that was produced from coal burning energy plants was causing acid rain in Canada, though the plant itself was in NY (I think, I'm not sure).

Lizra, your answer makes me sad. Maybe we should all just give up, use all the fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Create a really big problem and cause everyone to wake up and smell the hydrocarbons.

As for the Nuclear Power, I have my reservations. The radioactive waste has to be stored someplace and not too many people want it to be buried where they live. Can you blame them?

I know that Solar Power isn't going to help everyone. *sigh*

I don't know... it just seems like there isn't much of an answer that covers everyone's needs.

[Lizra]

My answer makes me sad too! I actually majored in Environmental Science when I was going to college! I found the field too depressing to handle! Oh....Sooner or later the tide will turn, so you fresh voices should keep speaking up and plugging away. I was ahead of my times I'm afraid! In the USA, everything turns into a horrible, ugly, no-holds barred political deal. I don't know if you were serious or sarcastic, but your bit about using the fossil fuels up actually rings true to me! People will not change unless it's dire! I'm so jaded about this type of thing. It's all about $$. For each "save the environment" type, there's probably twenty "I don't care as long as my family has what it needs and is comfortable" types. People are people! Just do what you can I guess!

[Ruinel]

There was a big energy crisis in the 70's in the US. I found this...
Shortages in the 70's, and there are others if you want to do a search for it.

Maybe that's what we need again to get people to wise up.

Lizra... sarchastic? me? *tries to look innocent*
But yeah... maybe there's a bit of truth in that. I don't believe there are enough intelligent people in this world to make the change on their own. They'll need a big push (or a foot in their rear ).