How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

Hi there!

I have to write an article for one Latvian environmentally tended e-zine about the future of energy use and the good alternatives that are out there to conventional fossil fuel technologies.
And while I'll of course mention wind, solar and ocean/sea tide electroenergy sources alongside hidroelectrcal stations I'd welcome more information on nuclear reactors.

As I understand neither solar or wind energy provides enough power that we can efficiently use and tide power farms are experimental and very limited in where they can be deployed, same goes for hidroelectrical stations.

So the most viable and reasonable thing is nuclear power. I have already thought of mentioning the awesome ITER project, but my knowledge in classical nuclear power plants is limited,
I know there is a new generation of those where meltdown is quite impossible.

What pro nuclear energy facts could I mention? (safety, environmental consequences, efficiency)

But please mention the bad sides too. I want to write a scientifically objective article, without any greenpeace like doomsday whining.

thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

without any 'greenpeace WHINING' (emphasis mine)

ohh, what yo MEAN isss. you want to promote the most ignoreant and destructive form of energy, nuclear energy is what you mean. be honest wid yurself. ifff u can

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course I want to promote it, it's the most rational form of energy production and a lot cleaner than fossil fuel dinosaurs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ohhhh, yu know so much alREADY. you should be on the lecture circuit

but seriously. you already have made your mind up. so wheres the larnin come in. why not just present a slogan leaflet saying errr 'Up nuclear power YEAHHHH'

qhat i find so depressin and dangerous. is people like yerself who believe we and Nature is all a kind of chemical eletrical soup of no meaning, in charge of tis utterly destructive energy. all the while their great profit god $$$£££££ on their fukin altar

 

You are not contributing to this thread at all, I want scientific data not your opinions.
And I won't mention nuclear fission if someone states facts that prove that it's not environmentally reasonable to deploy. Nuclear fussion is all ok from an environmental point of view, but is not developed yet for use in power production.

The environmental activists are mostly chanting their nuclear waste product chants, but nuclear waste can be post processed and the few percent of not processable/recycable material can be dumped deep within the Earth encased in glass and led.

 

hah. you dont even believe or know the dangers of depleted uranium. AND ypu believ your some glorified computer.

sheeit. dont send me a copy of your essay will ya?

 

You can say that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't want anti-nuclear fanatics like you, because they just rant and don't give any data.

so what are they, enlighten me
from what I know it's mostly safe if it's dumped in deep ocean rifts (i.e., the few percent which can not be recycled in fast breeder reactors)

remember that we ourselves are nuclear waste products of exploded stars

 

ohhh seweeet jeeeesus. Avatar. pleaase. open yer mind an do some SERIOUS research about the dangers of nuclear industry.

 

Actually I'm reading a few articles this very moment.
For now I see no problems with nuclear power. Nuclear fussion seems ideal, fission has its' problems, but it's a good alternative to fossil fuel plants AND it's quite safe.
The biggest problems for fission are with storing the material, but that too is nothing to worry a lot about, because it is very likely that we won't use nuclear fission for long (if ITER takes off)

 

you start a thread with te question 'how environmentally friendly i nuclear energy?...yeah? and then have already made yer mind UP.....??? it is 'incredibly friendly' you say. why didn't you ask YOU the question? nd have done wid it?

 

Avatar, don't waste keystrokes on duendy, it knows very little about anything apart from scoring and using drugs.

Nuclear power, well, the guy that came up with the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, thinks it's too late to avert global warming using alternative sources of power, as we cannot deploy them fast enough to satisfy demand, and the only viable, clean source of energy, is nuclear.

Here's an interview with him;

http://www.countryguardian.net/lovelock.htm

Also, check out the figures of radioactive emissions from coal fired power plants, putting C-14 into the atmosphere via smoke, against Nuclear power plants, and you'll see coal is worse. Also, coal releases sulphur into the atmosphere, which makes acid rain. Then factor in the environmental issues of mining coal and uranium ore (I've not compared those myself, but I should think comparable impact.)

France is a good case study, because off the top of my head, I think they are about 80% nuclear? Yet nobody in France seems to be suffering, and in fact, this fact goes unnoticed by many, because quite simply, the doomsday prophecies of know nothing 'nuclear-phobe' idiots like duendy simply haven't come true.

But anyway, the inventor of the GAIA theory embracing Nuclear power has got to be a good angle.

 

Duendy, if you actually have some input, rather than your usual deluded rantings, please input it. Facts, figures, leads, or just shut your fat jowls, eh?

 

and what was THAT contribution you know-it-all goof? and now i'm fat am i? along wid beig an addicted disabled ....whatever. go fuk yer granny

 

Thank you for the information, phlogistician!,
it's just what I want, because right now there's a debate ongoing in our country about a new power plant (we're a small country so even one plant is a big deal)
and the two main candidates are coal and nuclear.

 

was tis info phlo give you INVISIBLE?

 

It is quite enough to guide me in my search, the particular things on which I should focus my attention.

 

Duendy, I studied a degree in physics, so I reckon I know bit more on the subject than you. Plus, I'm a genius, not some drugged out spack head.

Are you saying you're slim, duendy? What with the lack of job, smoking, drinking, and hallucinogens, you expect me to believe you are physically fit?
Don't make me laugh. Oh, by the way, I guessed your were on incapacity benefit, I didn't say you were disabled. I thought it was probably more mental, than physical, to be honest, but I doubt you are very physically able.

 

Went over your head did it duendy?

Know so little you can't see that I understood what Avatar was interested in, and as I happened to have read something relevant recently, was able to share it?

You really are a moron.

 

I believe that he future of nuclear power is in cold fusion. Try looking up more on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Not another of those deluded anti-nuclear power idiots. The whole planet runs on nuclear power from this big nuclear reactor known as THE SUN. Maybe it's time you started looking into the possibility of clean nuclear energy.

 

I agree with you on nuclear fusion, dzerzhinsky
That's why I mentioned ITER in my starting post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

And although ITER is not really cold, it's a way in the right direction