Oil Sands in Canada

[XemnasXD]

Actually there is alot of waste bio product produced from nuclear power. So its not safe or clean and its certainly not cheap. However it is doable and in the proper environment with the proper facilities its a good option. But that waste is extremely harmful to living things and it cost even more money and is very dangerous to ship it and store it or the amount of time necessary for it to become harmless.

however it is less harmful to the environment then coal burning nad some other fossil fuels. My point is thats just because coals -effect on the environment is say 100 and Nuclear powers is -50 that doesn't mean its clean, just cleaner. Either way we're still dealing with very large amounts of waste that are extremely deadly. A Clean energy source is Wind or Solar Power we should be looking for ways to make those things cost effective and find ways to raise there energy output, the future is not in nuclear power, thats just more delay...

[Barotix]

*Cough, Xemnas.
It isn't dangerous to transport.
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Transportation
90% of nuclear waste is harmless.
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC ... evel_Waste
Read up about safety:
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC ... ity,Safety
It's cheap. I guess the lobbyist won you over.

[XemnasXD]

*Cough, Xemnas.
It isn't dangerous to transport.
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Transportation
90% of nuclear waste is harmless.
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC ... evel_Waste
Read up about safety:
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC ... ity,Safety
It's cheap. I guess the lobbyist won you over.

If theres nuclear waste in a vehicle and your transporting it unless theres 100% chance of nothing malfunctioning if that stuff leaks you'll have a disaster on your hand. When i said it was dangerous to transport it was with regards to the cargo of the transportation more than the method of transportation. The same can be said for Oil or certain medical waste both those things are dangerous to transport because in the unlikely event something goes wrong the results are not something you can clean up with a mop and bucket....

Don't say 90% of nuclear waste is harmless and ignore the other 10% like its no big deal. That waste has to be stored away for close to 10,000 years before it becomes safe. That stuff adds up and fast. Right now we're storing it in mountains and right now theres its not a problem because theres not that many nuclear plants per square miles in the US but any country that relies on nuclear power will have made a note that nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and is the main problem with nuclear energy being prevented from becoming a more widespread source of energy because there is no method of containing it, its a constant problem that will keep building up and building up.....

Nuclear energy has its very clear pros and cons, if there was an effective way of dealing with the waste then sure it'd be a perfect source but we haven't reached that point. Logically if every powerplant on the world became nuclear powered we'd end up filling up the earth with radioactive pits that wouldn't go away for thousands of years....thats just retarded. Or maybe im crazy, probably the crazy one, guess im off to go lobby to some more

[Barotix]

you'll have a disaster on your hand.

Lol, No you won't. The waste is made of solid uranium pellets. If it tips over you just pick it up and put it back on the transport. That 10% isn't dangerous now; it's dangerous over a looooooooooooooooooooooooong period of time. Technically exposure to any uranium over a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong period of time will make peeps sick. Exposure to the amount of radiation on one of those transports is equivalent to a Cat Scan and that's assuming they did not cool it before shipping it out. It is nothing like an oil spill. That's like saying unrefined uranium pellets are dangerous. Refined uranium pellets that have been cooled down (put them in a cooler) are harmless and won't do any damage to you unless you put some in your pocket and wait a few hundred years.

results are not something you can clean up with a mop and bucket....

Yes, yes they are. There won't some catastrophic nuclear explosion once you realize that they're not transporting any sludge. This is what they're transporting (this is what it looks similar to):


DO you know what's in there? Small Rocks. That 10%, after it's been cooled, is harmless and even when it's not cooled the radiation you receive (assuming you receive any) is equivalent to a cat scan.

That waste has to be stored away for close to 10,000 years before it becomes safe.

Now you're just talking bullshit. Throw the fuel cells in a cooler, take em out, put em on a transport, ship em out. They launched a rocket powered diesel engine into the transporter and there was no explosion. There was no "Danger Will Robinson!" They lit it on fire for about 90 minutes: nothing happened. They tipped it over, put some one the floor, and picked it back up. Nothing happened.

the main problem with nuclear energy being prevented from becoming a more widespread source of energy because there is no method of containing it

The main problems is people like you that spread their BS and get the entire population in fear of clean, cheap, and efficient electricity. Where are you pulling this stuff out of? Your ass?

if there was an effective way of dealing with the waste then sure it'd be a perfect source but we haven't reached that point. Logically if every powerplant on the world became nuclear powered we'd end up filling up the earth with radioactive pits that wouldn't go away for thousands of years....thats just retarded. Or maybe im crazy, probably the crazy one, guess im off to go lobby to some more

Xemnas, Putting uranium into the desert will not cause catastrophic harm. I don't know where you get your information from but you're wrong buddy. Modern Nuclear power plants and the waste they produce = Cheap, Clean, and Efficient. Yucca mountain is a desert. Maybe the department of energy is run by a bunch of retards. There is no scientific basis for any of your "facts". You're the scientist here. >_>

Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and Hydro are the future.

[XemnasXD]

Barotix i know what Uranium and Plutonium are and i know their effects on organic matter, I also know how their containments can leak and how far their radius of hazardous radiation can spread. You should see the test those transport trucks have to pass in order to legally carry that stuff, if its no big deal why don't they just let someone put it in their trunk and move it across state lines, or in a big rig and move it across state lines? You can google radioactive waste and come up with a ton of sites listing this problem so im not going to do it for you, im just going to watch you on your pedestal while you lol at logic some come crazy version of tom cruise.

France is the country with more nuclear power than any other country, its energy is clean and cheap but even they realize that unless they find a better way to get rid of the waste down the line they are going to be in trouble, not pulling that out of my ass either, read their reports, but your probably still going "lolol whats he talking abotu he's nuts crazy lobbyist crazy bahahahhaa"

A CLEAN source of energy is wind or solar power. There is to much waste bioproduct produced from Nuclear power and not a good way to get rid of it. Moving waste around doesn't make it go away it just means you moved it. Like i said if everypower plant on earth was nuclear powered do you realize how much waste that would be at the rate China and India are burning through oil. Storing it underground is not a solution its a temporary fix and best solution, but its not like landfills are a good idea either, its just we don't know what else to do with our garbage. You even even considered the fact that some countires who have nuclear material don't have a mt to store it in, some of them just dump it in a relatively vacant area like its no big deal. If you can find a way to completely reprocess all the waste and then get the rest off the planet you'll have a clean relatively clean energy source, but until then we're just doing radioactive versions of landfills that won't go away from thousands of years....

Also i like how you put yourself above the department of energy thanks to your internet scavenger hunt, your an expert on nuclear energy now

done here now, an argument with you is just wall talking but i think you need to do another scavenger hunt and earn that Phd in nuclear energy you might learn a little more if you googled the cons of your argument instead of just the pros....

[nohunta]

A CLEAN source of energy is wind or solar power. There is to much waste bioproduct produced from Nuclear power and not a good way to get rid of it. Moving waste around doesn't make it go away it just means you moved it. Like i said if everypower plant on earth was nuclear powered do you realize how much waste that would be at the rate China and India are burning through oil. Storing it underground is not a solution its a temporary fix and best solution, but its not like landfills are a good idea either, its just we don't know what else to do with our garbage. You even even considered the fact that some countires who have nuclear material don't have a mt to store it in, some of them just dump it in a relatively vacant area like its no big deal. If you can find a way to completely reprocess all the waste and then get the rest off the planet you'll have a clean relatively clean energy source, but until then we're just doing radioactive versions of landfills that won't go away from thousands of years....

Also i like how you put yourself above the department of energy thanks to your internet scavenger hunt, your an expert on nuclear energy now

done here now, an argument with you is just wall talking but i think you need to do another scavenger hunt and earn that Phd in nuclear energy you might learn a little more if you googled the cons of your argument instead of just the pros....

Throw that shit in space.

[Du De Wei]

how about we put more $$$ into wind, solar, tide, wave, geothermal and whatever else we can come up while using nuclear power and as technology increases nuclear power will be perfected maybe it isnt now who knows but for now nuclear is the way to go until the technology for alternatives become even a little bit sufficient

[Barotix]

Also i like how you put yourself above the department of energy thanks to your internet scavenger hunt, your an expert on nuclear energy now

I find it funny that you think I'm putting myself above the group that I'm getting my information from, nice try though. The website I listed has the same information as the department of energy and was in a better format. BTW, I never called you a lobbyist.

Spoiler!

"Maybe the department of energy is run by a bunch of retards." ~ Was a response to your information. Why are you calling it expensive when the department of energy and the nuclear regulatory commission is calling it cheap; why are you calling it dirty and acting like it will cause catastrophic short term harm when the department of energy and the nuclear regulatory commission are saying the opposite. Why are you saying it is difficult to store when the department of energy says the opposite. Hence the "Maybe the department of energy is run by a bunch of retards" comment. I'm sure the DOE and NRC are more credible than any ambiguous third party site or you.

I know what test are preformed on the vehicles; otherwise, I wouldn't have listed three of the conventional test used to ensure safety.

It isn't dangerous now; however, an extended period of exposure to the radioactive waste is dangerous. I have not been denying the long term possibility of danger but you make it seem as if it will cause serious short term damage to us and the environment no matter what. If it is cared for properly then there is relatively no danger. Once again, I can't speak for other countries but Modern American Plants create safe, clean, and efficient energy. The waste byproducts are stored and handled with the highest level of care. I can't speak for the Chinese, I can't speak for India, and I can't speak for France. I don't know how they will or do handle their Nuclear Power Plants and I don't think it's any of our business, but in America, safety and efficiency are our top priorities. I admit storing the waste won't make it go away but storing it in an arid area underground is a valid solution until we discover a way to re-use the waste. If a country has no way to deal with the waste byproducts then they should find a better way to handle their energy problems. The way nuclear waste is handled will change as we make technological breakthroughs in the field of nuclear power. If we can discover a way to reuse the waste that results from Nuclear power then it will become 100% clean. Technology is the answer to all our problems. If we gave up because there is potential danger we would never move forward.

The con (which I posted, 4 times [i.e.] I have not been ignoring it): The waste byproducts are potentially dangerous over a long period of time.

Pros: It is relatively clean, our method of care makes it safe, it is cheap, and the energy produced makes it efficient. It will not cause short term harm to you, your family, or the environment.