Nuclear Energy?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

This is an interesting issue that I don't think gets discussed enough, escpecially because it doesn't seem to be aligned with one party or another.

What's your stance on it? Way or the future, or dangerous pipe-dream?

My thoughts: I think it's a great idea. As of now, when the most recent designs are used any plants completely safe. In a couple years it could easily surpass any other form of energy with the development of He3, which is already close. For those who don't know, He3 could be used for almost completely clean energy. It's rare on Earth due to the atmosphere, but the Moon is covered in it. A shuttle's worth of the stuff could be enough to power America for a year. It's basically like in the movie Moon, minus the cloning part.

Captcha: motorman's atmlil

We need more of it. It makes no greenhouse gases, it doesn't care if the sun's shining or the wind is blowing, it's highly efficient(A reactor the size of a minivan can power hundreds of thousands of homes), it makes a great way to dispose of nuclear weapons not needed(Though I'm on the fence about actually doing this), you can siphon off medial isotopes fairly easily, and it's just plain fucking interesting to anyone who likes physics and powerful tech. Oh, and it's perfectly safe.

And that's just fission tech. Fusion is only going to improve it, provided we can make fusion actually work.

Build more reactors, goddammit! Dams only work in some locations, reactors work anywhere there's a large river.

They've come a long way since the unsafe designs of the 50s (Like Chernobyl). I support nuclear power plants. I know some folks prefer coal due to its apparent safeness but if you count the tens of thousands of people who die yearly from coal mine accidents and the pollution that coal plants makes we'd need Chernobyl every three weeks to even match that.

I support nuclear plants. They provide a lot of power, we've come a long, long way since Chernobyl and in this province it is not under threat of earthquake damage. Mind you, Saskatchewan doesn't have too many power demands when compared to more populous regions of the country but it is more environmentally friendly.

I always used Nuclear Power in the Sim City games until Fusion became available. Speaking of which, has that been completely disproved or something? I dunno, I don't keep up with these things. I just like building cities and then summoning 26 consecutive hurricanes.

People don't really seem to understand how safe nuclear energy is. People were on the fence and warming up to the idea when 3 Mile Island (If I remember right, nobody died) and Chernobyl (which was very avoidable) happened. People kind of vetoed it then. Honestly we need a lot more nuclear power. It is clean and very efficient. Fuel is literally decaying(figuratively in our hands), and people don't want to use it.

Istvan:
They've come a long way since the unsafe designs of the 50s (Like Chernobyl). I support nuclear power plants. I know some folks prefer coal due to its apparent safeness but if you count the tens of thousands of people who die yearly from coal mine accidents and the pollution that coal plants makes we'd need Chernobyl every three weeks to even match that.

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

crudus:
Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

Indeed, although why people would assume otherwise for a design that was discount by 1950s Soviet standards I am sort of puzzled by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

This should dissuade everyone of their nuclear fears. It is the best solution for long term energy.

crudus:

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

Lets not also forget that even considering that, the reason for it going to hell in a handbasket was human stupidity. Even Chernobyl reactors were "safe enough" not to blow up in your face on their own.

But yeah I support nuclear power. Just has to be treated with utmost respect and care.

triggrhappy94:
What's your stance on it?

I'm 100% supporter of nuclear power. It's efficient, it's considerably clean (at least when compared to coal powerplants), and it's safe.

Just throwing it out there, there was the whole Japan thing not long ago so that might shake public faith. Not saying I am against it.

The new breed thorium reactors make most sense for nuclear power, I think they produce very little nuclear waste.

Then again, I'm more in favour of subsidising electricity generation for homemakers, especially in the countryside. It puts less strain of the grid & less can go wrong if one plant stops working for some reason.

I'm very much opposed to nuclear energy except as a last resort. One wonders if all in support actually have a reactor on their doorstep and know more about the dark side that comes with it. Just as a rather sobering example; cancer rates where I live are four times the national average, and this is a plant with a "good" safety record. What you have to realise is that virtually all the "scientific" groups and thinktanks who are massively in favour of nuclear energy are funded by the energy giants themselves who unsurprisingly have a vested interest in the public perceiving them as the messiah and saviour. There's plenty of local censorship too and no consultations with people in the immediate area, rather taking opinions from a large city over 30 miles away after running with some heavy propaganda campaigns. Even with this public opinion is very divided, the further you are away from the plant the more opinion sways in favour of nuclear energy.

No, give me a tidal barrage with a wind farm atop instead. Yes, it's not the cheapest option (which is why the plans have been made but building yet another reactor is going ahead) but you are effectively throwing the public under the bus in the name of corporate greed. That should be unacceptable to any civilised person, and a nice fuck you to anyone who says nuclear energy is worth more than my child's life.

That's just the day-to-day running, have no lessons been learned from the Fukushima disaster which has ruined large swathes of the country and sent nuclear fallout around the world?

Sure as hell beats war in the middle east

OT:I fully support it.At the moment without nuclear energy the world is dead and it's the safest and enviromentally friendly form until the TOKAMAK reactors become fesible outside the testing fase.

crudus:

Let's not forget that Chernobyl as crazy unsafe even for those times.

Chernobyl was safe.The problem were the stipid people operationg it.Everything has limits and when you go over them, you have to expect something to fail.

GoaThief:
I'm very much opposed to nuclear energy except as a last resort. One wonders if all in support actually have a reactor on their doorstep and know more about the dark side that comes with it. Just as a rather sobering example; cancer rates where I live are four times the national average, and this is a plant with a "good" safety record. What you have to realise is that virtually all the "scientific" groups and thinktanks who are massively in favour of nuclear energy are funded by the energy giants themselves who unsurprisingly have a vested interest in the public perceiving them as the messiah and saviour. There's plenty of local censorship too and no consultations with people in the immediate area, rather taking opinions from a large city over 30 miles away after running with some heavy propaganda campaigns.

No, give me a tidal barrage with a wind farm atop instead. Yes, it's not the cheapest option (which is why the plans have been made but building yet another reactor is going ahead) but you are effectively throwing the public under the bus in the name of greed. That should be unacceptable to any civilised person, and a nice fuck you to anyone who says nuclear energy is worth more than my child's life.

That's just the day-to-day running, have no lessons been learned from the Fukushima disaster which has ruined large swathes of the country and sent nuclear fallout around the world?

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates? Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it. It took a staggeringly powerful 9.0 earthquake and a 26 foot tsunami to cause a problem with the plant, and even then it most likely would have survived without issue had the water not knocked out the power to the cooling systems. Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems. There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs. Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

I think Australia should really get on this whole nuclear energy thing. We have wide, desolate, uninhabited expanses of what is basically desert, which gives us a convenient place for waste storage and lessens the impact of a disaster (unlikely as that would be). It's got lots of uranium sitting around waiting to be mined, so wouldn't have to buy it or anything. And finally, Australia's one of the most geologically stable countries on the planet, so next to no chance of anything Fukushima-like occurring. And considering that most of our energy comes from old coal plants, anything alternative would be better for the atmosphere.

Silly fuddle-headed old-fangled politicans and their prehistoric supporters... grr.

Fuck that unsafe bullshit.
Humans just need to get their shit together and start using geothermal power. There is more than enough sources for clean energy out there like geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, etc that we don't need to be fucking around with dangerous shit like nuclear energy.

The only headscratcher regarding it I have is the waste product, but if we can figure that out (if we haven't already since I last checked) then its all gud.

JeanLuc761:

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates? Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

OF COURSE IT'S THE POWERPLANT! YOU BRAINWASHED CORPORATE DRONE JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT!!

ahem...

So much for the argumentation AGAINST them. Most (important) points in favour have already been mentioned, plus, the cancer risk near coal plants is probably much higher than near nuclear plants. After all, smoke has been PROVEN to increase the cancer risks, while radiation leaks are incredibly rare.

It really pissed me off when Germany announced its (apparently final) shutdown of nuclear plants, decided by people who have no clue about the technology. They even want to keep a few reactors "on standby for power shortages", probably because radioactive material is only used up if you actually use the energy it gives off, and stays perfectly stable if you just let all the heat it gives off dissipate into the atmosphere...
And a week later, development of the travelling wave reactor was entering its final stages, providing a possible use for all that "burnt-out" fuel we NEATLY ENCLOSED IN INACCESSIBLE CAVES, COVERED BY CONCRETE!!
Frelling morons, our politicians. And the protesters they listen to, even more.

In one report they interviewed a protester who wanted to stop a nuclear waste transport, because he considered it a waste of tax money because of all the police officers that had to guard the route from protesters, and the danger of their prolonged exposure to the (extremely low) leaking radiation from the containers, which was almost on the level of a CT scan due to the travel speed of the transport, which was very slow, because of ALL THE IDIOTS CHAINING THEMSELVES TO THE TRAIN TRACKS OR DIGGING OUT THE RAILS!!
Idiots and hypocrites, all of them.

OK, not all of them, maybe only 90%...

there are no arguments against nuclear energy anymore, there the cleanist safest most efficent energy sorce, especally with the advances the chinese have made with the pebble bed reactors, where they can power the reactor with its own waste and it takes the waste considerably less time to breake down, its also imposible for them to meltdown, the arguments against them are old and outdated and are no longer valid, not that you will ever convince a brainwashed greenpeace fag of that

JeanLuc761:

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

brubobaggins:
I think Australia should really get on this whole nuclear energy thing. We have wide, desolate, uninhabited expanses of what is basically desert, which gives us a convenient place for waste storage and lessens the impact of a disaster (unlikely as that would be). It's got lots of uranium sitting around waiting to be mined, so wouldn't have to buy it or anything. And finally, Australia's one of the most geologically stable countries on the planet, so next to no chance of anything Fukushima-like occurring. And considering that most of our energy comes from old coal plants, anything alternative would be better for the atmosphere.

Silly fuddle-headed old-fangled politicans and their prehistoric supporters... grr.

so much this! im an ausie and have always thought if we arent prepared to sell that uranium then we need to be using it, harnassing all that energy could make australia a huge player globbaly

Well, since we don't seem to have any other effective (that counts out wind and solar power) clean forms of energy and the world is quickly running out of gas, oil and coal, I suppose this is one of the best alternatives.

I know the argument of ''What to do with the waste?'', but I figured, as long as we don't leave it to the Germans or the British (Who trew it in a leaking salt mine and in the sea respectively) but bury it in specially designed holes in the ground, I think were fine. Plus, all the hippies who are trying to stop nuclear energy because of this waste problem, don't seem to realize that we are throwing the waste we have from regular energy into the atmosphere.

Also, there's countries like Iran, who are probably but not certainly using the technology they say is being used for energy, using it for nuclear weapons. This is a difficult one: What if Iran gets a nuke? Well, they can't use it, because none of the current members of the''Nuclear Club'' would accept that. Problem is we can't just bomb away at their research facilities, because, well, what if Iran is telling the truth?

Lastly, the point of danger formed by the power plants themselves (read: Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or combination). Of course, when they blow up, the damage is catastrophic. But they don't seem to have a habit of that, because they are well engineerd. We learned a lot from Chernobyl and TMI, and Fukushima was a combination of the worst circumstances possible and a lot of bad luck. Also, ask yourself this: How many people died because of these disasters, but how many people died while mining for the regular forms of energy?

All in all, I think we should use nuclear energy. It's clean and relatively safe, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to be running out any time soon. Or we just toss this whole concept aside and start looking into fusion energy, which is even cleaner, doesn't have any of the waste, and is safer. I don't feel like i'm making a strong point here, but you get the message.

Nuclear power is one of these things that the "everyman" doesn't really think of unless its mentioned by someone or its on TV. This means that the only time he/she will probably hear about nuclear power is when it goes wrong and its on the news, giving them the impression that "nuclear power is bad and unsafe".

Back at my old college we had the local political party members (lib-dem, labour, conservative) come round to do a debate/interview, where we asked questions and they gave their parties response. It eventually got to nuclear power and if we should be building more nuclear power stations. The conservative said that he was pro nuclear and wanted more, the labour representative said something about renewable resources (Both of these were about 1-3 minuets of talking). However the lib-dem woman started ranting about how unsafe nuclear power was and how we shouldn't have it in anyway, she was ranting for a good 5mins before my physics teacher (who use to work at a nuclear power station) stood up and basically said to her in front of everybody that she was talking rubbish. And that she should do a bit more research before telling everyone what to think.

PS: im pro nuclear (could you guess)

Here in germany nuclear energy is now officially abolished.
There are still plants, but all of them are supposed to be replaced by other energy sources in like 10 years or so.
Which is quite nice i think.

The only thing that bugs me is how this got pushed by demonstrations and just the general uneducated opinion of the masses.
Sure that means our democracy works, but in contrast to everybody panicking about what happened in fukushima, I personally was always aware of the dangers of nuclear energy and would have rather taken it down slowly.
Now our energy prices will jump even more and everyone will complain about it. Its really quite depressing.
But yea the bottom line is, that its probably for the better in the long run, so I wouldnt want to complain.

p.s. oh fukishima is pretty much one year in the past now. Time moves fast...

GoaThief:

JeanLuc761:

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

You do realize that the study you point to makes no conclusion about the effects of nuclear reactors on children, right? That they only noticed a correlation?

I live near two different nuclear plants. So if anyone has knowledge on the subject, I think I trump you.

triggrhappy94:
This is an interesting issue that I don't think gets discussed enough, escpecially because it doesn't seem to be aligned with one party or another.

What's your stance on it? Way or the future, or dangerous pipe-dream?

My thoughts: I think it's a great idea. As of now, when the most recent designs are used any plants completely safe. In a couple years it could easily surpass any other form of energy with the development of He3, which is already close. For those who don't know, He3 could be used for almost completely clean energy. It's rare on Earth due to the atmosphere, but the Moon is covered in it. A shuttle's worth of the stuff could be enough to power America for a year. It's basically like in the movie Moon, minus the cloning part.

Captcha: motorman's atmlil

and then there is also thorium, that is also nuclear energy. but without the waste, and it ven burns up the old waste we still have! so yaay nuclear :)

JeanLuc761:
As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it. It took a staggeringly powerful 9.0 earthquake and a 26 foot tsunami to cause a problem with the plant, and even then it most likely would have survived without issue had the water not knocked out the power to the cooling systems.

I'm surprised that the plant survived with all the punishment it took. It just shows how far we've come since Chernobyl.

As long as containment isn't breached and they can keep it cooled properly, the only other issue is leaks which do happen but can be easily rectified if caught fast enough. Nuclear power may not be the best option, but considering how much coal we go through, it's not exactly a worse alternative.

But personally, I think our reliance on oil is much, much worse.

mb16:
Nuclear power is one of these things that the "everyman" doesn't really think of unless its mentioned by someone or its on TV. This means that the only time he/she will probably hear about nuclear power is when it goes wrong and its on the news, giving them the impression that "nuclear power is bad and unsafe".

Back at my old college we had the local political party members (lib-dem, labour, conservative) come round to do a debate/interview, where we asked questions and they gave their parties response. It eventually got to nuclear power and if we should be building more nuclear power stations. The conservative said that he was pro nuclear and wanted more, the labour representative said something about renewable resources (Both of these were about 1-3 minuets of talking). However the lib-dem woman started ranting about how unsafe nuclear power was and how we shouldn't have it in anyway, she was ranting for a good 5mins before my physics teacher (who use to work at a nuclear power station) stood up and basically said to her in front of everybody that she was talking rubbish. And that she should do a bit more research before telling everyone what to think.

PS: im pro nuclear (could you guess)

What was the woman's response?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power

This link will tell you all you need to know about my views on nuclear energy.

GoaThief:

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

I could address the rest of your argument bit-by-bit, but I wrote my essay so I wouldn't have to do that. That said, Chernobyl is not, and has never been, an appropriate example for demonstrating problems with nuclear energy. An abysmal design coupled with gross human stupidity does not match up to even the rest of the contemporary nuclear reactors of the time. As for the "these things will happen again" argument, that's like saying "Oh no, planes crash, and they'll crash again and in greater numbers..." and expecting us to go back to living in mud huts.

GoaThief:

JeanLuc761:

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

What you're talking about here is a correlation. Correlations can be strong or weak, and be used to develop a hypothesis, but they never prove cause and effect. They merely hint at it at best. Unless you know of studies which show, at the very least, a strong correlation between living near a nuclear plant and cancer and which managed to control the variables to some degree (pretty much impossible in an observational study) then your little statistic isn't worth much. And you'll excuse me if I don't simply take your word on there being no other contributing factors without evidence.

Besides, what's the alternative to nuclear here? Coal is most common for power generation, but there's evidence out there that it's far more radioactive: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

They're both terrible examples because A: they were both old reactor designs which are in no way indicative of the safety of modern designs, and B: not every plant near water is at risk of being hit by a tsunami or flooding within it's lifetime (such a suggestion is absurd), and it would be foolish to think future reactors built which were at risk wouldn't plan for that now.

The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

People protesting nuclear within a year of a major incident at a nuclear plant? Colour me not shocked in the slightest. It also doesn't mean diddly since you'll always have people with no clue about the advancements in nuclear protesting it simply because it's nuclear.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Thing is, any research they publish can be independently reviewed and critiqued by anyone. And if you're going to not use power generation thought up by people backed by other people who clearly have an agenda then you'll go without electricity for a long time.

It's actually one of the cleanest and environmentally safest methods.

Chernobyl was a piece of shit. It didn't have shielding, no knowledge of radiation and it's been debated if energy production was only a secondary objective of the plant. (Research about nukes, anyone?)

And the Japanese reactor failure after ONE OF THE BIGGEST EARTHQUAKES. It went rather smoothly. The fallout that went into the air was rather minimal.

Now you're thinking: "BUT SEXY TEACHER, NATURAL DISASTERS HAPPEN EVERYWHAR! WE CAN'T PROTECT THE PLANTS AGAINST THAT STUFF!"

O'rly? Because there are plenty of countries that AREN'T affected by Earthquakes, seasonal hurricanes, volcanoes and so forth.

Sweden, Finland, Russia to name a few.

"BUT SEXY TEACHER, WON'T THOSE COUNTRIES EXPLOIT THE NUCLEAR STATIONS TO PRODUCE NUKES?!"

Nope, because MODERN Nuclear power plants uses a more docile form of plutonium that isn't as destructive as the stuff used in nuclear bombs.

Also, those countries already have mines that dig for radioactive materials. They could get more nukes if they so wanted to. Except they can't. Because of the UN.

Hmm.
What about the bi-product?

It can be re-used in the plant a few times. It'll last about 500 years until you have to get more.

GoaThief:

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Citation needed, surely there would be a heap of peer-reviewed scientific papers discussing this and calling for stricter zoneing plans for areas around a nuclear plant.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

Do you have accurate background radiation readings for your area and an exactly identical area without a nuclear plant? If not, you cant really prove it was the nuclear plant.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Maybe you need to read up on Chernobyl or maybe actually research where nuclear power stations actually are. Chernobyl was caused human error and cheap USSR standards and in no way did a flood or tsunami cause or worsen the situation. As for Fukishima, it's in Japan, a long narrow island, it's going to be hard to build a nuclear plant anywhere but near water.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

Did you actually read that? Firstly it is talking about a nuclear waste reprocessing plant, not a nuclear reactor and secondly it isn't exactly a recent study, it started in 1978 and finished in 1998.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Well most cars are using outdated technology, does that automatically make them unsafe? Technology advances quickly in this day and age, of course it is going to be outdated, it was probably outdated a year after completion. I assume you don't update your car everytime a new model is out, because it's not cheap right? Well why would you expect a nuclear plant to do the same? They do maintain their tech, and it will be replaced when it becomes a safety risk.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Do you have proof of this? Do you have specific groups you'd like to share with us? Or are you just making stuff up?

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

Yeah but sadly that's how the world works, nothing happens without money. With high production costs and slow returns, few people are willing to fund a tidal barrage. They also cause changes in the immediate enviroment either by changing the area salinity (salt levels), sedimentation movement (ie sand banks disappearing) and changes in turbidity (water clarity).

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

You don't plan where you are putting your trophy before you've won the tournament? Why would you plan that far ahead if you aren't even sure if the Nuclear power station is going in. Im sure that that would be worked out before the plant is even started to be built.

EDIT: wow I was slow typing that out 5+ responses since I started typing, they popped up and covered pretty much what I did =.='
Il just go back to lurking now *disappears in a smoke cloud*

Throwing my hat in for the awesomeness of nuclear power. A form of power that is insanely efficient, and the only thing it spews out into the atmosphere is steam? Yes please!

It always shocks me how little people know about how safe nuclear actually is. They always use Chernobyl is an example of how "dangerous" nuclear power is. Really? A poorly built plant, based on an out-dated design (even by 50s standards), with what little safety features it had disabled, and the staff, who were practically untrained were intentionally pushing the plant beyond all reasonable safe levels, is an example of how dangerous nuclear power is? You gotta be joking.

As long as they are kept running well and as long as they are not made my general electoric nuclure is ok. Although if there was no nucular power there would be on nuclear weapons if what I have heard is to be correct. As the spent fuel thingies are perfect for the job.

I think other power solutions are just as good. Coal technology has developed to the point where the only things that come out of those plants is water and CO2 2 very harmless things.

I do not feel for wind, it is pointless and costing too much for what it gives ok for a small instilation but not as a way to power a country.
Solar the same the condictions have to be just so.
hydro and tidal I like couse setting up can be an issue but ones that is done they generally do no harm.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked