Liam
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 07:37 PM |
|
|
I'm in general agreement with the OP - that the knee-jerk reaction in some countries is OTT. It does seem daft that plans for far better and
safer modern design reactors are being scrapped - especially in countries that simply can't suffer from the natural disasters that challenged
Fukushima.
But it's really not all good. Those saying the shutdown procedures 'did exactly what they were supposed to' are conveniently
forgetting that radiation escaped none the less and now something like 80,000 people are effectively homeless and still haven't been allowed
back in the 20 km exclusion zone - and may possibly never be! That's the trouble with nuclear power - when it goes wrong it can go spectacularly
wrong. Fukushima did indeed hold up pretty well all things considered, yet we still have the situation as it is today.
There is the argument that this situation is exacerbated by an irrational public fear of radiation and over conservative maximum dose limits being set
- maybe they could all go back and it'll all be reet? Maybe the consequences of that would be less of a problem than finding somewhere else for
80,000 people to live and work? Who really knows? But would any of you take your chances with 100s of times the dose that has been defined as a
maximum safe limit?
One thing's for sure - a fossil fuel power plant never caused this level of crap, and that's why this latest anti-nuclear bandwagon has
built up so much steam.
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
I'm for nuclear - its the only viable medium term choice and fossil fuels do much more environmental damage releasing more radiation into the
air and environment than most nuclear plants - also it's most probably more dangerous radiation wise to live next to or on top of a Granite
deposit than next to a nuclear power station.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
I all for nuclear too. IMHO its much safer and cleaner than fossil fuel sources. In 50 years time we can worry about what to do with the waste, when
there is a better alternative and better technology to deal with it. Human energy requirements are going to vastly increase over the coming decades,
and we are slaves to OPEC at the min.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 09:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
I'm in general agreement with the OP - that the knee-jerk reaction in some countries is OTT.
You know I heard that the US hasn't comissioned a new nuclear plant since around 1991 because of the state of Springfield Nuclear Power Plant
(you know, the one run by Mr Burns...)
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 09:22 PM |
|
|
Problem is Jasper, you're clearly educated, rational, able to make your own judgements.
The Sheeple are none of those things.
Thing is, the NIMBY's have all the power, money and have raped the planet.... quite happy with the status quo.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
It's good to see all the sensible Locost types can see the anti-nuclear lobby for what it really is 
I do understand the sentiments of Strontiums statement:
I agree on both counts. We should have been sorting other viable energy sources years ago but we didn't and nuclear power is neither clean or
safe! You lot might not care but I do and I really care about what is going to be left for out children to deal with!
But we've been working on renewables for years, but I just don't think we are techinically advanced enough yet to have come up with
anything that's a real alternative. And no, nuclear is neaither safe nor clean, but neither is oil/gas/coal and yet these contribute HUGE
amounts to global warming as well.
Did you see the statistics on 'bang goes the theory', more people have died due to hydroelectric power than have died from nuclear
accidents including Hiroshima - 26,000 people died when a dam burst in china.
And you say 'what's going to be left for our children' - you may well have one of two choices, no more nuclear fuel so a nice clean
world that's being powered by fossil fuels, the temperature due to global warning has risen 5 deg in 30 years and we're in the throws of
drought, famines, mass migrations, mass extinctions of animals, and the collapse of the western capitalist system, or a world where we've just
about tackled global warming, we have a good steady supply of cheap energy, and we've just got a relatively very small amount of spent fuel to
deal with.
There's just no point saying 'nuclear power is bad for us and bad for our children' without coming up with a viable alternative
that's going to be better. Some idiot 'Green' in Germany said that in 20 years 80% of their power will be coming from renewables so
they don't need nuclear. This figure is just laughable and completely inaccurate or course, yet it gets media coverage and people take it
seriously.
One of my favourite 'voices of reason' is James Lovelock, one of the greatest environmental scientists and experts on climate change.
Here's a recent interview with him:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
[Edited on 4/10/11 by Jasper]
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 10:39 AM |
|
|
You've twice mentioned coal and global warming.. I think that's very misleading indeed....
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coozer
You've twice mentioned coal and global warming.. I think that's very misleading indeed....
expand please!
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 12:13 PM |
|
|
Well, the implication sounds like to me that coal fired power stations are contributing to global warming.
I see the multimillion dollar industry that is 'global warming' as a scam.
Some country's may have 'dirty' coal fired stations but I believe ours are very clean indeed. There's less co2 comes out of
them than out of cows arses, less than what's released every time somebody opens a bottle of pop/beer, less than we humans exhale constantly....
and, I still don't see any proof that global warming is caused by power generation.....
Just my opinion of course, after all its a forum...
I thank you,
Steve
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 01:44 PM |
|
|
Maybe not "caused by" anything in particular but it doesn't help
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
Continue using fossil fuels for power: "So, yes, okay the climate has gone down the bowl and my kids are screwed, but I really
enjoyed my life not having to worry about nuclear power" lolk
Food production will be much more worrying than power generation in the future tbh. Intensive mono-cropping is oil-dependent, high input and extremely
fragile
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 03:33 PM |
|
|
The point at which small Fusion reactors are viable for the conversion of nuclear waste is rapidly approaching (about 20 years), at that point a
Nuclear plant and its accompanying Small Fusion plant can live in a symbiotic relationship each feeding off the others waste - at that point nearly
all objections to Nuclear Fusion will be invalid.
Unfortunately the point at which Fusion reactors large enough to supply useful amounts of energy is much further down the road.
|
|
|
quinnj3
|
| posted on 4/10/11 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
This is a hotly debatable subject and one which will go on for years to come. I don't think that the disasters of Chernobyl and Japan should be
broken down into how many people died. There is a long lasting effect from radiation which can move very quickly with the wind if it escapes into the
atmosphere. There are many, many more people in the world still effected by chernobyl today with horrible disfigurements etc. The technology of
Nuclear power has bound to have advanced in the years since chernobyl and scientists may have a better understanding of it, but the dangers are still
the same and still very real. No matter what safeties are put in place there is always room for error.
Having said that, the world is approaching an energy crisis pretty quickly, the people before us who pioneered the distribution of electricity and the
use of vehicles to the masses could not have imagined a world so heavily reliant on power that we would suck up the worlds resources at an alarming
rate.
The simple fact is that there is enough energy in the world to meet our demands, its just going to be much more difficult to harness it. Nuclear
power is one of the ways in which we can create energy, but it definately is not cheap. Governments realise that whilst electricity is easy enough to
create from nuclear, when the plant comes to the end of its life it will take years to make safe and cost millions to decommission.
I believe that direct solar energy needs more resources thrown at it as this is probably the cleanest form of energy imaginable. Extracting energy
directly from the sun and putting it directly in our homes without a middle process such as creating steam must be the cleanest form of energy
imaginable. I know that this is a simplistic view and there is a lot more to it than what I've stated, as the sun only appears on average for
12 hours a day so harnessing enough energy to last 24hrs instead of 12 carries a much bigger engineering challenge than creating on demand power
during sunlight hours.eg efficient batteries made from abundant materials.
This is just my view on a subject where nobody is either right or wrong as there has to be a solution found pretty soon.
|
|
|
