Is any body else rather dismayed by the knee jerk reaction of governments worldwide to the anti-nuclear lobby after the events in Japan?

Germany has now agreed to stop building new nuclear power stations, as has Switzerland and Italy.

What I don't understand is what the anti-nuclear supporters, most if not all who are green-eco types, think we are going to do for power over the next 50 years? It's already very clear that renewables wont be able to add anything like the extra power we are going to need once the old reactors are shut down - Germany has already announced plans for a whole load of new oil/gas and coal power stations, all adding to CO2 emissions and global warming.

And yet the safely record of nuclear power is undeniable - look at Fukushima, 20,000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami. How many died from the problems at the plant? Zero - not one, and nobody injured either. And how about Chernobyl? All the safety team that first went in died in 4 months (about 20 people I believe). After that? 19,000 cases of thyroid cancer of which only about 12 people died, all the others, mostly children, made a full recovery. The high expected death rate from the fall-out just never happened.

So now think about all the people that die in the exploration and extraction and use of fossil fuels? It is vastly more. So why do so many supposedly 'green' supporters have such a huge problem with it and would rather see the rise in the use of fossil fuels for power generation?

We are still clearly a long way off from some new, clean and totally safe form of power generation. In the meantime nuclear offers by far and away the cleanest and safest and relatively cheap alternative and yet our governments are bending to the uninformed greens as they seem to be shouting the loudest.

The north coast of France has a number of nuclear reactors - but we in the south don't live in fear of them blowing up one day. I just wish the f*cking green hippies would actually look at the real world rather than thinking if it's nuclear it must be bad. They could actually end up being the ones to tip us over the edge of no-return when it comes to climate change.

Anyway, rant over - please feel free to vent your views and opinions!!

Well said, I am in total agreement with you.

Bob

No argument with that.

Ironically I believe Germany buys a large proportion of its energy from France....

+1

The Japanses reactor did everything it was supposed to do given a disaster of either a Mega earthquake, or a Mega Tsunami. They just hadn't it ALL happening at the same time. BUT even then it did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do, SHUT DOWN.

Another supporter here - nuclear power is great - everyone should have their own personal nuclear generator

The way things are going I think I will start manufacturing tallow candles --- just think pollution those would cause.

Unfortunately the greens are naively hoping that we will all vastly reduce our use of energy and then the wind turbines etc will suffice.

An extremly simplistic view in my opinion.

But until we do Nuclear is the way forward.

We're getting a new one here! (They broke the old one).
Despite low energy lamps etc, we appear to be consuming even more energy.
Blame being put on electronic toys, gadgets left on standby and wireless modems that are left on 24/7.

[Edited on 3/10/11 by Confused but excited.]

As far as I am aware no one has successfully decomisioned a nuclear reactor.
They have removed the fuel, they have taken a lot of radioactive parts out but the pressure vessels remain highly radioactive for years.
The Americans store the reactor compartments of subs in the dessert, ours are bobbing about in a port down south.
No one knows what to do with the waste.
The problem grows and grows and grows.
Our children's children's children are going to inherit one big head ache.

Define one big headache.

I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The current models are.

Nuclear is the best option for now. If you listen to people like mark lynas speak (who helped grow the green brigade massivly) they are starting to allow logic to rule their heads.

The problem with 'Green Groups' is that they are big organisations in their own right, raising money, marketing themselves and they are also competing with other 'Green Groups' in the same field.

They can hardly come out and say 'nuclear power is safe' now after raising money from Joe Public to be able to protest against nuclear power in the past. In other words they have a vested interest in pushing the misconceptions about nuclear power because if they agree it is safe they then have nothing to protest about therefore putting themselves out of business...

I'm proud of being a greenie, if that's what you want to call me. Nuclear is potentially much worse than any of the other pollutants, which if you stop using them, stop polluting, unlike nuclear. I am glad I don't live near them, and never want to.

The problem with the new bulbs is that they don't actually light up the room. Unless we go back to living in darker environments, as they did the olden days, they will continue to be a problem. Computers are actually a big electricity draw, I think, so we are all guilty somewhere down the line.

Death rates by type of power :

code:
 

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh) 

 

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) 

Coal – China                       278 

Coal – USA                         15 

Oil                                36  (36% of world energy) 

Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy) 

Biofuel/Biomass                    12 

Peat                               12 

Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) 

Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) 

Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) 

Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) 

Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy) 

I work for the only nuclear fuel production plant in the country, - (I've been there since '79) - they have been an excellent employer for me and thousands of others - the Chernobyl incident hit global public perception of nuclear power pretty hard (very understandably - it caused many deaths and 'living deaths' you wouldn't wish on anybody - and still is.) The only saving grace with it was the fact that it was in russia - sort of 'third world' and a combination of old design, a catalogue of stupid decisions and basic fear of disobeying those stupid decisions which caused the disaster. In contrast, the reactors in Fukishima, whilst an old design, were run by arguably the most technically advanced civilised nation on earth - and consequently, it has hit public perception across the world much harder than Chernobyl - and is definitely having a much more serious effect.

The company I work for the business is divided into 3 main activities (or production streams) and one of the three - reclaiming highly useful radioactive material from legacy wastes - these 'wastes' are likely to to be all completed by 2016.
The second stream is enriched powder and fuel pin production - this has steady orders well through into 2023.
The third stream is conversion of powder into the form in which it can be enriched ( known as 'HEX' ) - our biggest customer for this, accounting for 90% of it is Cameco - a vast canadian company Cameco .We have a contract to supply them until 2016, and for the last 18 months we have been in negotiations for an extension of a further 10 years - it was seen as virtually guaranteed. Three weeks ago they pulled the plug - the contract will now finish in 2016 with no extension.

This is a direct knock - on from Fukishima - with Germany, Italy, the Swiss and some reduction in Japan, the world now has surplus nuclear fuel (which was to be used in the reactors that have shut down) flooding the market - coupled with a drop in global demand.

The bottom line is that despite the planned new build of reactors at 8 sites in the UK, our site is, at best going to be a third of its size in 5 years, and the likelihood is that the fuel will now probably be made abroad and imported - a true shame. - At worst, it may possibly close.

[Edited on 3/10/11 by stevegough]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Define one big headache.

I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The current models are.

Nuclear is the best option for now. If you listen to people like mark lynas speak (who helped grow the green brigade massivly) they are starting to allow logic to rule their heads.

---

The low energy light bulb is an environmental disaster in its self when you consider the heavy metals used to make them.

Cant put them in the bin - have to be reprocessed properly.

How many of these things are going to end up in landfill because people cant be bothered to dispose of them correctly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RK
I'm proud of being a greenie, if that's what you want to call me. Nuclear is potentially much worse than any of the other pollutants, which if you stop using them, stop polluting, unlike nuclear. I am glad I don't live near them, and never want to.

The problem with the new bulbs is that they don't actually light up the room. Unless we go back to living in darker environments, as they did the olden days, they will continue to be a problem. Computers are actually a big electricity draw, I think, so we are all guilty somewhere down the line.

---

nuclear power (fission) is not sustainable. fact. its purealy a convenient 'make do' until more renewable options become viable.

nuclear medicine and power through fusion on the other hand, are briliant

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinosaurjuice
nuclear power (fission) is not sustainable. fact. its purealy a convenient 'make do' until more renewable options become viable.

nuclear medicine and power through fusion on the other hand, are briliant

---

How about Thorium Reactors ?

Tidal flow generation. When the moon stops going around us there will be bigger things to worry about - and not for a week or two.

What's all this carp about 'renewable' energy? Energy exists once and ends up as heat. It's not like a 'cut-and-come-again' plant; more energy is MORE energy, more heat.
The energy extracted from the wind, which is horrendously unpredictable as we know, has come from the sun's rays over the past few days, causing the air to stir around due to differential thermal effects coupled with Coriolis.
Coal, gas and oil are squashed dead plants and animals that captured energy from the sun some millions of years ago and now release it for our benefit - and ends up as heat.
It's a question of timescale...

Oh yes, nuclear energy please! We have learned a lot over the past 50 years.

Thumb to kink of it, solar focussing is probably one of the better 'other' options, although location-dependent - better near the equator. The energy is captured before it hits the ground, water-to-steam-to-electricity; use the electricity ---> heat.
John.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Define one big headache.

I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The current models are.

---

The answer is to charge more for electricity, like it's worked with alcohol, cigarettes and oil

I've been working as security for a building site (that's going to be council housing) and am somewhat appaled that the council hasn't demanded any kind of solar roofing, or energy creation on the site. They've added water butts for the garden and fitted energy saving bulbs but that's been it. There should be some amount of forcing in this (like x% of roofspace has to have solar heating/electric panels, or the walls have to retain y% of heat)

For example if I was in power I'd be pushing for no vehicles made after 2020 to run (predominantly) on fossil fuels.. Car makers will change or vanish from the country

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liam
I'm in general agreement with the OP - that the knee-jerk reaction in some countries is OTT.

---

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.

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]

You've twice mentioned coal and global warming.. I think that's very misleading indeed....

quote:

---

Originally posted by coozer
You've twice mentioned coal and global warming.. I think that's very misleading indeed....

---

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

Maybe not "caused by" anything in particular but it doesn't help

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

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.

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.