0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Looks like the voters in Germany have given nuclear energy a big thumbs down. I'm pretty sure there will be a similar reaction in many countries now. The question is, will this be a temporary backlash against nuclear energy, or will the concerns tend to fade over time?
It could only be truly failsafe if it relied on a continuous supply of something to keep the reaction going. Then, as soon as you cut off the supply of the "thing", the reaction would simply stop. Unfortunately, it's the other way around. The stuff that makes the reaction is all loaded into the reactor, so you have to continually remove energy to stop it getting too hot (although you can control the reaction rate).Anyway, even if you could make truly failsafe reactors, I doubt the public would be in any rush to believe you! At this point, I suspect any politician that supports nuclear energy in an election campaign, is pretty much guaranteed defeat, or even, deboot.
Quote from: Geezer on 27/03/2011 23:30:03Looks like the voters in Germany have given nuclear energy a big thumbs down. I'm pretty sure there will be a similar reaction in many countries now. The question is, will this be a temporary backlash against nuclear energy, or will the concerns tend to fade over time?I still don't understand why they can't design a failsafe plant.Maybe they have to think outside of the envelope. Design for magnitude 11 and pay the cost. It's cheaper than folding a world power.
Uufff. I thought you could completey stop the reaction by withdrawing the bars completely.
Imagine that matches couldn't be extinguished. Eventually you'd have no where to put the matches. You'd have to deal with your lighted matches forever. And that would be a real pain.Obviously nuclear fuel is 1,000,000 times worse!How do we have the nerve?
Is nuclear power really dangerous or is it just our perceptions? Like how a plane crash that kills a hundred people is a disaster, but the fact that a hundred other people died that day in various car accidents isn't even mentioned.http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Fukushima-is-not-Chernobyl,-wind-power-causes-more-deaths-21064.htmlBtw yes I realise the above article seems biased for not including the estimated deaths due to cancer, etc. which are 4000 or so. But it still makes you think.People fear what they do not understand, and hardly anyone understands radiation.
No, its from the WHO. Why would data from Greenpeace be more reliable??There's radioactive material in coal too you know, and this is all released in the exhaust from coal power plants. In addition to particulate matter which is estimated to cause many thousands of deaths per year. And approximately 12000 coal workers die per year in the mining.So i'd say nuclear is a hell of a lot safer than coal.