[Geezer (OP)]

The problems found at Hanford is repeated over and over again because of the dumb engineers who cannot get it through there heads that there is something called "geology."

Oooooo! So the Geologists can wash their lily white hands while the Engineers are thrown into the pit.

Why should I be surprised?

(What's keeping your lights on buddy?)

[Madidus_Scientia]

Not the world health organisation they are in bed with, IEAE. You really think the U.N and it's many international bodies, like the IMF or World bank, are these great universal government bodies that are imparcial and unbiased?

Sorry they are not, all politics as always.

Yes, I think a collaboration of many bodies is more likely to be unbiased.

Do you think Greenpeace is unbiased? Their anti-nuclear stance is well known, which obviously makes their claims on this matter highly questionable.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Do you really want to leave such a legacy?

I'd rather leave our future generations with some nuclear waste to deal with than global warming. Nuclear waste is simple to handle compared to the entire atmosphere.

Anyway, new reactor designs will produce insignificant amounts of waste, and we may even be able to recycle old nuclear waste to be rid of it entirely.

So we have already produced most of the nuclear waste that we ever will. Why stop new reactors from being built if they don't have the disadvantages of the old ones?

[JimBob]

Do you really want to leave such a legacy?

I'd rather leave our future generations with some nuclear waste to deal with than global warming. Nuclear waste is simple to handle compared to the entire atmosphere.

Anyway, new reactor designs will produce insignificant amounts of waste, and we may even be able to recycle old nuclear waste to be rid of it entirely.

So we have already produced most of the nuclear waste that we ever will. Why stop new reactors from being built if they don't have the disadvantages of the old ones?

The problem with global warming is that we do not really know why it is is happening - although there is no doubt in my mind why the warming has excellerated: US HUMANS.

It was only 13,000 years ago that glaciation had frozen in the atlantic down to the middle of the UK & France &c.

[yor_on]

Yep JB, the waste is a problem, and will continue to be so even when we made our Nuclear plants, ah, foolproof I think the word is. We have such an extensive knowledge of handling it now though. He* we've been doing it for over fifty years, even though we're running out of Countries to ship it too we surely can handle it for some meager ten thousands of years. I'm positive We've had new reactor designs for I don't know, twenty years, maybe more? Expected to reprocess used fuel rods, but none working, for one reason or another.

But I think you're wrong when saying that we don't know. We've always seen that new inventions, technologies, biological and chemical research can kill, and I think we regulate it pretty good. I think there is levels that we acknowledge, even though those might differ with our sociological and economical situation. So I think Germany will change its mind, if and when, the 'energy consumption' demands it. Personally I would like us to find alternative solutions that works, but that's will cost us some living standards in the short term, and also force a redistribution of wealth as I would expect such solutions to be placed where they were needed firstly. So the powers that be may not look at such solutions as beneficial to their stockholders, and them selves of course. And all good politicians knows where their masters are. The public is fickle, but power has a long memory.

It's a farce, although not that funny.

[Madidus_Scientia]

The problem with global warming is that we do not really know why it is is happening - although there is no doubt in my mind why the warming has excellerated: US HUMANS.

Then it becomes a debate about whether it is c02 that causes global warming and not nuclear power.

It was only 13,000 years ago that glaciation had frozen in the atlantic down to the middle of the UK & France &c.

When there was less c02? What's your point?

To me the physics of it makes it seem obvious that increased c02 must cause warming, but we have probably derailed the thread enough already.

[Geezer (OP)]

but we have probably derailed the thread enough already.

Yup! The thread was not intended to determine the net advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power. I suspect that's an interesting balancing act. The question was more along the lines of how people in democracies will react to plans for additional nuclear power generation in the future.

Personally, I suspect the backlash is going to be enormous, but I was interested in finding out if other members had a similar opinion.

[JimBob]

The problem with global warming is that we do not really know why it is is happening - although there is no doubt in my mind why the warming has excellerated: US HUMANS.

Then it becomes a debate about whether it is c02 that causes global warming and not nuclear power.

It was only 13,000 years ago that glaciation had frozen in the atlantic down to the middle of the UK & France &c.

When there was less c02? What's your point?

To me the physics of it makes it seem obvious that increased c02 must cause warming, but we have probably derailed the thread enough already.

The point with both of these statements was to point out the ephemeral nature of the human perspective. Forget about the can of worms - it is the environment in which that can occurs.

[yor_on]

Geezer, to ask about peoples reactions and views, disregarding what the question is about won't tell you much. I think JB is right, nuclear waste is a real problem, although very few want to know about it. And so far it's been more or less hidden from sight, as in Fukushima, but i think the waste is a serious subject, In fact getting more serious every day.

There are very few willing to accept nuclear waste.

[Geezer (OP)]

Yoron,

The question is about public opinion, not the merits or demerits of nuclear power generation. It's obvious that there has been a major backlash against nuclear power generation in Germany following recent events in Japan. I expect there will be a similar reaction throughout the World.

The question is, do you think this will be a short, or long-term, public reaction?

[yor_on]

Well, nothing we humans do is long term As far as I've seen? So I'm pretty sure it's short term. And I'm not saying that we can stop going nuclear either. It's two different questions. One is about the energy needs assuming the population growth of around 9.2 billion, in 2050. It will escalate.

Assume one of two scenarios. Either that Global warming becomes as we've seen historically, when Earth got around three degrees warmer, somewhere I saw a figure that at that time the oceans raised about 7 meters. And that's a geological fact as I understood it, not discussing why now. So we will need a lot of power, fast, at the same time as those nuclear plants placed at coastlines will have to be moved. On the other hand, if this scenario comes true there will most probably be a massive population reduction due to starvation, epidemics and mass migrations. There are already plans resting for this scenario both in USA and Europe, including the possibility of wars escalating as people find themselves forced to move. Add to that the increased instability in the Arctic if that becomes ice free and you can start to exploit it. And that exploitation will come, whatever is being negotiated now. Even China is disposing itself there. All that together is naturally a worst case scenario, and with it a extreme economical decline combined with a lot of patriotism from all nations involved and our democracy backing off in favor of a more military establishment as unrest escalates.

A better scenario is one where we only see the ocean raising some meter world wide. That won't be equally distributed though, and as droughts and famines comes we will still see people migrating, but my guess is that we will be able to handle it. In that case some nuclear plants will have to move I expect with the other getting walled in. And then the need for power will be greater and we will see more nuclear plants. People are not steered by long term planning, in the end we're all steered by our needs. and those needs and expectations are higher in industrialized countries than in our poorer unindustrialized neighbors.

The absolute best scenario is naturally the 'conspiracy theory' where all climatologist's becomes the villains in some cheap soap opera. And where the white man once more can go out to save the heathen from their disruptive behavior and practices ah, that was a joke.

The waste is a problem any which way, but with moving our plants we might get a chance to make them safer too. And develop what we got firstly instead of trying designs we never used before.

[Geezer (OP)]

I think we will see a great amount of public resistance to building any new nuclear power stations for the next twenty or so years. Just my personal opinion of course. We'll have to wait and see, but the events in Japan are doing little to instil a sense of security, and the situation seems to get worse every day.

[Geezer (OP)]

Not a big surprise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_nuclear_power