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.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Btw 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.
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."
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.
Do you really want to leave such a legacy?
Quote from: JimBob on 02/04/2011 05:18:49Do 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.
but we have probably derailed the thread enough already.
Quote from: JimBob on 02/04/2011 18:30:23The 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.QuoteIt 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.