Nuclear Power - What are your views on it

Halcyon · 13-03-2011, 10:46

Having seen what is happening in Japan with nuclear reactors leaking and exploding it quickly brings back memories of Chernobyl and the disaster that happened there.

Do you think we should continue to use these nuclear resources?

Apparently there are still discussions going on constantly as to what we can do with the radioactive waste that comes out of these power plants as it needs storing for many years before they become decontaminated - often thosands of years.

To me this type of power is a hazard and should have never been used in the first place.

What are your thoughts?

Hom3r · 13-03-2011, 11:32

You cannot compare the problems in Japan with Chernobyl.

Chernobyl's reactors had major design flaws.

Japans reactors survived the earthquake, and even though the power failed the backup diesel generator kicked in, but the tsunami took them out.

Plus what does Japn use instead? It has no natural coal or oil, so to remain indepentant as possible.

heero_yuy · 13-03-2011, 12:54

In view of this:

Quote:

However, it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[19] It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

See radiactive section. Wiki

There are also many ore/metal refining operations that release significant amounts of radiation and radioactive materials into the environment, often in compleatly uncontrolled and unknown amounts.

A nuclear power station's emissions of radiation are not the issue. Deep underground storage in stable rock formations is the correct way of finally dealing with the waste and we need the clean power that these stations provide.

Chernobyl is a red herring, as Homer stated it was a flawed, old design and they were also running a dangerous experiment that should never have been attempted. It was also about the worst "accident" that you could have with the contents of the reactor melting their way out of the pressure vessel and into the surrounding building. We're still here!

**Paul M** · 13-03-2011, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Having seen what is happening in Japan with nuclear reactors leaking and exploding it quickly brings back memories of Chernobyl and the disaster that happened there.

Do you think we should continue to use these nuclear resources?

Apparently there are still discussions going on constantly as to what we can do with the radioactive waste that comes out of these power plants as it needs storing for many years before they become decontaminated - often thosands of years.

To me this type of power is a hazard and should have never been used in the first place.

What are your thoughts?

I wondered how long it would be before the anti nuclear power brigade popped up.

The world is full of hazards, and as seen above, radiation comes from many sources. So yes, we should continue to use them, unless you have some magic alternative of course

Do you know of another source of power thats commercially viable and can provide the same levels of power, anywhere in the world ?

deadite66 · 13-03-2011, 13:43

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

Quote:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

martyh · 13-03-2011, 13:45

I agree with Hom3er and Hero yuy ,the benefits far outweigh the risks .Given the number of nuclear power stations around the world they appear to be far safer than any other power plants simply because they are far tighter regulated by the international community and the more it is used the safer it will get as technology and experience increases

Peter_ · 13-03-2011, 14:02

We have no other viable option but to use nuclear power if we want to keep our present standard of living as to close them all down would be a retrograde step.

Halcyon · 13-03-2011, 14:14

I see what you are all saying and that there is no other method for producing mass power but I just thought that the effects and dangers from a nuclear powerp lant outweighed others.
It is interesting to see that coal produces more as well.

Paul · 13-03-2011, 14:28

Without an alternative that is safe and clean we have accept that Nuclear is indispensable for many countries. That said I for one would be happier seeing a clean alternative but until unit pricing for clean energy reduces it is no more than a dream for now.

cookie_365 · 13-03-2011, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Having seen what is happening in Japan with nuclear reactors leaking and exploding

What leaking and exploding nuclear reactors?

Sirius · 13-03-2011, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

What leaking and exploding nuclear reactors?

Indeed there has not been any exploding reactors except if you watch Sky news who are trying there best to drum one up

martyh · 13-03-2011, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Indeed there has not been any exploding reactors except if you watch Sky news who are trying there best to drum one up

indeed it was a hydrogen explosion which is a totally different thing and was expected ,it is also expected in reactor 3 .If you watch the before/after footage you will see that only part of the building was removed by the explosion and i use that word deliberately because the building is engineered to do that if a hydrogen explosion should occure ,keeping the reactor secure

**Damien** · 13-03-2011, 21:54

It should be pointed out that, for the most part, the nuclear power stations in Japan haven't leaked much radiation despite one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded hitting them.

danielf · 13-03-2011, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Japans reactors survived the earthquake, and even though the power failed the backup diesel generator kicked in, but the tsunami took them out.

I'm not sure if that actually is what happened, but if it is, one has to wonder why they built a nuclear power station right on the coast in an area that is prone to Tsunamis. If the station had been a few miles inland, then presumably there wouldn't have been a problem?

martyh · 13-03-2011, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure if that actually is what happened, but if it is, one has to wonder why they built a nuclear power station right on the coast in an area that is prone to Tsunamis. If the station had been a few miles inland, then presumably there wouldn't have been a problem?

That was one question asked on the news ,and i did wonder myself,but the answer is quite simple ,close proximity to water and lets face it if the reactors survive this without going critical then it was a correct descision as they are using sea water to cool them now