Nuclear Power - What are your views on it

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Japan has very little open space.She is mainly a group of high mountainous islands and the population live in the flat bits at the edges.

http://enviro-map.com/japans-mountainous-areas-map

Yes, I understand that, but the reality is that Tsunamis really don't reach that far inland Just a mile or 2 (I think). This reactor is right on the sea front, and I'm wondering if locating if just a couple of miles off the shore might have prevented the current problems.

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, I understand that, but the reality is that Tsunamis really don't reach that far inland Just a mile or 2 (I think). This reactor is right on the sea front, and I'm wondering if locating if just a couple of miles off the shore might have prevented the current problems.

Well under the present circumstances where they are having to use seawater as coolant perhaps it's just as well they did build it there.

Anyway hindsight is a favourite skill of the media..

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well under the present circumstances where they are having to use seawater as coolant perhaps it's just as well they did build it there.

Good point.

Anyway hindsight is a favourite skill of the media..

It's not the media. I've not heard anyone question the location. It's just me that was wondering. It doesn't seem a strange question though?

Originally Posted by danielf

Good point.



It's not the media. I've not heard anyone question the location. It's just me that was wondering. It doesn't seem a strange question though?

Well I think that the Japanese of all nations understand the perils of nuclear energy all too well.That being the case I'm pretty sure that they thought long and hard about the positioning of their power stations.
Considering they have been there since the 60s and have had no issues that have been newsworthy in the intervening years and it's taken the biggest earthquake since they began recording them to actually cause any damage. It would also appear that under the circumstances, no significant levels of radiation has been detected so I'd say that they have had their money's worth.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by deadite66

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

Except it's not.

Coal ash is more radioactive than the emissions from a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear WASTE, as in the spent fuel rods, is by far more radioactive than coal ash. Hence why one is freely fired up into the atmosphere and one has to be kept in casks and buried as far away from people and water sources as possible.

[Derek]

So far the reactors have survived a massive earthquake and tsunami which wiped out a huge chunk of their surrounding buildings and haven't had a catastrophic failure.

I think that shows how seriously their safety is taken.

[beeman]

Alough i havent seen much of it on this thread there are lots of people over the internet saying how Fukushima proves how unsafe nuclear power is. However the facts actually prove the oppisit.

Despite suffering some of the worst mother nature can throw at it Fukushima is in a relativly stable condition with the worst outcome so far beeing 2 controled hydgren explosions releasing VERY little radioation (the latest information so far (according to NHK) beeing the immeadite proximity of the powerstation (couple of miles) showing radioation levels at 30 times of normal background (with a 4 hour half-life) which would still bee within the safe levels for a hospital x-ray worker). So time gose on the dangors are decreasing as fission was stopped within seconds of the first quake with only residual heat causing the problems.

For me I see Nuclear as the only choice we have to sustain the lifestyles we all enjoy.

Oil is running out. What do we do then? We will have to switch to electricity and without oil and coal is to dirty the only thing besides Nuclear is harvesting it from natural sources. Us humans are pigs the clean way is unlikely to satisfy our need for fuel so it has to be Nuclear or change out whole way of life

[Sirius]

If you look at the present state of play where power generation is concerned the only logical way forward is with nuclear power.

People will counter with there pie in the sky wind power or wave power but with the usage we have for electrical power and the fact it will increase not decrease you have to bite the bullet and go nuclear.

Remember the environmentalists want us to use electric cars going forward, Where do they think the power for these cars will come from.

If we want to be able to use Hydrogen in our cars going forward we will need lots of electrical power to be able to carry out the process to produce it.

---------- Post added at 11:45 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Zing

For me I see Nucleur as the only choice we have to sustain the lifestyles we all enjoy.

Oil is running out. What do we do then? We will have to switch to electricity and without oil and coal is to dirty the only thing besides Nucleur is harvesting it from natural sources. Us humans are pigs the clean way is unlikely to satisfy our need for fuel so it has to be Nucleur or change out whole way of life

You have to remember that the bigger question is what do the waste afterwards?

Originally Posted by Damien

You have to remember that the bigger question is what do the waste afterwards?

stockpile rocket fuel. Enough for say 50 simple but large rocket. Load it with as much nuke waste as possible and fire it at the sun. If that can be done for a few hundred years I am sure science would provide better methods of disposal or even master Fusion and have self perpetuating power stations

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Zing

stockpile rocket fuel. Enough for say 50 simple but large rocket. Load it with as much nuke waste as possible and fire it at the sun. If that can be done for a few hundred years I am sure science would provide better methods of disposal or even master Fusion and have self perpetuating power stations

The only trouble with that is, if a rocket was to blow up it would spread radioactive material over 100s of miles.

I know a rocket going off is pretty extreme but the stuff when transported is done so in containers that are mega tough already I am sure there woudl be away. Failing that contain in and dump it down some old mineshaft and back fill it with land fill lol

[bw41101]

The question: Nuclear Power - What are your views on it? In simplistic terms, it is the use of a nuclear reaction as a method of turning water into steam in order to generate electricity - that's it!

My views are, that this is the most efficient way of achieving the above without (as in other types of bulk generating systems) the reliance on fossil fuels, I.e. coal, oil and gas - all of which will (eventually) become depleted, contribute (in one form or another) to the production of greenhouse gasses and have to be purchased via third party suppliers.

Unfortunately nuclear power stations are very expensive and time consuming to build, which means a long term investment. In addition, there is the issue of waste nuclear fuel, however (with the most up to date methods) this can be reprocessed and re-used further increasing efficiency.

Until we manage to successfuly harness and apply nuclear fusion, it is STILL the best method available to serve the bulk of our societies long term power generating needs.

No brainer really!

Si thee

[Hom3r]

Nuclear Fission vs Nuclear Fusion

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuc...Nuclear_Fusion

Fusion is less harmfull/dangerous in certian contions