Nuclear Power: Join the Debate?

I live near Dungeness, less than 20 miles away in fact, and have been aware of this for as long as I can remember. It's kind of hard to miss a huge nuclear power plant on the flat landscape of Romney Marshes.

I'm not in the least bit worried about the nuclear plant. Actually the only bad thing I have to say about it is that it's pretty scruffy and they could give it a clean, demolish some of the derelict outbuildings and in general make it look nice, because Dungeness is a very special landscape that's close to my heart. It's all going to be decommissioned soon anyway and won't see a replacement plant built nearby or on the same spot, but rather slowly cleaned up over the next 100 years (scheduled to finish decommissioning in 2111)

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

Liam 09

12

It would barely come into consideration to where I live, except maybe if it was on my doorstep.

Reply 4

Teaddict

Couldn't care less to be honest. Although I must confess, I would be happy to wake up tomorrow and find planning permission to have one built in my town - too many people in my town how a days - they should piss off else where.

Reply 5

Aj12

18

Original post by Mad Vlad

I'd be happy to live right next to one.

This tbh.

UK nuclear power plants have a different cooling system to the ones in Fukushima anyway so what happened there could never happen here. (Ithink)

Reply 6

Teaddict

Original post by Aj12

This tbh.

UK nuclear power plants have a different cooling system to the ones in Fukushima anyway so what happened there could never happen here. (Ithink)

Absolutely right. The cooling mechanism used in the 1960s plants in Fukushima no longer exist in modern power plants - the technology just isn't used any more. It is instead replaced by a brilliant system which cools down the reactor using normal air.

Reply 7

Aj12

18

Original post by Teaddict

Absolutely right. The cooling mechanism used in the 1960s plants in Fukushima no longer exist in modern power plants - the technology just isn't used any more. It is instead replaced by a brilliant system which cools down the reactor using normal air.

Interesting Avatar

Reply 8

anti-duck

9

Economically, it's brilliant living right near one. I used to work for the company that owns Sellafield and I know that it's also the biggest employer in Cumbria, without it, the town I live in would be dead, without Sellafield and BAE Systems, the hole county would be dead.

Reply 9

Edit point taken about nuclear.
Better now?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 10

Prime Suspect

Worth a read: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928050.200-risk-expert-why-radiation-fears-are-often-exaggerated.html

Reply 11

KissMyArtichoke

11

Original post by Aj12

This tbh.

UK nuclear power plants have a different cooling system to the ones in Fukushima anyway so what happened there could never happen here. (Ithink)

I think more to the point is that fact that Sellafield isn't know for it's high tsunami risk :tongue:

I'm really pro-nuclear, with the right precautions it's our best bet for meeting our rapidly rising energy demands. A lot of the resistance to it is a lack of public education, many people still think of nuclear power plants as spewing fluorescent green radioactive waste into rivers and regularly having meltdowns.

Reply 12

Original post by Mad Vlad

I'd be happy to live right next to one.

lol why

Reply 13

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by blueray

To be honest the above looks much better and greener than the below

(thats nuclear btw)

Except that nuclear power doesn't consume vast areas of the Earth in order to be useful (solar, tidal, hydroelectric, wave and biomass all require HUGE swathes of land/sea to be devoted solely to energy production to produce energy at even a fraction of the efficiency of a modern fission plant) can be used everywhere (geothermal, wind and hydroelectric power are very location-specific) and the fuel can be almost completely recycled.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 14

KissMyArtichoke

11

Original post by blueray

To be honest the above looks much better and greener than the below

(thats nuclear btw)

Yes, except it takes up more space and generates only about 1/50th of the power of a nuclear plant. And the second picture is just of a fire in Japan, which is completely unrelated to the nuclear reactor there. I hope to god you were trolling.

Reply 15

Original post by KissMyArtichoke

Yes, except it takes up more space and generates only about 1/50th of the power of a nuclear plant. And the second picture is just of a fire in Japan, which is completely unrelated to the nuclear reactor there. I hope to god you were trolling.

It was this
424 × 302 - Japan Nuclear Meltdown. Operators at the Fukushima Daiichi plant's Unit 1 source
onlineusanews.com

I hope to god you get your facts right. Oh wait I see fact not fiction! :teehee:

Reply 16

loquita

Sorry but the risk of leakages from power plants and the waste scares me. Radiation is no joke. I don't want my future kids to end up with extra limbs if there is a big explosion if the residues end up in drinking water!

Reply 17

Original post by loquita

Sorry but the risk of leakages from power plants and the waste scares me. Radiation is no joke. I don't want my future kids to end up with extra limbs if there is a big explosion if the residues end up in drinking water!

Yeah I wont post the image but here is the link to all the sceptics
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=933&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=deformed+nuclear+childern&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Reply 18

Aphotic Cosmos