In light of current events, do you agree with nuclear power?

Scroll to see replies

Yes. If you notice, the radiation leak still hasn't occured despite the strongest Earthquake on record in Japan. Followed by a 20 feet high Tsunami. Followed by multiple explosions from the build up of vented Hydrogen that destroys the roof of the buildings. This in a 41 year old nuclear power plant. The core still remains intact. Nuclear Engineers from the 1970s be keeping **** safe. There is some radiation currently leaking from the spent rods storage facility, not the reactors themselves, but that's an arguement for better deep ground nuclear waste storage than no nuclear power at all. :holmes:

Of course that could rapidly change but hopefully it won't.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 21

WelshBluebird

Personally, while I am a bit wary about it, I feel like we don't really have any choice in the matter. Renewables just are not viable, and we need something else we are going to be royally ****ed in a few decades when gas / oil / coal runs out (or becomes too expensive).

The problem is public perception. So many people are mis-informed or ignorent about it all. They see the word "radiation" and automatically assume it is bad. When in reality, it is not (anything on the EM spectrum is labelled as "radiation", including visible light).

With this particular problem, there are a few things to consider before bashing Nuclear.
1 - 9.0 earthquakes are not common at all.
2 - I'd say the reacters did bloody well considering it looks like they survived an earthquake much much more powerful than what they were designed for.
3 - It wasn't specifically the earthquake, the tsunami, or nuclear power thath as caused this. It was simply the lack of backup generators which has led to the cooling system not having power.

Also, you really cannot compare this to Chernobyl. Many of the causes of that we down to the Soviets, their nuclear plant designs, and huge human error and corner cutting.

Original post by Kolya

I'd like to see a big scientific drive towards nuclear fusion - equivalent to those which developed the atomic bomb and put a man on the moon.

They are trying, but it is VERY difficult due to the extreme circumstances required for fusion to occcur.

Reply 22

Joinedup

It's a setback for the public acceptability of nuclear power - which is a pity cos I think we'll need to build more nuclear power plants.

AFAIK those fukushima reactors haven't killed anyone yet despite being hit by a natural disaster that's killed thousands, the press seem to have totally lost perspective.

Reply 23

Peter30

I believe in nuclear fusion

Reply 24

Empire08

Original post by Cinamon

Global warming could potentially destroy the earth in a much more dramatic and longterm way (i.e. hundreds of thousands of years) than radiation, which will kill off some species, sure, but will be gone in a couple of thousands of years.

Radiation would not contaminate the world for hundreds of thousands of years. Have you heard of half-lives?

Please don't insult my intelligence. Americium was found after Chernobyl and has a half-life of 433 years. Not exactly a short term problem.

Reply 25

Motorbiker

Yes i believe in Nuclear power.

Nuclear power on countries near fault lines though is a bit different...

Or at least have the power stations in those places built to withstand a earthquake of 9 on the richter scale and the ensuing tsunami otherwise stuff like this will happen...

Reply 26

Empire08

Original post by Fusilero

Yes. If you notice, the radiation leak still hasn't occured despite the strongest Earthquake on record in Japan.

"Radiation around Fukushima Daiichi plant has reached levels damaging to human health, prime minister reveals"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/japan-radiation-leak-nuclear-crisis

Reply 27

Fusilero

Original post by Empire08

"Radiation around Fukushima Daiichi plant has reached levels damaging to human health, prime minister reveals"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/japan-radiation-leak-nuclear-crisis

Of course that could rapidly change but hopefully it won't.

Reply 28

Altocirrus

I'm not a fan of nuclear power, through reluctantly accept that it's the most effective way for a densely populated country like ours (or Japan) to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. As much as I like wind farms, the unpredictability of the weather means that they can only really be relied upon to supplement other power sources. The same goes for solar (in this country at least). Options I feel need exploring more are tidal/ wave power and extracting energy from the jetstream.

I guess fusion is the holy grail, but that's probably still some way off (and I find the prospect of effectively unlimited power a bit scary). Thorium power plants seem promising though; far greater fuel reserves, the ability to fun off existing nuclear waste, far less harmful products and no possibility of a meltdown.

Reply 29

Manitude

I'm happy for nuclear power to continue - events like those in japan are very rare, especially given the rarity of natural disasters quite this bad.
In reality, nuclear disasters are few and far between. Events like Chernobyl don't happen because the USSR aren't building badly designed reactors and staffing them with people little better qualified than I am to run them.
I'd bet that fewer people have been killed by nuclear power stations ever than have died mining coal in the last 5-10 years.

What we really need is a massive emphasis on nuclear fusion, as someone said - if we aimed for that like we did with the atomic bomb or space race then we could crack it on a commercial scale within 20 years at most.

Although ITER will apparently give out more energy than is put in on a viable scale. If it works well then I'd hope more tokamaks of similar sizes are built worldwide.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 30

Barça

Original post by Altocirrus

So why aren't they used :confused:

Reply 31

Altocirrus

Original post by Barça

So why aren't they used :confused:

Like any new(ish) technology it has its share of problems (most of which I don't understand) but prototypes have been built with some success. I'd be willing to bet they'll be supplying the grid in the next 20 years.

Reply 32

Ewan

Whether you believe in it or not the truth of the matter is there aren't any alternatives.

Reply 33

jk1986

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Reply 34

WelshBluebird

Original post by jk1986

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Not really relevent now that we think at least one of the reactors has breached its containment.

Reply 35

jk1986

Original post by WelshBluebird

Not really relevent now that we think at least one of the reactors has breached its containment.

It's still far more informative than a lot of the posts in the thread, for instance the suggestion that a plane crashing into one could cause a nuclear explosion wiping out the country, it's not weapons grade ffs.

It's still relevant in the sense that it explains the workings of the plant, and the failsafes that were in place.

Reply 36

username234673

Completely agree with nuclear power. I may however disagree putting them in coastal regions near fault lines.

Reply 37

WelshBluebird

Original post by jk1986

Agreed.
But a large amount of that link is based on the assumption that the containment vessels are not compromised in any way. We now know that isn't the case (from what the media have been told anyway).