Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    It's also worth emphasising that the Nuclear Industry is arguably the safest industry in the world.
    The good old straw man again, it maybe safe but it isn't cheap.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcessNeo)
    Ok 4
    Kyshtym?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Kyshtym?
    Again, 1950's. Have you got any examples of recent Nuclear failures (past decade) aside from Fukushima?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Limited to a few hundered million. Anything more falls onto the government.
    Again, [Citation Needed].

    Well its not superficial damage is it? They are unrecoverable. It also doesn't change the huge cost a little "superficial damage" will impose on the Japanese.
    What part of, the big metal box that holds all the nasty stuff hasn't got a hole in it, don't you understand? The reactors aren't recoverable, because of the measures TEPCO had to take to mitigate an unprecedented triple failure of redundant systems that had never been planned for. The release of radioactivity into the environment is, while regrettable, short-lived and small enough to not cause any real risks to human health.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcessNeo)
    Again, 1950's. Have you got any examples of recent Nuclear failures (past decade) aside from Fukushima?
    While it's not totally comprehensive:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...r_Events_Scale
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...tion_accidents
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    It was designed for tsunamis in mind they foresaw this happening, they underestimated it. This maybe acceptable if it weren't for Japans history of tsunamis and recent events such as the Boxing Day tsunami. With decommissioning factored in the chances were Fukushima would have been there in some capacity for many number years to come making the likelihood of it being hit by such an event all the more likely.



    :confused:
    I don't think you can blame the outer shells for getting destroyed considering it was one of the strongest and most violent tsunamis in history....

    infact, considering that the actual reactors themselves are intact is an accolade to their design and build quality
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.
    I was totally unaware that the nuclear power plant caused one of the largest earthquakes in history!

    In all honesty, it seems rather a success for nuclear power. I mean, that place was hit with a 9 magnitude quake and a tsunami, what happened? It leaked some radio-active iodine. We have also learned that the cooling systems need to be more fool-proof. (That's my one criticism, did no one say "well, what happens if the diesel generators stop working?") but we can improve this. Fukushima started being built in 1976 after all.

    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    But this view point is missing the glaringly obvious conclusion we should be drawing from Fukushima. The nuclear industry has a big straw man it can attack. Health, they are more than happy for the media to concentrate on this as it’s not a real issue.
    What does this sentence even mean? You want to attack it because its easy to attack?

    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    What Fukushima shows us is the fact that nuclear isn't commercially viable without government funding and insurance. Fukushima will cost the Japanese government billions upon billions to clean up after they had already ploughed millions into it to get it up and running and eventually decommissioned. So why are we not as disgusted with the nuclear industry as we are with the banks?
    Do you know how much Japan would have gotten power otherwise? Probably through importing a lot of coal or oil, very cheap!

    What happens when the oil producing countries have an issue with you? Well, they are in complete control, because you have to buy oil/coal from them.

    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    It’s not like we have another option with the banks, but with nuclear we do and what’s more nuclear is a dead end. It’s not the answer to our energy requirements, it will never be commercially viable, it’s becoming less and less so and it’s a finite resource.
    What do you suggest as an alternative?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Again, [Citation Needed].


    What part of, the big metal box that holds all the nasty stuff hasn't got a hole in it, don't you understand?
    What part of its going to take billions to put right don't you understand?


    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    The reactors aren't recoverable, because of the measures TEPCO had to take to mitigate an unprecedented triple failure of redundant systems that had never been planned for.
    They're not recoverable because TEPCO will have to cut the fuel rods out.

    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    The release of radioactivity into the environment is, while regrettable, short-lived and small enough to not cause any real risks to human health.
    Again back to the straw man, I couldn't care less about the health risk its clearly negligible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    I was totally unaware that the nuclear power plant caused one of the largest earthquakes in history!

    Clearly not worth reading past this howler.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is an argument going nowhere if ever I saw one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    What part of its going to take billions to put right don't you understand?
    Billions that TEPCO (and its insurers) will pay for.

    They're not recoverable because TEPCO will have to cut the fuel rods out.
    They're not recoverable because seawater has been pumped into the primary coolant circuit, not because of core damage.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    We have also learned that the cooling systems need to be more fool-proof. (That's my one criticism, did no one say "well, what happens if the diesel generators stop working?") but we can improve this. Fukushima started being built in 1976 after all.
    Infact, more modern cooling systems would cope 100% with what happened at Fukushima.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    60s design partially fails after earthquake and tsunami of unprecedented severity. I'd say it was just a bit premature to write off the entire industry because of that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Billions that TEPCO (and its insurers) will pay for.
    No, No they wont because they don't have that kind of money.

    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    They're not recoverable because seawater has been pumped into the primary coolant circuit, not because of core damage.
    My point was they wouldn't have been recoverable even without the seawater damage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A sense of perspective on radiation exposure is needed:

    http://xkcd.com/radiation/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Renewables are great when they can be applied (places like Britain, Denmark and Spain for wind, for example), but issues relating to intermittency and the location of potential (you can only harness solar energy when/where the sun shines, wind energy when/where the wind blows and tides/waves where there are adequate marine currents) mean renewables will never on their own be able to meet all the energy needs of however many billion people live on the planet.

    A balanced approach combining both nuclear and renewables is the only practical and sustainable way forward. It doesn't have to be either/or and I don't see why people think it should be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MillerTraub)
    A sense of perspective on radiation exposure is needed:

    http://xkcd.com/radiation/
    No it really isn't, we are not discussing the health consequences.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    Renewables are great when they can be applied (places like Britain, Denmark and Spain for wind, for example), but issues relating to intermittency and the location of potential (you can only harness solar energy when/where the sun shines, wind energy when/where the wind blows and tides/waves where there are adequate marine currents) mean renewables will never on their own be able to meet all the energy needs of however many billion people live on the planet.

    A balanced approach combining both nuclear and renewables is the only practical and sustainable way forward. It doesn't have to be either/or and I don't see why people think it should be.
    Ah, finally a balanced and reasoned response. I don't think it can be either or, we just need to minimise reliance on nuclear, it seems wastfull to pump huge amounts into it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    No, No they wont because they don't have that kind of money.



    My point was they wouldn't have been recoverable even without the seawater damage.
    The seawater damage was as a result of total loss of coolant. Seawater injection was the only option to cool the reactor. Had it been not necessary to use seawater, there would have been no core damage as the backup diesels would have been functioning. The use of seawater is the effect of the loss of cooling. The core damage is the effect of the loss of cooling. The two are inextricably linked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    No, No they wont because they don't have that kind of money.
    Yes, they really do.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,738

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.