The Student Room Group

Nuclear Power: Join the Debate?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by Mad Vlad
I'd be happy to live right next to one.


Same. Risks are always made to look so much worse in the media and people generally assume so too...
Reply 21
Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
1. Waste from UK power plants is practically all reprocessed for future use as fuel.

2. There has been one serious incident in a British nuclear facility - Windscale back in '57, back when we were still starting out. In contrast our use of fossil fuels has potentially caused tens of thousands of deaths, especially in the 50s before the Clean Air Act, due to atmospheric pollution, and many more due to conflicts in oil-rich parts of the world such as the Niger Delta where Shell has basically been funding the government and actually been held responsible for several massacres.

3. Even the aftermath of Chernobyl - the only total, catastrophic meltdown to date -only a few thousand died and those were mostly from the failure of the Soviet authorities to prevent the consumption of contaminated foods. The "scaretistics" of potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths due to the Chernobyl radiation are frankly completely wrong and have never been verified by any serious authority on the matter.


Check this link please
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 22


Nice use of shock tactics. You forgot to mention many of those children would be from Chernobyl a badly built badly run reactor built by the soviet union.
Reply 23
So, leakages can happen
On inspection I live 15 miles from Hartlepool, and tbh I've never even thought about it. It's been there 3 decades without incident and I'm not going to start worrying because of Fukushima.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by loquita

Original post by loquita
That was gross, :eek:


Yeah and thats from nuclear :biggrin:


I recognise many of those images. Most of those children are actually:

1. Children of the victims of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings; nuclear weaponry is completely different from nuclear power.

2. Victims or children of victims of chemical agents such as Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War.

3. Naturally born with deformities because mother nature's a bitch. Genetics and healthcare can help them and future children with such problems, not energy policy.

Safely run nuclear power doesn't have a history of causing horrible mutations.
Reply 27


Chernoybl was a one off case, nuclear power plants are built totally different to how they were back then and in the case of chernobyl so many safety features were ignored and stupid decisions made that it really isn't representative of nuclear power on the whole.

Chernobyl has been directly linked to less than 100 deaths... thats hardly a lot compared to the amount of people dieing in coal/oil/gas extraction and most of the nuclear waste produced is recycled.

Nuclear power is the only energy source which will be able to meet growing energy demands, renewable sources are just too inneficient/unreliable to match the energy demands of the future.

China has done research into thorium reactors which don't run off a nuclear chain reaction, no hydrogen is used so no explosions can occur due to fire inside the plant which means its probably one of the safest energy sources around.

(someone posted a link about China's investment into thorium reactors which in my opinion is definetly the way of the future if it turns out as good as the paper specified)
Original post by blueray


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:


I won't blame you for that, because it wasn't you but the website you linked which was just plain wrong. It clearly says the picture is the burning reactor 1, when in fact a bit of googling (and a reliable source), reveals it to be a fire which broke out in Yamada shortly after the tsunami.
Source from the Telegraph
I suggest you are more careful when posting sources.
Original post by Phil1541

Original post by Phil1541
Chernoybl was a one off case, nuclear power plants are built totally different to how they were back then and in the case of chernobyl so many safety features were ignored and stupid decisions made that it really isn't representative of nuclear power on the whole.

Chernobyl has been directly linked to less than 100 deaths... thats hardly a lot compared to the amount of people dieing in coal/oil/gas extraction and most of the nuclear waste produced is recycled.

Nuclear power is the only energy source which will be able to meet growing energy demands, renewable sources are just too inneficient/unreliable to match the energy demands of the future.

China has done research into thorium reactors which don't run off a nuclear chain reaction, no hydrogen is used so no explosions can occur due to fire inside the plant which means its probably one of the safest energy sources around.

(someone posted a link about China's investment into thorium reactors which in my opinion is definetly the way of the future if it turns out as good as the paper specified)


I agree on some but this "Nuclear power is the only energy source which will be able to meet growing energy demands, renewable sources are just too inneficient/unreliable to match the energy demands of the future"

Is this so wrong its been proven by many scientists, independent groups, academics etc that it can be done.
If I can find a bbc breakfast recording their was a good debate on it and how it can be done. :h:
Original post by blueray
I agree on some but this "Nuclear power is the only energy source which will be able to meet growing energy demands, renewable sources are just too inneficient/unreliable to match the energy demands of the future"

Is this so wrong its been proven by many scientists, independent groups, academics etc that it can be done.
If I can find a bbc breakfast recording their was a good debate on it and how it can be done. :h:


Hypothetically yes, it could be done.

However this would require constructing huge barrages on the Severn, the Thames, the Forth, the Clyde, the Humber and across the Wash. It would require endless miles of deep-sea offshore windfarms connected by an inherently inefficient network of power cables. It would require huge swathes of grade 1 or agricultural land turned over to producing biofuel crops. The ecological and economic costs would be colossal.

Nuclear power must form the cornerstone of our energy policy.
Reply 31
France, one of the closest countries to us has loads of its power created by nuclear power, has there been a major problem there? no!, and the fact is that we buy some of our power from France made using nuclear reactors, no one seems to have a problem with this?

Green power is just nor practical, to much space is needed and not enough created
Reply 32
Original post by Aj12
Interesting Avatar


:sexface: I know right

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
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.


They are also not as renewable as one might think. There was a post on this recently talking about how scientists have discovered that renewable energies take valuable energy out of the Earths system.
Reply 33
I'm all for nuclear power. No matter how much the green folk claim, the world cannot be run off of windmills.
Biofuels have led to huge rises in food prices which are hitting the poorest hard.
Fossil fuels are only going to go up in price, they're simply not cheap enough in the long term.
Tidal is possible, but limited. Same for schemes like geothermal.
Solar has potential, but is costly, and only works for half the day at best.

The vast majority of nuclear waste can be dealt with by reprocessing, which simultaneously removes the need to bury highly radioactive material in a ditch, and also hugely increases the amount of energy extractable per unit mass of fuel.
Countries like the US which do not reprocess fuel are being downright wasteful and making things difficult for themselves. (Though I suppose they can just dig it up later if needed.)

That said, I would be all for covering the a good chunk of the Sahara in solar collectors too and running HVDC lines to Europe. I dread to think how much that would cost though.
Reply 34
Original post by blueray



To be honest the above looks much better and greener than the below
(thats nuclear btw)

Edit to those that negged this : WOULD YOU WANT TO BE IN THAT NUCLEAR FIRE?! I question your sanity.


What an appalling misrepresentation. That's not Fukushima at all - it's nothing to do with the power plant. On the contrary, this looks pretty green to me.



As for your question about why I'd be happy to live next to a Nuclear Power Plant, I'm a big advocate of Nuclear and I'm not one of these cretinous NIMBYs. I understand the technology. I understand the risk. I understand how unbelievably safe they are. Nuclear power plants are fantastic neighbours. The nuclear industry does a lot for the communities that live in its shadow.

And for your scaremongering about the deformities caused by the nuclear industry, you'll find that Chernobyl is the exception here - the Soviet government is renowned for its lies and failure to put people's safety first. It simply wouldn't happen in a Western country. The radioactivity being released at Fukushima is far far less than was released at Chernobyl. You don't have Uranium burning away into the atmosphere - you have Radio-Iodine and small amounts of Radio-Caesium, which have relatively short half-lives.
Is that why they implemented more than a 12-20 mile exclusion zone in japan for the nuclear plant.
Is that why they were testing people for increase in iodine levels.
If it was that safe they wouldn't need to do that.
Everything we can achieve with nuclear, we can achieve with renewable sources and best of all if they break they don't endanger loads of people nor do they have a 20 mile exclusion zone. :yep:

Edit why neg that I even have the source...that just proves the neg reper lacks the knowledge to counteract me.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 36
Original post by blueray
Is that why they implemented more than a 20 mile exclusion zone in japan for the nuclear plant.
Is that why they were testing people for increase in iodine levels.
If it was that safe they wouldn't need to do that.
Everything we can achieve with nuclear, we can achieve with renewable sources and best of all if they break they don't endanger loads of people nor do they have a 20 mile exclusion zone. :yep:


Where are you getting your sources from?

The media hype nuclear disasters up so badly its a joke, the media asked a nuclear physcist about the reactor and were told the amount of radiation leaked at the point right next to the reactor was less than getting an X ray...

The media then asked some local nobody off the streets opinon on it and gave them equal time to the physics professor even though they didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Nuclear is a lot safer than you're led to believe, renewable takes up way to much space and needs huge amounts of investment to produce the kind of energy a nuclear power station can.

Aphotic Cosmos - hit the nail on the head with this one go re-read his post again.
The last link is the best. Read all of it and check your self before you ask where my figures are from.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=148887675175796
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2011/03/20km-exclusion-zone-on-google-maps.html ( your right the news it conflicting here its 20 km ?)
http://www.metronews.ca/london/world/article/818322--un-high-radiation-outside-japan-s-exclusion-zone
Japanese officials have told residents to evacuate within a 12-mile (20-kilometre) zone and to stay indoors within 18 miles (30 kilometres) of the damaged complex, but U.S. officials have recommended citizens stay at least 50 miles (80 kilometres) away.
Reply 38
Original post by blueray
Is that why they implemented more than a 12-20 mile exclusion zone in japan for the nuclear plant.
Is that why they were testing people for increase in iodine levels. If it was that safe they wouldn't need to do that.

Because that's the responsible thing to do, as a precaution. It's better to over-react and inconvenience people than to not do enough, like the Soviets did with Chernobyl.

Everything we can achieve with nuclear, we can achieve with renewable sources and best of all if they break they don't endanger loads of people nor do they have a 20 mile exclusion zone. :yep:

Wrong. This is a common misconception. You can't supply a reliable base load with renewable energy that fluctuates constantly depending on atmospheric conditions.

Your comments are full of ill-educated hyperbole and your remarks do not show any context whatsoever. I suggest you actually learn about the nuclear industry and the technology behind it before spouting off more Greenpeace propaganda.
Original post by blueray
To be honest the above looks much better and greener than the below
(thats nuclear btw)

Edit to those that negged this : WOULD YOU WANT TO BE IN THAT NUCLEAR FIRE?! I question your sanity.



Yes because that's what a nuclear power station looks like. :dunce:

Imo, aesthetics come second when trying to find an energy source tbh.

Quick Reply

Latest