http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-atomic-energy

A good article that makes the point that nuclear power is safer than coal - and then backs it up with facts. Also written by a non-fan of nuclear power.

Good question! Easy to answer. How much power do we "need" right now? The best indicator we have is to ask how much we are using (whether or not we are wasting any, unless we can not without sacrificing convenience or, crap, i don't know, wear wet clothes, or not leave the lights on). If it's mathematically possible to do without nuclear power it will be immediately apparent.

Of course we need it, otherwise we wouldn't be using it. Improve the other stuff first and then talk about it? If the technology actually does exist right now and it's not common knowledge, but you know about it, then please bring it up.

James May did a doc recently about alternative energy and unfortunately had to eliminate them all as being non viable.

James May has spoken, people.

That is a similar article to the one that I heard on the radio this morning.

Chernobyl nuclear disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

They were experimenting to find out if after suddenly stopping the reactor, would the potential energy in the generator turbines be enough to drive the cooling pumps.



The experimental procedure was intended to run as follows:

• the reactor was to be running at a low power level, between >700 MW & 800 MW
• the steam turbine was to be run up to full speed
• when these conditions were achieved, the steam supply was to be closed off
• the turbines would be allowed to freewheel down
• generator performance was to be recorded to determine whether it could provide the bridging power for coolant pumps

It was very irresponsible, they failed, and 50 people died.


The nuclear power stations in the west are immensley superior to the Russian design.

.

After the unfortuante events at the Nuclear Power plant in Japan due to the Earthquake and Tsunami, and the implications it can cause, a lot of countries are rethinking their Nuclear Energy Poicies, as in possibly roll back or limitating it.

After 2 Nuclear "devices set off" in Japan during WW2 and witnessing its destructive force and aftermath, a lot of States have been actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons programmes, no talk about Policy rethinks or roll backs then.

Funny world we live in. So basically it does not matter how MANY people die, but what matters is HOW and WHY they die.

Isn't that obvious Natural causes kills far more people than AIDS, but AIDS is considered a problem to be solved.

We're a lot closer to finding the cure for AIDS than we are for earthquakes..

I was NOT comparing death by natural causes Vs unnatural causes, but people doing from Nuclear disasters; Chernobyl.. and risk posed by Fukishima plant melt down which is making a lto of countires review their Nuclear Energy policy Vs countires making Nuclear bombs for use in war.

This is true, but I read a quote somewhere referring to the disaster in Japan somewhere along the lines of: We will hear of the thousands of deaths and injuries however we will never hear of the millions saved by Japan's strong public policy, civil engineering and government building standards.
If such a disaster was to hit 50 years ago, or to a less developed country, there would be significantly more deaths.

I don't think nuclear is the answer because it is so unsafe. One thing goes wrong and a lot of people have slow painful deaths.

But fossil fuels are finite. There has to be a replacement of energy sources with clean renewable fuel, and there has to be funding to provide more R&D into this area and a mechanism to move civilization onto these sources.

Yes. And Fukushima has only Western designs in use...

I guess you weren't around a couple of years back when they investigated the possibility of geothermal heating on an industrial scale near Basel.

It is thought that the drilling activity lead to several albeit small seismic events.

The project was shelved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced...icity_in_Basel

The poll is missing: yes, but research for alternatives is needed

there's lots of uranium and thorium. with breeder reactors, this will last us for a long time.

The question however is how much risk is worth the benefit obtained. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. To deny that is to deny reality.

We are decades behind in developing safer alternative clean energy sources. The future is in solar and wind power. Nuclear power is already old technology that is too dangerous to handle. Assurances about its safety have been proven wrong.

We should be concentrating substantial resources on developing other energy sources. As with any developing technology, cost will become more reasonable and the technology more efficient as it develops.

Ok. Saying the obvious: Humanity is smoking the planets resources in an unbelievable pace - no matter if we are talking oil, coal, metals... anything. Think about how many hundred thousand years it took the oil to develop: We used half of it in a century and are most probably using the rest this century... Urainium and all other resources are limited as well. So it cannot be an "either or" decision - we will use them all and we most probably will use them all till we have developed technologies that are less consuming... or we will lose big parts of our "civilitzation". Researching in alternative energy sources is therefore a given, no matter if you are pro or against nuclear power.

That we will use nuclear power especially because the other current technologies all have pretty heavy side effects (global warming anyone?) is for me a given as well. My only problem is to see how we are doing it: Fukushima is a perfect example how a design can go wrong - it had three safety measures and all three failed. There are design failures (If you build something "earthquake safe" directly at a beach, how can you forget the tsunami? After all is that a Japanese word...), there were aparently a lot of maintenance failures and there is simply murphy's law. And in this case are we talking about Japan - a culture that values safety very high and has very good engineers. So I get quite scared when I think about the other countries in the world who operate reactors... many in earth quake areas.

one of the issue is that the particular reactor design requires active safety features. china was planning on building pebble based reactors which have passive safety features i.e. you can remove the control rods and stop the coolant and everything is still hunky dory.

A nuclear plant like here in Gösgen produces one cubic meter of highly radioactive waste per year plus the container used to hold it.

Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issu...fact-sheet.htm

Breeder reactors. (Which also reduces the amount of high level waste, as a lot gets "burnt".

That will never happen - at least in a non-violent way.

It's vitrified and stored in seismically stable areas. The total volume is tiny in comparison to other toxic waste. Generally, the longer the half-life of an element, the less radioactive it is. The really dangerously radioactive stuff decays quite quickly.

Plutonium is more poisonous to humans as a metal, than it is as a source of radiation.

It was the CIA´s retaliation for the soviets shooting down the Colombia shuttle.
Sorry tin hat moment there.
There is at the moment and it looks like there will never be a alternative to oil, the only non-nuclear material with a higher density than oil is hydrogen but hydrogen must first be made, it is a energy carrier not an energy source, all other forms of energy generation fall far below that of oil.
Just our luck to be stranded on this rock where there is no better way to keep warm then by burning stuff, Malthus is in his grave in Bath wagging his finger at us, he was correct all energy is from deminishing returns.