Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
View Poll Results: Do you think nuclear power is a necessity?
Yes, with the limited coal and natural resource, it is a necessity 62 72.09%
No, we need to look at other sources of energy 22 25.58%
I don't care 2 2.33%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 16.03.2011, 19:52
nigelr's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Aargau
Posts: 1,712
Groaned at 118 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 2,140 Times in 942 Posts
nigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank nigelr for this useful post:
  #22  
Old 16.03.2011, 20:03
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Zurich
Posts: 168
Groaned at 36 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 78 Times in 50 Posts
daboy is considered unworthydaboy is considered unworthydaboy is considered unworthydaboy is considered unworthy
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16.03.2011, 20:54
Deep Purple's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 5,273
Groaned at 15 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 5,284 Times in 2,568 Posts
Deep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
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.
That is a similar article to the one that I heard on the radio this morning.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16.03.2011, 21:00
Ittigen
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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.

.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17.03.2011, 14:54
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Graubünden
Posts: 636
Groaned at 69 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 421 Times in 255 Posts
Wasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputation
Nuclear Energy Policy Rethinks

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.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wasted for this useful post:
  #26  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:07
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Nuclear Energy Policy Rethinks

Quote:
View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #27  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:13
vwild1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Nuclear Energy Policy Rethinks

Quote:
View Post
Natural causes kills far more people than AIDS
We're a lot closer to finding the cure for AIDS than we are for earthquakes..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:16
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Graubünden
Posts: 636
Groaned at 69 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 421 Times in 255 Posts
Wasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputationWasted has an excellent reputation
Re: Nuclear Energy Policy Rethinks

Quote:
View Post
Isn't that obvious Natural causes kills far more people than AIDS, but AIDS is considered a problem to be solved.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:28
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,150
Groaned at 33 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 4,955 Times in 2,235 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nuclear Energy Policy Rethinks

Quote:
View Post
We're a lot closer to finding the cure for AIDS than we are for earthquakes..
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:30
KeinFranzösisch's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,198
Groaned at 63 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 2,549 Times in 1,115 Posts
KeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond reputeKeinFranzösisch has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank KeinFranzösisch for this useful post:
  #31  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:32
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 12,352
Groaned at 363 Times in 293 Posts
Thanked 23,676 Times in 8,569 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
The nuclear power stations in the west are immensley superior to the Russian design.
Yes. And Fukushima has only Western designs in use...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #32  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:43
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,231
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
The new slinky coils circumvent the problems with available suitable land. Failing that, you just have to drill down far enough.
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
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Carlos R for this useful post:
  #33  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:47
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,952
Groaned at 295 Times in 199 Posts
Thanked 19,020 Times in 8,000 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
The supply of nuclear fuels is limited. At best nuclear is only a short term stop gap measure.
there's lots of uranium and thorium. with breeder reactors, this will last us for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:47
miss_bean's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 525
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 464 Times in 224 Posts
miss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
miss_bean - I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. To supply the amounts of energy we need Today nuclear energy is the only option. As I understand it, solar panels are very inefficient to make, so to make them you need large amounts of energy from somewhere.

I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but until we start to turn off lights in office buildings at night, and take more energy saving measures in the home, there really is no choice.

We use too much energy and it must stop. But this will never happen. If the people in Africa and the other developing nations use electricity like we do in the west then we need thousands of new power stations.

Rather than have a discussion about the safety of nuclear power stations lets have a discussion about saving energy.

One last point. The problem in Japan was caused by a Tsunami, not a problem with the power station itself. 3 mile island was a faulty valve followed by human error where they did the exact opposite of what needed to be done, but even so the damage was limited and no wide spread radiation followed.

Chernobyl we will probably never know for sure what really happened, but yes it was bad.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 17.03.2011, 15:54
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 12,352
Groaned at 363 Times in 293 Posts
Thanked 23,676 Times in 8,569 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #36  
Old 17.03.2011, 16:02
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,952
Groaned at 295 Times in 199 Posts
Thanked 19,020 Times in 8,000 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 17.03.2011, 16:05
HollidayG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kanton Zürich
Posts: 3,038
Groaned at 50 Times in 35 Posts
Thanked 1,180 Times in 738 Posts
HollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Yes I agree it's not clean !
And when plants are operating perfectly, they're still producing high-level radioactive waste. No country in the world has solved the problem of how to dispose of it, and even the most optimistic advanced reactor designs will continue adding to the lethal mountain of waste already produced
A nuclear plant like here in Gösgen produces one cubic meter of highly radioactive waste per year plus the container used to hold it.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank HollidayG for this useful post:
  #38  
Old 17.03.2011, 16:11
miss_bean's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 525
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 464 Times in 224 Posts
miss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputationmiss_bean has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

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
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 17.03.2011, 16:35
NotAllThere's Avatar
Modulo 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 15,036
Groaned at 308 Times in 263 Posts
Thanked 23,196 Times in 9,420 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
The supply of nuclear fuels is limited. ...
Breeder reactors. (Which also reduces the amount of high level waste, as a lot gets "burnt".

Quote:
View Post
...The simple fact is that we all need to use less energy but the truth is none of us will follow up on it.
That will never happen - at least in a non-violent way.

Quote:
View Post
.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.
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.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #40  
Old 17.03.2011, 16:59
slammer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lummerland
Posts: 5,375
Groaned at 207 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 9,703 Times in 3,747 Posts
slammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
miss_bean - I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. To supply the amounts of energy we need Today nuclear energy is the only option. As I understand it, solar panels are very inefficient to make, so to make them you need large amounts of energy from somewhere.

I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but until we start to turn off lights in office buildings at night, and take more energy saving measures in the home, there really is no choice.

We use too much energy and it must stop. But this will never happen. If the people in Africa and the other developing nations use electricity like we do in the west then we need thousands of new power stations.

Rather than have a discussion about the safety of nuclear power stations lets have a discussion about saving energy.

One last point. The problem in Japan was caused by a Tsunami, not a problem with the power station itself. 3 mile island was a faulty valve followed by human error where they did the exact opposite of what needed to be done, but even so the damage was limited and no wide spread radiation followed.

Chernobyl we will probably never know for sure what really happened, but yes it was bad.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are Curtains A Necessity? Mrs. Doolittle Housing in general 25 30.07.2011 23:37
Swiss nuclear deterrent Phil_MCR Swiss politics/news 36 27.05.2010 21:52
Google To Go Nuclear flavio International affairs/politics 4 02.04.2010 03:09
The nuclear threat Castro General off-topic 8 11.08.2009 17:21


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0