why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Because popular media is making A-Energy out to be a lot more dangerous than it is. Hell, the people and all other life in the Chernobyl outskirts are merrily getting along...

Life is tenacious, as I like to say.

 

[Irridium]

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

You do know that the plants released no more radiation than what you'd get in a long-distance flight? All those plants and the people in them did exactly what they should, and as a result none of them "exploded", or will explode and release oodles of deadly radiation, like Chernobyl.

So you think that we don't need more safeties for these? Especially considering that the majority of their had... failed?

The only real worry was that the plants were built for 8.4 quakes. The quake that hit Japan was an 8.9. After this, they will upgrade the plants to withstand more quakes of that magnitude, and probably bigger quakes.

And what do you mean by "majority have failed? Do you mean the safeties? Because if so, then yes most did fail, but thats why there are craploads of backup plans. And even if those fail, thats why there's the Concrete Reactor Container. A large, dense concrete shell that'll survive just about anything and will keep the radiation contained. Thats the reason nobody died at Three Mile Island. The container held all the radiation.

Or do you mean "majority of plants" have failed. Because if so, I'd like to know which ones, and what damage they did cause. I already know about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so you don't need to say those.

 

[McNinja]

Short answer: People are stupid and ignorant.

Long answer: Nuclear powerplants have several failsafes, and most of them are failsafes for the failsafes. People do not take the time to understand this, and they remain ignorant.

 

[DanDanikov]

Fourth generation breeder reactors are incredibly safe compared to these old reactors (the japanese ones/three mile island were both second generation, from the 1970s or so)- amongst other things, they don't use run-away reactions and will just shut down naturally. They also can use nuclear waste from other reactors as fuel and give off waste that lasts decades, not millennia. What is most surprising is that we aren't rushing to replace all the old reactors so we don't have to worry about them, nor expand the usage of fourth generation breeders.

 

[Kingsnake661]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

I tend to agree when people say, "we need to be ready for ***** when they happen so we can respond better." It's common since to want to be as safe as possible, but, how do you prepare for the WORST earth quake in 100 years, and one of the top 10 in history?? I kind of felt the same way on 9/11 and Katrenia. People saying we should have done better. DONE better. How can you prepare for stuff like that when it's never happend before, or, was the worst flood in the history of the area? DO better, for sure. But, well, I'm not sure you can truely prepare for stuff of this magnatuide. *shrug*

 

[Twilight_guy]

People fear anything they don't understand and most people don't know how nuclear power works. Yes if shit goes down in a nuclear plant the entire area is screwed for several thousand years but that's very unlikely. The fact that it can happen though worries people. Oddly, nobody thinks that a similarly massive earthquake could break the Hover dam and kill tons of people down river though. I suppose water doesn't gain as much attention as radioactivity and leaves more quickly.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Nuclear power is clean... And if you think for some reason it's dirty we have this amazing storage system that's been under construction for holding spent rods. Gasp, this has been thought out so we don't pollute more and there is no real risk?!

As an advocate of nuclear power I can tell you that it is not clean.
And that the "some reason" is the fact that spent rods & other waste have to be stored for so long that scientists have no idea how to warn the people of that far distant future how dangerous the material will still be. It's so long that we count on any current language be know of.
And any system to store this material will have to last 10,000's of years. Can you think of any engineering system that we can guarantee for 10,000's of years?

The risks might be lower than the continual use of fossil fuels & the rewards higher. I believe this. But we shouldn't paper over those risks.

No, you don't understand, they have a facility to store all of the rods in the desert specifically designed to avoid any water leaking in, and it's a facility not a dumping ground. All the rods are stored in their own special containers and what not.

This is all already in action

And what's this facility called? I didn't hear anything like this when researching nuclear waste storage a few weeks ago. Last place I heard that was like that was Yucca mountain, and that's been shut down because despite over 20 years of preparation it still wasn't safe enough.

 

[Naheal]

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

You do know that the plants released no more radiation than what you'd get in a long-distance flight? All those plants and the people in them did exactly what they should, and as a result none of them "exploded", or will explode and release oodles of deadly radiation, like Chernobyl.

So you think that we don't need more safeties for these? Especially considering that the majority of their had... failed?

The only real worry was that the plants were built for 8.4 quakes. The quake that hit Japan was an 8.9. After this, they will upgrade the plants to withstand more quakes of that magnitude, and probably bigger quakes.

And what do you mean by "majority have failed? Do you mean the safeties? Because if so, then yes most did fail, but thats why there are craploads of backup plans. And even if those fail, thats why there's the Concrete Reactor Container. A large, dense concrete shell that'll survive just about anything and will keep the radiation contained. Thats the reason nobody died at Three Mile Island. The container held all the radiation.

Or do you mean "majority of plants" have failed. Because if so, I'd like to know which ones, and what damage they did cause. I already know about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so you don't need to say those.

Referring to the safeties, of course. I also admitted that there was no way to prep for something like that, therefore we need to begin prepping for disasters that are this bad. Notably, this quake actually wasn't that bad. These things need to be able to withstand shit like this. Otherwise, as I said, when these things screw up, which is rare, they screw up big. Therefore, we should make sure that the likely-hood of this happening is minimized.

 

[Kingsnake661]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

That. Makes. No. Difference.

It was still a nuclear plant that exploded. It showed us all the effects of what can happen, and why we can't take chances with nuclear power.

and so are all the other nuclear power plants that havnt exploded...

doesn't matter. People only stand up and take notice when it hits the fan, so to speak. *shrug* That's life.

 

[smudgey]

Come back with solar power and wind farms and then we can start talking (In Australia's case the amount of sun and wind we get would power our nation easily on them, just imagine the Simpson desert full of solar power panels)

Wind and solar power simply isn't practical, and won't be for ages. Collecting and transporting power is difficult enough (covering the Simpson desert in anything is no small feat, let alone complicated machinery), but there's no feasible method (yet) of storing solar power during the night. Maybe in 50 years, but not now.

.... ever heard of a BATTERY? You can buy solar powered phone chargers now. That is solar power going into a battery. Not that complicated.

Can you really blame people for being scared/worried about nuclear power? We've seen what CAN happen, and i'm sure we're all aware of Murphy's Law. After all, who thought that the twin towers would have been brought down by a pair of planes, or that the "unsinkable" Titanic would sink on it's maiden voyage? Or that 96 people would die at a football match (Hillsborough)? We should ALWAYS consider the worst case scenario, because eventually, it will happen.

Batteries work for small scale things. But how exactly are you going to store enough energy for one city, much less an entire country? Not the mention the serious environmental concerns you get by getting all the metals you need to make said batteries.

Surely the environmental concerns wouldn't be any worse than coal mining? And that's an ongoing thing; coal continuously has to be mined in order to generate electricity. You build a battery, you've got it forever. And batteries can be recycled. I don't see why we can't just take current technology and supersize the crap out of it. It's worth a shot.

 

[Fleaman]

Let's do math.

(deaths caused by mining accidents per year + deaths precipitated by pollution per year) /
nuclear-related deaths per PAST FORTY YEARS
= UNDEFINED BECAUSE THE DENOMINATOR IS ZERO

HOW TO

Coal:
1. Rape land to get coal. Miners die.
2. Spend a shitload of money to transport massive shitloads of the shit.
3. Rape air to burn coal. Everyone is now sick.

Nuclear:
1. You already have the uranium.
2. Pay to have it mailed.
3. POWER EVERYTHING FOR EVER
4. Earth cries radioactive tears of joy.

RISKS

Nuclear:
1. Nuclear waste. Actually it's fine, shut up.
2. Meltdown. Thousands die. Pff, if you're TERRIBLE. Also nuclear power is discredited for decades.

Water:
1. Dam bursts. Thousands die. This is known as a "whoopsie". Nobody cares.

Wind:
1. Actually manages to kill people by, like, losing blades and throwing ice and shit. It's like 300 people ever.

Coal:
HA HA HA OH MAN

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The day I fear nuclear power is the day I see radioactive squirrels. My dad works in a nuke plant, and I've learned a crapload about it.

 

[DazBurger]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Solar and windpower take alotta space and resources to produce all too little power.

They are made out of Aluminium... Which is very polluting to make and they aren't very pretty in the landscape.

Even little Denmark where you find wind mills just about everywhere, it still only produces 23% of the energy.
The rest? Coal... I kid you not! Not natural gass, biofuel or even oil... Coal!


One well build Nuclear Powerplant saves labor, materials and produces exactly 0 tonne CO2, NH4 or NO2.

The only bad side is the radioactive waste, which can easily be dumped into one of the countless kilometer-deep old mines we have.
And its not like it produces a lot, since a nuclear core like that has a lifespan of 7-25 years.



Theres even research going on, about getting rid of the waste for good.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

because you can get enough power out of a pencil to run a whole city for hours using nuclear power. and apparently its the cleanest form of energy, because solar and wind power still use oil.

 

[Byere]

Simply put, Because the public seems to think that nuclear power automatically equals a nuclear bomb in the case of a tiny problem.
However, these power plants are designed to be at the height of sophisticated security so such an occurance doesn't happen.

I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant than, say, an oil burning factory. One spark in a nuclear plant won't mean too much compared to a spark in an oil-based power plant.

 

[wolf thing]

more people die falling of damns then will ever be killed by nuclear power plants

 

[Continuity]

It's a question of perspective; how many people have died as a consequence of nuclear meltdown or fallout (non-military)? Not that many, yet the benefit of the power provided is tremendous. Before long we won't even have the options of fossil fuels so we need nuclear as part of our energy portfolio.... At least until renewables and future tech can take all the weight of demand which they defiantly can't at the moment.