Japan is rather earthquake prone. I'd say it was rather silly to build a nuclear plant in a country like that, especially near the sea. That's asking for trouble in Japan, or in any area that's so geographically volatile.henritje said:
why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?
- Thread starter Wintermoot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People fearing nuclear plants is nothing new. They did it ever since 3-mile island because of a movie called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome coming out a couple of days earlier. Ever since then hippies have been all over it.
Generation I and II reactors were quite arse, I would never argue otherwise, but with Generation III and III+ reactors on the rise the fear of nuclear power is becoming irrational.
That Russians and Ukranians are pissy about Nuclear Power I have no question about though, as you'll recall their discount Generation I reactor being run by warring factions of coalminers blew up in 1986, causing large amounts of shitty plotlines about mutants for years to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
Generation III reactor in case anyone is curious.
Generation I and II reactors were quite arse, I would never argue otherwise, but with Generation III and III+ reactors on the rise the fear of nuclear power is becoming irrational.
That Russians and Ukranians are pissy about Nuclear Power I have no question about though, as you'll recall their discount Generation I reactor being run by warring factions of coalminers blew up in 1986, causing large amounts of shitty plotlines about mutants for years to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
Generation III reactor in case anyone is curious.
Hells yeah, let's do it! I'd take a bike or a treadmill though, so I won't be spun around like I'm in a dryer if I collapse from exhaustion. Then once my shift is over, I'll ride a bike home and poke away at a wood-fire oven to boil water to make tea to drink while reading about other clean energy prospects.Genuine Evil said:
I like the idea of people being independent and having their own solar panels and generators like my dad's friend. He has a TV, a computer, and electric lights. His washing machine and dryer runs from a generator and his stove is a wood-fire stove. I think I could live like that.
I'm not sure about my stance on nuclear energy. I need to look into this energy issue more before making a judgment. I'm sort of leaning towards "it's okay so long as they're well designed enough to suit their location", but now I have to look into the issue of nuclear waste and weight up whether or not I think it's worth it.
I never really got why people are so against nuclear power. It seems to take only a few minutes of research to find out safe they make the reactors. Wasn't the earthquake in Japan the 5th strongest in the world since records began? I mean if they can stand up to that then they must be built well. Lastly, think about how many people have died in mining accidents compared to nuclear disasters in the last 60 years. Yeah.
Now that is a valid point, but still misses mine.RAKtheUndead said:
I was using Chernobyl as an example of what happens AFTER a plant gets destroyed. I'm saying alternative energy or extreme care is required. Whole cities could be wiped out. Remember that the companies that build these facilities are the lowest bidder. Look at BP. They cut corners to save money thinking "nothing would happen" and ended up flooding the gulf of mexico full of oil. You don't think the nuclear power compaies would cut corners on their plants to save money too?
Meltdown happened at Three Mile Island. They evacuated the surrounding areas as a precaution, and it turned out to be necessary. That's the difference between building plants safely and building plants as cheaply as possible, then failing to properly run tests.Wilson Driesens said:
OP: Saying suddenly makes me wonder where you have been for the last 30 years. Everyone has a serious NIMBY attitude to nuke plants. It's a major reason why the US even has an energy crunch. There is enough nuclear fuel in the US to meet our energy needs (even taking into account the growing needs) for centuries. New technologies could extend that to millennium. I don't think we will even need it for that long, but nuke plants supplemented with hydro, wind and solar could shore up our power needs until something new comes along.
We have had nuclear reactors under and on top of the seas for quite some time. When was the last time you heard of a reactor problem on a navel vessel? It defiantly has its downsides, but one of the major downsides exists only because the government does not allow commercial repressing of spent fuel. Allowing that would undoubtedly ingress the efficiency and make repressing viable, removing a significant amount of the waste. We already have the storage problem taken care of. Check out Yucca Mountain. Transportation problems have been solved as well.
Wasn't it Germans who protested? Or did Russia also have publicised demonstrations? Either way, the developed nations who use Nuclear Energy are largely the ones who can't do without it, so unless there is a real alternative, protesters can look forward to safe, efficient energy from nuclear power generation right up to the day someone figures out how to generate and wirelessly distribute free unlimited energy. And then we can look forward to people protesting that, too. I'm calling it now, they'll be complaining about bad vibrations.
I heard about these demonstrations in Paris and Berlin but Russia too? The nuclear plant actually survived the earthquake, it was the tsunami which damaged the cooling mechanisms. Still, I think nuclear power stations are good; lots of power and extremely low atmospheric pollution... Just make sure to build them far, far away from population centers.
I think the reliance of nuclear power plants etc is going to bite us in the butt. Sure it's 'clean' if it works well, but its bi-product isn't and at the end of the day it means it's more dirty than coal power. 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)
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.RAKtheUndead said:
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.
The accidents that have happened have highlighted safety problems that we can/have fixed.
It's like not driving a car because loads of people died in crashes before seatbelts, airbags etc were compulsory.
It's like not driving a car because loads of people died in crashes before seatbelts, airbags etc were compulsory.
I live less than two miles from two AGR nuclear power stations. We're issued iodine tablets and are given evacuation information on a calendar on a yearly basis. We hear the muster sirens daily and occasionally the venting of steam. I have been present when the nuclear incident alarm has sounded because of an on-site event and have seen vast amounts of emergency service vehicles scream past on their way to the stations. Though the incident alarm is for power station staff only it can be heard a significant distance away. You're informed of emergency training exercises and alarm tests months in advance. It's genuinely terrifying when these things happen, no matter how prepared you are for an emergency, how many redundancies there are in the designs and whether or not you possess an intimate knowledge of the nuclear process.Pistachio101 said:
Heysham is slated to have a third power station built. Three nuclear power stations within less than a five mile radius in an area prone to coastal erosion and without a proper bypass is naturally going to make people antsy.
Because after the first few seconds of, "omg look at all the terrible things happening to the japanese" we arrive at "omg look at all the horrible things that could happen to us"
For me I hate them because of the toxic waste they produce...
also I have played WAY to much sim city!
also I have played WAY to much sim city!
It's situations like that (multiple NPs in a close area) that are so dangerous. Just takes one plant having some form of disaster to possibly compromise all 3. New plants are supposed to be self contained and super safe....but I sure wouldn't want to live near 3 of them, especially in an area prone to natural disasters.Maquette said: