why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[GBlair88]

For the same reason people fear trains and planes. They're fine 99% of the time, but when something goes wrong it goes wrong in a big way.

 

[orc1231515]

All the safeguards in the world don't stop the possible danger from existing if anything does go wrong. Personally think we should use Antartica to store the rodes (shipping them there by boat) so if they do ever melt down the resulting radiation will be fairly far away (not tomention the natural cold temperatures making it far less likely for them to meltdown anyway).

you do know that the poles are a major drive of global air circulation. any radio-active material that is released in to the atmoshpere around the poles will cover the globe in a matter of weeks. not to mention the fact that the danger of a melt down causing the ice mass to melt and thus causing a global water level rise of several meters. lastly I don't know if it is wise to store all of the rods in one place.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Not true, ever heard of solar power towers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower]?

Of which, they have built a number of demonstration plants, the largest of which produces 20 MW. Yes, they are working on the problems, but it is going to be ready for large scale production of electricity anytime soon.

I see people advocating switching to solar or wind power, but there's a good reason we haven't switched yet; power storage isn't good enough. Batteries don't scale up well enough, and we don't have the technology to build a battery bank big enough to supply a city.

Using molten salt you're able to produce electricity through the night [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night], not to mention other recent breakthroughs in energy storage [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html] that can be used on all forms of renewable energy.

Again, people are starting to build demonstration plants, and the technology might prove to be useful some time in the future. Currently, it is not.

All the safeguards in the world don't stop the possible danger from existing if anything does go wrong. Personally think we should use Antartica to store the rodes (shipping them there by boat) so if they do ever melt down the resulting radiation will be fairly far away (not tomention the natural cold temperatures making it far less likely for them to meltdown anyway).

No...firstly, Antarctica is under special international treaties, it wouldn't be allowed.

Secondly, the logistics of transporting large amounts of radioactive materials across Antarctica is pretty daunting.

Thirdly, being cold on the surface is only going to make any difference if you leave the material out exposed on the surface. And then, not much. Antarctica doesn't get below -90c, the hottest surface temperature on Earth was recorded at less than 60c. Uranim melts at 3000c ish.

 

[pro1337tariat]

It takes 1500 windmills to equal one 1500 MW nuclear reactor. Thats assuming the wind is always blowing at full capacity. Seems a little absurd to me to be using all that steel, concrete, and land when you can easily match it with something else that uses far less of all the above.

I do in no way advocate only using wind power, but instead harnessing wind where it is most viable [http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp].

Combining all of the renewable energy sources (Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal) you could supply the world with power without having to worry about harvesting any input material perpetually (or until the sun dies). There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be the option we choose for the future in regards to power supply.

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.

Not true, ever heard of solar power towers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower]?

I see people advocating switching to solar or wind power, but there's a good reason we haven't switched yet; power storage isn't good enough. Batteries don't scale up well enough, and we don't have the technology to build a battery bank big enough to supply a city.

Using molten salt you're able to produce electricity through the night [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night], not to mention other recent breakthroughs in energy storage [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html] that can be used on all forms of renewable energy.

That's really quite interesting actually. Thanks for the links. Clever thinking on the man who came up with the idea of using salt to store that power.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Suddenly?! Where did you live until now?

People have an irrational hatred for nuclear power since Chernobyl, 98% of them don't know a single thing about it but because the stories were so pumped up everyone believes it's the devils taint.

 

[GeorgW]

They've always been feared, they're just reminded now cuz of Japan.
I've always loved nuclear power, a hell of a lot better than coal. It's just gotten bad PR.

 

[Unesh52]

Blame nuclear radiation, not to mention the problem of what do do with the nuclear waste generated.

I dunno, I think people are really jumpy around this kinda thing. If there wasn't a problem with meltdowns and nuclear waste I'd be fine with it, but...

(Any feedback on how ignorant I am on this topic?)

Meltdowns aren't really a problem. They couldn't do nearly as much damage as what happened with Chernobyl (which wasn't as damaged as people think it was anyway), and they're extremely unlikely to happen in the first place. The new designs eat the old waste as fuel too, and there are even ideas going around to use the minuscule amount of waste from that process as well, in further reactors.

 

[Deepzound]

I hate it when people talk about stuff they know nothing about, it's the reason that so many people are starving to death, GM crops (which are perfectly safe BTW) could help so many people in less developed countries AND mean we'd need less farmland to feed our populace, but uninformed scaremongers are convincing uninformed people that GM is evil, sometimes I hate the world.

You're spreading misinformation. Monsanto's GM crops would only contribute to world starving. Usually GM plants aren't able to reproduce, so you're forced to buy new batches of seeds every season. The problem is compounded when you factor in the fact that through cross pollination some of the original plants eventually inherit genes from Monsanto's GM crops, which leads to Monsanto suing farmers for using their patented genes. Do you see where this is going? and that's not to mention the fact that we don't know what the effects are of using and consuming GM food in the long term.

Here's an interesting read for you [http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.].

 

[irani_che]

Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous, they use a rare and valuable fuel that will run out in decades.
They produce highly toxic radioactive waste and byproducts.


Oil is much better

 

[Nova Helix]

People scare easily over nothing.

Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient energy source. (wind is not viable in most areas)

I think you people need to stop listening to coal industry propaganda and in stead check up on the facts for yourselves [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States].

On February 11, 2010, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released the first comprehensive update of the wind energy potential by state since 1993, showing that the contiguous United States had potential to install 10,459 GW of onshore wind power.
source [http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=2542]

I said wind isn't viable in most areas, that doesn't mean it's bad. Wind power takes up lots of land and needs reliable wind. In mountain areas or areas with limited land it isn't good.

Besides all that what in the hell does "coal industry propaganda" have to do with anything? Coal is the worst energy source.

 

[pro1337tariat]

I hate it when people talk about stuff they know nothing about, it's the reason that so many people are starving to death, GM crops (which are perfectly safe BTW) could help so many people in less developed countries AND mean we'd need less farmland to feed our populace, but uninformed scaremongers are convincing uninformed people that GM is evil, sometimes I hate the world.

You're spreading misinformation. Monsanto's GM crops would only contribute to world starving. Usually GM plants aren't able to reproduce, so you're forced to buy new batches of seeds every season. The problem is compounded when you factor in the fact that through cross pollination some of the original plants eventually inherit genes from Monsanto's GM crops, which leads to Monsanto suing farmers for using their patented genes. Do you see where this is going? and that's not to mention the fact that we don't know what the effects are of using and consuming GM food in the long term.

Here's an interesting read for you [http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.].

Monsanto=Satan. Even if their GM crops weren't a issue, their legal practices are just downright evil.

Sorry I just spotted that word and my vision went red...

 

[Thaluikhain]

You're spreading misinformation. Monsanto's GM crops would only contribute to world starving. Usually GM plants aren't able to reproduce, so you're forced to buy new batches of seeds every season.

No, that's not true at all. It is possible to make GM plants that can't reproduce, if you set out to do so. This is quite intentional, however, and not simply because the plant was GM.

 

[Weaver]

I never get why three mile island was a big deal. The plant ALMOST had a meltdown, but the saftey's worked and was managed shut down without incident. No one even got sick.

 

[jackpipsam]

we should always fear anything nuclear

 

[Nemu]

Living in the state I do, a LOT of people take issue with the plant we have (which, I literally live 2 minutes away from). We routinely have protesters getting arrested outside of the gates, and since 9/11 have had full FBI surveillance 24-hours a day.

I find that outside of where I live, a lot of people don't even think about how much power we get from these plants until there is a problem. They don't get upset until it affects them somehow.


Personally, I don't have an issue with it, tho I would PREFER that we move on to solar and wind power. Technology has improved enough so that solar and wind power are very very viable sources of power, but there's just not enough $$ for folks to give them a chance. =/

 

[Steven True]

First of all, Nuclear power is very clean. That vapour you see coming out of the Simpsons-esque chimneys is steam, with very small traces of other compounds. The only thing that is really dirty about it is the mining operations for getting the material in the first place, and even that's not as bad as Oil drilling or coal mining operations.

I didn't talk about the steam.
I talked about the used fuel rods and other highly radioactive materials. Some of which with be deadly radioactive for 100,000 years.
That is NOT clean.

Secondly, Language doesn't evolve instantaneously as you have implied here. I'm sure someone will remember to translate "WARNING: DANGEROUS RADIOACTIVE STUFF HERE" into the new language, whatever it may be, as it evolves

That is if somebody remembers that it is there, that the knowledge isn't lost.
You assume that our civilization will continue uninterrupted for the next 100,000 years. That is a big assumption.
Civilization itself has only been around for 8,000 years (give or take). All civilizations (except for our current one) have fallen at some point.
We have to find a way to communicate with people who may have lost all record of us (not to mention the dump site), who we know nothing of, and who may know nothing of us.
To show you how difficult and serious this is the DOE has been working on it for years.
Here's an article about.
http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/05/10/yucca_mountain/index.html

Thirdly, I can actually think of a technology that would last tens of thousands of years - it's called "Put it back in the ground where we found it, since we have taken most of the energy out of the rods for our own purposes." Obviously this wouldn't apply to tectonically active areas, but surely putting it in the deepest of mines in a tectonically INACTIVE region, THEN reinforcing said mines with concrete etc would keep the dangers away?

So what brand of magic concrete is guaranteed to last for 100,000 years?

1) What we take out is uranium ore. That is far less dangerous than the enriched uranium and fission byproducts that we would be putting back.

2) Assuming that we don't find the recipe for magic 100,000 year concrete, we can assume that at some point it will weather. Water will collect, there will be chemical weathering, ALL areas have some sort of geological activity, etc. A few cracks and this stuff works its way into the water table.

 

[Unesh52]

All the safeguards in the world don't stop the possible danger from existing if anything does go wrong. Personally think we should use Antartica to store the rodes (shipping them there by boat) so if they do ever melt down the resulting radiation will be fairly far away (not tomention the natural cold temperatures making it far less likely for them to meltdown anyway).

you do know that the poles are a major drive of global air circulation. any radio-active material that is released in to the atmoshpere around the poles will cover the globe in a matter of weeks. not to mention the fact that the danger of a melt down causing the ice mass to melt and thus causing a global water level rise of several meters. lastly I don't know if it is wise to store all of the rods in one place.

Hold on guys. Rods of nuclear fuel don't spontaneously "melt-down." They only melt inside the reactor if the fission process goes on without coolant. Even if they did melt, there wouldn't be very much radioactive gas to spread around the world. It was the irradiated graphite moderators that caught on fire that spread the radioactive material at Chernobyl. And that basically didn't do shit. Some people speculate that it's responsible for the relative increase in thyroid cancer among nearby young Russian boys (among a host of even less plausible things), but that's rather unsubstantiated.

And do you understand the amount of heat energy it would take to melt any significant portion of the ice in Antarctica? Even if the rods were all (for some reason) hot enough to melt, the ice would simply freeze it all again a few days later. It would hardly be able to begin working through the miles of ice. The biggest reason we don't dump shit there is that it's far away and expensive to get there. Not to mention dangerous and cold.

 

[moretimethansense]

I hate it when people talk about stuff they know nothing about, it's the reason that so many people are starving to death, GM crops (which are perfectly safe BTW) could help so many people in less developed countries AND mean we'd need less farmland to feed our populace, but uninformed scaremongers are convincing uninformed people that GM is evil, sometimes I hate the world.

You're spreading misinformation. Monsanto's GM crops would only contribute to world starving. Usually GM plants aren't able to reproduce, so you're forced to buy new batches of seeds every season. The problem is compounded when you factor in the fact that through cross pollination some of the original plants eventually inherit genes from Monsanto's GM crops, which leads to Monsanto suing farmers for using their patented genes. Do you see where this is going? and that's not to mention the fact that we don't know what the effects are of using and consuming GM food in the long term.

Here's an interesting read for you [http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.].

Morisanto's legal practices have nothing to do with the safety of GM crops.

Secondly, yes we fucking do know, do you have any idea how much testing goes in to these things before they are allowed to be consumed by humans?
If there were even the slightest actual risk they wouldn't dare use them, simply because of the backlash if they did.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but, you're probably one of those people that believes organic food is better for you right?
Absolutely false, there are no health benefits to organic foods, no taste difference in the slightest and if we were to change all farms to organic farms three quarters of the world would simply starve to death.

It's a moot point anyway, even if we assume that GM food could cause problems down the line, we KNOW that not using them is leading to many ACTUAL very fucking provable deaths right fucking now.

Every day that people hold back GM crops in underdeveloped countries is another day where dozens of people die of starvation.