Nuclear power?

Latest Articles

Nuclear power?
Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

Bugs

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10744

Posted: Mon Jul 04, 05 8:38 pm Post subject: Nuclear power?
A bad thing, I have always presumed, and indeed, still do. Wouldn't fancy living near one...but not sure I am basing my fears on the right facts. Am I missing anything? Is it actually the way forward?

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 8:01 am Post subject:

I've never really seen a problem with neclear power. Yes, there are safety worries, but almost all of the major incidents have been down to people saying "what happens if we..." rather than everyday use. The disposal of the waste is a concern, but secure deep storage certainly keeps it contained until we find out what to do with it.

There's more radiation outside a coal powered station than there is outside a nuclear one.

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 8:12 am Post subject:
It's very easy to be anti-nuclear, but it's hard to be vehemently so, I think, while we still generate so much electricity from fossil fuels. Nuclear powers certainly has its problems, but is it ultimately as damaging as global warming?

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 8:19 am Post subject:
We are, of course, talking about fussion here; fission's a different matter (well, not 'matter', just subject). The scientific EU recently won the rights to build a full-scale fussion reactor as, hopefully, the last step before a commercial plant is built. The building's due to take about 10 years, but they are confident that it should work.

jema
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 28237
Location: escaped from Swindon

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 8:32 am Post subject:
The big issue for me with fission echos my position on GM. I do not think that nuclear power is inherently bad. But I do think it is beyond our current level of competance as a species All the time short term decision making, based on profit and loss, or political expediency is the driving force, then mankind cannot be trusted with anything so bloody dangerous.

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91� N

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 8:49 am Post subject:

Would you campaign against the construction of a nuclear power plant if you knew that success would mean building a coal fired plant instead?

I would far rather see a reduction in energy use but the reality is that the energy production will be demanded so we have a choice of an old known and dirty technology or a newer technology that, to be honest, scares some people. Rationally nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas, less immediate radiation emission requires less mining and less transport against which the waste it does produce while more controllable will be around for a lot longer and if it does go wrong has the potential to be go wrong more impressively.

On the whole I'd rather live next to a nuclear power station than a coal fired power station.

thos

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 1139
Location: Jauche, Duchy of Brabant (Bourgogne-ci) and Charolles, Duchy of Burgundy (Bourgogne-�a)

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 9:27 am Post subject:

The case against nuclear power has been overstated as much as its proponents overstated their case in the 1950s. Excluding the Chernobyls and weapon tests, the background radiation level from granite is much higher than from nukes, and there is even evidence that a bit more radiation would actually be good for us. As the bumper stickers used to say, 'More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island' [apologies for spelling]. It would also reduce oil imports.

I am less convinced by the argument that nukes would help against global warming, because they do kick out an awful lot of water vapour. We would be better to reduce our energy requirements.

It is important that we retain the ability to develop nuclear power and the oil for oil-generation before any ice age hits us.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 9:52 am Post subject:

Northern_Lad wrote:

There's more radiation outside a coal powered station than there is outside a nuclear one.

Is there? Why?

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 9:56 am Post subject:
There's massive piles of coal about the place. Coal is largely made out of carbon. There are a few isotopes of carbon: c12 is the 'stable' form; c13 is used as a radioactive tracer; and c14 has a half-life of 5,730 years and is used in carbon-dating. There is obviously more radiation per unit from uranium, but it's always kept in protective areas.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 10:07 am Post subject:
Gotcha

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 10:07 am Post subject:

tahir wrote:

Gotcha

Eh?

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91� N

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 10:20 am Post subject:

thos wrote:

... the background radiation level from granite is much higher than from nukes ...

When I was a trainee mad scientist and space cadet sometime ago there was a wonderful illustration I saw of the radiation dose people received shortly after Chernobyl. There was unsurprisingly a big spike! More surprising was that the spike was caused by a supernova a quarter million light years away. OK they cheated a bit by measuring the 'right' kind of radiation but it illustrated the point that nature gives us all a bigger dose of radiation than nukes.

thos wrote:

I am less convinced by the argument that nukes would help against global warming, because they do kick out an awful lot of water vapour.

But if the alternatives are fossil fuel power stations then they generate the same water vapour plus CO2 and particulates and a host of other pollutants. Reduction and renewables are far cleaner solutions but at present can only account for a small fraction of energy consumption.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 11:23 am Post subject:
So when will fission be a reality?

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 11:28 am Post subject:

tahir wrote:

So when will fission be a reality?

Good question.

From what I understand, it's been 'just around the corner' since the 50s. The problem was that things worked very nicely in test conditions, but when they tried to scale things up they didn't work out; either the control needed wasn't available, or the energy couldn't be used in any practicale way. The difference with the new test facility is that they think they've got around the problems.

Bugs

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10744

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 05 11:30 am Post subject:
What is fission?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 1 of 4

View Latest Posts