Nuclear power, yey or ney?
- Thread starter Bon
- Start date
Personally I believe nuclear power is the way forward as sustainability development has to be every government heart . I understand that “clean power” is the way forward but in certain situations the power isn’t 100 reliable for example wind power not always windy lol. Also in Japan situation they lack in fossil fuels i.e. coal, oil and gas so they have needed to resort to nuclear power but they didn’t really think about it much by placing 50 reactors on the “ring of fire”. But considering there’s over 500 rectors in the world and there’s only been 3 situations where radioactive material has been leaked Chernobyl, 2 mile island and now Japan. Firstly Chernobyl was a result of a test that went majorly wrong and health and safety didn’t really exist and all those volunteers that basically signed there death warrant to work on the roof of the reactors whilst wearing no protection to pour clay, sand and water onto the reactors to prevent a lot of the reactive material from being spread are unsung hero’s as they saved it becoming a lot worse. And 3 mile island there isn’t any factual proof that and reactive material was admitted but don’t know. They just need to place reactors in sensible places. Lastly Britain want to place 2 new plants on the coast of Devon/Cornwall into the Bristol Channel. This is abit stupid as the tidal flow in that channel has the 2nd highest tidal peak and troth shame that some scientist have all the knowledge in the world but little common sense.
I have read some of the articles since your post. Makes for interesting reading if your in the industry.
This one makes things abit clearer I thought for those that maybe interested, if there is anyone else lol.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2
This one makes things abit clearer I thought for those that maybe interested, if there is anyone else lol.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2
The important thing for me is that the new-energy debate happens without the oil and vehicle compoanies being involved. New technology should lead the automotive/power industry, not the other way around. The oil companies have too much clout, and are interested in protecting their market. Same goes for GM etc. They should have to follow technology, not try to hold it back for their own purposes.
Take these guys out of the room, and I think there would be a more open discussion. I don't support Nuclear power, but I do see the present need for it. I would definitely like to remove that need, and as soon as possible. So much power comes from the hydro-plant at Niagara that the majority of it is sold to the US, because Canada isn't properly equipped to use it all. Even so, it provides over 50% of the power used in Ontario, which houses about 70% of the population of Canada.
Take these guys out of the room, and I think there would be a more open discussion. I don't support Nuclear power, but I do see the present need for it. I would definitely like to remove that need, and as soon as possible. So much power comes from the hydro-plant at Niagara that the majority of it is sold to the US, because Canada isn't properly equipped to use it all. Even so, it provides over 50% of the power used in Ontario, which houses about 70% of the population of Canada.
I say, nuclear power should be used in the every day life, power cities, industries and all. However for the individual if they want to turn their roof into some crazy solar panneled machine to save let them. If they think it will help save money but we will not and cannot cope without the nuclear power.
Sub reactors are more or less the same design as the land based pressurised water ones like Sizewell B. The actual core in a PWR plant is not so big, ~3m by ~2m. They generate quite a lot more power, up to 10 times as much as a sub.
The big difference is that sub ones use very highly enriched fuel, sometimes >90%, which is getting on for bomb grade so they can be smaller. Per unit of power generated this is way more expensive, thousands of times in fact, and it's a bugger to make in quantity. Sub reactors are actually a bit less easy to control, despite their pretty good accident record, because the power levels react quicker to changes in the inputs.
They also have the advantage that if it all goes wrong on a sub you have an entire ocean to dump on the core.
Update on the ***ushima incident (can't believe its censored that!). The last remaining restriction on the consumption of drinking water was lifted on 10 May. Some 21 separate orders to avoid giving tap water to infants due to levels of iodine-131 were imposed in the last week of March. Only one was placed on tap water consumption by the general public and this too has now been lifted. Water gauges on reactor 1 were found to be faulty and its likely that the core has at least partially melted. No workers have died or suffered ill health due to the radiation.
If you know you are in a relatively safe (no major earthquakes) area, why not have nuclear power?
If you live in a volatile area that suffers from major earthquakes then it makes you wonder why they build nuclear power plants, perhaps they think it is acceptable when the nation breeds like rabbits?
If you live in a volatile area that suffers from major earthquakes then it makes you wonder why they build nuclear power plants, perhaps they think it is acceptable when the nation breeds like rabbits?