Printable View
Nail, hit, head. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Also, isn't it perversly ironic that the main opposition to Nuclear Power has spread through Bra Burning elderly maidens on Greenham Common, through CND and into mainstream Green Party politics where's Nuclear is the only mainstream Green alternative.
I think they have been putting Nuclear down for so long that they fear losing any credibility they have if they do an about turn at this stage. What a pity.
Sorry for the copy & paste but here it goes.
Another good read if you wish to hear other points of view:
HOW SAFE IS NUCLEAR POWER?
By Dietrich Fischer (*)
BASEL, March (IPS) We all can only feel deep sympathy and compassion for the victims of the terrible catastrophe that befell Japan on 11 March 2011. One of the world's largest earthquakes ever of magnitude 9, a 10-meter tsunami that flattened many coastal areas, freezing weather for the survivors sleeping in the open, shortages of food and water, and a series of explosions and fires at the six nuclear power plants in Fukushima, with the danger of a meltdown that would release huge amounts of radioactivity.
Some advocates of nuclear power have long argued that a major accident is about as likely as being hit by a meteorite. In 1975, the nuclear industry asked Professor Norman Rasmussen to produce a report that would reassure the public about the safety of nuclear energy. The report concluded that the probability of a complete core meltdown is about 1 in 20,000 per reactor per year.
Reality has shown this to be a gross underestimation. The three best known serious nuclear power accidents are those of Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl 1986, and now Fukushima. But there have been many more accidents and partial core meltdowns releasing radioactivity.
A study commissioned by Greenpeace concluded that the Chernobyl accident may have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone between 1990 and 2004. The nuclear power plants in Fukushima have about thirty times as much radioactive material as the reactor that exploded in Chernobyl, and Japan is much more densely populated.
Even if there were no accidents, no solution has yet been found in over 50 years for the safe storage of the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. One of the by-products, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations?
The "precautionary principle" urges us to avoid the worst possible outcome of any decision. This implies that we should dismantle all nuclear power plants.
Are there any alternatives to nuclear energy? Indeed there are safe ways to produce renewable energy with wind, solar power, wave and ocean-thermal energy, which do not contribute to the greenhouse effect, unlike the burning of fossil fuels.
The Desertec project aims to generate electricity in deserts using solar power plants, wind parks and to transmit this electricity to consumption centers. The first region for application of this concept is in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Europe. Solar power systems and wind parks spread over 17,000 km2 (0.2% of the Sahara desert) would provide a considerable part of the electricity demand of the MENA countries and provide continental Europe with 15% of its electricity needs.
Why do we have nuclear power despite all of its dangers for current and future generations? There is a simple reason. Nuclear power plants are highly profitable for a few, at the expense of other people's safety. Electricity from a nuclear power station can be cut off if people do not pay their bills, but energy from the sun collected on house roofs cannot be cut off. It makes people independent. The nuclear lobby does not want that.
Democracy requires that decision are made by those affected, and that voters be fully and truthfully informed. People have been lied to about the safety of nuclear energy, and have in most cases not been allowed to participate in decisions about nuclear energy. That must change.
It is remarkable that all insurance companies have so far refused to insure against nuclear accidents, because they argue that they do not want to risk their money based on some professor's calculations claiming the risk is low. What if he is wrong? Insurance companies insist to base their risk calculations on real experience.
Because insurance companies refuse to cover the risks of nuclear accidents, the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 commits the US federal government to cover such risks. Other countries have similar legislation. This represents an enormous subsidy by the taxpayers to the nuclear industry. If the nuclear power industry were forced by law to pay for insurance against accidents, and pay for the safe disposal of its waste, we would have no nuclear power plants.
It is true that solar energy is currently more expensive than electricity from nuclear plants. But this is partly because of the indirect subsidy for nuclear power, and the shortage of research into alternative sources of energy. If a fraction of the research funds spent for nuclear power had been devoted to safe sources like wind and solar, we would most likely have cheap alternatives today.
If insurance companies, the experts in estimating risks, are unwilling to risk their money, why should people be forced to risk their lives?
(COPYRIGHT © IPS)
(*) Dietrich Fischer, Academic Director of the World Peace Academy and Director of the TRANSCEND University Press, is author of "Nonmilitary Aspects of Security" and "Preventing War in the Nuclear Age."
And, worse, its recent reputation is clouded (no pun intended) by Chernobyl. It's akin to thinking that all airlines are like mid-1980s Aeroflot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
Stopped reading after that. What a gross misrepresentation. They site the probability of a complete core meltdown, then state reality is worse, and talk about three accidents that didn't have complete meltdowns (Chernobyl might have, I'm not sure if it was complete or not, but the main issue was the steam overpressure). That article is a pretty clear-cut case of sensational journalism at it's "finest". They can't even be bothered to do some basic research.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Might be another point of view but its still a poorly written article.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Really? More partial core meltdowns? Where's the list? Given that that would render the reactor unusable it would have a big impact regardless of whether radiation was released. Bit like saying that apart from Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been other nuclear attacks around the world. I think we'd have noticed if there were.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Trying to draw a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima without actually sketching out a direct connection. Bit gutless isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Hold on though. A total core meltdown like at Chernobyl is only possible if the reactor is still running. Unfortunately for the comparison, all of the Fukushima reactors shut down immediately after the earthquake and remain switched off. Shame really, otherwise the comparison might have had some validity.
Oh yeah, despite the various explosions at Fukushima, none of the reactor containment vessels were breached. Chernobyl didn't have any containment vessels so the reactor was fully exposed and any radioactive materials were released straight into the atmosphere. Oops. Another big difference.
In addition the reactors at Fukushima are coming up to being 40 years old, one was months away from being decommissioned. New reactors have additional safety features that would make accidents even less likely. Its akin to comparing the safety of a '67 VW beetle with that of a modern Golf. Things have moved on.
Adequate underground storage facilities perhaps? Not exactly difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Conspiracy theory alert. So whats special about nuclear reactors is that only power companies can build them while other power sources can be bought and run by individuals? Damn, should have saved up and bought that gas fired power station when they were on discount.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Nuclear power isn't in competition with home solar panels and wind turbines, its in competition with natural gas, coal, oil and wind farms.
Finally some sense. But with democracy comes responsibility, and the public must educate itself about the realities of radiation and the actual risks, not merely heed the scaremongering. Given that in the UK about a quarter of the population does not understand the percentage system sadly I am not holding my breath in hope. The fact that articles like this are taken seriously really is quite sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
So you are not bothered with this either? Too sensationalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Quote:
Even if there were no accidents, no solution has yet been found in over 50 years for the safe storage of the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. One of the by-products, plutonium 239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations?
The problem for some of us is that we have Aeroflot reactors (4 RBMK reactors at the Leningrad power plant) some 200kms to the Southeast from where I'm sitting right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As mentioned in my previous post, that figure needs to be put in context: In the last 50+ years the exploitation of fossil fuels has caused far more deaths, health issues and environmental catastrophes than nuclear energy production.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Sadly there are no similar deserts in Japan :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
See, this is where I am reminded that "expert" comments like this one just demonstrate the ignorance related to this topic, specially when the answer given is ended with the "not exacly difficult" comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I am no expert either but given the scientific facts given in terms of the storage life of such polluting and extremely dangerous nuclear waste being stored in, and I quote:
"Adequate underground storage facilities" - how can this be said after what we have just witnessed in terms of natural disasters occurring in our planet?
Yeah, sure, place these adequate underground storage facilities in non earthquake areas but what guarantee do you really have? We are playing with dynamite here . . . no wait, we are playing with radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants with one of the by-products, plutonium 239, that has a half-life of 24,100 years.
What does that mean? That means, after 24,100 years, the intensity of radiation has declined by only 50%. It will take 241,000 years until the radiation has declined by a factor of 1000, which is considered a safe level. How can we guarantee that our descendants will not be exposed to those wastes for 10,000 generations? That's a lot of generations and an extremely irresponsible scenario.
That's my opinion - go ahead and have yours but we are all sharing this planet and I for one will do my part so that this adequate underground solution of yours will not be part of my child's future.
:s mokin:
True - but the fact is that other ways for reliable energy sources have to be found and I am one of those that believes that Nuclear is not the way to go and that humanity, if allowed, will find a better safer way.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
:s mokin: