Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy/Nuclear Power Plants
Vast majority of people who oppose nuclear energy and nuclear power plants do so because they are completely uneducated on the subject and/or deal with all the wrong data.
I especially love it when in a nuclear energy related discussion someone brings up Chernobyl. Talking about Chernobyl as an example of how dangerous nuclear energy is, is the same as saying that the Titanic is an example of how dangerous traveling on board a ship is.
Solar & wind energy are nice and cool but when you calculate how many solar collectors or wind turbines you would need to have in order to meet the current energy consumption, you cannot avoid the conclusion that satisfying all our energy needs with wind and solar power is simply not feasible.
I especially love it when in a nuclear energy related discussion someone brings up Chernobyl. Talking about Chernobyl as an example of how dangerous nuclear energy is, is the same as saying that the Titanic is an example of how dangerous traveling on board a ship is.
Solar & wind energy are nice and cool but when you calculate how many solar collectors or wind turbines you would need to have in order to meet the current energy consumption, you cannot avoid the conclusion that satisfying all our energy needs with wind and solar power is simply not feasible.
habo9
Banned
Yes they do but how many lives were lost recently in, say, cruise ship sinkings?
What are you trying to prove here, that my parallel is not perfect or what?
Yes, people die on ships every day, people die in car crashes every day, and people die in conventional power plants every day.
Here is some data, the results of a survey conducted by Paul Scherrer Institute, in Switzerland, in the year 2001. The numbers of deaths in accidents in power plants are, per 1000 TWh of produced energy:
101 in hydroelectric plants,
39 in plants that burn coal,
10 in plants that burn gas,
1 in nuclear power plants.
The data includes the Chernobyl accident.
habo9
Banned
I dont care , Im not against nuclear power plants , Im all for them , its just your arguement seemed pretty weak and you were the one using ships as an example now its cars
I dont think you have thought it through & its not how many deaths that happen in a nuclear station , its what can happen in the fall out , pollution , deaths or even a terrorist attack etc
Plus your datas nearly 10 years out of date
Yes, it is. A solid, concrete fact displaying how safe nuclear power is when the staff is properly trained and procedures are followed. Perhaps you haven't actually been educated on what happened at Chernobyl? Here's some info for you. The reactor did not just blow up for no reason. In fact, it essentially tried not to. But, a very poorly trained crew revved it up, disabled safety measures and ignored warnings, and then went home halfway through and left the reactor, about to meltdown, for the next shift to deal with, without telling them what they were doing. This next crew further exacerbated the problem until the reactor was essentially forced to explode.
So, you're right; Chernobyl is a "pretty solid concrete fact."
But not of what you wish it to be.
Good points, but two things; these examples apply to nuclear power years ago in Britain. Modern American reactors would be so different it's like comparing Pintos to a brand new Lexus, and decommissioning, while expensive, would be one of the things which would benefit from the economies of scale which a major nuclear push would create. Right now, in America, we are so far behind that starting up a nuclear program would be incredibly costly in regards to infrastructure upgrades, manufacturing of needed materials, and so on. However, as the program progressed, economies of scale would begin to emerge which would eventually negate these costs as procedures, materials, technology and so on shift from being "custom" to "standard" and this would include decommissioning processes.
This is also why the "nuclear is too expensive" camp is entirely mistaken. They are not looking at the big picture and thinking analytically. They are merely looking at the starting costs, and basing their arguments on that. Long term, if America began a major nuclear energy program, nuclear power would be far cheaper and cleaner than any other form of power generation, including the woefully inefficient solar and win, and the increasingly expensive oil and coal.
Perfect example, actually. Both illustrate what can happen when human negligence and stupidity can supersede the limits and safety procedures involved in an endeavor, and then cause the public to shift blame for a tragedy from the responsible humans to the endeavor itself, be it a nuclear plant, or a boat.
That's absolutely, incontrovertibly false.
It was (and is) a civilian nuclear (electrical) power generating station. It wasn't some experimental type. It's a PWR, and there are plenty of them all across the US.
It also didn't "blow up."
What happened was a very serious accident, a partial core meltdown, but that didn't involve any dramatic explosion, per se (as what happened at Chernobyl).
The basic facts here are correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_Nuclear_Generating_Station
I'll leave it to others to sort through the remainder of the wasteland that are your posts in this thread...
You certainly have a knack for name-calling.
The data include all deaths related to energy production, regardless of how people got killed.
It may be 10 years out of date, but since no major nuclear accidents occurred in the meantime, the number of casualties in nuclear power plants can only be lower than the one I stated above.
Newer desings are super safe and efficient... it's a tragedy that the US hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.
habo9
Banned
But that isnt the point Im getting at , people die at work all the time..
What Im saying is people are more worried about the pollution , terrorist attacks , fall out if something goes wrong and human error which is probably why most accidents happen , also waste, what do you do with it?
So peoples problems arent to do with people dying at there work?
Its to do with what can go wrong , no matter how slim the chances are
Radioactive waste isn't that big of a problem as some people seem to think. It is dangerous because of radioactivity, but high radioactivity also means a fast rate of decay, so that waste stops being radioactive after a certain period of time. I've read somewhere that the majority of the waste stops being dangerously radioactive after 200 years. So it's not that it needs to be stored safely for eons to come.
My data reflect all the people affected by power plant related deaths, not just the employees working in the power plants. Dams break down and cause floods and kill people much more often than most people think. I guess it's because such accidents don't result in spectacular headlines in newspapers that recur on anniversaries, sparkle public debates etc., since hydroelectric plants are deemed safe for the environment.
Even the japanease use nuclear power for their electricity and Hiroshima gets 1/4 of all their needs from nukes.If anybody was going to be apprehensive about you would think they would be.Americans are such irrational wimps for the most part.They want all the modern convienences but want none of the downsides or risks and are left with having to be an imperalistic bully who goes round the world killing and oppressing people to maintain our gross overuse of oil.No wonder we are hated.
habo9
Banned
Take the deaths out of the equation , nothin apart from death is certain in life anyway , there is always a possability things can go wrong nothin in this world is 100% safe , it will take another disaster before people realise nuclear power cant go on forever and I garantee in twenty years once the global warming phase passes , they will find a new disaster round the corner and nuclear power will get the blame , so for me the only way foward is green natural energy , I dont mind nuclear for the short term but it should never be the long term plan
Cross-posting from the other thread:
Consider this guy:
David Lochbaum
I graduated in June 1979 from the University of Tennessee with a degree in nuclear engineering. The meltdown at Three Mile Island had occurred less than three months earlier. For the next seventeen years, I worked at nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. This prompted me to join the Union of Concerned Scientists, where, as their nuclear safety engineer, I monitor safety performance of all US nuclear power plants.
Much more here:
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2165/pg1/index.html
To say the least, he's pretty skeptical of nuclear power, for many reasons. Watch him speak here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...d=0CBcQqwQwAw#
He's also testified before Congress as a relevant expert on nuclear safety issues.
Another thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the absolute Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry, which is the Price-Anderson Act. This is basically the taxpayer-backed insurance scheme to cover the plants in the event of a major accident. The industry wouldn't be able to afford insurance coverage if they had to get it in an actual open-market environment, so the government (translation: you and me) subsidizes it. Read more about that here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=..._2_JbwBHwSH6-Q
and here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_e...es.cfm?ID=9995
Price-Anderson should make anyone - ESPECIALLY free-market libertarians - think twice before endorsing nuclear power.
Also, can we please drop the worship of nuclear as though it's some sort of NEW innovation? It isn't, it's OLD. It's an old technology for boiling water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. That's all it is...
Consider this guy:
David Lochbaum
I graduated in June 1979 from the University of Tennessee with a degree in nuclear engineering. The meltdown at Three Mile Island had occurred less than three months earlier. For the next seventeen years, I worked at nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. This prompted me to join the Union of Concerned Scientists, where, as their nuclear safety engineer, I monitor safety performance of all US nuclear power plants.
Much more here:
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2165/pg1/index.html
To say the least, he's pretty skeptical of nuclear power, for many reasons. Watch him speak here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...d=0CBcQqwQwAw#
He's also testified before Congress as a relevant expert on nuclear safety issues.
Another thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the absolute Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry, which is the Price-Anderson Act. This is basically the taxpayer-backed insurance scheme to cover the plants in the event of a major accident. The industry wouldn't be able to afford insurance coverage if they had to get it in an actual open-market environment, so the government (translation: you and me) subsidizes it. Read more about that here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=..._2_JbwBHwSH6-Q
and here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_e...es.cfm?ID=9995
Price-Anderson should make anyone - ESPECIALLY free-market libertarians - think twice before endorsing nuclear power.
Also, can we please drop the worship of nuclear as though it's some sort of NEW innovation? It isn't, it's OLD. It's an old technology for boiling water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. That's all it is...
JayJohn85
Banned
Yea and maybe 1 or 2 plants going thermo isnt too bad in the larger scheme of things:eek: Note the sarcasm.
emceeemcee
Banned
:1orglaugh
Facts aren't facts until they are on the table. Simply calling something hippy bullshit doesn't make it so, so if you are going disprove what I wrote how about countering it with some data. T
You aren't interested in facts. There have been plenty in this thread posted by several people, and you ignore them in order to cling to your senseless, hippy loving anti-nuclear beliefs. Delight in your willful ignorance, though. It looks like the President is actually going to make things right, despite the mistaken beliefs of your ilk.