Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68471	2006-04-30 00:56:00	Nuclear power.	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
450645	2006-04-30 00:56:00	Here is the view of some who might have a clue. www.ecolo.org www.washingtonpost.com Can't help but think they won't be talking of wind power in a 100 years.	Cicero (40)
450646	2006-04-30 01:01:00	Chernobyl. And before you say 99% od them aren't like that and have safety precautions it only takes one screwup and a loooonnnnnnggggggggggggggg time to fix. Humans are good at screwups.	pctek (84)
450647	2006-04-30 01:16:00	Chernobyl. And before you say 99% od them aren't like that and have safety precautions it only takes one screwup and a loooonnnnnnggggggggggggggg time to fix. Humans are good at screwups. You haven't read the articles. No good speaking from ignorance,that is without considering all the info.	Cicero (40)
450648	2006-04-30 01:35:00	Having been associated peripherally with atomic power generation over a number of years, with colleagues at Winfrith in Dorset, English Electric Atomic Power Division and Reactor Equipment Division at Whetstone in Leicestershire, and having designed the bearings for the sodium pump for the Dounrey Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), I'd go along with saying atomic power generation is safer than most people perceive, and "infinitely" more so than the vast amount of atmospheric pollution being produced by fossil fuels. If we measure safety in terms of the numbers of people killed, injured or maimed, then fossil fuel pollution, including the effects of weather extremes, floods, storms, particularly in the northern hemisphere were most of the pollution is taking place, is quite obviously the worst offender.	Terry Porritt (14)
450649	2006-04-30 02:07:00	Having been associated peripherally with atomic power generation over a number of years, with colleagues at Winfrith in Dorset, English Electric Atomic Power Division and Reactor Equipment Division at Whetstone in Leicestershire, and having designed the bearings for the sodium pump for the Dounrey Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), I'd go along with saying atomic power generation is safer than most people perceive, and "infinitely" more so than the vast amount of atmospheric pollution being produced by fossil fuels. If we measure safety in terms of the numbers of people killed, injured or maimed, then fossil fuel pollution, including the effects of weather extremes, floods, storms, particularly in the northern hemisphere were most of the pollution is taking place, is quite obviously the worst offender. Interesting to note,the 3 mile island breakdown was contained in the 6ft thick walls and virtually no problems arising safety wise. I hope you take the trouble to read T.	Cicero (40)
450650	2006-04-30 02:22:00	Interesting to note,the 3 mile island breakdown was contained in the 6ft thick walls and virtually no problems arising safety wise. I hope you take the trouble to read T. Of course I do Cic. In fact I read about the pros and the cons too, don't kid yourself that all is roses with nuclear power, far from it, if you read about Windscale (Sellafield) and Dounreay you will get some idea. But at the end of the day, unless the worlds population is drastically reduced, pollution from non-nuclear sources is more likely to produce greater problems than nuclear power generation. www.monbiot.com Edit: but we also have to remember the hundreds of atomic power stations that have been generating power for decades without any problems.	Terry Porritt (14)
450651	2006-04-30 02:23:00	Using nuclear power is like playing Russian roulette.	zqwerty (97)
450652	2006-04-30 02:33:00	Of course I do Cic. In fact I read about the pros and the cons too, don't kid yourself that all is roses with nuclear power, far from it, if you read about Windscale (Sellafield) and Dounreay you will get some idea. But at the end of the day, unless the worlds population is drastically reduced, pollution from non-nuclear sources is more likely to produce greater problems than nuclear power generation. www.monbiot.com Edit: but we also have to remember the hundreds of atomic power stations that have been generating power for decades without any problems. Seems once again we have to take a position.Mine is "for". Interesting to note,that when the first steam engine was used,they thought they were playing Russian roulette.	Cicero (40)
450653	2006-04-30 02:37:00	There is an unfair stigma attached to "Nuclear power", such that even if fusion based nuclear reactors were developed, the Green party (and probably most of NZ) would still oppose its use. Myths surround this issue, which prevent open and fair debate about the issue in the media, and in everyday life in general. New Zealand, and in fact, most of the Western world needs to move away from using fossil fuels to generate power. The pollution caused by the disposal of nuclear waste is significantly less than the volume of CO2 and other pollutants being generated by current sources of electricity generation in NZ. With global warming becoming a greater and more visible problem, we need change - fast. It's interesting to note the "potential risks" argument; there is a potential risk to lives if a nuclear reactor fails. But let's look at the risks of a hydro dam collapsing: how many homes downstream would be flooded within a matter of minutes? How many lives will be lost to harsher weather conditions driven by global warming (Hurricane Katrina anyone??). Earthquakes are an inevitable risk factor in New Zealand, where virtually the entire country is susceptible to earthquakes, but they are equally a large risk in Japan and Taiwan. Both of these countries make use of nuclear power stations, and with safety features inherently built into the design of reactors now (ie. they don't rely on human or computer intervention), earthquakes (even major ones like the one which hit Taiwan in 1999) have not caused the disasters which anti-nuclear groups like to portray. Furthermore, nations around the world have been using nuclear reactors successfully and safely for decades (with the exception of a few incidents, including Chenobyl). The number of lives lost in mining accidents (for coal) far exceeds the number of people killed by nuclear power station disasters - 42 died in Chenobyl, several hundred died later on from diseases as a result of radiation - versus the tens of thousands of lives lost in coal mining accidents in China, the USA, and other western nations as well. Yet we still see it as "safe" to use coal. So despite the fact that a typical nuclear power station could provide more power than what NZ currently uses, we are a nation set to grow: in terms of population and economically, which will fuel our demand for more electricity. More and more homes now have airconditioning units, and if we expect to be able to use hydrogen cars in the future, we will need sufficient electrical power to be able to power the electrolysis plants. Nuclear power stations take a long time to build - properly - so we need to start planning ahead NOW. It's worked in European countries like France, and it's worked in Asian countries like Japan and Taiwan - there's no reason why we can't do it either.	somebody (208)
450654	2006-04-30 02:37:00	Incidentally, Patrick Moore, the former founder of Greenpeace in the Washington Post article cited by Cicero, was in Australia a few weeks back and gave this interview on Radio National (mp3 podcast) (www.abc.net.au). Quite scathing on Greenpeace and its tactics. More or less said Greenpeace was an unscientific fundraising cult (my summary). Nuclear power is the only way to go unless people suddenly start to use much lless energy, which is probably not going to happen. As for safety, there are enough nuke power plants around the world for enough years to prove they are relatively safe. And as for waste management, there are very good examples - such as the Nordic countries building a cave a few miles down a granite bed. Estimates are that it would run out of room in a few thousand years according to current usage.	vinref (6194)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17