why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[GonzoGamer]

Even using storage built 10 years ago, it would've been a lot easier to contain than a massive radioactive cloud that could drift anywhere.

But you wouldn't, you'd have to be using storage built 40 years ago to make a fair comparison. Storage which, for that matter, was due to be taken out of service and dismantled a fortnight later.

It would have been highly Not Fun for anyone who lived near such a thing if it were to catch fire.

As for the tidal battery, you're saying that a wave hurling a huge solid object inland isn't significantly worse than a wave not hurling a huge solid object inland? Traditionally tsunami-proof buildings can't stand being hit by large objects, that's why the reactors lost their backup generators; they were ready for a wave, not a wave hurling an apartment block.

And that's way nobody used it 40 years ago. My point is that (now that they are efficient) we should be using energy sources that do not have the potential for large scale catastrophic incidents like this.

That seems like an oversight of "tsunami-proof" building. With a tsunami, all sorts of giant objects are going to be hurled inland, reactors (which wouldn't wash away if they're properly anchored), ships, and yes even apartment blocks.

 

[Karma168]

The fact of the matter is that there are energy sources that do not have long term catastrophic effects when damaged and in the past year we've seen two disasters caused by sources of energy that do.
I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

Ideally we wouldn't use anything that is harmful to the environment but if 100% of energy came from wind/solar/tidal then we would constantly be having brownouts or even complete blackouts. renewable just isn't powerful enough to support the huge demand that the world has for electricity. Really we will have to wait until they can crack fusion power before we can get 100% clean energy; of course then we have a mini sun sitting somewhere which could be quite dangerous.

It's the same reason we still use petrol in cars; sure there are cleaner alternatives but they're just not good enough to make it worthwhile.


Sticking with the car analogy if you think about what changes every few years you'd be forgiven for not noticing; the changes are so small that you don't realise they've happened. It's the same in the nuclear industry; little refinements are constantly being made in the design of the fuel rods, the control and coolant systems, etc. that improve the efficiency and safeness of the plant. Just because they don't tear the place down and start again every few years doesn't mean it's old and dangerous.

 

[MrJKapowey]

I only fear ones with these letter combinations: Chernobyl

Spoiler: Guess...

Charlie, Hotel, Echo, Romeo, November, Oscar, Bravo, Yankee, Lima

Spoiler: ...or...

Tango, Hotel, Romeo, Echo, Echo, ... Mike, India, Lima, Echo, ...
India, Sierra, Lima, Alpha, November, Delta.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Because media blows shit way out of proportion. Every method of getting energy has its risks. Coal has the problem with miners. Natural gas explodes if it's not carefully handled as, apparently do windmills if the wind blows too hard ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k ). Dams create flood hazards. An earthquake at any one of these kinds of power stations (except the windmills, but those don't gather enough energy to be feasible as a sole power source) can cause additional dangers, no different from a nuclear reactor.

 

[GonzoGamer]

The fact of the matter is that there are energy sources that do not have long term catastrophic effects when damaged and in the past year we've seen two disasters caused by sources of energy that do.
I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

Ideally we wouldn't use anything that is harmful to the environment but if 100% of energy came from wind/solar/tidal then we would constantly be having brownouts or even complete blackouts. renewable just isn't powerful enough to support the huge demand that the world has for electricity. Really we will have to wait until they can crack fusion power before we can get 100% clean energy; of course then we have a mini sun sitting somewhere which could be quite dangerous.

It's the same reason we still use petrol in cars; sure there are cleaner alternatives but they're just not good enough to make it worthwhile.


Sticking with the car analogy if you think about what changes every few years you'd be forgiven for not noticing; the changes are so small that you don't realise they've happened. It's the same in the nuclear industry; little refinements are constantly being made in the design of the fuel rods, the control and coolant systems, etc. that improve the efficiency and safeness of the plant. Just because they don't tear the place down and start again every few years doesn't mean it's old and dangerous.

It's not the 80s anymore. Clean energy actually works now, it's efficient, and most importantly it doesn't have the potential for long term catastrophic damage.
I know several people who have solar power for their houses: not a farm, just panels on the roof. Not only do they not suffer from brownouts but they get a check from their local power company instead of a bill because they always have a surplus.
The real reason we still use 'petrol' in our cars is because the oil companies are rich enough to own politicians.

 

[HandsomeJack]

An incident like this was a "Perfect Storm" of problems. I am not worried about nuclear power myself. Moreover the plant was built to withstand the known earthquakes Japan had previously endured (It was rated perfectly safe for even a 6.0, a 7.0 putting it into a "safe" shutdown mode). Given that this quake was a 9 and the Richter scale is exponenetial...noone could really have expected this. This was, after all, the biggest quake in thier recorded history.
Tragically, that plant was soon to be decomissioned and replaced with a design that was more stable.

 

[Karma168]

It's not the 80s anymore. Clean energy actually works now, it's efficient, and most importantly it doesn't have the potential for long term catastrophic damage.
I know several people who have solar power for their houses: not a farm, just panels on the roof. Not only do they not suffer from brownouts but they get a check from their local power company instead of a bill because they always have a surplus.
.

I'm not just talking about houses; office buildings, streetlights, industry. these all require a lot more energy than a normal home and it's not always feasible to have them generating their own energy. As renewable sources are usually out in the middle of nowhere this means you have to install hundreds of miles of cable to transport it. The cost and inconvenience plays a major part in the reluctance to start building the infrastructure

Look I agree that it would be brilliant if we were only using renewable sources - I'm completely behind the Scottish governments plans to make Scotland 95% green - but In countries like the US or Japan where the energy demand is astronomical fossil fuels and nuclear are really the only viable options at this time.

The real reason we still use 'petrol' in our cars is because the oil companies are rich enough to own politicians

maybe in the past but with the huge rise in petrol prices more and more people are moving over to hybrids and electric cars but they are currently facing 2 big problems:

1. Lack of infrastructure; most inner city service stations don't have recharge facilities and when you're out in rural areas that number drops to nil. this makes extended driving sessions almost impossible. until a decent network is set up electric cars are a hassle that most people would rather do without

2. Performance: compare the stats of an electric to a normal car and the electric is always the loser (apart from mpg) It might be a stupid reason but people still like their cars to be fast; until an electric can match a normal car in top speed, acceleration and range people will always choose a normal car.

Like I said I would love to see a green planet but i know that until a hell of a lot of money is invested it just aint happening. For now nuclear is still the best option we have; think about how bad the air quality would be if all we used were fossil fuels and how much quicker we would run out and be up shit creek.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Like I said I would love to see a green planet but i know that until a hell of a lot of money is invested it just aint happening. For now nuclear is still the best option we have; think about how bad the air quality would be if all we used were fossil fuels and how much quicker we would run out and be up shit creek.

I've been thinking more about how bad the air quality would be if there was a radioactive cloud lingering.
Sure, green energy takes a big investment (and your info sounds like it's over a decade old: some office buildings are green and from what I've seen electric cars can be pretty fast; however their friendliness to the environment depends on the source of the electricity) but the money saved once it's set up would probably pay for itself within a year.

 

[Karma168]

I've been thinking more about how bad the air quality would be if there was a radioactive cloud lingering.

Really the risk of a major nuclear disaster is miniscule. Yes when shit happens its a major issue but the chance of it happening are 1 in a million; the damage from a coal powered station is inherent to the design.

People are scared of nuclear power for the same reason they are scared of flying; they don't understand how rigorous the safety procedures are and only think about how things can go wrong.

Sure, green energy takes a big investment (and your info sounds like it's over a decade old: some office buildings are green and from what I've seen electric cars can be pretty fast; however their friendliness to the environment depends on the source of the electricity) but the money saved once it's set up would probably pay for itself within a year.

Most of my info comes from the TV so if it's out of date blame the BBC.

That takes the long view which is something government don't like doing; they prefer to show results immediately to boost their chance of re-election. Unless a government is determined to set up the system regardless of how long it takes (like the SNP in Scotland) then green energy will always be stuck in the 'alternate energy' category that people say they want but no real effort is made to achieve.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I've been thinking more about how bad the air quality would be if there was a radioactive cloud lingering.

Really the risk of a major nuclear disaster is miniscule. Yes when shit happens its a major issue but the chance of it happening are 1 in a million; the damage from a coal powered station is inherent to the design.

People are scared of nuclear power for the same reason they are scared of flying; they don't understand how rigorous the safety procedures are and only think about how things can go wrong.

Sure, green energy takes a big investment (and your info sounds like it's over a decade old: some office buildings are green and from what I've seen electric cars can be pretty fast; however their friendliness to the environment depends on the source of the electricity) but the money saved once it's set up would probably pay for itself within a year.

Most of my info comes from the TV so if it's out of date blame the BBC.

Yes, the risk is miniscule yet (as we can see) possible and far more likely than 'alternative' energy sources.

^Here I think IS one of the problems: too many people take what they see on TV as reality. You have to understand that all commercial broadcasting is subject to scrutiny by it's owners and sponsors.
For example, I would take anything nbc says about energy with a grain of salt as it's owned by GE. Usually the connections aren't as obvious as that but rarely as contrived as a Glenn Beck blackboard.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I finally tracked it back down (and remembered to short-cut it, for that matter) so I'll post it here; I found Renewable Energy: Without the Hot Air [http://www.withouthotair.com/] to be an excellent no-jargon guide to figuring out what the right mix of power sources could be for the future. It's a couple of years old, but nothing drastic has changed in the meantime... the bigger issue for some is that it's written from the perspective of picking a solution for Great Britain, though the authour does talk about global solutions too.

Highly recommended source, and very easy to read.

-- Steve

 

[rednose1]

Always find it odd people are worrying about what the waste products will do in 10,000+ years.

Looking back 10,000 years into our past, we were hunter-gatherers who just started using metal tools. Since that time, we:
-Learned to fly. And not just normal flying, but to fly so fast as to be faster than sound itself.
-Left this planet. We overcame one of the four fundamental forces (gravity) and set foot on another celestial object.
-Reduced the size of the world. I mean this figuretively, but the fact that we can see what happened in Japan instantly, as well as talk to them.
-Split apart the basic building block of matter.(of which everyone is now up in an uproar about.
-Wiped out entire species of animals. We were able to track down and kill every single one of anything in this wirld, Horrible, but still cool.

Not trying to take the "Just wait, everything will be fine approach." but 10,000 years is a LONG time, and 1) People are still trying to find a more permanent solution and 2) There is much more space for storing spent rods on site thean you think, even without reprocessing.

Seriously, go back 50 years and tell the good folks back then that all the music you want would fit inside something the size of a pack of gum, computers would be small enough to fit in your hand, not to mention ubiquitous, and that T.V.s would not only show color, but be capable of 3-D as well.

In other words...we've come a long way baby!

Say WHAT!!! So you're basically saying: Let those future Spacemen find out what to do with it, because I propably won't be around, when it gets to be a problem for me.
Really, how much more ignorant can you get? "That global warming thing? Well, I have air conditioning."
Jeez...

Perhaps, but let me clarify my view some, because your post seems to take it into a different light than I intend.
I don't say "Screw it, let Spacemen figure it out." My point is that we've come from cavemen with clubs to pilots with planes, and the pace of these achievements is increasing. (Vernor Vinge referred to something called The Singularity on this topic I believe.) To think that we wont have this problem corrected in 10,00 years is odd. ( In my opinion, asking something to withstand 10,00years of existence is silly, akin to fining a tobacco company infinity billion dollars.)

We have some partial solutions now. Reprocessing DOES reduce the amount of radioactive waste, and allows the fuel to get a few more runs through the reactor in, reducing the need for more digging and waste. The amount of space needed is not that much either. The bulk of radioactive waste generated form a plant is the Anticontamination clothing that workers wear. There is plenty of space to deal with this stuff on site, even without a nucelar disposal repository lie Yucca mountain.

Summing this up, my point is that people are working on this problem daily, and to think we will not come up with a solution in 10,000years, especially when we have partial solutions now, is silly.

(On a side note, of course I care about global warming. The fact that nuke plants don't contribute to global warming is one of the reasons I like them.)

 

[similar.squirrel]

It's ridiculous. I read an article yesterday about a prominent environmentalist who essentially alienated himself by saying that he now supports the use of nuclear energy, because we have shown ourselves to be capable of dealing with even the unlikeliest of mishaps. I'm inclined to agree with him; anything is better than fossil fuels.

The only problem is the manufacture of weapons-grade uranium, cutting corners on waste disposal and building reactors in areas with high tectonic activity.

I hope this incident doesn't harm nuclear energy too much. Especially if we finally get around to using thorium in reactors.