Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Well, let's hope nothing happens as the floods of 1953 in the Netherlands, Belgium and England. Unfortunatly, literally know 1 can predict this, or any other natural disaster, war, terrorists, forgotten etc. Often people that have studied it think they oversee everything, but they can't, specially not because the waste (inclusive the old brokendown nuclear power stations) is a really long term problem.
So for me the problem is everything, from the moment they take this rare material out of the ground to use for energy (just 'burn' it), the proces itself as this is never ever 100% save and the storage after that for many thousants of years, and ofcourse the costs of billions and billions. And the strange thing is, we have alternatives and the money to make these alternatives work ...

Not at all, I was just joking ;-) No serious, in Flanders, there isn't a region that is low inhabited, so I wouldn't store it there.

Natural disasters: max. earthquake in Belgium was 6.3 on the Richter scale. You gave the largest flood ever happened, which is not nearly as heavy as in Japan. You know just like me that there won't be a war in Belgium or the Netherlands. Terrorists: okay, might happen, but as I said, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

And the strange thing is, we have alternatives and the money to make these alternatives work ...

I'd like to see that.

I feel you dont answer the question. We werent talking about logic. Anyway. Never mind.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

[The 'joke' was about Wallonia, because kreator knows I'm a Flemish nationalist.]

very "rich" discussion here, it gives me much :):)

You can't say we won't be in any war in a few hunderd or thousand+ years, you just can't :) But the radiation of the nuclear waste is still almost as dangerous as it is now in a few thousand years, and not yet close to something you can call save. Some nuclear waste has a half-life of thousands of years. You can't predict the future, no 1 can. But I know 1 thing, the world will probably never become 1 nation so war is always a possibility.

And I can show you 1 alternative, geothermal energy for example. If a country invests billions to build a nuclear powerstation and the costs for thousands of years after that, those billions could also make this work, and no extra costs to protect the waste as there is no waste :).



Other example, energy from wave power. Here you can see many examples.



Ofcourse the more common like wind and solar energy, invest billions in these systems and they will become more and more efficient. You already see new forms of the older systems like this 1, produces energy and heat.



And many more alternatives are available, it just need more investment. So stop putting money in shortterm thinking like uranium, oil and coals, invest in the right things.
(edited)

Spot on. But you wont convince anybody I am afraid.


But there will be changes after japan I guess, for sure here in germany.

link

the point is still the same.
Do you still want to believe to who want to sell you nuclear energy for business when he say "it's impossible to produce all the energy needed in the world with alternative soucres.."?
Do you really want a world that is dominated by the war for gas/oil/uranium? So if I control them I control world..
Or do you prefer something else?
(edited)

Those waves etc. are good initiatives, I support them. I just say you can't shut the nuclear power plants right now.

Btw, anyone has got a source how much a nuclear pp costs a year?

The nuclear powerstations that are operational at the moment can't be shut down indeed. Whole economies will come to a standstill. But non should be build from now on, every country has many possibilities to make alternatives work, if you live near the ocean or a river, mountains, in a sunny or windy place, or even a combination of these, cleaner or clean energy can be produced. Then the basic resources that become more rare can be used for industry that really really needs it. Ridiculous to power our home lighting by nuclear energy, or even oil and gas :P

EDIT: I'm a supporter of geothermal energy, I think that's the future, steam as waste and all known technologies like drilling and piping. And the centre of the earth won't cool down for a really long time :)
(edited)

It is not feasible at all places. In at least half of the Netherlands, the water will just be plain too cold to make good electricity out of it. Moreover there are also some risks with regard to geothermal energy. It is not the silver bullet either.

The more money available, the better the technology will become, the deeper they can go ;) It's all about the willing to invest, if the right people want to, the sky is the limit. And maybe some things won't be that sufficient as other sollutions in certain countries. Easy choice, use the better 1 :) But nuclear energy should never be this 'new' sollution.

Groningen is now also sometimes shaking because of gas exctraction, as long as it won't become any worse .. ;)

Btw, anyone has got a source how much a nuclear pp costs a year?

americanprogress.org - The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power, part one in a series on a new nuclear cost study.
(edited)

And maybe some things won't be that sufficient as other sollutions in certain countries. Easy choice, use the better 1 :)


Of course.

can you show me economic data please ?

1. investment cost of nuclear PP, price for 1 produced KW and annual operational cost

2. same for such amount of sun, geo.. or waves PP, which will make same electricity output.

Please, I will be really thankful for such a data ? I am wonder how we can compare it and maybe I change my option that nuclear PP are bad very useful and we really need them.