Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

over 200.000 years :S That's not in any way healthier! And also nuclear energy is typical human-short thinking

Yeah and what people forget is that the companies who causes the nuclear waste will belong gone, so its up to society thus taxpayers. Well and even 20000 years is a lot of money to take c are o such things. Dumb people allwys forget that part of the calculation.;)

Indeed is it? It has been claculated that in germany we can completely replace it in 9 years, so why cant belgium?
(edited)

Indeed is it? It has been claculated that in germany we can completely replace it in 9 years

Why did they prolong the life of nuclear plants for 20 years then? :P
(edited)

I'm not for nuclear energy. But making a poll like this on the backdrop of the Japanese situation is always going to influence our perception of the situation greatly - so reading a view that the Japanese situation is not the end of the world could counterbalance the footage from Japan...

Then can I know your source. And Belgium ... we have other issues first. Like having a government :p

never

And what is happening in Japan is the reality, it's not save. Maybe save enough when nothing goes wrong, but that still isn't save.

Indeed. However, what happened in Japan will never happen in for instance the Low Countries. Here, earth quakes are very, very rare. Earth quakes of the scale of the one in Japan never happen here. So yes, in our region, nuclear power is rather safe.

Seriously what does a time 20 years ago have to do with current facts? 20 years ago , if you cant answer that question indeed on your own, the technology of renewal energysources was just very new. And a new technology is allways expensive.

It was a study on the subject of renerwal energysources, dont know that exact source anymore, but its just a few months old.

The last decision to prolong the life of nuclear plants in Germany wasn't taken 20 years ago. It has been quite recently... last year if I remember well... By that time the costs for modern eco-sources were already known, don't you thtink?

In 2022 there will be IV generation of nuclear generators introduced that most likely use closed, symbiotic nuclear fuel cycles. From these cycles comes nuclear waste that needs only 2-3 centuries to fully collapse.


This is the size of a container that is needed to store all the nuclear waste per person in his entire life at the moment. Now imagine 7 billion of these containers, it can all be maintained inside one big building.

And how many times have you stomped on a nuclear recycle site and came into direct contact with nuclear waste? I dont understand how this harms you in any way if its maintained and sealed properly.


Uranium is indeed limited, but there are enough known places to mine uranium to last for hundreds of years. Besides, there is thorium which is 3xmore commonly found on Earth than uranium and acts just as good nuclear fuel.


And about Japan, the reactors that failed there are 40 years old(still nothing catastrophic hasnt happened and wont happen) There are also reactors built in 1995, 1998 and 2002 in the same area that was hit and they didnt fail and are operating at full power with no problems AFTER a 9.0(or 8.9, im not sure about that) magnitude earthquake and tsunami.

Come on . You know quite well that politic decisions are not allways based on facts but sometimes strongly influenced by lobbies.

Believe it or not it can be done, even the current governement who made the decision to prolong the usage confirmed that. And as it is now, that can be pretty soon be history, seems like the happenings in japan have some positives effect over here.

I wonder why everyone speak about prices and costs talking about energy..
It is a political question, how do you want to produce energy?
Who must pay externalities of energy production?

Right now for petroleum, who sell it gain the price in money and everyone else in the planet PAY the costs of enviroment externalities.
For nuclear plant who has the plants gain the price in money and everyone else in the planet PAY the costs of enviroment externalities.
for wind and gotermic mainly the same..

Only sun is different in distribuction of WHO gains benefits and prices..
SO, I do NOT care about what does cost more or less..
easy choice don't you think?

seems like the happenings in japan have some positives effect over here.


:)) True.

Dont get me wrong. Im not fully against alternative energy sources. Solar power could be pretty useful if it gets cheaper and is further developed. But in everything else i see no point in further researching them.

Many people generaly do care ,so it is a relevant argument.

Anyway I would pay more too for clean energy.

Yet again I knwo that costs of 20000 years of taking care of nuclear waste are not included in any study....

So yes we all are paying in some way...