Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Look 7 posts up, this same page ............... ;)
EDIT: page 22 I mean :P
(edited)
EDIT: page 22 I mean :P
(edited)
We all need np to play sokker! More power!
@ MontyBurns
I going to make a rather strange example, but this is how I look at it. You're supporting the improvement of typewriters while we have computers. For me that's how it is.
And a last thing about the waste of those 3 energy sources mentioned on this page, think of what you want in your backyard, CO2 storage, nuclear storage or nothing ... :)
I'd have nothing against having in a nuclear power plant in my backyard. That's waaay more cool than most other things I can think of. :)
And if anything is a "typewriter" here, it's renewables. The biggest achievement in hundreds if not thousands of years of development in wind power, water power and biofuel has been the discovery of electricity, that makes it possible to transfer the energy over larger distances. Renewables are mostly ancient technology. Nuclear power on the other hand is high tech as anything. We're extracting energy from virtually nothing - from stuff not even discovered just a couple hundred years ago. And there are still major achievements to be made: Breeder reactors, change from uranium to thorium, fusion power etc. This is cutting edge technology, and this is where we should seek the clean, cheap and safe energy sources of tommorrow.
I going to make a rather strange example, but this is how I look at it. You're supporting the improvement of typewriters while we have computers. For me that's how it is.
And a last thing about the waste of those 3 energy sources mentioned on this page, think of what you want in your backyard, CO2 storage, nuclear storage or nothing ... :)
I'd have nothing against having in a nuclear power plant in my backyard. That's waaay more cool than most other things I can think of. :)
And if anything is a "typewriter" here, it's renewables. The biggest achievement in hundreds if not thousands of years of development in wind power, water power and biofuel has been the discovery of electricity, that makes it possible to transfer the energy over larger distances. Renewables are mostly ancient technology. Nuclear power on the other hand is high tech as anything. We're extracting energy from virtually nothing - from stuff not even discovered just a couple hundred years ago. And there are still major achievements to be made: Breeder reactors, change from uranium to thorium, fusion power etc. This is cutting edge technology, and this is where we should seek the clean, cheap and safe energy sources of tommorrow.
I see what you mean from the beginning. Nuclear power can be really dangerous if not dealt with properly but so can many things people use. Who says that the Amish aren't right when they don't want to drive cars let alone fly planes? Their worldview is much more sustainable than ours. They willingly sacrifice civilization's benefits for the sake of sustainability.
Asimov's story is a great joke but it could be easily transposed to many human activities. I personally find it more sensible to become an Amish than to say that nuclear power is not necessary today. That doesn't exclude that I am also hoping that sustainable sources become powerful enough to expel nuclear power from use completely. :)
Asimov's story is a great joke but it could be easily transposed to many human activities. I personally find it more sensible to become an Amish than to say that nuclear power is not necessary today. That doesn't exclude that I am also hoping that sustainable sources become powerful enough to expel nuclear power from use completely. :)
Ok :) But my post wasn't ment to start a new discussion, I was refering to the last post of MontyBurns and my post about open minded and simple thinking (even knowing the facts of cancer and living next to nuclear power stations).
(edited)
(edited)
I don't want to get into an argument over who needs to be more open minded. So let's leave it at that...
In other news:
An excellent, very short, blog entry I can totally agree with:
It’s nuclear power or it’s climate change
And for me it's also a bit funny (tragically funny, that is), because an Australian highlights the inherent problems in the Danish solution - renewables, mainly wind.
PS: Watch the video also - and if you've got the time, read the other blog entry linked to in the above one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
(edited)
In other news:
An excellent, very short, blog entry I can totally agree with:
It’s nuclear power or it’s climate change
And for me it's also a bit funny (tragically funny, that is), because an Australian highlights the inherent problems in the Danish solution - renewables, mainly wind.
PS: Watch the video also - and if you've got the time, read the other blog entry linked to in the above one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
(edited)
The supporters of np allways speak about the risk or low risk of nuclear meltdown.
Also allways the issue of nuclear waste is completely left out of calculation.
Well no more to add, everything clear for ones own thoughts. If one has a brain, that is.
Also allways the issue of nuclear waste is completely left out of calculation.
Well no more to add, everything clear for ones own thoughts. If one has a brain, that is.
Why everybody who has different opinion must say that one has a brain and the other not :-) ?
Nuclear waste we can storage for some time and later we can export it to space, maybe to sun, so what kind of problem ???
And what nuclear meltdown are you speaking about.... that old one, russian ? That from old times when they didnt know how to build secure PP ?? But look on calendar, what year is now... look that the biggest nuclear catastrophe of nowadays (fukushima) has "happyend" - no nuclear meltdown !!!
Nuclear waste we can storage for some time and later we can export it to space, maybe to sun, so what kind of problem ???
And what nuclear meltdown are you speaking about.... that old one, russian ? That from old times when they didnt know how to build secure PP ?? But look on calendar, what year is now... look that the biggest nuclear catastrophe of nowadays (fukushima) has "happyend" - no nuclear meltdown !!!
Correction:
Fukushima has almost certainly experienced a meltdown. Probably in all three reactors affected by the accident, so in fact it's most likely three times meltdown. But the containment seems to be intact, and that's the key. The reactor at Chernobyl was built without a primary containment made of steel and reinforced concrete. When the roof of the building blew off, the reactor was totally exposed - and that's why the magnitude of the disaster was of a completely different level. But that was the Soviet Union. No Western reactors has ever been built without secure containment.
The Three Mile Island-accident in 1979 was also a meltdown. Almost the entire core (10-20 tonnes of material) melted to the bottom om the reactor vessel. But as it has been the case in Fukushima the vast majority of the really dangerous stuff never left the containment, so the accident had no effect on either humans or environment, although it caused a mass panic. Much like the accident at Fukushima has.
Fukushima has almost certainly experienced a meltdown. Probably in all three reactors affected by the accident, so in fact it's most likely three times meltdown. But the containment seems to be intact, and that's the key. The reactor at Chernobyl was built without a primary containment made of steel and reinforced concrete. When the roof of the building blew off, the reactor was totally exposed - and that's why the magnitude of the disaster was of a completely different level. But that was the Soviet Union. No Western reactors has ever been built without secure containment.
The Three Mile Island-accident in 1979 was also a meltdown. Almost the entire core (10-20 tonnes of material) melted to the bottom om the reactor vessel. But as it has been the case in Fukushima the vast majority of the really dangerous stuff never left the containment, so the accident had no effect on either humans or environment, although it caused a mass panic. Much like the accident at Fukushima has.
1. How can you deny a meltdown at Fukushima? I think most experts agree that there has been or is still an ongoing meltdown. The problem is that you can't tell from the outside and you can't go into the reactor to check it out until in a few years. The difference is (fortunately) in the explosions and the release of radiation compared to Tchernobyl.
2. How do you imagine sending nuclear waste to space? Do you know how much weight space crafts can carry into space and how much nuclear waste is stored on earth? Do you know how much space missions cost?
2. How do you imagine sending nuclear waste to space? Do you know how much weight space crafts can carry into space and how much nuclear waste is stored on earth? Do you know how much space missions cost?
The space scenario belongs to the future. But it would require much developement to be realistic. You've got to be both 100% sure, that there's no risk of an accident during launch - and it's got to be waaay less expensive than today. Maybe if they ever build a "space-elevator". But I don't think it's very likely.
A deep repository is much more practical with today's technology. It's safe and relatively cheap. Another option is to drill the waste very deep into areas, where the continental drift will take it to the center of the earth eventually. It would of course require absolute certainty, that it's not suddenly spewed out af a volcano.
(edited)
A deep repository is much more practical with today's technology. It's safe and relatively cheap. Another option is to drill the waste very deep into areas, where the continental drift will take it to the center of the earth eventually. It would of course require absolute certainty, that it's not suddenly spewed out af a volcano.
(edited)