Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
I just hoped that this has already ended and with "relatively" good end... :-(
It still may well do. But an accident like this will take an effort for several weeks from now to keep under control.
I do not wish for Nuclear power ANYWHERE. It's too dangerous, just look at Chernobyl (even if the building was deemed unsafe in the first place).
Geothermics isn't an energy source without risks; there are theories that geothermical plants can cause earthquakes even in geologically stable regions.
Fukushima's problems come from the fact that the tsunami has knocked down the electrical system, therefore the plant's cooling system went down. The plant itself has survived the earthquake and was surprisingly resistant against the tsunami too. But without cooling it wasn't be able to work safely.
Fukushima's problems come from the fact that the tsunami has knocked down the electrical system, therefore the plant's cooling system went down. The plant itself has survived the earthquake and was surprisingly resistant against the tsunami too. But without cooling it wasn't be able to work safely.
I'm not sure fo what do you mean :P
But my 2 cents:
- Nuclear plants should be valued for their benefits, costs, and risks. Fukushima (or Chernobyl, or the like) should have no impact in our views unless the incident provides information to correct our assessment of the risks. It doesn't seem to be the case: Fukushima is having the problems we already knew nuclear plants can have.
- Debating things of permanent relevance when some dramatic jncture puts them in front page is a bad idea, as it usually leads to wrong and populist decisions (nuclear power should be debated per se, and not depending on some inpressive picture in the news).
- If anything, the incident at Fukushima is about earthquakes, not nuclear plants. It may say something about the convenience of having a nuclear plant at that location (or Los Angeles, or any seismic region in the world), but not about nuclear plants themselves. As far as we know, the same nuclear plant in, say, France, would have 0% probabilities of suffering the same accident. What we really care about is the underlying risk of a nuclear plant malfunctioning. Of course, at the time of building it, we jointly care about that and location. Fukushima's incident is a result of this joint risk, and may be taking into account in the debate about any specific plant decision, but it hardly tells something new about nuclear power in general.
But my 2 cents:
- Nuclear plants should be valued for their benefits, costs, and risks. Fukushima (or Chernobyl, or the like) should have no impact in our views unless the incident provides information to correct our assessment of the risks. It doesn't seem to be the case: Fukushima is having the problems we already knew nuclear plants can have.
- Debating things of permanent relevance when some dramatic jncture puts them in front page is a bad idea, as it usually leads to wrong and populist decisions (nuclear power should be debated per se, and not depending on some inpressive picture in the news).
- If anything, the incident at Fukushima is about earthquakes, not nuclear plants. It may say something about the convenience of having a nuclear plant at that location (or Los Angeles, or any seismic region in the world), but not about nuclear plants themselves. As far as we know, the same nuclear plant in, say, France, would have 0% probabilities of suffering the same accident. What we really care about is the underlying risk of a nuclear plant malfunctioning. Of course, at the time of building it, we jointly care about that and location. Fukushima's incident is a result of this joint risk, and may be taking into account in the debate about any specific plant decision, but it hardly tells something new about nuclear power in general.
X. Bravo. Clap-clap. Thumbs-up. Etc. ;)
I couldn't have written it better myself. :)
Another update has been made on Barry Brooks excellent blog: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/26/fukushima-26-march-status/
As usual it gives some very useful insight into the current situation at Fukushima - stripped from all the disinformation and lack of knowledge contaminating most main stream media sources.
Another update has been made on Barry Brooks excellent blog: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/26/fukushima-26-march-status/
As usual it gives some very useful insight into the current situation at Fukushima - stripped from all the disinformation and lack of knowledge contaminating most main stream media sources.
Fukushima was hit by an tsunami way higher as the building was build for. Nature is always unpredicatble, impossible to build something and knowing if it's really save. Engineers always thinks they oversee everything ... oh wait, 1 little thing missed and in some cases big consequences (like nuclear power).
And geothermic power stations can also cause problems indeed, but luckely there are many other sollutions that can also work in certain countries. There is not 1 better sollution as nuclear, what geothermic power stations are, but dozens more sollutions.
And geothermic power stations can also cause problems indeed, but luckely there are many other sollutions that can also work in certain countries. There is not 1 better sollution as nuclear, what geothermic power stations are, but dozens more sollutions.
I think this discussion about the risk that are technically evaluated is useless.
There are too many things that just cannot be quantified but should be taken into consideration when determining the risks of nuclear plants or technology in general.
Best example is the current situation in Fukushima:
Really strong earth quakes like this one lately happen so seldomly that there can't be a proper estimation of a probability for this too happen.
Imagine earth quakes of 10 or higher that have never been experienced by mankind. Does that mean they are impossible to happen? I think no.
Furthermore, how do you quantify the possibility of terror attacks on nuclear sites? Plane crashes onto plants, bombings, sabotage, etc. Imho this cannot be quantified because terror cannot be quantified.
I can't understand how people can talk about the risks of this technology if you cannot really evaluate the real world risks. Everything that has been calculated so far has to be too far off reality to be a proper estimation of how possible nuclear disasters really are.
There are too many things that just cannot be quantified but should be taken into consideration when determining the risks of nuclear plants or technology in general.
Best example is the current situation in Fukushima:
Really strong earth quakes like this one lately happen so seldomly that there can't be a proper estimation of a probability for this too happen.
Imagine earth quakes of 10 or higher that have never been experienced by mankind. Does that mean they are impossible to happen? I think no.
Furthermore, how do you quantify the possibility of terror attacks on nuclear sites? Plane crashes onto plants, bombings, sabotage, etc. Imho this cannot be quantified because terror cannot be quantified.
I can't understand how people can talk about the risks of this technology if you cannot really evaluate the real world risks. Everything that has been calculated so far has to be too far off reality to be a proper estimation of how possible nuclear disasters really are.
Hungary has very strong geothermal potential, so I'm not against using that - I only say that wothout nuclear power plants there'll be much less and much more expensive energy.
That really depands of how you look at it link The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power. The costs of building nuclear power stations are enormous, the fuel at the moment relatively low, like oil ones was before everyone needed it. But don't forget the demolition and storage costs. The healthcare costs of those getting sick living to close to nuclear power stations. And ofcourse the costs of those times it does go wrong, that also has to be paid at the end by someone (the consumers ofcourse). And looking at it from another economical side, how many companies will benefit of building a nuclear power station? Probably a few as it is very specialist work. Also less specialist work will also increase competition and lower the prices and that is something that won't happen with nuclear power stations. So at the end more expansive as this .. I doubt it :)
I sincerely doubt that people are getting sick because of living too close to nuclear power stations. What would be causing increased illness chances if radiation dose from nuclear power plants is comparably like this: Radiation?
I personally cannot be sure that these studies are scientific. It is much more easier to measure actual radiation (just take Geiger counter) than influence of long-term effects of any given factor on general population's health. None of these 2 studies show what caused this suposed larger number of illnesses. What could it be if not radiation? If it is radiation, then measuring its levels should be a fairly simple task. If it is not radiation, then what the hell is it?
It is very difficult to quantify this influence by simply counting and comparing incidence of diseases. You need large enough samples and also placebo samples of the same size and the methodology of choosing both groups must be random enough in order to single out particular factor's influence. This way the link between smoking and cancer was scientifically proved. It was no simple task as it might seem. We know radiation causes cancer. So we just need to measure radiation.
Also, if an institution called "German Federal Office for Radiation Protection" pays for a such study, any different outcome of such study clearly takes them out of their job. Why don't they go and measure radiation instead? This is a classical conflict of interest situation. Methodology of this study is key here and I don't see that. Check more about poor studies prevailing nowadays in the media at Bad Science.
The US "study" (Germans are smarter people ;)) is simply blatantly weak. They are simply showing increases and decreases in mortality in areas near power plants. That is absolutely no evidence. That's pure speculation and probably even cherrypicking evidence involved. That's no real science for sure. This is more simmilar to what Michael Moore and Al Gore do in their "docummentaries".
It is very difficult to quantify this influence by simply counting and comparing incidence of diseases. You need large enough samples and also placebo samples of the same size and the methodology of choosing both groups must be random enough in order to single out particular factor's influence. This way the link between smoking and cancer was scientifically proved. It was no simple task as it might seem. We know radiation causes cancer. So we just need to measure radiation.
Also, if an institution called "German Federal Office for Radiation Protection" pays for a such study, any different outcome of such study clearly takes them out of their job. Why don't they go and measure radiation instead? This is a classical conflict of interest situation. Methodology of this study is key here and I don't see that. Check more about poor studies prevailing nowadays in the media at Bad Science.
The US "study" (Germans are smarter people ;)) is simply blatantly weak. They are simply showing increases and decreases in mortality in areas near power plants. That is absolutely no evidence. That's pure speculation and probably even cherrypicking evidence involved. That's no real science for sure. This is more simmilar to what Michael Moore and Al Gore do in their "docummentaries".
You know, there is a small nuclear reactor in the middle of Budapest - but there isn't significantly much cancer or any other sickness related to radiation. I'm quite sure there are some universities in Netherlands too which have such laboratory reactors (they are exactly the same as the power plants, but they usually don't sell electricity or any other energy).
Building a nuclear power plant is pretty expensive - because of the safety mechanisms. Most of the reactors never has any serious malfunction which could lead to nuclear pollution. The current waste could be refined and reused with better technology. And there still isn't any better solution for our current energy consumption - or do you want to pay twice the price for electricity? (I don't want to do that because I couldn't pay it...)
Building a nuclear power plant is pretty expensive - because of the safety mechanisms. Most of the reactors never has any serious malfunction which could lead to nuclear pollution. The current waste could be refined and reused with better technology. And there still isn't any better solution for our current energy consumption - or do you want to pay twice the price for electricity? (I don't want to do that because I couldn't pay it...)