Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
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...)
Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build. No doubt about it. That's in fact the very reason, that the fuel has very limited effect on the total price. The demand for fuel is low; only a few tonnes of uranium is needed to keep a reactor going for a year. Even if the price on uranium were to increase tenfold, which is highly unlikely, it wouldn't have much effect, and nuclear power would still be able to compete with most other forms of energy production. The vast amount of investment needed would still be building the plant and paying the workers needed to run it.
Regarding demolition and storage it's included in this price. All responsible countries has set up a system with a small taxation of every kWh produces ever on a nuclear plant to pay for decommissioning the plant and handling the waste. So that won't affect anyone either.
The only valid part of your concern is the risk of something going wrong. The Fukushima plant will almost for sure be a total write off for TEPCO, at least the three reactors that has had a meltdown - just like Three Mile Island. And there's probably going to be some cleaning up to do. But in the long run nuclear power no doubt will still competitive with most other forms of energy production. The risk for a major accident like this one is simply too low to make a difference when taking the benefits into consideration: Cheap, plentyful and clean energy in steady supply. Only coal can compete for real, and that is by no means safe or clean compared to nuclear power.
Regarding demolition and storage it's included in this price. All responsible countries has set up a system with a small taxation of every kWh produces ever on a nuclear plant to pay for decommissioning the plant and handling the waste. So that won't affect anyone either.
The only valid part of your concern is the risk of something going wrong. The Fukushima plant will almost for sure be a total write off for TEPCO, at least the three reactors that has had a meltdown - just like Three Mile Island. And there's probably going to be some cleaning up to do. But in the long run nuclear power no doubt will still competitive with most other forms of energy production. The risk for a major accident like this one is simply too low to make a difference when taking the benefits into consideration: Cheap, plentyful and clean energy in steady supply. Only coal can compete for real, and that is by no means safe or clean compared to nuclear power.
About the health risk I've got two points:
1) I still find the results highly doubtful. The key word for me is 'clusters'. There has been found a higher probability of cancer in 'clusters' in the near vicinity of nuclear power plants. This would mean that there's probably also clusters - not mentioned - with low cancer risk. Now the probability of child leuchemia is very low as it is, and a single case will have a major impact on the statistics for a small area, as any cluster within the near vicinity of a power plant would be. So even if there wasn't an increased health risk at all, it would be easy for anyone to 'proove', that certain areas close to power plant has a much higher risk than the society as a whole. To make certain statistics you need large populations. Especially regarding numbers so small as is the case here. You just cannot find large populations anywhere that lives less than 3 kilometers from a nuclear power plant, except for Springfield. And when you focus on clusters in an already limited population, you're just making the case for bad science against yourself.
2) But I'll play this game. Even if the studie's findings were in fact true, the health risk would still be totally tolerable. As mentioned already the risk for child leuchemia is already extremely low, next to nothing. So even if there was a real doubling of risk for children living very close to a nuclear power plant, the effect on the society as a whole would be so small, that it is totally irrelevant when comparing the risks we put on ourselves by relying on fossil fuels. Every year our burning of coal, oil and gasses produces so much garbage in the atmosphere it kills thousands each year - even in a small country like Denmark. And in the fuel chain thousands are killed in Chinese coal mines alone each year, major accidents with oil are frequent, as is gas explosions, floods caused by hydroelectric plant and all other sort of problems caused by energy production.
No form of energy production is totally safe. It's just a fact of life. But compared to almost every other form of energy production, nuclear power is by far one of the safest. Even if the disaster in Japan would claim a life or two (not very likely as it seems today) or if a child dies from leuchemia now and then - which is also very unlikely, but as said, I'll play that game.
(edited)
1) I still find the results highly doubtful. The key word for me is 'clusters'. There has been found a higher probability of cancer in 'clusters' in the near vicinity of nuclear power plants. This would mean that there's probably also clusters - not mentioned - with low cancer risk. Now the probability of child leuchemia is very low as it is, and a single case will have a major impact on the statistics for a small area, as any cluster within the near vicinity of a power plant would be. So even if there wasn't an increased health risk at all, it would be easy for anyone to 'proove', that certain areas close to power plant has a much higher risk than the society as a whole. To make certain statistics you need large populations. Especially regarding numbers so small as is the case here. You just cannot find large populations anywhere that lives less than 3 kilometers from a nuclear power plant, except for Springfield. And when you focus on clusters in an already limited population, you're just making the case for bad science against yourself.
2) But I'll play this game. Even if the studie's findings were in fact true, the health risk would still be totally tolerable. As mentioned already the risk for child leuchemia is already extremely low, next to nothing. So even if there was a real doubling of risk for children living very close to a nuclear power plant, the effect on the society as a whole would be so small, that it is totally irrelevant when comparing the risks we put on ourselves by relying on fossil fuels. Every year our burning of coal, oil and gasses produces so much garbage in the atmosphere it kills thousands each year - even in a small country like Denmark. And in the fuel chain thousands are killed in Chinese coal mines alone each year, major accidents with oil are frequent, as is gas explosions, floods caused by hydroelectric plant and all other sort of problems caused by energy production.
No form of energy production is totally safe. It's just a fact of life. But compared to almost every other form of energy production, nuclear power is by far one of the safest. Even if the disaster in Japan would claim a life or two (not very likely as it seems today) or if a child dies from leuchemia now and then - which is also very unlikely, but as said, I'll play that game.
(edited)
Just 1 sentence to show your ignorance, But compared to almost every other form of energy production, nuclear power is by far one of the safest
Yeh, thousands died because of windmills and solar panels ... ;) And many more will die in the future because of the radiation of these power generators. No wait, not thousands died, studies from now on are a matter of believe in stead of evidence in a discussion .................. :P great.
I know a saying, 'every person that died, specially a child, is 1 to many', but not for you obviously :S That's really sad you know. In war people die unfortunatly, but is this also normal when it's about generating our electricity?
Yeh, thousands died because of windmills and solar panels ... ;) And many more will die in the future because of the radiation of these power generators. No wait, not thousands died, studies from now on are a matter of believe in stead of evidence in a discussion .................. :P great.
I know a saying, 'every person that died, specially a child, is 1 to many', but not for you obviously :S That's really sad you know. In war people die unfortunatly, but is this also normal when it's about generating our electricity?
Don't give me crap about ignorance, ignorant. Of course people are beeing killed by both solar and wind power. The enourmous construction work needed to extract a relatively small amount of energy claims lives now and then.
Plus you can't replace nuclear power with wind and solar power. The world's ever increasing demand for energy simply cannot be met with solar and wind power alone. At least not with today's technology. You can keep dreaming (beeing ignorant?) - but for the sake of our environment and health I hope those in charge make their decisions based on facts and reason and the world as we know it today - not tommorrow.
We have urgent issues at hand, so we can't wait to see what'll come around in decades. I for one is very happy the Indians and Chinese are not fuelling their rise to Western standards on fossil fuels alone, but instead make good use of both nuclear power and a healthy supplement of renewables. Every solution is needed if we are to reach the goal of reducing fossil power production. If we had brains and bullocks we'd do the same and not discard the by far most potential technology.
(edited)
We have urgent issues at hand, so we can't wait to see what'll come around in decades. I for one is very happy the Indians and Chinese are not fuelling their rise to Western standards on fossil fuels alone, but instead make good use of both nuclear power and a healthy supplement of renewables. Every solution is needed if we are to reach the goal of reducing fossil power production. If we had brains and bullocks we'd do the same and not discard the by far most potential technology.
(edited)
We have the techology for today and the ideas for tommorow. Luckely we live in a world of progress:
(is only 1 example in stead of the common inefficient windmills)
And the enviromental impact depands of were you build things. And many don't like the looks of windmills in the area, this is also not very nice to look at from dozens of miles:
We can split an atom but we can't make efficient green energy? The only thing needed is enough investments like everything else, and ofcourse the willing to change. We know the power of nature and how much energy it can provides us, enough to never use fossile fuels again or anything else we have to burn. But you can think what you think, I think what I think.
And comparing death in construction with my example .... :S You know what, I just remembered why I wasn't in this topic anymore ....
(edited)
(is only 1 example in stead of the common inefficient windmills)
And the enviromental impact depands of were you build things. And many don't like the looks of windmills in the area, this is also not very nice to look at from dozens of miles:
We can split an atom but we can't make efficient green energy? The only thing needed is enough investments like everything else, and ofcourse the willing to change. We know the power of nature and how much energy it can provides us, enough to never use fossile fuels again or anything else we have to burn. But you can think what you think, I think what I think.
And comparing death in construction with my example .... :S You know what, I just remembered why I wasn't in this topic anymore ....
(edited)
Interesting pictures about those steam clouds above the nuclear plant :) Yes, that isn't smoke, that's pure water. It's not even radioactive.
I didn't say that, I was refering to the looks of the enviroment compared to for example 80 to 100m high windmills. And looking at the studies of child leukemia, maybe it's not always just steam.
how it looks will not make lower my bill for electricity :-D.
Nice things I can watch in park :-)
Nice things I can watch in park :-)
Also nice example, can be placed in cities and gardens.
Put a lamp on top and you have lampposts to light highways and produce electricity for cities :P And when a solar panel is placed on top of the lamp, even more electricity is produced.
EDIT: Imagine highways being power plants, even the roads can produce electricity: Produce Electricity While You Drive, more in wiki - Piezoelectricity. Something I heard of in the Dutch news.
(edited)
Put a lamp on top and you have lampposts to light highways and produce electricity for cities :P And when a solar panel is placed on top of the lamp, even more electricity is produced.
EDIT: Imagine highways being power plants, even the roads can produce electricity: Produce Electricity While You Drive, more in wiki - Piezoelectricity. Something I heard of in the Dutch news.
(edited)
guys..question:
The water used for cooling the Fukushima reactors is reported to now have a radiation level 10,000,000 times in excess of the admissible maximum. Leaking into the ocean, it is steadily increasing the coastal seawater radiation level.
Can radioactivity go to atmosphere from ocean ? you know .. by evaporation (and maybe later go down by raining ??
Or it will remain in ocean and maybe settle down on ocean seabed ?
The water used for cooling the Fukushima reactors is reported to now have a radiation level 10,000,000 times in excess of the admissible maximum. Leaking into the ocean, it is steadily increasing the coastal seawater radiation level.
Can radioactivity go to atmosphere from ocean ? you know .. by evaporation (and maybe later go down by raining ??
Or it will remain in ocean and maybe settle down on ocean seabed ?
Also a good video:
Produces energy for the lowest cost and 1 of the smallest footprint. Over 59 Terrawatts through tidal energy in the UK alone remains unutilized. That's a lot :)
(edited)
Produces energy for the lowest cost and 1 of the smallest footprint. Over 59 Terrawatts through tidal energy in the UK alone remains unutilized. That's a lot :)
(edited)
Does somebody know answer on question one post before ??
I was looking for the answer but can't find any info at all.