Is nuclear the way to go?

[xpensive]

They can try to crash a 747 into one of the Ringhals reactors on the Swedish west coast with 2 meters solid concrete casing, best of luck to them, but the Swedish built JAS fighter would have taken them down long time before they even got close.

Brazil is buying the JAS I hear btw, good choice Lula.

[Pandamasque]

Being against the nukes, doesn't mean that one is for coal plants. That is just shameless imputing in lack of better arguments. People who are against nukes are against coal power plants too.

So you can as well be against electricity in general, as most of it is 'dirty'.

[xpensive]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

That's a good read, Ciro. Unfortunately, the article did nothing to convince me that nuclear waste isn't a problem. The "magical solution" stated is something similar to putting dirt below the carpet and wait for it to be a problem again to find a new solution...

If it wasn't for the waste side, I would be vibrantly supporting nuclear power.

The "waste" is not a problem, more than in the sense that we will have to dig it up again 20 years from now to make use of the remaining 95% of energy stored in the "waste".

[WhiteBlue]

As nuclear energy does not produce global warming gases, it is better for the environment (I mean, for me and you). We already discussed this theme and it seemed to me that after reviewing the figures, the forum agreed that the way to go is nuclear.
If you want to understand Fly, Just a fan, X and Edis position, please, by all means, stop ranting and read.
FACTS:
A coal plant produces 100 times the amount of radioactive material produced by a nuclear plant.

Right, another blatant example how a moderator simply declares his opinion as the truth, all based on manipulated factoids!

Of cause Nuclear energy produces no global warming gases, but that doesn't mean at all that the production of nuclear energy, the handling of nuclear fuel and the associated waste is good for the environment. Handling and reprocessing hundred thousands of tons of Nuclear fuel and waste unless done with the utmost care can cause huge environmental damage as the history of Nuclear in the USSR and Russia has shown.

There are examples of nuclear reactor accidents caused simply by their building collapsing from material fatigue. The more we have to be concerned that far more dangerous reactors like the sodium cooled fast breeders can be hit by aircraft terrorist attacks, earth quakes or even plain stupidity in civil wars.

Countries with the social stability of Iran are building reactors and who knows what dumb sh!t in possession of a tank or howitzer may decide to blast some holes in a nuclear facility? California, Japan and a bunch of other states with active volcanoes and regular earth quakes are building reactors happily without a thought of the wider consequences.

The biggest and boldest distortion of the truth is the story of all coal plants producing 100 times the nuclear material of a nuclear plant. Coal plants do not produce radioactivity. Coal contains like other fossil fuels traces of low level radioactive materials that need to be taken care of. If the ashes are filtered by state of the art emission protection equipment coal plants do not spread these radioactive materials, they can be safely deposited. Opposed to this all nuclear plants require high radioactive nuclear fuel and produce even higher active and longer radiating nuclear waste. Fast breeders specifically produce more high active material than the nuclear fuel they are fed with. The safe deposit of highly radioactive nuclear waste for in some cases millions of years is a big concern as many countries simply don't have the geological facilities to store the waste safely forever.

Today's operating reactors are mainly big water cookers with temperatures of 200-300 °C and based on technology that is fairly well understood. Nevertheless these rather simple plants can be effed up as Chernobyl shows. The future reactors will mainly be breeders with design technologies that are unproven or undeveloped and on temperature levels of 800 °C. The coolant will not be water that carries limited contamination and destructive potential but liquid sodium that ignites in contact with air and water and can easily blow up a nuclear core in a case of ignition. All prototype breeders with sodium cooling have had coolant leaks (due to high temp corrosion) and some even coolant fires. One dumb guy with a rocket propelled grenade can blow up the secondary sodium circuit which isn't usually protected by the containment and the whole plant including the core goes up in the air. Future breeders will use some 6000 tons of liquid sodium. I leave it to someone else to figure the equivalent of TNT but I tell you we are not talking fire crackers here. A breeder reactor can go critical if the grid power is lost for some reason for half an hour and the back up generators do not kick in. The reactor relies on the big sodium pumps running to circulate thousands of tons of liquid metal through the heat exchange circuits.

I wonder how good that will be for the environment.

[Belatti]

Making a mistake should not lead you to forget the target, but to effectively hit it without doing the same mistake again.

Pain should not be forgoten but also you should not live with fear of it.

There is no way a large percentage of humans can stop being greedy. Greedy bastards are useful anyways.

If you are against nuke AND carbon then you should not live inside a house, get dressed, use cosmetics, drive or use any transport, use any electronic device and eat anything you have to pay for. Because you cant be against something you use.

And a final thought: the only energy production method that is close to almost free unlimited energy is nuclear.
Now, Im not saying actual nuke energy plants are fine, but the biggest leap foward we can do as earth inhabitants is inside this field. We are not going to extract more magical properties out of fosils or wind and sun.

[autogyro]

They can try to crash a 747 into one of the Ringhals reactors on the Swedish west coast with 2 meters solid concrete casing, best of luck to them, but the Swedish built JAS fighter would have taken them down long time before they even got close.

Brazil is buying the JAS I hear btw, good choice Lula.

It would only take just a few pounds of semtex to destroy one of the vehicles used to transport the concentrated waste and spread that waste through out your country. If they tell you it is not transported I can assure you they do and have been doing so throughout the countries that use nuclear for many years. Fortunately the locations and time tables up to now have remained top secret.
FOR HOW LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[autogyro]

Making a mistake should not lead you to forget the target, but to effectively hit it without doing the same mistake again.

Pain should not be forgoten but also you should not live with fear of it.

There is no way a large percentage of humans can stop being greedy. Greedy bastards are useful anyways.

If you are against nuke AND carbon then you should not live inside a house, get dressed, use cosmetics, drive or use any transport, use any electronic device and eat anything you have to pay for. Because you cant be against something you use.

And a final thought: the only energy production method that is close to almost free unlimited energy is nuclear.
Now, Im not saying actual nuke energy plants are fine, but the biggest leap foward we can do as earth inhabitants is inside this field. We are not going to extract more magical properties out of fosils or wind and sun.

Please Belatti, nuclear is not 'free' it comes with the biggest danger the human race is likely to face from its own actions.

[hollus]

We don't need to invoke any magical extra solar energy.
Acording to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_ener ... ge_methods

Yearly Solar fluxes & Human Energy Consumption
Solar 3,850,000 EJ[6]
Wind 2,250 EJ[7]
Biomass 3,000 EJ[8]
Primary energy use (2005) 487 EJ[9]
Electricity (2005) 56.7 EJ[10]

Thus the solar input on the planet is about 10000 times the currently energy consumption. The technology might be behind, but could catch up quickly if people realized the need; the infrastructure is obvioulsy hopelessly behind; but energy directly or indirectly derived from the sun is around and plentiful. If we put our minds to it, covering 1% of the emerged land with solar infrastructure with an overall efficiency of 3% covers all of our energy needs, here and now. In some years, the efficiency could (should if there is a will) raise to 30%, and 0.1% of the land would suffice.
The energy is there, it is a question of wether we prefer to try to harness it, or we prefer to continue burning coal and dealing with radiactive materials.

By the way, data on South Korea shows that we can easily use such percentages of land for one purpose, when we want: "Land for homes and factories made up roughly 3 percent of the total with roads and rivers covering 3 percent of the country's land area each." Source: http://www.kdb.co.kr/weblogic/Board?BID ... CTION=VIEW
And area used for solar can still have a building or a road under it.

[xpensive]

Bah, all this talk about the "Chernobyl catastrophe", when that was virtually nothing compared to the deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the Americans knew all too well after their own xperiments in Nevada what it would mean to the civil population.

If science can be allowed to deplete these plutonium bombs into energy, that's a blesssing to pray for.

[manchild]

I've forgot to mention shocking info I've heard same day - Ukraine still spends 1/3rd of what it makes every year, just to maintain Chernobyl under control and for healing those living with the consequences. Not to mention that new generations are being born, and they will be born for centuries with abnormalities which are Chernobyl's heritage.

I agree with those who say that world would be ok if people would be less greedy. and most of all, less violent towards the others and the nature.

Bah, all this talk about the "Chernobyl catastrophe", when that was virtually nothing compared to the deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ...

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features ... -faq.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... man_health

Check your figures. Much more people have died and got ill, and still gets ill from Chernobyl than it did in Japan during WWII.

In bombing of Drezden with conventional bombs, 300.000 people died, 100.000 people in conventional bombing of Tokyo.
Although, I don't see what the war has to do with this topic. Nuclear danger comes from anyone who has it. US are just part of it, not the ones solely responsible. As long as it exists anywhere it is a global danger.

[WhiteBlue]

Bah, all this talk about the "Chernobyl catastrophe", when that was virtually nothing compared to the deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the Americans knew all too well after their own xperiments in Nevada what it would mean to the civil population.

If science can be allowed to deplete these plutonium bombs into energy, that's a blesssing to pray for.

1. Contamination wise and in terms of environmental impact Chernobyl was far worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

2. Weapon grade plutonium can be diluted with other nuclear waste to become useless for bombs and can be deposited in conventional nuclear waste facilities. There is no need to "burn" it in reactors, particularly not breeder reactors.

[xpensive]

And what, if I may be so bold to ask, could be wrong with letting technology have its way with turning doomsday weapons into useful energy, apart from the usual fear of the unknown of course?

[flynfrog]

Bah, all this talk about the "Chernobyl catastrophe", when that was virtually nothing compared to the deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the Americans knew all too well after their own xperiments in Nevada what it would mean to the civil population.

If science can be allowed to deplete these plutonium bombs into energy, that's a blesssing to pray for.

1. Contamination wise and in terms of environmental impact Chernobyl was far worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

2. Weapon grade plutonium can be diluted with other nuclear waste to become useless for bombs and can be deposited in conventional nuclear waste facilities. There is no need to "burn" it in reactors, particularly not breeder reactors.

The WHO disagrees with you

Acute Radiation Syndrome mortality

following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS
was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated
by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons
died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated
to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary
thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their
deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable
Population category Number
Average dose
(mSv)
Liquidators (1986–1989) 600 000 ~100
Evacuees from highly-contaminated zone (1986) 116 000 33
Residents of “strict-control” zones (1986–2005) 270 000 >50
Residents of other ‘contaminated’ areas (1986–2005) 5 000 000 10–20
Summary of average accumulated doses to affected populations from
Chernobyl fallout
15
to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radioactive
fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated
fatalities did not occur.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/c ... ort_EN.pdf

[manchild]

And what, if I may be so bold to ask, culd be wrong with letting technology has its way with turning doomsday weapons into useful energy, apart from the usual fear of the unknown of course?

Oh c'mon. Fear is know, experienced, documented, filmed, lived by hundreds of thousands.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43uHJR0WTo[/youtube]

flyinfrog, that's BS. Those 28 were immediate casualties. I have read various articles mentioning over 200.000 dead so far.

Whole Pripyat, some 75.000 people were exposed to deadly radiation for several days prior to being evacuated.

Liquidators, 600.000 of them, they are either dead or dying or will die from it.

Same goes for evacuees from highly-contaminated zone, Residents of “strict-control” zones, Residents of other ‘contaminated’ and thousands of people worldwide.

Don't forget the unborn children who will suffer and die from diseases caused by exposure their ancestors faced.

[WhiteBlue]

Bah, all this talk about the "Chernobyl catastrophe", when that was virtually nothing compared to the deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the Americans knew all too well after their own xperiments in Nevada what it would mean to the civil population.

If science can be allowed to deplete these plutonium bombs into energy, that's a blesssing to pray for.

1. Contamination wise and in terms of environmental impact Chernobyl was far worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

2. Weapon grade plutonium can be diluted with other nuclear waste to become useless for bombs and can be deposited in conventional nuclear waste facilities. There is no need to "burn" it in reactors, particularly not breeder reactors.

The WHO disagrees with you

Acute Radiation Syndrome mortality

following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS
was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated
by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons
died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated
to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary
thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their
deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable
Population category Number
Average dose
(mSv)
Liquidators (1986–1989) 600 000 ~100
Evacuees from highly-contaminated zone (1986) 116 000 33
Residents of “strict-control” zones (1986–2005) 270 000 >50
Residents of other ‘contaminated’ areas (1986–2005) 5 000 000 10–20
Summary of average accumulated doses to affected populations from
Chernobyl fallout
15
to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radioactive
fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated
fatalities did not occur.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/c ... ort_EN.pdf

I cannot see a disagreement in your figures because they fail to even show the quantity of the contamination in both cases. AFAIK in Japan there were no longer lasting consequences for humans inhabiting the areas. In Ukraine huge parts of the country have restrictions on the use of soil, agriculture, water distribution and other use of natural resources. Compiling figures about radiation doesn't even begin to describe the lasting consequences of the disaster for the people of Ukraine.



The permanent control zone seems to be pretty huge.