Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nuclear Power - Your Views  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

The UK Government has recently refused to rule out building more nuclear powerstations inorder to stop a decline in the electricity generating capabilities of the UK and also as a means to combat CO2 production inline with various treaties.

With alternatives such as wind farms having their own problems, is nuclear power a viable alternative to fossil fuel burning powerstations?

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2990 times:

Nuclear is not just a viable alternative, it's THE alternative.

So-called "green energy" isn't. The environmental cost of for example a solar power station are higher than the benefits it might yield over its expected lifespan.
You need to put in so much energy and raw materials to build and maintain the thing that you put in more energy than you ever get out again and pollute more than you ever save over more traditional forms of energy generation.
Wind is somewhat better, but you can still only hope to break even.

And both are notoriously unreliable, as was shown during the 2003 and 2004 summers when extremely hot summers coincided with a total lack of wind for several weeks and thus a serious shortfall in energy production capability.

Nuclear is clean, safe, and can be almost free of waste materials if you build not just regular plants but breeder plants as well.
And if regulations are changed to allow for separation of the waste materials that do get created the volume of longterm waste can be reduced to almost nothing (and that only low-radioactive, the high radioactive waste decaying over a few weeks or months in short term storage to harmless materials).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGr325 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 715 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

I could write a whole reply but I totally agree with Jwenting. Sometimes it does piss me off that so many protest against it because of the "what if something happends" issue. Of course if something bad happends we do not what what is goign to happen. But if we produce energy another way that you get the issue about the stuff that vapours away int he atmosphere. One thing of the other it is never a good thing in the eyes off greenpeace and that kind of organisations.

Anyway we should not think about what can happen. Cause it is more likely something else worse will happen sooner that a blown up Nuclear Plant. As long as we keep maintaining them of course. Well I suppose you get my point.

GR325



"You should have gone to specsavers"
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
You need to put in so much energy and raw materials to build and maintain the thing that you put in more energy than you ever get out again and pollute more than you ever save over more traditional forms of energy generation.

Nonsense. The average energetic amortisation - that is the the time span that a solar system requires to produce as much energy as was needed for production of the system - is three to four years, while solar systems have a life expectancy of 25 or more years.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
Wind is somewhat better, but you can still only hope to break even.

Amortisation time is indeed even shorter. But have you heard of one nuclear power plant in the western hemisphere that actually produced more power then it was needed to build and maintain that thing?
You know why energy companies in Germany protested when the last government announced its intention to renounce nuclear energy? Because a lifespan of 32 years would barely cover the immense costs spent on building those things.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
Nuclear is clean, safe,

Debateable ...

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
And if regulations are changed to allow for separation of the waste materials that do get created the volume of longterm waste can be reduced to almost nothing (and that only low-radioactive, the high radioactive waste decaying over a few weeks or months in short term storage to harmless materials).

Sorry? Half-life of radioactive waste is longer than a few weeks or months.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

A necessary evil, I reckon. Wind farms are a neat idea, but they just don't generate enough energy to be worth the bother. I'm perfectly OK with nuclear energy (provided they don't build a nuclear plant anywhere near where I live  Smile ). Better than fossil-fuel power anyway.

User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
don't build a nuclear plant anywhere near where I live

How close is too close ?

I have two plants within 30 miles from me (home). And as i type this (wirk), i have a plant within 1 km of me.

I no problems with nuclear power. In fact Canada makes a soilid reactor.



I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineFLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

As an A-level Environmental Science Student we have debated the 'Nuclear Option' over the last two years many times, and once you get through the nitty gritty of it all and actually read the cost benefit analyses of it all Nuclear is the best option at this point in time !

At our current rate within 20 years there will only be one operational Nuclear reactor in the UK, Sizewell B which is just down the coast from me here in Suffolk. If the fast-track construction gets the go ahead expect a Sizewell C & D all PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) type facilities as this is the most modern reactor type we have in the UK and is most likely going to be the benchmark type reactor for all new facilities in the UK.

I would disregard anyone mentioning Chernobyl when it comes to the building of new reactors in the UK, if they had any idea what they where talking about they would know about the completely different system design of our reactors and the fail safe systems which are incorporated which help to prevent a Chernobyl type incident.

Good for Suffolk in my mind !



I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nuclear power is the best answer we have to the coming crisis in petroleum availability. We will need to find ways to reduce our dependence on oil for electricity and nuclear power is the cleanest way.

We can reprocess spent fuel until the final remnants need to be put into long term storage. This long term storage will require maintenance until we devise some means for actually rendering the remnants inert, but managed storage is not only possible but practical. We have already converted salt mines in the US southwest for the purpose, and the only thing now holding us up are the NIMBYs and the extreme enviromental crowd (that won't admit that it simply wants us to revert to the horse and buggy years and reduce the human population) which agitates and scares everyone else into preventing power plants from being built here.

Let me ask this.....what represents a greater threat to us...
a. Coal fired plants, as the US has tremendous coal reserves, which cannot ever be completely clean in their burning or the mining means.
or
b. Nuclear power plants which will require that we deposit the relatively small amount of waste in managed storage facilities that will become permanent fixtures where we maintain the storage containers until we devise a method for destroying or rendering inert the waste?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
while solar systems have a life expectancy of 25 or more years.

I thought our solar system was supposed to last billions if not trillions of years!! Should we all say our prayers now?  scared   Wink



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20552 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

I'm going to take a stab in the dark that most of the people who have/will claim that nuclear plants are "safe and clean" are too young to recall Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 7):
I thought our solar system was supposed to last billions if not trillions of years!! Should we all say our prayers now?

*lol* got me. Solar power systems ...

Don't get me wrong; I think nuclear power is a "necessary evil" as JGP called it. I just wish we would spend more efforts on the development of "alternative" energy and use both in a mix.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6581 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Windpower is actually not all that great. It sounds wonderfull, but people fail to realize that due to the unpredictable nature of wind, and the fact that large scale energy storage is not quiet yet possible. There must be enough "spinning reserve" in the grid to take over when there is no wind. Guess what type of generators provide this reserve: mostly fossil fuel plants. This bad reliability lowers the price of wind electricity, making it unprofitable without government intervention.

The solution: Pumped storage Hydroelectric plants! Use your water, when your done, pump it back up.. and resuse once more. Problem is.. expensive and quite long construction times  Sad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage

http://www.dukepower.com/community/l...pumpedstorage/pumpedstoragefaq.asp



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting FLVILLA (Reply 6):
if they had any idea what they where talking about they would know about the completely different system design of our reactors and the fail safe systems

I know the systems are different, but there is no such thing like a fail safe system.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineFLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 11):
Quoting FLVILLA (Reply 6):
if they had any idea what they where talking about they would know about the completely different system design of our reactors and the fail safe systems



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 11):
I know the systems are different, but there is no such thing like a fail safe system.

Amazing how you cut off the rest of my post there on your quote right ! lol

I never said that our system was fail safe, but if you had read on I stated that there are fail safe systems which help to prevent chernobyl type incidents. There are actually many systems on PWR facilities by which if someone or something was trying to change the operation of the reactor but not doing it through the appropriate authorized channels to access the computer systems and then having the correct keys and codes the reactor would simply shut itself down at the first indication that something is up.

No form of energy production is safe, but I'd bet that Nuclear is one of the safest when operated correctly and is a lot more preferable over importing Gas from abroad.



I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 5):
And as i type this (wirk), i have a plant within 1 km of me.

In Darlington lies my darling one
She fills my thoughts each day
Half a mile from the cooling towers
I sure hope that she's okay!

 Smile



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 13):
In Darlington lies my darling one
She fills my thoughts each day
Half a mile from the cooling towers
I sure hope that she's okay!

 biggrin 

Very good!!

That's actually the letterhead on my municipal bills.  Wink



I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Having taken an advanced Physics class, our professor was talking to us about the advantages/risks of it, it went something like this:

Nuclear waste from a nuclear plant could fit in a dorm room. This stuff is deadly, but there haven't been reports of spills or accidents. This stuff will end up in Yukka (sp?) mountain in Nevada.

The power that we get from fossil fuels expells about 5 million pounds of ash, and CO2 and just general CRAP into our atmosphere EVERY DAY!


Needless to say, the USA has many more fossil fuel power plants than we do nuclear, and we are essentially killing ourselves because we ARE releasing 5mil pounds a day PER POWERPLANT... the nuclear waste will just sit there, and not infect our air, water, or earth if properly disposed of....


Why are we still 30 years behind????



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

I'm in favour of it, plus the Bob Hawke suggestion about using Australia as a waste storage facility is a brilliant idea. If you want a substantial nuclear industry, why not use some of the oldest, most stable geology on the planet to store the waste in?

It could make Australia billions in foreign currency and utilise what is basically wasteland which isn't making any other contribution.

Strange that Britain has Sellafield to process waste but no plans to expand our own nuclear industry so far. I really am comfortable with the idea of building new capacity and taking coal fired power plants (or some of the gas ones) offline.

My own electricity supply is hydroelectric so my personal carbon footprint is lower than most. I'd also want to see more money and time put into the fusion projects as they are getting to the stage where the first energy-positive reactors are due to be tested. That's the longer term strategy we really need to se developed.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

It does seem likely that Blair will belatedly approve a new generation of nuclear plants.
I am old enough to remember both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but hopefully not swayed by the laughably technically illiterate media.
The RBMK design, aside from the faulty operation on the day, probably suffering from poor build quality (like everything in the USSR by the 70's), was a design rejected by the UK Atomic Authority in 1949!

Fact is, fossil fuels are polluting (and don't think that won't affect you), finite, worse is the rather disgusting attitude of many in the West who wail about nuclear dangers, largely imagined, don't they just campaign hard against it too.
Where is the concern then for the 8000 a year who die in coal mining accidents, oh I forgot, they are mostly in China or the 3rd world, that cheap coal we import is stained with their blood.
A poor Chinese miner, or anywhere else with poor safety (=cheap coal), is not on the radar of a Green politician, who are, in the final analysis, just NIMBYS.

The UK needs a mixed energy supply, renewables should play an increasing part, but don't kid yourself, nuclear is needed, now more than ever.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

The problem for the UK is this:

Gas and oil supplies in the North Sea are beginning to decline, and we need to have something to replace it with.

Renewables aren't going to do the job, short of putting windfarms across the whole of Scotland (actually....hmmm Big grin ), although they should be researched a damn sight more than they are now.

So, we either come up with something new, or import all our gas from overseas. That's just a non-starter. Being at the mercy of overseas companies and countries four our gas supply would be sheer madness, both from the commercial ("We're going to double your prices. What you going to do about it?") and strategic ("We're going to cut you off") perspectives.

So,we could re-open the coal mines, but that's not going to be acceptable from an environmental perspective.

If those options are ruled out, quite simply there is nothing else that can provide mass electricity supply on the scale that nuclear can.

Nuclear power currently contributes something like 20% of UK energy needs. But in the next 20 years, the 2nd generation stations are going to start to close down. One way or another we're going to need to replace those stations AND the gas, coal and oil fired ones. Renewables are intended to make up 10% of the total supply by 2012. 90% needs to be obtained elsewhere. Given that one nuclear plant generates the equivalent of 900 wind turbines, there really isn't much else of an option in the medium term.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Here we go again...  Yeah sure

Nuclear power only looks like an effective solution as long as you're carrying the actual cost through a nuclear weapons program in your defense budget (heavily subsidized) and as long as you're ignoring the long-term cost and risks.

If you actually have to pay for all the costs and risks through the actual energy bill, things look quite differently. But nobody does that nowaday - the costs of millenia of waste storage, reprocessing and maintenance alone would be staggering. The total energetic balance could very well be negative as well (you'd have to spend more energy in total than you get out of it in the rather short usage interval).

Some people hope that it's a way of getting around the need to conserve power and to develop more efficient energy technologies. But there is no free lunch.


User currently offlineAviation From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 1143 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

I can write alot on this topic also, but...

Anyway, I say that nuclear power is very efficient and 'Safe' source of energy. It produces very little waste it is clean the whole 'mutant' lake theory is total bs and furthermore the world has alot of uramium especially here in australia. It produces alot of power for its mass and useage of materials and when we look back at chernobyl reactor 4 the reason for disaster then was poor practices bad training and a badly designed RBMK style which has been known to have problems. So to summerise tho I think that nuclear power needs to be used more in modern times as it can produce clean and efficient power for years to come.

As for risks anything has a potential risk of disaster but I think that the use of nuclear power is of small risk the technoligies of todays modern world has now a far broader knowledge of containing and controlling nuclear power.


Cheers,



Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13088 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Nuclear sourced electricity production is about 20% in the USA, the UK and something well over 60% in France. The view of considering expansion of Nuclear is generally very negative for a variety of well established reasons:
1) Costs and risks as to the processing and security of used waste fuel including creating it's own enviromental risks;
2) Operational and engineering risks as with Chrenobal and Three Mile Island - humans design, make and run them, so plenty of room for disasterous error; 3) If something goes wrong, it can kill or sicken millions short and long term;
4) Nucelar has it's own problems to the local envirorment, including the use of water from rivers, heating it to produce steam, cooling it and returning it perhaps much warmer than at the intake, causing local enviormental problems in the water; you also have the visual and other issues of the cooling towers;
4) The exteme costs to develop and build a nuclear reaction today, perhaps well beyond that of traditional sources;
5) Difficulties in getting insurance for such facilities;
6) Public NIMBY pressures due to fears many of the above issues.

Alternatives to nuclear have their problems too, some of which were well noted above.
Oil often has to be imported, is increasing in cost, long term supplies are reaching their peaks and CO2 pollution.
Coal is plentyful in supply, but has considerable risk in it's access and highly polluting with current technologies.
Natural Gas while very clean is also in limited long term availability, difficult to transport (either by long pipelines from sources to power plants or LNG ships with their many potential risks)
Hydroelectric has significant enviorment and operational issues, especially as to fish movements, droughts, floods, disturbing of natural silting and drinking water supplies.
Wind is erratic, has visual issues, may interfere with bird migration and life in general.
Solar still needs the big breakthrough as to efficiency, variations of sun availability, as well as visual issues.
Conservation isn't enough to get us through for as long as humans are around. We need to see the breakthroughs that made Nuclear possible but without the terrible issues it presents.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
If you actually have to pay for all the costs and risks through the actual energy bill, things look quite differently. But nobody does that nowaday - the costs of millenia of waste storage, reprocessing and maintenance alone would be staggering.

we already have the infrastructure. BNFL happily reprocesses waste from other countries and we have the nuclear fuels readily available together with much of the support side.

The ramp-up to new power stations would not be as expensive as starting from scratch.

France is 80% nuclear and it's not hurting them. In fact they export surplus power. So somewhere along the line they are getting the numbers right.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

One thing not mentioned is the transition from nuclear power to nuclear arsenal.

I have no problem with nuclear power in nations like the United States, France, England, etc. Debate aside on the effects of nuclear power, I would oppose the use of nuclear power in countries with questionable governments. As we have seen in the last decade, it is a nuclear power plant that eventually develops into a nuclear weapons program. This has happened in Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly in Iran. And in a world where we desperately need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear power programs offer a dangerous door towards starting one up.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTheredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Here we go again...  

Nuclear power only looks like an effective solution as long as you're carrying the actual cost through a nuclear weapons program in your defense budget (heavily subsidized) and as long as you're ignoring the long-term cost and risks.

If you actually have to pay for all the costs and risks through the actual energy bill, things look quite differently. But nobody does that nowaday - the costs of millenia of waste storage, reprocessing and maintenance alone would be staggering. The total energetic balance could very well be negative as well (you'd have to spend more energy in total than you get out of it in the rather short usage interval).

Some people hope that it's a way of getting around the need to conserve power and to develop more efficient energy technologies. But there is no free lunch.

Great post !!!

Now lets add this "itsy bitsy" ecuation to the mix:

Can you calculate how much will it be for storing, handling, keeping safe from earthquakes, spills and leaks the highly contaminated water and decayed material for 8 thousand years? and in some reactors for 24 thousand years?

The same stupid thinking of "lets burn this now and let future generations handle our mistakes"

Anyone for geothermal.....?



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
25 Jwenting : NoUFO, I worked in the energy industry in research towards energy sources. That's the result of studies we did at the time. Where do you get your data
26 Cfalk : First of all, let's redefine "nuclear" power. There are two forms of nuclear energy. The first is fission (splitting heavy atoms) for which we have ha
27 Tbar220 : Are you serious? How comfortable do you feel with N. Korea and/or Iran having nuclear weapons? And you know how that started? You guessed it, nuclear
28 NoUFO : What Greenpeace says is often to a lesser extend "propaganda" than the high-glossy publications issued by the industry. To answer your question: I qu
29 Bikergirl : I know that I'm only a student at university (2nd year engineering) and probably some of you know way more than me about this but it happens to be a f
30 Teva : One thing people forget about nuclear energy, is the cost to dismantle big plants at the end of their lifes. I was a big fan of this energy, because i
31 Jwenting : Kalkar was NOT a technological failure. It was closed purely (and before construction was even complete) because of political pressure by environment
32 Klaus : You've just delivered a prime example of the problem: People thinking that "long term" meant mere decades - when in fact with nuclear energy it means
33 Stoney : At the current rate of increasing energy consumption, we need more energy, and we'll need it soon. The questions shouldn't be how to replace the energ
34 Post contains images Astuteman : The ultimate truth. And a great piece of kit it is! Like a big "battery" with 2 wires coming out. We nearly put one in an Upholder class submarine fo
35 Jwenting : You've obviously no clue what you're talking about. Using current technology which has existed for decades (which the likes of you and your envirowee
36 Teva : I am sorry, Astuteman, but I insist on the fact that EDF doesn't provision this money. At the begining, it was maybe planned. But abandonned a long ti
37 RichardPrice : Also nuclear waste that cant be reprocessed can be totally destroyed in a solar furnace, radiation and all. But again, this option hasnt been persued
38 Astuteman : 98% of the background radiation in South Cumbria is from natural sources, despite having Heysham power station, Sellafield reprocessing plant, and a
39 Post contains links Pelican : I think also it's a necessary evil. Sure we should invest more in eco-energy sources. But they can't replace fossil fuels fast and efficient enough du
40 Post contains images Cfalk : What do you expect of the French? Foresight? Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But the French are such easy targets...
41 Tbar220 : This is a very good point. When you go to Israel, you will notice that almost all apartment buildings or private residences have solar tiles and sola
42 Alberchico : What many critics fail to realize is that the quality of nuclear plants in the West is far superior to anything the Soviets had in terms of quality a
43 RichardPrice : THe problem with this view is this: Number of countries with nuclear weapons programs: 8 Number of countries with nuclear power programs: 56 Lithuani
44 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Remember both. Three Mile Island was an accident - it happens. Not attempting to minimize the scope at all, but it was an accident. Poor Management a
45 RichardPrice : Oh, and burning coal actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than ALL the nuclear power accidents ever. Since 1937, the worlds coal b
46 Slider : Amen. I agree- not only is it not effective, it is grossly inefficient. Great freaking post man. Not to mention it's dirty as hell, laborious to extr
47 Astuteman : Slight aside - I'd put the word "early" in there. After the Chernobyl incident, the Soviets very sensibly concentrated their nuclear engineering in t
48 Planesarecool : Like said before, it is the alternative. Nuclear power stations are safer than gas, oil and coal fired power stations, in that they have had less inci
49 Astuteman : Except insofar as it can readily provide ample quantities of hydrogen (and oxygen too, for that matter).....
50 Post contains images Aviation : Does anyone have anything else to add to this thread I throughly enjoyed reading it Cheers,
51 Post contains links and images Molykote : The above posts would be a great 3 minute primer for most of the population. Like any other source of energy nuclear power is not perfect - However,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraq 3 Years Later, Your Views posted Sun Mar 19 2006 00:19:42 by Bushpilot
Breastfeeding In Public: Your Views? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 18:46:06 by 9VSPO
Binge Drinking - What Are Your Views? posted Tue Mar 29 2005 23:43:19 by Pe@rson
Your Views: Basque Country's Right To Decide posted Sun Jan 16 2005 04:13:36 by BCNGRO
Does Iran Deserve Nuclear Power And Weapons? posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:08:15 by Greaser
Steam Leak at a Nuclear Power Plant In Japan Kills 4 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 05:59:34 by DfwRevolution
What Are Your Views On Auto Insurance? posted Tue May 11 2004 08:09:01 by StarAC17
What About Nuclear Power? posted Mon Jan 19 2004 06:46:05 by Jessman
Khalistan And The Indian Independance- Your Views? posted Mon Oct 6 2003 07:53:19 by Ammunition
Nuclear Power Station Scare This Morning :/ posted Thu Apr 3 2003 19:31:19 by EGGD