What do you think about nuclear energy? Please post your opinions here.
Why we have to use high risk energy? There are a lot of alternative clean energy sources, like wind, solar and geothermal energy.
First of all - NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT HIGH RISK ENERGY !!!
This is only the hype of Greenpeace that nuclear energy is dangerous. This propaganda is based on early experience of nuclear industry while modern design of nuclear power plant are in fact VERY safe and there is no risk of 'critical' events at all.
Moreover, the overall feeling that nuclear facilities are dangerous is based on press reports. In fact nuclear industry is obligated to report EVERY incident to IAEA in Vienna and from here it is iterated all over press agencies. So, you are immediately informed about every minor issue they had (like internal leak, broken hose, faulty valve, etc.) and it creates the feeling the nuclear industry is risky. I ensure you - if you had such a follow-up form every industry you would be depressed completely!
Last but not least - the fear of the consequences of nuclear leaks is highly exaggerated. Even most dramatic nuclear disasters for the time being were not that dramatic as they are pictured. Look on Hiroshima or Nagasaki... The places where nuclear bombs were really dropped on... The people still live in these towns... These are booming metropolies. The consequences were horrible for acute victims but... honestly speaking... not much more dramatic (even in terms of cancer occurance or genetic problems)... than in case of severe toxic leaks from a chemical plant... And that was the absolute extreme !!!
Since Hiroshima, nagasaki, Three Miles Island or Chernobyl we know very well how to design nuclear devices to actually EXCLUDE this sort of danger - but Greenpece will not tell you about it !!! Greenpeace is lobbying for "clean" energy what is in fact unproven, expensive, non-reliable energy only good for really reach people who can efford every expense.
Zbigniew Wrote:First of all - NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT HIGH RISK ENERGY !!!
Zbigniewm, would you like personally to live near a Nuclear Power Plant or may be near radioactive waste deposits?
I don't believe that Greenpeace is lying, they don't have the motive.. it consist of volunteers that care about our planet...
while the Nuke Power Plant owners have all the motives to hide any radioactive leaks etc.
I think that directly nuclear power is safe, but power plants are complex systems which must be observed constantly. If something goes wrong in economy or security of state with nuclear power plant the risks would jump very soon because of side effects of crisis. People did some very foolish stuff in the history and noone can garant that they wouldn't do again foolish deads. So nuclear power plants are strategic threats to its own country and whole world. There must be some simpliest and clean way to provide energy. For one thing, Sun gives us energy for free, why we don't use it for a while. Untill Earth cools down a little?
I also consider nuclear energy to be risky! I met people from Chernobyl, and, believe me, I will never forget this!
nuclear energy is an obsolete energy, the new century requires new innovations
Andrewz Wrote:I also consider nuclear energy to be risky! I met people from Chernobyl, and, believe me, I will never forget this!
Poor people. That’s why nuclear plants should be build far away from populated places.
Hakan G Wrote:Andrewz Wrote:I also consider nuclear energy to be risky! I met people from Chernobyl, and, believe me, I will never forget this!
Poor people. That’s why nuclear plants should be build far away from populated places.
How are you going to get the staff there then? It will cost a lot and it’s the time factor too. Just imagine if travelling to the plant and back home will end in wasting 3 hours from the 8 available per day, then there is the question if such a strategy will be cost-effective.
As Nicholas said, moving the plant away from populated places, is not a solution. In fact it would be a solution, but it cannot be realized.
Karl.in.eu Wrote:As Nicholas said, moving the plant away from populated places, is not a solution. In fact it would be a solution, but it cannot be realized.
What is your solution then?
Hakan G Wrote:Karl.in.eu Wrote:As Nicholas said, moving the plant away from populated places, is not a solution. In fact it would be a solution, but it cannot be realized.
What is your solution then?
We should better design an improved security system regarding the nuclear plants and waste. 8-)
You said “WE”, are you working in this domain :quoi
No, I’m in the IT sector. By “WE” I meant us, the humankind.
Karl.in.eu Wrote:No, I’m in the IT sector. By “WE” I meant us, the humankind.
Too bad. I thought we have a nuclear specialist on the forum…
Nicholas Wrote:[
Poor people. That’s why nuclear plants should be build far away from populated places.
It matters just a little. In case a nuclear plant blows up, the radiations spreads for hundreds and thousands kilometers away!
Faw_Peter Wrote:Nicholas Wrote:[
Poor people. That’s why nuclear plants should be build far away from populated places.
It matters just a little. In case a nuclear plant blows up, the radiations spreads for hundreds and thousands kilometers away!
Nuclear plants don’t usually explode; they can have nuclear emitions in emergency situation.
Maybe all nuclear plants should be fitted in a huge metallic case like in Chernobyl?
But in Chernobyl the plant exploded no?
I think that moving employees in and out is not so much expensive, and does not inflicit the cost of production so much. It is making HUGE amounts of electricity, and it can aford this. But it isnt safe enough even 100s miles away.
The source of energy must be simple and safe. Nikola Tesla would make it clean and free if Markoni, or someone else powerfull at the time, didn't stop him. He claimed that it could be free for all the mankind. You just nead to place a stick in ground and there is current. Sadly, his workshop was burned in mysterious curcomstances.
...Money makes the world go around...
Nicholas Wrote:Maybe all nuclear plants should be fitted in a huge metallic case like in Chernobyl?
I know that there were spent tens of millions for building this metal case.
it is expensive. The material that holds radition and the salary for employees who agreed to work under such conditions is very expensive.
I remember that this case does not cover all the nuclear plant, but only the sector where the nuclear core exploded. There were talks about making a general, bigger case for the entire plant, but investments were not found.
Despite the accident the plant still operated and was closed only a few years ago at the time when clocks stroke the New Year.