Could we generate power using pro nuclear hysteria?
Chat Forum
[closed]
If you don't want wind turbines, how else will you generate power?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
whereas those living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant live with that ever-present danger day to day
I've lived in the general vicinity of a nuclear plant most of my life. It's never crossed my mind.The fact that I rarely wear a helmet on a mountainbike is undoubtedly more dangerous. It's a wonder I'm not dead*
*If you believed the hysteria from some.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've lived in the general vicinity of a nuclear plant most of my life. It's never crossed my mind
Likewise!
Posted 1 year ago # -
5thElefant - Member
More radiation is released by coal stations than nuclear too.
This is bullcrap of the highest order.
No radioactivity is released from the stations while they are running - or almost none. However there is all the waste created and all the "accidental" releases of radioactivity which add up to a huge pollution load over the lifetime of the plant.
Tootall - it is utter tosh and the nuclear aoplogists who have any intelligence know it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8574330.stm
I think this was really nice success story.
Tidal power is the most consistently reliable UK renewable I guess, its a shame wind power has taken so much investment away from tidal and wave.
Failing that harness the energy of people what like in the matrix - London would be a good start! runs away....
Posted 1 year ago # -
"No radioactivity is released from the stations while they are running - or almost none"
I assume they mean a uranium reactor plant that isn't leaking radiation.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Kit - Member
More radiation is released by coal stations than nuclear too.
I've heard this mentioned before - can someone point me in the direction of the evidence and effects of this please?
I believe it comes from this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short
which shows that, per megawatt produced, coal produces more airborne radiological dose than nuclear generation. However, as with all good research, it has limits and "does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy."
Populist write-up of it here in Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste.
For what it's worth (and I don't think I'm going to change any minds here) I am pro-nuclear, mainly because I like electricity and it is the least worst alternative. All power generation damages human health. People die in coal mines, helicopters crash in the North Sea etc etc. If anything the way these ancient Japanese reactors have coped reassures me about the safety systems built into these things.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In other words the claim
More radiation is released by coal stations than nuclear too.
is tosh as it ignores waste and "accidental" discharges.Posted 1 year ago # -
In other words the claim
More radiation is released by coal stations than nuclear too.
is tosh as it ignores waste and "accidental" discharges.Or more correctly, the claim is not supported by that piece of research. The claim may or may not be true but that paper does not set out to examine it.
It's also worth noting that the paper was published over thirty years ago. Both coal and nuclear technologies have moved on substantially in that time - I'd be surprised if coal stations release anything like the amount of fly ash these days.
Also the vast majority of 'discharges' are not accidental - they are allowable low-level releases.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks for the links.
However, as with all good research, it has limits and "does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy."
Correct, and the study also assumes 1% particulate release in 1977. 34 years later I'd hope that particulate removal efficiency was a bit better than that! The study also admits that coal source/type has an influence on concentrations of radioactive material. In most cases too, the increase in dose was not significant.
In the UK, as in the US, fly ash is routinely used in the building trade. SEPA/EA/Defra don't seem to view it as radioactive waste, and I believe they take these things very seriously indeed. And as TJ says, the study counts day-to-day emissions, and not spent fuel rods, cooling water, accidents etc from nuclear.
I'm a fence-sitter with regard to nuclear. I have no problem with existing plants, but I believe there are better solutions for any new builds.
edit: higgo kinda covered some of this in his response while I was typing
Posted 1 year ago # -
we love getting our knickers in a twist over nuclear power and radiation, yet no-one seems to care about modern diesel engines and pm2.5 particulates.
humans are weird.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There will be no new nuclear north of the border.
Except at Faslane......
Posted 1 year ago # -
I hope that controlled nuclear fusion can be made industrially viable, that would solve a lot of problems
Posted 1 year ago # -
The failsafe failure has not been explained by anyone but since there were either triple or quadruple redundant diesel generators and apparently the plant was not damaged by the quake, that leaves the possibility of what - maintenance?
Coffeking there's a bit more inormation and an alternative slant on the situation here
it was a easily predictable event in that it would happen at some point
If it was so predictable surely you should venting your feelings towards the Japanese authorities that obviously allowed over 10,000 people to die by not preventing them from living in that area or the oil refiniery that exploded killing many of its workers instead of a nuclear plant that is yet to kill anyone or do long term damage to the local area? It's interesting that nobody ever mentions the plant a Diani 10km along the coast that was safely shutdown several days ago! You also need to inform the scientists as they weren't expecting an earthquake this big or one that lasted for five minutes. Neither did any of them predict that Japan would move by almost 8 feet and have parts of its coastline drop by a metre!Back to the original question, i still think people concentrate too much on electricity production which is only about 12% of the UKs energy usage. Since we moved house 4 years ago we've managed to reduce our gas and electricty consumption by between 5 and 10% by doing lots little, cheap things like low energy bulbs, not leaving things on standby, wearing jumpers in the house etc. If every household in the UK reduced its energy bill by 10% it would knock 3% off the total energy consumption or 295 PetaJoules. To have a similar effect on carbon emissions we'd have to have 6 times as many wind turbines as are currently supplying the grid, an additional 15,500! They really would be building them in your back yard.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
