[Closed] Nuclear power , not that cheap or safe it appears

You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.

only benifit with nukes is they make LOTS of electricity all day long but it costs a zillion quid and 1000's of people work there every day.. whereas that awful nasty windfarm above rochdale has no body working there... areas like scout moor were made for windfarming .. windswept desolate not even the locals will go up there..

Nukes are also quite good at giving peeps serious health conditions and leaving a lasting legacy of polution, as in Chernobyl, windscale, etc etc.

*sighs*

project - Member
We could have major engery conservation schemes, wind turbines, along with more renewables for that sort of cash, creating a lot of skilled jobs in construction, instead of a few jobs for blokes in white suits, holding a box that goes bleep every few seconds.

Really? Enough to produce a comparable amount of energy?

*awaits project's evidence*

TandemJeremy - Member
You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.

Posted 3 minutes ago # Report-Post

Yep we could just blow them up, and sell the scrap to china or india, who now buy our old factories.

whereas that awful nasty windfarm above rochdale has no body working there

Cobblers. 2 turbines have had to be rebuilt due to fires. There are engineers up there everyday.

It's machinery, you can't just leave it.

If you reduce energy needs you dont need so much production of electricity, the condems seem to be allowing major indiustries to close every day, so we must be using less power.

The largest user of power closed last year on Anglesey, and another smelter before that in Dolgarrog, and now another at the north east.

I've never heard anyone argue that nuclear energy was cheap.

It's because it's so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support.

It's a damn sight cheaper than having to go to war every few years to protect the supply of gas and oil which is the (real) alternative. And envornmentally cheaper than coal (if you believe the climate change malarky). It's gonna cost quite a few billions to put a dyke round bangladesh!(Or do we not worry that all the bangladeshi's have drowned, as long as they don't drive a train past the end of our gardens)

A war every few years kills considerably less people than a nuclear explosion does.........

oil is mostly used for industry and vehicles, not for heating water to make steam ,then ultimately electricity.

Also Bangladesh has signed an agreement with Russia for them to build 2 nuclear power stations in Bangladesh, so much for the dyke.

A war every few years kills considerably less people than a nuclear explosion does.........

I must be reading the wrong newspapers.

Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.

Hmm believe the Chernobyl death toll as of 2008 was 95. Coalition casulaties alone so far in Afghanistan stands at around 2700.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.

It's true, I hadn't thought of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That's probably because there weren't any nuclear generators in Hiroshima and Nagasaki though.

Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.

But only one of them being related to power generation and even so the latter has seriously questionable data attached to it wrt the number of dead/ill from it - just depends who's numbers you believe. As the japanese have recently proved, even a fairly hefty problem isn't exactly the end of the world, or overly lethal, and at least is done in persuit of good intentions, unlike war.

Also Fukushima casualty numbers currently stand at 5 (all plant workes and mostly down to earthquake and tsunami). Where as about 15,000 died as a result of the Bhopal pesticide plant accident.

Nuclear power is very expensive.. Only as it is one of the only businesses that is actually un-insurable. It is impossible to get insurance on a neuclear power plant.

But when comparing the output of a full life power plant, its output is humongous and is relatively clean.

This [url=

documentary[/url] is well worth watching If you have concerns about nuclear power.

the output is possibly clean, but he plant and fuel it uses isnt, and we have a very low knowledge of what to do with the waste, or what to do if it goes bang.

saw the horizon docusoap, very propogandist.

mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people as fukoshima will kill people for decades

very propogandist

says the guy who started the thread about how nuclear power is bad, very very bad 🙄

Doesn't it only cost so much money to decommission because rabid anti nuke nutters like TJ make decommissioning so difficult?

If we were willing to countenance a couple of minor exposures to non lethal doses in the process, then it could be done in half the time for a quarter of the price - its because it is SO incredibly safety conscious that it costs so much. We're stuck in a cycle of thinking that "any-level-of-radiation-is-not-safe" despite the fact that we're exposed to it all the time, and that many people get a higher dose from natural background radiation from where they live than most nuclear power station workers in their entire career.

If we applied the same level of safety to Coal, it would cost five grand a ton - but we're willing to accept a few thousand deaths every year from coal mining, the odd environmental disaster from oil extraction, but, lets face it... not a single radiation death from Fukushima.

in the words of the former clinical head of Royal College of Radiologists “The situation in Japan looks set to follow the pattern of Chernobyl, where fear of radiation did far more damage than the radiation itself,”

project - renewables cannot yet provide the necessary base load required on the grid - only oil, coal, gas and nuclear can realistically provide that. Given the limitations of the carbon-based sources mentioned, there is currently no other viable solution other than nuclear to provide the electricity and reduce carbon released into the atmosphere. It is the best of a bad bunch. TJ speaks like a true Luddite and would have smashed many a machine if he were born earlier. Like saying that Mr Mercedes and Mr Benz built dangerous cars so I'll never buy one, despite them getting safer every generation.

ar more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people

peer reviewed reference for that please.

mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands

TJ, this is where the numbers arguement gets silly. From wikipedia/UNSCEAR:

"The number of excess deaths among 5 million people living in the less contaminated areas is estimated at 3,000–5,000"

Personally I'd go for the lower (but still sensible) figures over the sensationalist ones

tens [s]if[/s] not hundreds of thousands

FTFY TJ 😆

Tens, literally [u]tens[/u] of people killed in the worst nuclear accident that happened, how terrible 🙄

Doesn't it only cost so much money to decommission because rabid anti nuke nutters like TJ make decommissioning so difficult?

No. But nice try at pinning the blame for the cost of nuke decommissioning onto TJ.

Guys - we have done it all before and yo just don't want to believe.

This is a very tightly drawn report that ignores many many deaths because of its tight remit - note the people that are signatories to it 11000 deaths. certainly an underestimate because it has such a tight remit.

The Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms

In September 2005, a comprehensive report was published by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of agencies including the[b] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies[/b] and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report titled: "Chernobyl's legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts", authored by about 100 recognized experts from many countries, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators). This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation. This number was subsequently updated to 9000 excess cancer deaths.[31]

Other reputable reports give much higher figures as they do not have such a tightly drawn remit

mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people as fukoshima will kill people for decades

Crikey. That's evidence-lite even for STW.

tens if not hundreds of thousands

tens if not hundreds

total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000

Ah.

From the Fukushima plant damage, from published figures the "projected increase in cancer mortality would be ~0.001% above the natural rate"

johnners - 9000 plus and that is an underestimate as it ignores the effects of contamination beyond the immediate area and ignores many types of deaths -

and there are at least several thousand deaths per year mining for coal in China alone:

[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/02/14/china-coal-deaths-idUKTOE61D00V20100214 ]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/02/14/china-coal-deaths-idUKTOE61D00V20100214[/url]

So quoting the statistics of those who have died in nuclear accidents is almost meaningless when producing the biggest alternative fuel kills so many in normal daily business.

Nuclear doesn't come close to killing as many as digging for coal or drilling for oil has.

The cost of decommissioning offshore platforms is massive, however, those offshore windfarms are the biggest legacy anyone is going to be left with.

(I'll get my coat.)

Anyone fancy a wind turbine?

email in profile.

My stance is for a mixture of renewable and nuclear. I just don't see renewables being something we can completely rely on, well unless there's a technological leap forward some time time.

Out of curiosity, how many wind turbines would it take to generate the amount of electricity dounreay has generated over the same life span? and what would the cost be? Seems like the obvious comparison to make? Any energy statos out there?

Comparing the benefit to the community wouldn't be a back idea either, i.e jobs created by each method.

Seems like the obvious comparison to make?

Not really - wind power only generates when there is wind and even then only in a certain wind speed range. Nuclear provides the base load that you need to have regardless.

It's because it's so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support.

Unlike wind farms which are sooooo good value that they are not viable or reliable even with huge subsidy.

France continues to have iro 60% of its electricity generated by nuclear and they never had an explosion and we are all happy to visit there.

Course nuclear isnt cost effective (only when compared to oil or gas or coal) but then again neither are the trains are they and no one (with half a brain) is suggesting we abandon them.

The 2011 UNSCEAR report

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a report drastically different to many appreciations of the effects previously produced. The report concludes that 134 staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome and of those 28 died of the condition. Many of the survivors suffered skin conditions and radiation induced cataracts, and 19 have since died, but not usually of conditions associated with radiation exposure. Of the several hundred thousand liquidators, apart from indications of increased leukaemia risk, there is no other evidence of health effects. In the general public, the only effect with 'persuasive evidence' is a substantial fraction of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in adolescents observed in the affected areas. By 2005, 15 cases had proved fatal.

The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.

The report concludes that 'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident'.

Full report:

As I understand it, previous reports had been very-much based on [i]predicted[/i] effects, whereas when people actually went looking for evidence, they found a lot less than expected.

Dounreay IS unrepresentative by the way. It is/was an experimental reactor from the start and has been a complete f***-up in terms of waste management throughout its existance.

Friend of mine who works in the industry was asked to quote for the clean up and he reckons his company just came up with the stupidest number they could think of as there was no way they wanted to get involved with it.

We need to invest in more modern technologies, it's not difficult to create!

Unlike wind farms which are sooooo good value that they are not viable or reliable even with huge subsidy.

I don't know what the cost of wind farms is.

How is that relevant to the fact that nuclear energy is so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support ?

We need to invest in more modern technologies, it's not difficult to create!

Evidently it is, otherwise we'd all be doing it.

ernie - wind farms are subsidised, so worth mentioning when talking about subsidising other energy generation.

TooTall - Member
Seems like the obvious comparison to make?
Not really - wind power only generates when there is wind and even then only in a certain wind speed range. Nuclear provides the base load that you need to have regardless.