Didn't get involved in the other contentious thread, so here's another one!!! I am Homer Simpson's dopey apprentice at a shutdown/decommissioning Magnox power station. What do you guys reckon about nuclear power? Please keep it clean and try not to upset me or I'll nuke your bike and poison you with Polonium!!!
Good point Tanstair, but is that a reason for not having nuclear power stations or not having em anywhere. NOt much chance of a tsunami on the Suffolk coast and a completely different reactor design!
When I were a boy, we were constantly being assured by the powers that be that at 4 minutes notice we would be flash vaporised by the thermosphere, have our internal cavities ruptured by the shock wave, shredded by blades of grass propelled to supersonic speed by the displaced air and irradiated by airborne particulates and heavy metals and isotopes in the water table and food chain, from the imminent Soviet first strike. Now I'm a middle aged man apparently I'm going to get twatted by cholesterol. Hindsight being 20 20 I think everyone would agree that fission reactors would have been better restricted to the laboratory than hailed as the saviour of our future and proliferated across the planet to hold us hostage to administration changes, economic constraints as regard maintenance and safety considerations, not to mention terrorist vulnerability and the temptation to breed weaponised plutonium and uranium from the facilities involved. Research into consistant and stable fusion reactors seem to have been 10 years from a breakthrough for the last 10 years and Muon-catalysed cold fusion has been reduced to conspiracy theorist's ranting and YouTube virals. Any benefit, so far, from nuclear power globally must have been negated by the combined cost of production, decommissioning and clean up involved in its evolution. But, on the other hand, I really do like 500 feet tall mutated dinosaurs, so I'm all for it.
I like the idea of Nuclear, and if treated properly, works brilliantly, but the costs are extreme to say the least, massively subsidised by the Government to make it worth while. then theirs the waste problem, if we could sling the waste to the sun, no issues, unfortunatly we arnt allowed too in case it comes back down again. personnaly I would not like to live near a place that I knew they were using a near buy old coal mine to bury the stuff. yes were lucky in britain that were do not suffer from natural disasters, but we do suffer from bosses that try and make the most out of their staff, with budget cuts and the like, leading to a workforce that might be more prone in cocking up because they are working too hard. yes with saftey protocols and the like, its very safe, but not full proof. if it does go kablooie then their is usally more that an explosion to cope with. in the perfect world yes I would support it, but its not a perfect world.
In the debate between various ways of providing electricity, you need to weigh up the pros and cons , including the risks and benefits. Nowhere near the original estimates of people that would die after Chernobyl has happened. Mining coal, drilling and supplying oil and even making, transporting and maintaining windfarms has killed or injured far more people than the nuclear industry. If we are serious about reducing CO2 emissions, there is no other power source that can come close to meeting our needs for electricity and minimising CO2 emissions. Wind power helps, just a tiny bit, but is useless when there is no wind or too much wind. British NPS CANNOT have their safety protocols bypassed or overcome and are engineered to be intrinsically safe. It is a lot more difficult to start up a reactor than it is to shut it down. If the worst happened, as per Chernobyl and Fukushima , it is impossible for a nuclear explosion to take place.
These are all good and valid points but I can't help but think that nuclear energy is one of the only exceptions to the rule that no publicity is bad publicity. Except for maybe Gary Glitter becoming Justin beiber's new manager. A chimney fire at Sellafield can make headlines for 30 years. Three mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, it's going to continue be the knee jerk media reaction rather than the gained positives from justified safety redundancy protocols, planned and well implemented containment systems and courageous sacrifices that will colour public opinion of the nuclear power industry for the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, they start televising the battles on monster island.
I think 'nuclear' energy is the only way forward. As technology develops it will become safer and cleaner - but it takes time. I say 'nuclear' because in its current guise, i dont think thats the answer but the principle and that area of science will unlock limitless, free, clean energy.... in time. I'm no scientist but isn't the sun some form of nuclear energy? - so think of the life and energy that has brought to our planet - and there are not many people who dislike the sun.. (Vampires excluded)
You're right Zee everbody likes the sun, but lets not forget that it is a massive fusion reaction that despite being 93 millions miles away would irradiate everything on the planet if it wasn't for 52 miles of damping from the atmosphere and the deflection of solar particles by the Van Allen radiation belts. Two lucky bits of serendipity that I won't dwell on in case we've got some closet creationists on the forum.
I wouldn't say serendipity - i'd say technical solution to the problem. If those 2 bits work on a large scale, then there is a basis for re-working that solution on a smaller scale.
Interesting, and if you look at the experimental Tokamak reactors that use magnetic deflection to contain the reaction plasma you'll see how the whole thing could actually work, but in reverse. stopping the nasty escaping rather than keep it out once it has. So far though, sustainable fusion reactions can only be measured in seconds. As I said above the expected breakthrough is always around the corner but always out of sight. The great thing about fusion reactions is that they tend to cease when they fail rather than run away as with fission ones, apart from producing Tritium as a byproduct, which can be deeply unpleasant, Helium would be about the only waste of any real concern and that's relatively inert. The contaminated reactors would remain dangerous for a very long time after decommissioning but, again, compared with fission that's nothing. I'd be all for a sustainable fusion based energy solution for all the above reasons, especially if the promised Muon-catalysed theory can bring the reaction temperatures below 1000 degrees Celsius in actual practice. Then I'll get one for the house. The problem is, it really really is big boys science and while there seems to be no ends of funding available for research when it comes to commercial investment....Well, everybody's skint at the moment. Am I rambling again?......
No your not rambling just leaving some of us behind somewhat. Interesting reading though keep rambling
Cheers Carl but next it would be back to the mutated dinosaurs again and then they just increase my meds.
