General Forum - Nuclear energy for the future, I don`t think so. - Page 1

I disagree.

The power consumption requirements of a developed nation are growing all the time.
Add to that the growing requirements of the developing nations and I think we'll find that all other 'renewable' energy sources combined won't be enough.

I agree with the general consensus that using fossil fuel powered stations is outdated and should be reduced / removed where possible.
So the alternatives are really only the current nuclear platforms we have, at this time, until nuclear fusion makes an appearance (but I'm not holding my breath).

I just think that they (the scientists, manufacturers, planners, governments etc. of the world) need to take all possible precautions and safety measures to ensure that disaster planning & recovery for situations like the one in Japan is done continuously.

This is such a difficult and emotive debate. We can't continue to build fossil fuel burning power stations. We can't continue to pollute the atmosphere. We know that.

We also need an ever-increasing amount of electricity for our gadget-laden lifestyles. And no one is prepared to consider rationing power and blacking out for a few hours each day to help make the power we currently produce go further. So where do you go?

I seem to be one of the few people i know who likes wind farms. The wind farm at Rye is a local attraction, visible for miles in every direction due to the extreme flatness of the area. But whenever a new wind farm is propose, locals object, complaining of "noise pollution" (I've stood at the edge of the field they stand in and can't hear a thing), and a high deathrate of birds that fly into the sails. I can't comment on that, but surely the production of clean electricity outweighs the death of a few birds that weren't looking where they were going?

Solar power and water power (dams, mills etc) don't work anywhere near efficiently enough as yet, especially not in this country (before anyone reminds me of the great dams around the world), so they aren't a viable option to solve our country's fuel dilemma.

Therefore we come back to Nuclear Power. Now I live close to Dungeness, where there are still two active
nuclear reactors in Dungeness B power Station, and the two reactors at the original A Station are currently being decommissioned. There used to be a visitor centre there, and I went along a couple of times and got a guided tour of the B Station. I think more people need to go on these tours, because they would learn a lot about the extremely high safety levels at our nuclear power stations. The air is pure and clean around the station, and the immediate surrounding area is an RSPB Nature Reserve. No smoke pollutes our skies from tall chimneys.

I can completely understand why there will not be a Dungeness C Power Station, but I would fully welcome another new nuclear power station nearby if the area was less likely to suffer from coastal erosion or flooding.

I think people need to get past this fear of another Chernobyl-style explosion, which only happened because that station existed in a poor country that had not spent money on safety measures there in a very long time. This is, of course, the complete opposite of Japan.

Yes, the situation at Fukushima is worrying, but it is still unlikely that we'll see a nuclear reactor explode like the one at Chernobyl in 1986.  They are doing everything that they can, and that includes a good evacuation zone around the power station. Even if a reactor does explode, these are EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that should not affect people's decisions about whether to continue using nuclear power around the world.

Without nuclear power, we'd be stuffed.

Trust in Technology

Unfortunately Nuclear is the only way to go due to our ever increasing demand for power

pfft Paull take a chill pill what can go wrong with Homer at the controls.....

Quote:
Stu UK says...


pfft Paull take a chill pill what can go wrong with Homer at the controls.....We will all turn Yellow from the fallout.

A mild suntan just before my eyes are burnt out sounds fine to me

Quote:
but surely the production of clean electricity outweighs the death of a few birds that weren't looking where they were going?
Thanks Smurfette for making me smile, while waiting for the kettle.

We have a long line of wind farms to the south of us here, there are some companys that use them to suppliment their industrial premises.

They are looking at cleaner gas burning plants here as well (So the ads for Enmax say anyway). 

Way to the north a great deal of time & effort is being spent on reclaiming oil from the oil sands (& cleaning up mother natures mess in the progress).  Unfortunately even there we get the deaths of a few birds that weren't looking where they were going & fly straight into the oil sands (somehow thats the oil companies fault again).



My outlook on life is positive & carefree, I'm positive that I'm a pessimist & I don't care what what you think.



Never has so little had to be explained by me to so many so often.

Nuclear is the way ahead.. Green tech is nowhere near efficient or cost effective enough to provide the nation's power needs.

The Japan incident was a once-in-a-millenium event (massive earthquake AND a tsunami)

The stations would have been fine with the earthquake only..
They would also have been fine with water incursion..
The problem is that they had both at the  same time

The stations that are in trouble are also decades old, and the reports I have heard state that the more modern stations would not have presented the same dangers as these are..

I can't believe Germany is suspending and reviewing its nuclear programme because of this.


---------------------------
I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member

This item was edited on Wednesday, 16th March 2011, 13:03

Quote:
I can't believe Germany is suspending and reviewing its nuclear programme because of this.

Yes OTT

However even here procedures will be reviewed in light of this event