Nuclear power

macaque_2

The explosion we saw a few days ago looked like a hydrogen explosion. You could see a rapid pale flash travelling faster than the cloud. In the aftermath the upper parts of the building had gone but the side walls appeared intact. Buildings at risk of hydrogen deflagration are designed to do this.

This latest explosion looks much nastier. There is a much brighter flash and what appears to be very large pieces of concrete being hurled into the air. That would suggest a powerful explosion in a well contained area.

Nuclear power fans are always telling us that they have solved the problems of safe nuclear engineering. Unfortunately, there are always factors (operator error, design faults, maintenance mistakes, acts of god etc) to confound the best laid plans. We have seen nuclear accidents all over the world now. That just confirms the fact that nuclear power and waste handling is inherently unsafe.

I don't always agree with the Greens, but I think they are 100% right on their objections to nuclear power. In our dash for cheap quick energy, I think we are taking serious risks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8380718/Japan-nuclear-plant-meltdown-fears-after-explosion.html

Sorry, forgot the link.

abaxas

Isnt coal something 100,000x more dangerous? Simply because of all the people who die in the mines?

People tend to have an issue with scale, hence get things out of proportion.

CLAPTON

macaque wrote: »

The explosion we saw a few days ago looked like a hydrogen explosion. You could see a rapid pale flash travelling faster than the cloud. In the aftermath the upper parts of the building had gone but the side walls appeared intact. Buildings at risk of hydrogen deflagration are designed to do this.

This latest explosion looks much nastier. There is a much brighter flash and what appears to be very large pieces of concrete being hurled into the air. That would suggest a powerful explosion in a well contained area.

Nuclear power fans are always telling us that they have solved the problems of safe nuclear engineering. Unfortunately, there are always factors (operator error, design faults, maintenance mistakes, acts of god etc) to confound the best laid plans. We have seen nuclear accidents all over the world now. That just confirms the fact that nuclear power and waste handling is inherently unsafe.

I don't always agree with the Greens, but I think they are 100% right on their objections to nuclear power. In our dash for cheap quick energy, I think we are taking serious risks.

I don't think anyone think nuclears is 'cheap' or 'quick'; it just that if we refuse to use coal, gas and oil then there is little left to use that provides power in sufficient quantity 24hr 7

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

.....That just confirms the fact that nuclear power and waste handling is inherently unsafe.

Aren't you just putting out exactly the same sensationism as our 'nanny state' press? Why not wait until the facts emerge?

We are told (but not confirmed) that there has been no significant leakage. Doesn't this confirm that if Nuclear Power can withstand the most powerful earthquake ever seen, it is by far the most favourable form of energy?

macaque wrote: »

.....I don't always agree with the Greens, but I think they are 100% right on their objections to nuclear power. In our dash for cheap quick energy, I think we are taking serious risks.

Take my advice and never agree with the Greens. For most political parties, I believe with some things they say and not others. With parties such as BNP and the Greens, I can confidently listen to what they say and assume the reverse is true.

FTBFun

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Take my advice and never agree with the Greens. For most political parties, I believe with some things they say and not others. With parties such as BNP and the Greens, I can confidently listen to what they say and assume the reverse is true.

Interestingly the Greens and the BNP aren't a million miles apart on some issues. For some reason fascist parties also like a bit of greenery.

Kohoutek

macaque wrote: »

That just confirms the fact that nuclear power and waste handling is inherently unsafe.

It's too early to tell I think, but if the worst case scenario occurs, then I think it proves that nuclear power in a region susceptible to frequent powerful earthquakes is inherently unsafe, not nuclear power per se.

Do you think the French should dismantle their fleet of nuclear reactors that provides 80% of their electricity as a result of these events?

macaque wrote: »

I don't always agree with the Greens, but I think they are 100% right on their objections to nuclear power. In our dash for cheap quick energy, I think we are taking serious risks.

The Greens tend to be short on solutions. Wind and solar don't provide baseload power, so that means carry on burning natural gas and coal I suppose...

macaque_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Aren't you just putting out exactly the same sensationism as our 'nanny state' press? Why not wait until the facts emerge?

We are told (but not confirmed) that there has been no significant leakage. Doesn't this confirm that if Nuclear Power can withstand the most powerful earthquake ever seen, it is by far the most favourable form of energy?

Take my advice and never agree with the Greens. For most political parties, I believe with some things they say and not others. With parties such as BNP and the Greens, I can confidently listen to what they say and assume the reverse is true.

The evidence already exists from earlier nuclear accidents and this particular accident does not need to end in nuclear fallout to qualify as an unacceptable event. The term 'inherently unsafe' is not an opinion, it is a fact (and commonly encountered in risk assessments). Nuclear material is extremely toxic at best and dangerously unstable at worst. There is no default safe condition for handling nuclear fuel or its waste products (which is what makes it 'inherently unsafe'). There are also plenty of inherently unsafe chemicals (e.g. cyanamide) though nothing like as dangerous.

Clapton
I don't think anyone think nuclears is 'cheap' or 'quick'; it just that if we refuse to use coal, gas and oil then there is little left to use that provides power in sufficient quantity 24hr 7

Nuclear energy is quick and cheap compared to fossil fuels if the true cost of using them is factored in (at the moment, we only pay for finding and burning them).

angrypirate

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's too early to tell I think, but if the worst case scenario occurs, then I think it proves that nuclear power in a region susceptible to frequent powerful earthquakes is inherently unsafe, not nuclear power per se.

Do you think the French should dismantle their fleet of nuclear reactors that provides 80% of their electricity as a result of these events?



The Greens tend to be short on solutions. Wind and solar don't provide baseload power, so that means carry on burning natural gas and coal I suppose...

But, what about building a barage across the severn so you can use tidal power, that will produce lots of electricity. Oh, hang on, that will destroy birds' habitat.

Kohoutek

angrypirate wrote: »

But, what about building a barage across the severn so you can use tidal power, that will produce lots of electricity. Oh, hang on, that will destroy birds' habitat.

I think that should go ahead – it was claimed the Severn Barrage would provide 5% of the UK's electricity. The reason it's been shelved as I understand it is lack of funding, not habitat loss though.

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

The evidence already exists from earlier nuclear accidents and this particular accident does not need to end in nuclear fallout to qualify as an unacceptable event. The term 'inherently unsafe' is not an opinion, it is a fact (and commonly encountered in risk assessments). Nuclear material is extremely toxic at best and dangerously unstable at worst. There is no default safe condition for handling nuclear fuel or its waste products (which is what makes it 'inherently unsafe'). There are also plenty of inherently unsafe chemicals (e.g. cyanamide) though nothing like as dangerous.

Ah!

So we have changed our tack now. Nothing to do with Japan. Just reiterating so-called 'facts' that have been regurgitated for years(and largely ignored) by most governments in the world.

Let's close them all down, and stick to the safe options. Coal mining, and all those oil tankers charging about the high seas.....

doh.....!

Enough of this. Sun has gone down over the yardarm. Time for my very large gin & tonic.

the_tired_one

abaxas wrote: »

Isnt coal something 100,000x more dangerous? Simply because of all the people who die in the mines?

People tend to have an issue with scale, hence get things out of proportion.

But when the miners perish, its just them & they dont pass on disease, disfigurement, & death through the generations...