Nuclear power

macaque_2

A._Badger wrote: »

In it, Dr Oehmen writes: "I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication).

Dr Oehmen is right. Reporting error is rife. I also think that Degenerate's comment about safety in 2011 is valid. However, if the Japanese reactors were designed in the 60s (and I don't know when they were built), I would be amazed if they had not seen a lot of safety improvements since then.

My concerns about nuclear power are not just based on the problems in Japan. As I stated in the OP, "We have seen nuclear accidents all over the world now". If the developed nations do not set an example, we cannot blame small countries from wanting the same. We will end up with countless thousands of nuclear plants around the world in places with unstable geology, unstable governments, corrupt companies etc. Terrorists will buy waste for dirty bombs and millions of tonnes of low grade waste will be looking for convenient hole in the ground.

The feed materials and waste of nuclear plants are particularly nasty. Japan has some of the best technologists in world and yet they came unstuck. Nuclear power is just not a good way forward.

mwd

d123 wrote: »

This is the point I was going to make, a problem at a 40+ year old reactor that actually survived a serious earthquake (but not the tsunami that has damaged it's cooling ability) means there is a problem with modern nuclear facilities being built anywhere on the planet?

Your point is?
How can you compare a reactor built in the 1960s to newer ones,what evidence have you found to explain this problem.

Degenerate

A._Badger wrote: »

So what would you suggest, Revd Malthus? The usual socialist remedies of eugenics (a la Webb and the Fabians), Pol Pot's 'year zero'? A nice plague perhaps, or a good war or three?

I usually recommend the Malthusians set an example for depopulation by starting with themselves.

ChiefGrasscutter

grimsalve wrote: »

If it was hydrogen deflagation then it's reassuring as this means the explosions affected the heat exchangers and not the reactors.

In a boiling water reactor there are no heat exchangers.
The live steam is sent directly to the turbines and then through a condenser before being returned to the reactor core.

grimsalve

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

In a boiling water reactor there are no heat exchangers.
The live steam is sent directly to the turbines and then through a condenser before being returned to the reactor core.

Apologies, I was mistaken, I thought they were PWRs - if they're BWRs then there's a bit of a problem but still the chances of a total meltdown are remote (the reactors themselves are still intact).

Gorgeous_George

Nuclear power is the ONLY answer to our energy needs. It is safer than most other forms of energy generation.

The only viable option to nuclear power is less usage. Either we all use less or we have less people. This could be encouraged by changing the charging mechanism (no pun intended). We should pay more per unit the more we use - at present it's the other way around.

The UK threat from nuclear power is from the French power stations on the English Channel coast. At least with our own plants, we have control.

GG

d123

mwd wrote: »

Your point is?
How can you compare a reactor built in the 1960s to newer ones,what evidence have you found to explain this problem.

Are you seriously taking part in a debate over nuclear energy but don't have the capacity to understand an entire post including the part quoted.

This was the point I was agreeing with:

Degenerate wrote: »

I don't see how an accident at a 1960s designed reactor proves anything about the safety of 2011 nuclear engineering.

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

Good grief! Read the first post again and then write out 200 times "I will not get chippy with Macaque until I have read his posts properly".

Well, having returned from a couple of very large gin & tonics, I have read your first post again.

Yup! I guess I'm pretty sober now. At least sober enough to suspect that you are 'hinting' that latest activity in Japan is proving the Greens' point about Nuclear Energy being inherently unsafe.

I found words such as "A few days ago", "That just confirms", "inherently unsafe", "100% confirms" a bit of a giveaway to be honest.

My own post suggested you wait until the fact are known, since if a nuclear power station proves to have withstood the biggest earthquake ever, some might just start to question what you are saying.

You then go on to say that the 'facts' were known anyway.

Anyway, I wrote out "I will not get chippy with Macaque until I have read his posts properly" once, but declined to do it another 199 times because I have read the post.

Instead, I wrote out 200 times:

"Nuclear Energy could well get the biggest green light ever if it has proven to have withstood the largest earthquake ever. Then, if proven, we can tell the Greens to shove their nasty expensive wind farms somewhere where they will only ever see them again on an X ray".

Only trouble is, I didn't write it on recycled paper.

amcluesent

ホイールは大きな時間をオフに来ている

Loughton_Monkey

amcluesent wrote: »

ホイールは大きな時間をオフに来ている

それを再度言うことができる