Nuclear power

FTBFun

ninky wrote: »

why? if people were made aware of the impact their choice to reproduce would have not just on humanity as a whole but on their own potential offspring i would have thought they would be rational enough to limit reproduction.

this is what i have done. am i just more intelligent than other people?

You're giving mankind way too much credit I reckon. We're not rational enough to reduce consumption of raw materials despite them obviously being finite.

ninky_2

FTBFun wrote: »

You're giving mankind way too much credit I reckon. We're not rational enough to reduce consumption of raw materials despite them obviously being finite.

maybe i am. if that's the case then we are actually doomed as a species. the inability to rationalise for future events (deferred gratification) is a mark of evolutionary weakness and therefore future extinction.

ninky_2

d123 wrote: »

You can actually go for a tour of Chernobyl now, right into the old exclusion zone (to 100 meters of the reactor).

i was talking about the damaged japanese reactors. let's see the pro-nuclear lobby take a tour there.

Arcaine

I put this into another thread, it highlights safaty concerns and other details of things at the reactor. I havent verified any info in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/debt-tsunami-fights-radiation-for-bigger-risk-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

Some information for people on nuclear power in the uk. But the first line of the link below highlights one of the major issues to me

The UK has 19 reactors generating about 18% of its electricity and all but one of these will be retired by 2023.

The report also highlights how much energy we are now importing in the form of gas and coal.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html

I am afraid that in my opinion we have some very hard choices to make about how we supply our growing energy needs.

Derivative

ninky wrote: »

i was talking about the damaged japanese reactors. let's see the pro-nuclear lobby take a tour there.

The pro-nuclear lobby are not a well defined group.
I am all for destroying 1960's reactors and putting down new tech. You are ignorant if you believe there has been no progress in 50 years.

There's a playing field next to my house big enough to plop a reactor on. I'd be more than happy if it happened tomorrow.

I would be less happy if 40 years in the future, the same reactor was there with no safety improvements. Which is the current situation.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

i was talking about the damaged japanese reactors. let's see the pro-nuclear lobby take a tour there.

Where do you think we should get our electricity from?

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Where do you think we should get our electricity from?

well i think we need to reduce requirements. some of this could maybe happen as we switch to virtual goods consumption (apps, internet etc) rather than manufactured goods consumption (infinite numbers of shoes, mountains of plastic toys etc). my other suggestion is fewer people through voluntary abstinence from breedign since i don't think lifestyle change is particularly palatable - although maybe some would rather live dark ages style if it allowed them to breed willy nilly.

and then renewables. mainly solar.

ninky_2

i don't think caroline lucas is a very good example of "green" living. four children is it? :eek:

kittypimms

Crikey, and I thought this would be a grown up debate about the pro's and con's of nuclear power. Apologies if my input is unwelcome...

ninky wrote: »

the truth is that you can't always prove
if radiation is safe i challenge every member of the pro nuclear lobby to go take a trip along with every member of their family to the exclusion zone around the damaged reactors. now that really would instil confidence in the population....

As an above poster has stated, do you know how much rad the average person is exposed to during a year? Natural, background, cosmic, medical all account to more than from nuke reactors, and accidents. Food items are treated with radiation to make them sterile, and yet the public are not readily made aware of these things, hence "nuclear" and all associations are seen as worrying things.

Personally I've been around nuclear sources more than the average person, and yes, I have received 2 doses this year. But neither were from any Nuclear installation - both medical treatments (radioiodine and X-Rays).

Also the nature of the Radiation has to be taken into account - Alpha, Beta or Gamma, and how the dose is recieved (internally, externally, etc).

I think comparing an "act of God" to the day to day running of a licensed plant for generation is ridiculous. New Gen reactors are built to withstand plane strikes, quakes, and with numerous backups and failsafes to the design. A quick scoot around the internet will show you how design has evolved.

I'm hapy to try and advise further if anyone's interested?
Hope this helps,
KxP

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

well i think we need to reduce requirements. some of this could maybe happen as we switch to virtual goods consumption (apps, internet etc) rather than manufactured goods consumption (infinite numbers of shoes, mountains of plastic toys etc).

How about virtual food? Food production and distribution is probably the most energy intensive industrial process of them all. Anyway, surely we can't switch to "virtual goods" like iPhone apps without the ability to manufacture, transport and distribute iPhones?

ninky wrote: »

my other suggestion is fewer people through voluntary abstinence from breedign since i don't think lifestyle change is particularly palatable - although maybe some would rather live dark ages style if it allowed them to breed willy nilly.

Would take too long to have an effect. China started the one child policy in 1979, it's population is still increasing and will do for another 15 years at least.

ninky wrote: »

and then renewables. mainly solar.

Our society can't run on energy that's only available when it's sunny. At best it's half a day, in Britain it's much less than that on average.