1 2 3
Posted: 5/14/2011 12:44 PM
(Edited: 5/14/2011 1:18 PM)
Post subject: Nuclear Power - any reason to be against it?
Quote
Yrr
Joined: 8/10/2006
Posts: 289
Location: Germany, Bayern
Since the Fukushima incident nearly everyone here in Germany wants nuclear power plants to be shut down. I can't understand that at all. Why are there so many enemies? I know that nuclear power could be potentially dangerous, but noone seems to have any idea about the facts. Today's power plants are very safe and a disaster like Chernobyl is extremely unlikely. Nuclear power isn't the future (fusion power probably is) but it is the best we have. I have yet to find a reason why nuclear power should be shut down. Opinions and constructive feedback are welcome.
Posted: 5/14/2011 12:48 PM
Quote
KennyMan666
He/Him
Joined: 8/24/2005
Posts: 375
Location: Göteboj
No. No reason. Fact: Nuclear power has the least amount of deaths per kWh of any energy sources. Even solar and wind power have harvested more lives. Oil and coal are the most lethal. Sadly, I've lost the link I had to a great article about this.
Det man inte har i begåvning får man ta ut i energi. "I think I need to get to Snoop Dogg's level of high to be able to research this post." -Samsara Read my fanfic, One Piece: Pure Corruption
Posted: 5/14/2011 12:48 PM
Quote
Flygon
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Because people are fear mongering idiots. You nuke two cities and suddenly the whole concept and enthusiasm of the concept goes to hell when far significantly less dangerous incidents (relative to... I don't know, being bombed by nukes) happen in plants that had pretty crappy managers or designs that wouldn't have been approved in properly built up countries. The only argument against the plants would be the people that manage them or the design of said plants. And even then, there's a solution to that, repair the problem, not wasting more money than it's worth shutting it down.
Posted: 5/14/2011 12:52 PM
Quote
ShadowWraith
Joined: 8/7/2006
Posts: 344
Nuclear power has far too much potential to be ignored because of peoples misguided conception that anything nuclear = bad, and with the dwindling supply of natural fuels like coal and oil looming within the next century or so, nuclear power seems like it'll be fairly important to replace them.
Posted: 5/14/2011 12:57 PM
Quote
DeHackEd
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Former player
Joined: 11/6/2004
Posts: 833
Solar and wind could be a lot better if it was done right. If every home had some minimum of solar panels on its roof and the grid was built right we wouldn't need (as many) centralized power stations. But until then, nuclear remains the best option for centralized generation. The Fukushima incident is a worst case scenario - it took one of the biggest natural disasters (earthquake/tsunamis) on record to cause that. If you want fewer deaths in the world, petition for driverless cars rather than the shutdown of nuclear power stations.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:03 PM
Quote
Brushy
Former player
Joined: 11/13/2005
Posts: 1587
If a 40-year-old plant that was soon to be closed anyways could almost withstand the 5th most powerful earthquake ever recorded and a tsunami wave, I think nuclear power in Germany is pretty safe.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:15 PM
(Edited: 5/15/2011 12:03 AM)
Quote
Mitjitsu
He/Him
Banned User
Joined: 4/24/2006
Posts: 2997
TAS of 2007 N64 TAS of 2007
Basing decisions off reaction based polictics is always a bad idea, unless a loophole in the law was exposed. Chernobl was caused by incompetence and hugely out of date equipment, while Fukushima was caused by a one in a hundred year natural event, which was nearly avoided. We already know the drawbacks of oil and gas, but most of the renewables don't produce much electricty and are more expensive. BTW do you mean nuclear fusion? That could be 50-60 years away and I certainly wouldn't jump at it right away.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:17 PM
Quote
Yrr
Joined: 8/10/2006
Posts: 289
Location: Germany, Bayern
DeHackEd wrote:
Solar and wind could be a lot better if it was done right. If every home had some minimum of solar panels on its roof and the grid was built right we wouldn't need (as many) centralized power stations.
True, but I can't imagine a world being only fueled with solar and wind power. We have solar panels (quite a lot of them actually) on our roof and turns out, that they need over two years to produce as much energy as the facility my dad works at consumes in one hour. Considering the continuous rise of energy consumption, it seems to be best to research straight for nuclear fusion. But, you are right, if we wanted to, we could be building much better solar and wind power plants.
DeHackEd wrote:
If you want fewer deaths in the world, petition for driverless cars rather than the shutdown of nuclear power stations.
Exactly my thoughts. Nobody cares about car accidents despite being one of the most significant causes of death. Thanks for the input so far! Edit: Yes, I meant fusion. My bad.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:25 PM
Quote
scrimpeh
Editor, Skilled player (1438)
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 2108
TAS of 2017 First edition TAS of 2017 PSX TAS of 2017
Quite frankly, the entire debate annoys me to no end, and I don't quite understand why it is Germany that is so sensitive about it. I, personally, don't object to nuclear power in itself, as long as it is handled in a responsible and safe fashion (Hint: Chernobyl was not.), which seems to be very well the case in Germany and Europe in general. It certainly is cleaner than oil or coal, and, as those recourses begin to run out/become unaffordable, probably also cheaper. I don't think in the long run our energy needs cannot be sustained by nuclear power, but for the moment, quickly stepping out of nuclear power is unwise and, put simply, ludicriously expensive. Fact is, about 20% of all energy in Germany is generated through nuclear power, so, while it's wise to invest in renewable energies and fusion, once graspable, we can't simply stop all power plants as once, as people seem to demand. Also, I think that Fukushima doesn't exactly work as a good example. The plant was hit with a huge earthquake, followed by a tsunami, things that simply don't happen, at least not on that scale, here in Germany. For the record, the last big incident I've heard of here in Germany was a simple fire in a transformer. No horrible radiation leaks, no kilometer-wide exclusion zones, and yet the fallout (in the media, that is) still was huge, and, in my opinion, fairly overblown.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:47 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
DeHackEd wrote:
Solar and wind could be a lot better if it was done right. If every home had some minimum of solar panels on its roof and the grid was built right we wouldn't need (as many) centralized power stations.
The problem with solar cells is that, while their operation per se is eco-friendly, their production involves a shitload of toxic chemicals that need to be harvested, processed, and disposed of afterwards, which ironically makes it not eco-friendly at all. Wind turbines have a host of problems of their own, albeit rather minor in comparison with pretty much everything else. The main ones are: if too small, they aren't a reliable energy source; if too close, they are disturbing (noise, vibration, shadow flicker, dead birds everywhere); if sited well, they won't produce as much as an advanced nuclear plant would. Also hard to extinguish if caught on fire. There are certainly advantages, though, such as low production and operation cost, and being able to operate pretty much everywhere as long as there is wind.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:47 PM
Quote
DeHackEd
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Former player
Joined: 11/6/2004
Posts: 833
Yrr wrote:
True, but I can't imagine a world being only fueled with solar and wind power. We have solar panels (quite a lot of them actually) on our roof and turns out, that they need over two years to produce as much energy as the facility my dad works at consumes in one hour. Considering the continuous rise of energy consumption, it seems to be best to research straight for nuclear fusion. But, you are right, if we wanted to, we could be building much better solar and wind power plants.
I didn't mean the world would be solar/wind only. I meant it would be a good way to supplement the grid. The solar panels on your roof would reduce the grid power consumption of your air conditioner, refrigerator, and other appliances. If you had excess power, you sell it back to the grid and make a little bit of money. If you need more power, you take it from the grid in reduced quantities. In perspective at home with my electronic equipment I have no hope of breaking even. Now, this facility where your father works is probably a lot bigger than my home. You could probably put a lot more solar panels on it, hypothetically. In that case the power generated would be that much more and you'd pay that much less in grid power costs. Again there's no hope of breaking even on power generation there but it reduces load. It's not cheap of course. Solar panels produce DC power, so you need a high endurance pure-sine-wave inverter and a transfer switch, and probably some batteries to smooth the power flow. But once it's done your reliance on the grid is dramatically reduced. Multiply this thousands of times over and maybe we don't need as many power stations (nuclear or otherwise) or they can run at reduced capacity. With the batteries every house carries its own UPS. That's my view on the subject. Much like the Internet this stuff should be decentralized as much as reasonably possible. How feasible this is when working with old infrastructure and high entry costs is a whole other problem.
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:52 PM
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
My very unrealistic suggestion is at least shut down older plants and only build [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_temperature_reactor]HTGR-based reactors[/URL] from now on. In my opinion anything besides HTGR plants shouldn't have been built in the first place because of their far lower safety risks. Nuclear power plants pose a very serious risk in the long term. The chance of several times worse disasters than Tschernobyl or Fukushima happening is very low, but if mankind decides to live with that danger over a prolonged period of time, then that's just irresponsible to me. Unfortunately, countries who are willing to take the risk will have lots of benefits, so it's very unrealistic that we can go without any nuclear power at all (as long as we don't have a one world government). You can't just measure the danger by dividing kWh and caused deaths before a low-chance "disaster beyond all expectations" has happened (and it eventually will if we go on like this forever). (It's not unlike betting on all but three numbers in roulette, then measuring the effectiveness of that strategy after 5 spins)
Posted: 5/14/2011 2:26 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
We most certainly can't do without nuclear power at this point. We're rapidly running out of fossil fuels, and humanity's energy demands are constantly growing, which non-renewable sources, let alone wind/solar/geothermal/tidal, are unable to accommodate for in long term. Fusion power would have solved it easily, being both the safest and the highest net-generating, but we won't have operational fusion reactors until mid-2030s at the earliest, at which point we're certainly going to run out of options not having "nuclear" in their names. We will have 8+ billion people living on the planet by then if the birth rate sustained since 1950s is to continue. Of course this is the major picture, certain smaller countries (Iceland, for one) should be able to carry on with minimal increase in energy demand.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 5/14/2011 3:05 PM
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
If the birth rate stays the same, then WWIII is inevitable anyway. Reducing that birth rate would be one of the first goals a one world government should have. We can go without nuclear power if that's what the people of this world vote for. I realize that more than likely none of this is going to happen in the near future. That's why I proposed to switch to HTGR-based reactors at least. The reason why they're hardly used atm is because they take a very long time to build, and historically the finished reactors had been outdated by the time they were finished. We essentially went for the short-term most profitable version instead.
Posted: 5/14/2011 4:33 PM
Quote
sonicpacker
Active player (426)
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
N64/DS TAS of 2021 TAS of 2012 Speedy TAS of 2012 3D Platforms TAS of 2012 N64 TAS of 2010 Speedy TAS of 2010
Relevant videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAWxEr_7Smw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOxROfPvRII
https://personalitygrowth.com/entp-myths-stereotypes-misconceptions-cliches-and-tropes-that-are-inaccurate/
Posted: 5/14/2011 4:34 PM
Quote
Warepire
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 3/2/2010
Posts: 2178
Location: A little to the left of nowhere (Sweden)
At the moment nuclear power is necessary for us to have the kind of high-tech society we live in today, although cold fusion is becoming more and more real (some Italian science team had a demo of an experimental reactor last year) nuclear power is the safest option when done right. What I do not think is that we will be using uranium to fuel our reactors during the entire period. Thorium was getting quite a lot of attention some years ago and showed really promising results (including lower decay periods) until everything just went silent in 2007... I have not seen a single update about thorium research since this article: http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/ The current biggest issue with thorium is the mining process which produces some pretty nasty waste, but if that can be worked around I think we have a new fuel on our hands.
Posted: 5/14/2011 4:39 PM
Quote
Bag_of_Magic_Food
He/Him
Player (206)
Joined: 5/29/2004
Posts: 5712
DeHackEd wrote:
If you want fewer deaths in the world, petition for driverless cars rather than the shutdown of nuclear power stations.
I wouldn't trust a car to a computer, except maybe if it's on rails
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Posted: 5/14/2011 6:41 PM
Quote
Derakon
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Coal plants generate far more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. And they dump it into the atmosphere! Lung cancer for everyone! Hooray! There's two main problems with nuclear power in the USA right now: most people are irrationally afraid of it, and people in power repeatedly abuse public paranoia to get re-elected. Nice little vicious cycle for you there.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Posted: 5/14/2011 9:44 PM
Post subject: Re: Nuclear Power - any reason to be against it?
Quote
Warp
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Yrr wrote:
Since the Fukushima incident nearly everyone here in Germany wants nuclear power plants to be shut down.
Yeah, lots of earthquakes and tsunamis in Germany... I'm curious to know which alternative they are proposing. (Nuclear powerplants produce probably at least 50% of all the energy, probably a lot more. It's not like they could just shut it down. The economy would collapse and many people would die. What alternative are they suggesting?)
Posted: 5/14/2011 10:51 PM
Post subject: Re: Nuclear Power - any reason to be against it?
Quote
Yrr
Joined: 8/10/2006
Posts: 289
Location: Germany, Bayern
Warp wrote:
I'm curious to know which alternative they are proposing. (Nuclear powerplants produce probably at least 50% of all the energy, probably a lot more. It's not like they could just shut it down. The economy would collapse and many people would die. What alternative are they suggesting?)
Here in germany only a little bit more than 20% of the total energy is produced by nuclear power plants, but still; it's a lot to cover if we were about to shut them down instantly. Most people here are convinced that solar and wind power is the way to go. Funny is how nobody wants it near them, as wind turbines for example mutilate the landscapes. So renewable energy is good, but I don't want it in my backyard (nimby). In short, everyone wants nuclear power gone, but nobody offers a decent solution.
Posted: 5/15/2011 12:39 AM
Quote
mmbossman
Experienced player (828)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
GBx TAS of 2008
Two words: Nuclear Zombies.
Living Well Is The Best Revenge My Personal Page
Posted: 5/15/2011 5:57 AM
Quote
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
How do wind turbines "mutilate the landscape"? Don't they just make the landscape look super cool? I don't understand you here. To me, a wind farm looks awe-inspiring.
Posted: 5/15/2011 6:00 AM
Quote
Flygon
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Lex wrote:
How do wind turbines "mutilate the landscape"? Don't they just make the landscape look super cool? I don't understand you here. To me, a wind farm looks awe-inspiring.
I love this guy! I never understood what was so bad looking about wind farms myself! They're a testament to mans ability to generate electricity, and look extremely cool while doing it.
Posted: 5/15/2011 6:04 AM
Quote
Kirkq
Player (210)
Joined: 7/7/2006
Posts: 798
Location: US
The stigma regarding nuclear power actually stagnates the industry. I think it is the case that you can't build a new plant because people will protest, so the older less safe plants continue to be operational. Also, the extreme limitation on the plants likely hinders research and development of safer plants. Side Note: I recall reading an article about how living within a mile or two of a wind farm seems to have a tendency to induce headaches and sleep problems in the population nearby. Could just be speculation though.
Twitch Stream, Twitter, Youtube, TASVideos Profile
Posted: 5/15/2011 7:44 AM
Post subject: Re: Nuclear Power - any reason to be against it?
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
Yrr wrote:
(nimby)
These two equally hilarious acronyms made my day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#PIBBY
Kirkq wrote:
Side Note: I recall reading an article about how living within a mile or two of a wind farm seems to have a tendency to induce headaches and sleep problems in the population nearby. Could just be speculation though.
Although the connection has not been conclusively proven, said effect is attributed to subtle noise and low-frequency vibration, which the wind turbines do indeed generate. There have been papers written on the subject suggesting that the effect on human health is insignificant and living near a busy street produces one at least comparable, if not worse, but I don't see how adding any noise sources is anything good per se. If anything, we should reduce the noise pollution, not "insignificantly" add to it. Your first paragraph I fully agree with, though.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
1 2 3