Scottie841 Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I feel many people are stuck in the past! Nuclear energy is THE cleanest, greenest source of energy. People love hydro and wind power. Has any one actually considered the cost and resources needed to make the turbines and windmills? Resources = fuel = huge economic and environmental cost. Nuclear power is much much cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable. The top minds in the world are exploring newer and better ways to dispose of nuclear waste. What about the geothermal plants that use no fuel other than the steam that is already being created naturally. The only cost to that would be the materials that are required to built the facility which I would assume is a lot less than required for a nuke plant. Also there is very little damage if it malfunctions because they just vent the steam before it gets to the plant. If nuclear plants are so clean and green then why do the top minds have to think up such ingenious ways to dispose of the waste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 The cost of the materials are marginally below the benefit received from them; pushing up prices. There's no escaping nuclear power - like it or not. Unfortunatly the top minds in the world have not found the answer other than sending it to someone else's country. Almost sounds like you think they will now spend the rest of their lives twiddling their thumbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 They have been twiddling for a while now. The accountants will work it out in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I wonder if it will reduce the enthusiasm for using nuclear power in NZ I do agree Alan. Didn't know NZ was thinking about using nuclear power :-? I thought the last nuclear firecracker in the Pacific would have disgusted for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 we have a different government now deepsound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Wanna laugh a bit ? Do you know what french government said when the nuclear cloud was slowly gliding to France from Tchernobyl ? It's really funny in retrospect. They said : "Stay quiet. The radioactive dust should stop at the frontier". Fortunately, we got video tapes... What else ? Want me to tell you about what this industry names "sterile" ? It's so funnier than the story about the gentle cloud (irony). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I feel many people are stuck in the past! Nuclear energy is THE cleanest, greenest source of energy. People love hydro and wind power. Has any one actually considered the cost and resources needed to make the turbines and windmills? Resources = fuel = huge economic and environmental cost. Nuclear power is much much cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable. The top minds in the world are exploring newer and better ways to dispose of nuclear waste. Bet you feel a bit silly now that 1/2 million people are being evacuated and 3 reactors are melting down, bet they are feeling clean and green at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Why? Compared to burning coal or hydro nuclear is still far cleaner and greener. There are only two downsides; the disposal of the waste, and when something goes wrong it goes really really wrong. How many nuclear power plants are there operating around the world right now? How many rivers would you have to dam or how many tons of coal would you have to burn to generate an equivalent amount of power? The fact is that its taken a 9.0 earthquake (one of the strongest the world has ever seen) to cause this disaster. If it had happened somewhere on land and broken some big dams creating huge floods would you be applying the same logic and saying we should stop using hydro power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Before and after pics, whole villages gone.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan ... eafter.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 The fact is that its taken a 9.0 earthquake (one of the strongest the world has ever seen) to cause this disaster. What about Windscale (UK), Saint-Laurent-des-Eaux (FR), Monticello (US), Three Mile Island (US), Tucson (US), Tsuruga (JP), Tchernobyl (Ru), Biblis (Ger), Vandellos (Spain), Snovosi Bor (ru), Gironde (FR), Paks (Hungary), Forsmark (Sweden) ?... No earthquake involved indeed... :roll: But nuclear pollution for sure. And just for the known and civilian ones ! Have you heard about the military ones, when they loose some atomic bomb ? If it had happened somewhere on land and broken some big dams creating huge floods would you be applying the same logic and saying we should stop using hydro power? The big difference : if it breaks a hydro power station, there are no consequences for thousands years. No cancer caught AFTER the disaster. Not the same deal with nuclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Better switch off your computer then, and most of your lights and other appliances given that most of Frances power generation has been through nuclear power since the mid 80's... As I said, its not perfect, and when things go wrong there are serious consequences. But both hydro or coal are guaranteed to do serious damage to the environment (habitats destroyed by damming rivers or mining coal) as part of their normal operation. How much environmental damage would that do in Europe if the E.U had to replace the 30% of its power generated by nuclear (80% for France!) with dams and coal fired stations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 There are only two downsides; the disposal of the waste, and when something goes wrong it goes really really wrong. No... Here in France we are some kind of leader in this field. 80 % of our electric energy comes from nuclear. As you do, they say nuclear energy is THE cleanest, greenest source of energy. They just "forget" to mention some contrary little things. Downsides are : mining, shipping, cooling, dumping and dismantling. When you take this into account, it's not greener, it's not cleaner, it's not cheaper. It's just a future disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Better switch off your computer then, and most of your lights and other appliances given that most of Frances power generation has been through nuclear power since the mid 80's... Ah ah ! You're absolutely right ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broms2 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 RE nuclear power, we could always run a combination of solar/wind on all buildings making mass power generation unnecessary, big outlay to begin with but in the long run.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 RE nuclear power, we could always run a combination of solar/wind on all buildings making mass power generation unnecessary, big outlay to begin with but in the long run.... I agree completely, in an ideal world most buildings/homes would be self-sufficient with the main grid being only used as a back-up to reduce the reliance on energy stored in batteries (which need to be replaced regularly, creating more waste and pollution). Can you ever see it happening in the real world though? Similar story to alternatives to petrol, we could have had them long ago but we have reached a point where our advancement is being hindered by financial interests, and I simply cannot see a way around that..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryl Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Back to the original subject... Did you hear about the man who was found 14 kms out to sea floating on a bit of his roof? There was also a multi-storey building that now has a 40 seater bus sitting on its roof :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broms2 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 shows you how high and powerful the Tsunami was! blows me away the amount of footage that shows the waves ripping through buildings etc with cars in driving in the background seemingly oblivious to what is about to hit them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 A picture is worth a thousand words really.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Tsunami waves travel at about 800km/h across the deep ocean, around 80km/h when they hit the coastline... Shocking to see it ripping houses as if they were just models Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I've run across a quote saying the quake measured up to about .35g peak ground acceleration. Chch was measured at 1.8-2.2g. I think this quake would barely have been worth a mention if it wasn't for the tsunami. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Interesting article... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14 ... _analysis/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I hope it's true for japanese people but as you wrote, 80% of our power is generated by nuclear and we used to read those kind of optimistic and triumphant declarations... Not to mention idyllic ads on TV. In 1986, Tchernobyl, our government swore there was absolutely no raising of radioactivity during this period. Once bitten, twice shy. May be it's better to create a new topic about energy (not only about nuclear) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Earthquake would have moved Japan 2.4 m and shifted earth on its axis (about 10 cm, loss of 1.6µs)... “We know that one GPS station moved (2.4 meters), GSI, (the Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass;” stated Kenneth Hudnut, a US Geological Survey geophysicist. There are no consequences for life on earth but it's weird. Because we use to think there are some things fixed for ever and we imagine them as the framework of reality. But everything moves, even the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepsound Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Japan observes minute's silence one week after the quake. The fortitude and dignity of those poor people is highly impressive, deeply moving above all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12784313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.