Nuclear Power Station questions

[RedFish]

Hi, this is the discussion, you're welcome to it. 100 people died building the Hoover Dam?? That's some perspective. The final death toll for chernoby will never be known. Cancers, birth defects, leukemia. Take your pick. And these aren't WORKERS being paid to take a risk. They are civilian men, women and children(one estimate at 2.4million children affected). I would say most nuclear power plants give the appearance of being well run. No more. Anyone visited the Russian installations buried in the a***-end of nowhere recently? How about the Soviet Nuclear Fleet? That's doing really well. Not. Wanna glow in the dark? Spend an afternoon in the 'Magic Wood'.
The term 'necessary evil' is a get-out for those of weak character. No evil is necessary, and we devalue ourselves as humanity every second we tolerate it. Yes, I'm an idealist as well as a hypocrite.

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi Redfish,

I will have one last try to see if I can sway your opinion just a little bit. I will try my utmost best to refrain from being curt, and sincerely hope that you can see the logic in what I’m trying to say.

Casting military use of nuclear technology (Soviet nuclear fleet) in the same light as civilian use for electricity generating, is without doubt muddying the waters. If all nuclear power generating were abolished today, it wouldn’t make one iota of difference to whatever the military have done/are doing/will do in future.

And, if you are honest, you must surely agree that the wilful dumping of thousands of tonnes of military high & medium level nuclear waste in areas such as Chelyabinsk - (allegedly the most polluted place on the planet, and supposedly having had over 100 times the amount of radioactive material released by Chernobyl just dumped into rivers & lakes), the Barents/Arctic seas - (including numerous military reactors complete with fuel rods etc. etc.) makes Chernobyl pale into relative insignificance by comparison. It's purely because those incidents, and hundreds more like them, weren't allowed to make world headline news.

The list of such dubious activities would probably fill a book, and the almost complete lack of control measures or thought regarding either the populace or the environment beggars belief. Were it not for the fact that these goings on are nowadays slowly coming to light, we would still be blissfully unaware.

All of which is truly appalling, but is that sufficient reason to globally ban nuclear generation of electricity by today’s advanced and technically much safer civilian reactors?

Chernobyl was, and still is, undoubtedly an enormous tragedy, but it was one incident 25 years ago. Lessons have been learned, (certainly in the west), and today’s civilian reactors don’t bear any comparison at all with that type of technology.

Radioactivity can be a force for the good, as well as for evil, as I’m sure the millions of people who have had their lives saved as a result of x-ray, radiation therapy, and ionisation smoke detector technology for example, would agree. (But even the radioactive wastes from those has to go somewhere).

We are poles apart in our thinking on this, but surely if we are considering only the production of electricity, and comparing the pollution, environmental damage & loss of life associated with fossil fuel technology, there is a reasonable middle ground where the undoubted major benefits of nuclear energy can be seen as well as the potential major problems.

Regards,
Mike.

[animartco]

Hi MJ
Yes you can use my views, (so long a you don't make me out an idiot as Mike is so good at doing). I haven't studied engineering but I have studied sociology, and a bit of economics and am interested in people's opinions. I have heard from quite a few people tht Nuclear power is necessary so that the government can protect the technology for making bombs, (and cancer treatments, which is a pro that no one has yet mentioned. (There you are Mike!) but that it is nowhere near as efficient as a source of electricity as fossil fuels. Yes, when a power station is up and running it does provide comparable power, but noone seems (to me) to take into account the length of time that NPSs are offline for maintenance, and has anyone fully costed decommissioning? I agree that this is not an informed opinion.
I am for wave power as that of the future, in Britain. There is plenty of it and it is constant. I think that if we are going to keep living the way we are, and in my life time demand has become at least ten times greater, we will have to get used to th fact that almost everyone will be looking at some sort of power installation out of their windows. They WILL take up a lot more space. Oh well, that's enough for now. Cheers MJO

[animartco]

Sorry Mike, didn't read your piece before writing as I came in from an email. Uncanny! We made exactly the same points! I certainly don't want to see fossil fuels continue, but isn't there an enomous difference in cost between building a new fossil fuel power station and a nuclear one? My beef is that while all the money is focussed on 'new improved' Nuclear power stations, the renewable technologies are not getting the resources they need. And since we are going to have to end up with them anyway- doesn't everyone agree on that? Why don't we get on with setting up little prototypes all over, to see which works best.
I can of course answer this question. We don't, because if one of those prototypes were to deliver even slightly cheaper electricity, a lot of people in the power industry would have to sell their yachts! And only take five holidays a year!!!!

[animartco]

HI Again Mike. Comparable terrorist threats. No. Everyone kows that death by radiation poisoning is horrific. Most people are more scared by the manner of dying than by death itself. Remember that the Japanese capitulated immediately after the nuclear strikes. If one power station was blown up here with resulting fallout- and others threatened, I think it very likely that we would give in to terrorist demands where we would not, for even several blown up oil refineries.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by animartco

If one power station was blown up here with resulting fallout- and others threatened, I think it very likely that we would give in to terrorist demands where we would not, for even several blown up oil refineries.

Its far more likely that we (and even more so the murricans) would lash out at whoever was responsible with our nuclear arms, which is why it is very unlikely to ever happen - the type of munitions necessary are beyond the reach of the average terror cell which would mean they would have to have nation state support , and even the most fundamentalist nation state knows what would happen to them as a result.

Also you argument is illogical because if my point above were not valid such a backing nation state could furnish terrorists with radilogical materials for a dirty bomb attack whether or not we had power stations on our soil

therefore in fact oil refineries and such are a more likely target because vthey are both softer targets and the consequences for the perpetrators and their backers would be less severe - however even oil refineries arent that easy to attack, and while it is important that we do not underestimate the terror threat it is equally important that we not endow them with a technological sophistication that they do not possess, and we certainly shouldn't let the threat determine our energy policy.

(oh yeah and the japanese capitulation had nothing to do with the threat of dying from radiatioon sickness - that effect wasnt known at the time - it was more to do with the flash and blast damage and the fact that the allies alone had a capability of wiping a city off the map with just one bomb)

[MJ0387]

I apologise if my using of the phrase 'necessary evil' was misunderstood i used it purely as cliche. I don't think nuclear power is evil and i don't think that it is more dangerous than any other form of nuclear generation.

It is undesireable in that it uses irriplaceable resources and pollutes the atmosphere. It does this to a far lesser extent, however, than fossil fuel power stations. And in the case of nuclear power surely it is in the worlds better interests that uranium is used for electricity generation rather than weapon construction.

The links with the military are undeniable and unfortunate. It is an unfortunate world that we live in. The military get more funds for r and d than any other branch of the government. This has long been the case. Many inventions that we take for granted today were invented because of or as a reply to military action.

Idealism is not a bad thing. I personally am strongly pro-devolution. I want scotland to be independant from the uk not because i think it would benefit us economically but because i would simply like to have a sense of national pride. I realise that this is a fairly irrational view - i know scotland would need to re-apply for the EU and UN it would lose all of the benefits from being part of the G8 and the brittish military. Still i want independance.

I was not comparing chernobyl to the hoover dam i was simply highlighting that even renewable sources, that are so strongly touted as wonderful and clean, are not completely safe.

On a slightly different note given that the US and britain went to war for oil i think that they would be far more concerned about an oil refinery being blown up.
But perhaps i'm just being cynical.

[RedFish]

@ LancashireLad... Yes I absolutely agree that there have been some horrendous 'cover-ups', on all sides, including our own.
You expect to sway my opinion by pointing out more nuclear crimes, saying they detract from the uniqueness and destructiveness of Chernobyl. Is that right? Umm...
Yes, I'd ban the lot. That water ain't muddy at all to me.
There is no difference in my eyes between militairy/civilian nuclear usage. 'Cheap Power' is a myth. The use of EVERY weapon invented by man against man is inevitable. It is our nature.
X-ray usage is being surpassed by ultrasound. It was merely a gimmick anyway, discovered by people 'playing' with radiation. I do not deny its beneficial effects, much like nuclear-generated electricity, but it has no place in the future. Not in medicine anyway.
Terrorist attacks do not need to succeed to be successful. Economics.
@ Mj...I don't think I misunderstood. Read your 2nd sentence again...?..
It would be better for all, surely, if the uranium remained in the ground?
The links with the militairy are not 'unfortunate'. Deliberate is the word. Promises of 'cheap power' were made to all, to allow the refining and enrichment process to take place. More research needed I think...
If your idealism extends only as far as scottish devolution, what are you going to aspire to when you have it? Interesting that scotland will build no more nukes. Seen the sense at last? The first country of many I hope. Scotland I salute you.

''I understand that many people have died because of nuclear power and many have died from coal, gas, oil etc. but many people have died from renewable sources. Over 100 people died building the hoover dam!''...If that ain't a comparison, tell me what is.
You know we went to war for oil, do you? You know?

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by RedFish

....There is no difference in my eyes between militairy/civilian nuclear usage....

Oh well, at least I tried.

It’s obvious that you won’t be swayed, and in your utopia there is no nuclear generated power whatsoever.

I assume there is no fossil fuelled power either. Or are you relaxed about the pollution/environmental damage/deaths which occur as a result of that? If not, only renewables are left.

Given sufficient time, (getting this across being my only intent throughout), renewables only – maybe yes.

Solely renewables for the foreseeable future? – present day technology, gross inefficiency, lack of economic viability…..not a problem in your world?

Good luck with your beliefs, but excuse me if I look for those rose tinted spectacles!

Regards,
Mike.

[RedFish]

But my spectacles aren't rose tinted. I do not wear glasses, except to shield my eyes from the sun, and spot fish. They're polarised.
Mans own stupidity is our greatest obstacle, I don't doubt that we shall one day overcome this and my 'utopia' shall be achieved. But we may well destroy ourselves in the process. In order that we learn to live in peace. Quite bleak in the short term, no?
We can use less electricity, by being made to use less electricity. My relative lack of 'wealth' does the job admirably.