Yes, they're a "clean" source of energy, produce almost no pollution.
And it's actually pretty safe, hell a 8.9 earthquake with a big ass tsunami and all that crap and the core is still standing and contained in one of those japanese nuclear plant.
Yes, they're a "clean" source of energy, produce almost no pollution.
And it's actually pretty safe, hell a 8.9 earthquake with a big ass tsunami and all that crap and the core is still standing and contained in one of those japanese nuclear plant.
I would say no, we do not need it. Nuclear reactor's were designed to power submarines not cities. Earthquake or not, they are dangerous and do pollute.
All that aside, don't know how informed you all are but there have been 3 explosion's thus far in Japan. The Japanese government isn't giving all the details, I just hope the radiation doesn't spread to far.
I'd be glad if the radiation was to spread so that it could kill a bit of the world's stupidity.
Wtf is this constant fear mongering? Greenies got their titties in a twist over this? What happened was absolutely the worst possible case scenario. Even that didn't cause a nuclear holocaust like these idiots would like you to believe. Not to mention that this crap pile was over 40 years old to boot. Then you make statements of '3 eyed babies' and shit. Yeah lets see what that does to world health when we dont have electricity to run hospitals, store food etc. Then to boot we can use traditional power sources just to satisfy your green perversion and see how that'll work. That shit causes tons of pollution. That'll save the planet. :mad:
But dude! You have to understand, 3 legged babies!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I would say no, we do not need it. Nuclear reactor's were designed to power submarines not cities. Earthquake or not, they are dangerous and do pollute.
All that aside, don't know how informed you all are but there have been 3 explosion's thus far in Japan. The Japanese government isn't giving all the details, I just hope the radiation doesn't spread to far.
Nuclear power is needed. It'd be great if we could all rely on solar/wind/etc. for our power, but our power needs are too high.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents plus much more not mentioned there. Cernobyl was just the worst but surely not the only.
What happened in Japan is about the worst possible situation for the reactors. They were hit with the worst earthquake known to have hit Japan, they lost most of their equipment, and are without power in the facilities. Yet, no nuclear catastrophe. This with 40+ year-old reactors made from designs even older than that. Modern designs are even better (as far as building new plants).
The only nuclear reactor that had a meltdown was at Chernobyl and that was because the staff disengaged safety systems for a 'test' or because the reactor was designed poorly. There are reports to back up both views (probably caused by all the above though).
Also, nobody thinks about terrorist attacks? wars? How bad could be a 9/11 strike with an airplane over a nuclear power plant for example?
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginWhoa that's enlighting, the response you would expect from a merc indeed.
in turkey edirne citty they build 17 windmills.now they can give electricity 65.000 house and 5 glass factorys.
And let me guess, 1 glass factory is getting electricity and the 4 other with the 65,000 houses are getting nothing?
So your solution to a country with little to no resources to produce electricity is... "weeeell we can't build a nuclear powerplant because someone MGIHT do a terrorist attack" if you let terrorists decide your infastructure, you have basicly lost and the terrorists have won.Well japan is one of the bigger waster of energy in the world, if you go in tokyo on night is like day. Maybe starting to save energy might be a good idea (not only for the japaneses).
Depends on the wind.
Whoa that's enlighting, the response you would expect from a merc indeed.
In reality, nuclear plants are the first targets in case of a serious war, togheter with dikes and nuclear silos. Also it's ovious that they are in danger of terrorism, are you really sure a nuclear plant can't get to fusion point after a 747 crashes at full speed on it?
Depending on the wind, a mill produce more or less 2MW, so I doubt 34MW is enough to power up 5 glass factories and 65,000 houses.
Yes, I'm sure, first of all because fusion point makes no sense, since there is no nuclear fusion going on in a nuclear power plant. Secondly nuclear power plants are build like bunkers with an extensive amount of safety features. Take a look at that list of accidents you yourself linked, only one of those accidents had a deathtoll above 5 and again only one of those accidents released a serious amount of radiation. Nuclear power is perfectly save. It does have drawbacks in that its waste takes a long time to reach save radiation levels and that it requires fuel with a large fissile atomic nucleus.I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty :D.
Go read this if you're worried about terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety#Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety#Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack)
I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty :D.
Anyway they were sure they were able to whistand heatquake without problems but we saw that is not the case. Also a nuclear plant relies to external energy source to not overheat so meh i don't think we can't be so sure.
I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty :D.
Anyway they were sure they were able to whistand heatquake without problems but we saw that is not the case. Also a nuclear plant relies to external energy source to not overheat so meh i don't think we can't be so sure.
There have only been 9 earthquakes recorded that where as strong or stronger than the one that hit Japan.There was only one nuclear disaster as bad as chernobyl (and let's hope it stays that way the next days) but we are and we will still pay.
You mean fission which is completely different from fusion and has little to do with an accident. Nuclear power plants don't blow in nuclear explosions if that's what you're thinking. Also what Goldor said, nobody can plan for every situation. Oh and most countries with nuclear power have decided to review their safety standards since the earthquake, in other words soon nuclear power plants will be even safer.
Nuclear power plants works with nuclear fission, fusion of the core is when the heat in the core is so high that provoke a fusion of the core, after that you don't have an atomic bomb explosion but even the containment walls might break and then there is an huge radiation pollution like chernobyl.
Apart from the bolded part completely wrong.sry again for the english, in italian we call it roughtly translated "fusion of the core" in english is nuclear meltdown. Anyway there is such risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Effects
Here, go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
sry again for the english, in italian we call it roughtly translated "fusion of the core" in english is nuclear meltdown. Anyway there is such risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Effects
my point is when u build something and if its dangerous you cant leave the rest of mother nature.nuclear power is eneugh becuse they are keeping and donating reserch for that.but maybe if they make the same financing to the green energy maybe they will find something more useful.but wind energy is free and u cant earn money from that.thats why dont supporting it.they wanna sell oil and other stuff.they cant make fortune with green energy.couse the money is their blood.and you cant say "its will of god" when something bad happened.im 21 years old.and this world right now is not mine . like you its not yours.and you will call me dreamer or something i know.but think about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? God wills it and shit? What the hell, when did anyone ever bring god into this argument.
Also, money is a necessary evil.
well im gonna see your clean power when people start giving a birth babys with 3 legs or 1 eye.you will never learn your lesson from history arent you ... its not mother natures fault !
There is a risk, yes, but every plant has safety features to prevent a meltdown. Chernobyl was so bad because it was an old, badly build reactor.Of course nuclear power plants has the strongest security measures, that's because if a coal plant burns is really bad, but a nuclear incident can be worse then a nuclear bomb.
"Nuclear reactors can fail in a variety of ways. Should the instability of the nuclear material generate unexpected behavior, it may result in an uncontrolled power excursion. Normally, the cooling system in a reactor is designed to be able to handle the excess heat this causes; however, should the reactor also experience a loss-of-coolant accident, then the fuel may melt or cause the vessel it is contained in to overheat and melt. This event is called a nuclear meltdown.
Because the heat generated can be tremendous, immense pressure can build up in the reactor vessel, resulting in a steam explosion, which happened at Chernobyl. However, the reactor design used at Chernobyl was unique in many ways. It utilized a positive void coefficient, meaning a cooling failure caused reactor power to rapidly escalate. All reactors built outside the former Soviet Union have had negative void coefficients, a passively safe design. More importantly though, the Chernobyl plant lacked a containment structure. Western reactors have this structure, which acts to contain radiation in the event of a failure. Containment structures are, by design, some of the strongest structures built by mankind."
In other words, for the most part, nuclear power is perfectly safe.
The "perfectly safe" thingy is bullshit. Even without earthquakes, tsunamies, plane crashes or terrorist attacks there is always a small chance of human failure in terms of planning, construction, maintainance or operation. We do need nuclear power at the moment but on the longer run we should try to get away from it. There is a risk involved with nuclear power and the waste problem can't be solved in a satisfactory manner either.
In SimCity I used to build nuclear power plants because of their advantages. I saved often and when it went boom I just loaded a save. Pretty hard to pull that off in the real world.
And also, before we mine and use that uranium it is radioactive, right? I'm no physicist you know.
So practically we dig up radioactive stuff from the ground, nuke it up a bit in our powerplant, then put it into a huge container and put it back to ground?
We need nuclear powered spaccraft. Then we can just dump the radioactive waste on the moon /space. If not there is always ireland.
That made me laugh and sad at the same time.
Why have this discussion?The typical argument if we didn't turn to green energy it's because of oil money ...
We are given the power that those in control choose. They will always choose who pays them the most. Since ALL energy on earth originally comes from the sun, the only logical solution is to rely on solar power, and the technology is there, but not the funding: Current financial interests (the financial interests of the 0.001% of the world who make the descisions) are that Oil and Nukes are making them so rich that their great great great grandchildren will STILL whipe their asses on gold toilet tissue, and untill we have a truly egalitarian society with values like the emotional, physicall and mental wellbeing of its members and the comfort and sustainability of its livestyle, untill THEN, we are gonna keep nuking the planet and digging up dead dinosaurs from millions of years ago to run our cars and planes, so we can fly or drive to our holiday destinations, get there and worry about how much carbon we just burnt getting to a place where we can do exactly the same as we could at home...
Also living in a nation like italy, with a lot of energy request and really little fossil energy sources but no power plants (we shutted all down after cernobyl) i can say human life is possible without nuclear.Dude we've been living without oil gaz and nuclear for like what 800 000 years and we lived with nuclear for 70 years oil 150years and coal 300 years. What we're living now is exceptional it's not the norm .
After they are burned they can be put into a deposit where they continue to convert in slow natural processes.
Waste-wise it's really only a problem of proper storage.
Accidents on a running plant like in Japan are something different.
Brazil made the sensible descision: LETS KEEP OUR CORRUPTION LOCAL! They too have the issue of the power companies using their finacial weight to alter political movement, but at least its all local, since they grow their own fuel (Fuel which is cheaper and releases MORE energy than oil).GE and Maytag BOUGHT THE PLANS, copyrighted the process, and destroyed the working models.And guess who those companies are? YES, the same ones who sell us oil, build our nuke plants, and tell us to turn our heating up....
That's the point. As far as I know noone has a viable, cost efficient solution for your "proper storage" yet. The approach now is to tempory put it somewhere and wait until we come up with a good way in the future. Here in Germany we had an huge scandal with an experimental permanent waste storage that failed(and was tried to kept hidden from the news) and we normally go chocolate chip cookie about security and safety. I don't even wanna now what went wrong and never surfaced to the news in less finical countries(basicly the rest of the world).
Yes, they're a "clean" source of energy, produce almost no pollution.
nuclear power is GREEN, perfect example of general ignorance.
With the installation of the first fusion plant in France maybe our problems will be solved sooner than we think.
You must keep in mind that America Agri industy pretty much feeds the world we export so much food.
WE DONT need nuke power, but we dont have a choice, the descition to use it has been made FOR us, by some old fat rich white men in an office.
Maybe the generation who know nothing of the Cold War are growing up with a different perspective on radiation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274