Nuclear Power Plants ... do we need them ?

[ShadowofWoe]

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.

I realize that, which is why you saying that it could power 1 glass factory would leave all the others with out power would depend on the wind, if it isn't going, it won't even do that :p.

[Sharky]

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.

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

I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty .
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.

[ShadowofWoe]

I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty .
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.

[IG_Saint]

I meant fusion of the core of the nuclear plant due to heat, sorry but my english is shitty .
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.

You mean fission which is completely different from fusion and has little to do with an accident. Nuclear power plants don't blow up as 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.

[Sharky]

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.
That doesn't happen often doesn't mean we shouldn't worry, i hope 1 nuclear disaster every 25 years is enough for you.

[Sharky]

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 at chernobyl.

[IG_Saint]

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.

Here, go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[Sharky]

Apart from the bolded part completely wrong.

Here, go read: 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
Yes cernobyl didn't really have a containment structures but even if there is you can't be totally sure it will not break.
Even if it doesn break there might be a radiation spread anyway, look now at Fukushima, evacuating 20 square km isn't a joke you know , and there are radiations as far as tokio many hundred miles away

[burakx]

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.

[IG_Saint]

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

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.

"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.

[Patricia]

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.

[burakx]

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.

firstly look at the last post here

(click to show/hide)

"http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,2252.105.html"

and im not talking about us them money boss'.when som ething happend and plant they dont spend any money of that they says "its will of god" (u can fuck my english)

[Patricia]

What the hell, why are you bringing up shit FROM AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT FUCKING THREAD.

[Artyem]

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 !

I lived only 10 - 15 miles away from the Hanford Nuclear Powerplant in the eastern side of Washington State, believe me, there were 0 mutants in the city.


Also, if you seriously believe that 3 legged, or 1 eyed or other "mutations" are most commonly caused by radiation, then you must either be a very bad troll or you have an IQ below 50. All throughout History, as you put it, there have been recordings of humans born with physical oddities, even before the Nuclear Powerplant was thought of.

[Sharky]

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.

"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.

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.
The fallout at cernobyl was so much worse then hiroshima and nagasaki put togheter, and while those cities got rebuilt and have no radiations now, 30 square km outisde cernobyl are still almost uninhabited. 
Also i really hope japan's incident will not get as bad as cernobyl, but if the chief of energy of the eu says that Fukushima is an apocalypse, and almost every nation in the world is discussing if dismantling/keep building nuclear plants i don't think it's so strange to doubt about long term sustaniabilty of nuclear energy.