Nuclear Power Plants Throughout Europe

[Justice and Mercy]

Why not?

It's cheaper than all this alternative energy you guys are goin' for.

I mean, I'm glad you guys are spending so much on alternative energy because it means we Americans don't really have to, but if I were one of you (and thank God I'm not... kidding... kind of) I'd be pushing for nuclear power plants to supply electricity. And since you guys are getting so fond of electric cars and your fancy mass transit cheaper energy means cheaper transportation.

Why the hell not?

[roy34543]

Its a great idea. but in the 30-50's there was a nuclear craze where people thought radiation would turn them into mutants and every nuclear power plant explodes. In too many peoples brains the idea of nuclear=death machine is ingrained.

[Justice and Mercy]

Its a great idea. but in the 30-50's there was a nuclear craze where people thought radiation would turn them into mutants and every nuclear power plant explodes. In too many peoples brains the idea of nuclear=death machine is ingrained.

It's time to get over it, you'd be alot better off for it.

[The Dude]

It's time to get over it, you'd be alot better off for it.

I agree but here in Holland we're finding a lot of resistance against the concept still. Not sure what to do to get past it, other than inform people.

[Scar Face]

Every 8, 9, 10 year old in North America thinks a Nuclear power plant means mutation and mass death, at least initially. However, through a little thing called "education" they learn otherwise.

Catch up Europe.

[Каие]

Every 8, 9, 10 year old in North America thinks ....

What Mexico and the Caribbean too?

[roy34543]

Huh? Its france that has a ton of nuclear power plants anyway.

[StarDreamer]

Well it isn't all fear of radiation and meltdowns. There is also the trouble of getting the fuel(there is only so much that is mined) for them and what to do with the radioactive waste. Personally I'm all for getting a bit more nuclear power, but I'm not blind enough to think that there isn't problems associated with it.

[Justice and Mercy]

Well it isn't all fear of radiation and meltdowns. There is also the trouble of getting the fuel(there is only so much that is mined) for them and what to do with the radioactive waste. Personally I'm all for getting a bit more nuclear power, but I'm not blind enough to think that there isn't problems associated with it.

We could always mine more. Increased demand? Increase production.

As for the waste we could drop the containers in the mid-ocean abyssal plains. Those should be safe for a couple hundred million years or so.

In the US we have Yucca mountain, too. Not too sure about Europe, though.

[the_mango55]

I thought there were a lot of Nuclear plants in Europe. France especially.

[Justice and Mercy]

I thought there were a lot of Nuclear plants in Europe. France especially.

There are. Good job on that, Europe.

Build more.

[StarDreamer]

There are. Good job on that, Europe.

Build more.

Finland and France is building nuclear plants atm, don't know about any others.

[Deep_Red]

There are. Good job on that, Europe.

Build more.

Yeehaa!!
Because nuclear energy plants are safe, cheap to build and what is left after some years can be thrown out into nature
Sure...
Now, come on: Just consider the fact that such plants would be extremely expensive if they had to be insured just like any other kind of energy plant.
Or the fact that such plants are build by combines that give a **** for security just because they wouldn´t mind to pay anything once such a thing blows up; regarding the gainings as long as the thing stood.

[MKT-Smokescreen]

Because nuclear energy plants are safe, cheap to build and what is left after some years can be thrown out into nature
Sure...

It's a common misconception that nuclear plants leave large amounts of waste.

They simply do not.

Bceause of the immense amount of energy generated by the Strong Nuclear Force in an atom, you don't actually need a large amount of nuclear material to generate a large amount of power.

Any waste material can - quite safely - be shoved into a dense metal box in the ground, without actually doing any damage to the loacl environment.

Over time the waste nuclear material (assuming of course that Plutonium was the material being used) will turn into lead.

Though i can't remember what the half-life of Plutonium is so i can't remember wherever it would take weeks or millenia to turn into lead lol.

[Deep_Red]

It's a common misconception that nuclear plants leave large amounts of waste.

They simply do not.

Bceause of the immense amount of energy generated by the Strong Nuclear Force in an atom, you don't actually need a large amount of nuclear material to generate a large amount of power.

Any waste material can - quite safely - be shoved into a dense metal box in the ground, without actually doing any damage to the loacl environment.

Over time the waste nuclear material (assuming of course that Plutonium was the material being used) will turn into lead.

Though i can't remember what the half-life of Plutonium is so i can't remember wherever it would take weeks or millenia to turn into lead lol.

You´re sure you know how nuclear energy plants work?
You need quite large amounts of material for an functionating core, up to tons what varies with the amount of fissionable material inside the nuclear fuel rods.

[Philos Sophos]

Well,some politicians here have talked about building a nuclear plant here,but eh...I'll guess they will actually DO it in aprox...15-20 years...

[MKT-Smokescreen]

Most people in Europe think nuclear power is a terrible thing because of the Cold War.
For decades, the term 'nuclear' became synonymous with 'instant death of millions'.
Such cultural ideas are unlikely to go away for a long time. As an example of such cultural opnions staying around for a long time, I use British opinion of Stalin.
Where Adolf Hitler's name has become another word for 'evil' since World War 2, most people don't feel the same way about Stalin's name, despite the fact that he was worse than Hitler.
This is because of the positive propaganda put about during the 1940's in the allied nations (including obviously the UK) because at the time, Stalin was an ally of those nations.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand . . .

Frankly, the media doesn't help; I can only speak for the UK, where i am from, but the media here never talks about the benefits of nuclear power, only the downsides.

Therefore, it'd be a nightmare for the government to pass a bill to convert to nuclear power; even though there's alot of high-level government desire to do so.

And as for the lack of education of people who are afraid of nuclear power; I'm the only person that I know who actually understands nuclear power outside of my Physics class (not meaning that i'm cleverer than other people, i just picked different subjects to study over the last couple of years). People are not ignorant or stupid, the problem is that to fully understand how nuclear power works (and be informed enough to formulate an opinion based in reality) one would have to study Physics at A-level, which still only brushes the surface of nuclear physics.

And as for those who say Europe has lots of nuclear power, I only know about the UK and France. The UK has quite a bit, but most of the old nuclear power stations are shutting down in the next decade. The government here does want to push forward nuclear power, and - i know this from various trips i've been on for my Physics A-level - companies such as EDF do have plans to build such plants.But, the government here would never be able to push forward such a contraversial plan without more support from the public.
EDF looks like a likely candidate to have a monopoly on nuclear power in Europe because they already have alot of nuclear plants in France; giving them an edge in terms of being experienced over any potential competitors.

This worries me because the monopoly that oil companies have at the moment means they can dictate prices, which is something that i know (from family members in the industry) that they do.

I would hate to see society effectively forced into an oligarchy dictated by power companies, which is quite likely to happen with all the out-sourcing to the private sector that the government here does with alot of things.
(It's getting to the point where government ministers don't even have control over social care systems already)

Frankly everyone would lose out in the long-term (even the power companies themselves) if power companies carry on price-fixing in such an extortionate way without the government being able to curb it if it goes further; therefore, unless there's lots of rival companies building up nuclear power plants, there shouldn't be any at all.

But i digress, you all may aswell ignore the last few paragraphs as that's just a rant about the state of my country at the moment

[whhyy]

http://www.foeeurope.org/activities/Nuclear/

These guys are terrified.

Besides these risks, nuclear power is alsoeconomically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.

They also mention that after Chernobyl, 20 serious nuclear incidents have occured.

[Viking Prince]

All industrial accidents resulting in death and human damage are serious. Just adding the word 'nuclear' does not really change a thing.

[whhyy]

All industrial accidents resulting in death and human damage are serious. Just adding the word 'nuclear' does not really change a thing.

indeed.