Nuclear Power: Tchernobyl could happen to You?

[Hakkapeliitta]

There is an ongoing debate about nuclear power in Finland. One nuclear power plant is being built, and the government wants more. The government says we need new more nuclear power plants to become independent of foreign fossil generated power and to meet the energy needs of our industry. This has met opposition across party lines and among large segments of the population. Why? I'd say good ole' propaganda.

Nuclear waste? Where is it going to go?

-There are perfectly good storage methods available today to make it a non-issue. Nuclear waste can also be recycled. Also, more radioactive waste is being spewed into the athmosphere by coalplants, than has ever been produced by nuclear power plants; a frequent flier is exposed to more radioactivity than a worker at a nuclear power plant.

A disaster like Tsernobyl?

- The disaster happened because the personnel broke pretty much all the security measures in place to see how far they could push the reactor.

Well, I'm comfortable with nukes, what's the worst that could happen with a responsible crew? Three MIle Island? All I've ever heard is that the waste will kill us all, or our descendants. But we're exposed to radioactivity all the time, and there hasn't been any big disasters with nuclear waste. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't green, glowing craters today are they? Something like 2000 nuclear weapons have been detonated on the Earth, many of them thousands of times more potent than the one detonated over Hiroshima!

Well, as of now I'm drunk and much of what I have written is scheisse, but I know the opposition to nuclear power is largely irrational, and if I'm wrong someone will point it to me!

Plus http://www.c2c.ucsb.edu/summit2007/p...jid_kazimi.pdf there

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well it could happen sure.
But as said, Chernobyl happened due to a human error and a badly designed reactor.
Progress has been made since then and things are overall safer.
Personally I was very disappointed when they closed down the nuclear power plan near my city here in Sweden. Never had a black-out while that thing was still running

[Hakkapeliitta]

Properly managed, Chernobyl disaster would have never happened. The biggest disaster in the US was the Three Mile Island, and no one died. More people have died in coal related accidents than in anything involving nuclear bombs or -power.

And I'm afraid that it's going to take a couple of years of blackouts before Finns will endorse nuclear power.

[mongrel]

Ukrainian nuclear plant worker


Always wear decent underpants, otherwise Chernobyl fallout.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't think an accident like chernobyl will ever happen again.

however what can we do with the waste?

[Tim_Ward]

If more nuclear disasters result in games as cool as the STALKER series then I am all in favour.

[Disaray]

I heard a guy speek about the use of more nuke power and when he was asked what can be done with the waste he had a good idea. It boiled down to driling a hole big enuf to fit the reactor rods in and as deep as possible in the sub basement of the power plant. Once the hole is drilled drop your spent rods down the hole, put some radiation blocking materiel on top of the rods and then fill the rest of the hole with cement. This method seems to be the best I have heard. It eleminates much of the hazard to the general public you find when transporting the spent fule from the power plant to where ever you are going to store or reprocess it and we have the technology to get it all done now.

This form of power, I think, has to be a steping stone to some thing a little better though. As advanced as the reactors are now there is little chanse for some thing to but that chanse still exsists and if it goes wrong enuf the consiquences can be dire. That said this source would be more than enuf to hold us over until we come up with some thing that is safer and more sustainable.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I heard a guy speek about the use of more nuke power and when he was asked what can be done with the waste he had a good idea. It boiled down to driling a hole big enuf to fit the reactor rods in and as deep as possible in the sub basement of the power plant. Once the hole is drilled drop your spend rods down the hole, put some radiation blocking materiel on top of the rods and then fill the rest of the hole with cement. This method seems to be the best I have heard. It eleminates much of the hazard to the general public you find when transporting the spent fule from the power plant to where ever you are going to store or reprocess it and we have the technology to get it all done now.

This form of power, I think, has to be a steping stone to some thing a little better though. As advanced as the reactors are now there is little chanse for some thing to but that chanse still exsists and if it goes wrong enuf the consiquences can be dire. That said this source would be more than enuf to hold us over until we come up with some thing that is safer and more sustainable.

Fusion power is the answer. Fusion power reactors have been built and started up and actually worked. Only problem is they take more power to start up than they produce.

[Disaray]

Ok, so don't biuld your reactor on or in a volcano? I think that could work but I will have to get R&D to check it out.

Even if you are conserned with simple earthquakes you can biuld power plants in places that don't have them much at all and just erect transmision lines to places that need the juce. Power can be sent off to far flung reagons in this manner; hydro plants here in North West Oregon feed places as far South as LA.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Fusion power is the answer. Fusion power reactors have been built and started up and actually worked. Only problem is they take more power to start up than they produce.

Fission power is a good enough answer. You all should take a look at this http://www.c2c.ucsb.edu/summit2007/p...jid_kazimi.pdf

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Fission power is a good enough answer. You all should take a look at this http://www.c2c.ucsb.edu/summit2007/p...jid_kazimi.pdf

everyone here is knowledgeable about nuclear power.

fusion should be far more effecient.

[Hakkapeliitta]

The solution we have in Finland is to put the waste deep into the bedrock. The US could do likewise in the Yucca mountain. But it's the Green movement that keeps nations from depositing their nuclear waste into a safe location. Now we have to keep the waste in containers at the plants.

But then again, why should we Finns give a damn, as long as our domestic energy production is renewable, solar, wind, good will and whatever, we can have a clean consience. Even if that means we have to meet our energy needs with imported energy that's produced by fossil fuels.

[antaeus]

chernobyl could happen to You?

nope. we decided not to have nuclear power and to not allow nuclear reactors within our territorial waters.

sure our electricity costs more... which sucks.. but at least i get to be on my high horse in this discussion!

[Hakkapeliitta]

nope. we decided not to have nuclear power and to not allow nuclear reactors within our territorial waters.

sure our electricity costs more... which sucks.. but at least i get to be on my high horse in this discussion!

Hmm, nuclear energy, fission that is, is expensive to get started yes. But after that initial cost it's by far the cheapest form of producing energy. Uranium is abundant, it's recycleable, no greenhouse gas. Also has anyone gave a thought that if you're going to rely on wind, solar and such you're still going to have to either use nuclear power or fossil fuels to keep the electric grid running. Or else your going to have those blackouts.

But then again, our parliament is full of damn idiots so maybe it'll turn for the better. Now I'll go to my wood powered Sauna

[antaeus]

Hmm, nuclear energy, fission that is, is expensive to get started yes. But after that initial cost it's by far the cheapest form of producing energy. Uranium is abundant, it's recycleable, no greenhouse gas. Also has anyone gave a thought that if you're going to rely on wind, solar and such you're still going to have to either use nuclear power or fossil fuels to keep the electric grid running. Or else your going to have those blackouts.

But then again, our parliament is full of damn idiots so maybe it'll turn for the better. Now I'll go to my wood powered Sauna

most of our electricity is from hydroelectric dams. we do have coal plants which are kept in working order in case of low rain years... of course we have a lot of deep river valleys which helps.. and hydro power comes with it's own set of environmental issues.

one of the best parts about living in the united states was cheap electricity and heating... and i don't have that here at home. i'm not at all suggesting nuclear power is bad. i have experienced the benefits, but it's something that my country has chosen not to do.

[Poach]

Wait 10-20 years and we'll have workable Fusion reactions, a team in the US recently managed to create a break-even reaction and the ITER being built in France is expected to be a world first "profitable" Fusion reactor.

There's almost no waste, the waste produced becomes safe in a hundred or so years vs the many thousands of Fission, and an accident is literally impossible: To have a Fusion reaction one must start up and maintain it. If anything goes wrong in Fusion the reaction kills itself causing slight damage to the reaction chamber and that's it. (By comparison a Fission reaction you start up and prevent it from expanding, an accident feeds on itself and expands, causing a nuclear explosion)

[Poach]

Fusion is far, far more efficient than Fission, it is also safer and cleaner. I don't see why you'd be happy settling for Fission when Fusion is so close to becoming workable.

[Disaray]

I don't know if that is what he is advocating though. It seems to me he is looking for a hold over source untill safe, reliable and economic fision reactors become a reality. As it stands now there isn't any such reactor and we still need energy.

Tidal power seems to be a good alternitive to the fission reactor and fosil fule plants, the tides don't seem to be stoping any time soon and can be reliably harnased and mesured.

[Trax]

Wait 10-20 years and we'll have workable Fusion reactions, a team in the US recently managed to create a break-even reaction and the ITER being built in France is expected to be a world first "profitable" Fusion reactor.

Even if ITER succeeds widespread use of fusion power is estimated to be 50 years away.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Uranium isn't that dangerous anyway, it's the other less stable elements that are worrying.