Printable View
The nuclear reactors had a design life of 30 years. In many countries like the US the Govt has had to give dispensation to allow them to continue operating past their designed lifetimes as they cannot afford to decommission them. There is nowhere where they can be disposed of economically. Hence why they are still operating. There are NONE that had design lives of 70 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger
Mike
That's nearly as funny as Eevo's one liners in the Jokes thread :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Mike
It’s only the lack of agreement by multiple parties globally and the entire NIMBY problem that stops a safe solution being developed.
I quite agree, those NIMBYs living in Sellafield, Idaho Falls, Three Mile Island (all in the US), Leningrad, Hamm-Uentrop (West Germany), Paks (Hungary), Fukui (Japan) had just a bit of "stuff" released into their backyard and of course Chernobyl & Fukushima had just a bit more. I don't know what their complaining about :-) Although probably many of those have ceased complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Mike
Hardly a modern comparison - humouring comment but hardly relevant to modern systems and modern processing and handling.Quote:
Originally Posted by speleomike
Your obvious distaste of all things nuclear is clear. Why not make your stand against it complete.
Make sure all your friends and family have nothing to do with anything based on radioactive isotopes of any kind.
No nuclear medicines, Chemotherapy, no x-rays, or medical treatments using radiation of any type.
Unfortunately one of the best learning tools is failure. Modern plants have come so far that those old incidents are nigh on impossible to replicate.
How many lives have been ruined to produce renewables? How much processing and byproducts to make silicone wafers, concrete, spodumene processing, synthetic graphite, steel, oil, diesel, gas?
You can pick and choose your protest, just like all other humans like to do. I’ll put money on it though, the Benzine and all the other rubbish you’re inhaling/ingesting in day to day life is going to be the root cause of more deaths through cancers etc than any nuclear event on this planet has ever caused or continues to cause.
Until world governments work together on efficient, effective and safe (by design) forms of power generation rather than ad-hoc implementation of random solutions - we will likely never solve the issue.
Hi
> Your obvious distaste of all things nuclear is clear. Why not make your stand against it complete.
> Make sure all your friends and family have nothing to do with anything based on radioactive isotopes of any kind.
> No nuclear medicines, Chemotherapy, no x-rays, or medical treatments using radiation of any type.
In this thread I have only stated my opinion on nuclear power, which I'm against. This does not include everything that is nuclear based. I'm quite OK with many medical or metallurgical applications of nuclear energy. I'm even amenable towards Lucas Heights staying where it is, which has done some pretty public stuff ups over the last few years.
> Modern plants have come so far that those old incidents are nigh on impossible to replicate.
Current US, French and Japanese reactors are older Generation II designs. Yes, Gen III and III+ designs will be using passive cooling systems that require no user intervention to operate. They are also known as "advanced design reactors". In that aspect they probably are safer. There is one being tested now in Japan. But they will not be ready for commencement of building before 2020 according to the World Nuclear Association.
Too late. More economically renewable technology has simply passed them by.
Mike
Latest nuclear energy economics study
"Nuclear energy is never profitable", new study slams nuclear power business case | RenewEconomy
How could it ever be profitable? It can only be profitable if the disposal costs are ignored for spent material to be stored safely for thousands of years. Add in that real cost on future generations and it would be enormous. For example, imagine how much it is going to cost taxpayers to keep Chernobyl safe in the future. Remember also that you can't just bury the radioactive wastes or tip them down a mine and walk away. They could poison the water table and everyone who drinks that water, as well as food crops and nature. The potential real costs are so huge that they can't even be insured.
Absolutely correct. Commercial insurance companies do not take on nuclear power stations. They are "insured" or "indemnified" by their countries government and their citizens taxes. A very nice tidy deal there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Mike
Coal is now in the same position for new mines like Adani.