Would you work in the nuclear energy industry and why?

I would have no problem with it at all.

I dont understand all the stigma over nuclear power, the tech and saftey has come a long way. I think we should have more in this country.
 
Nuclear power is the best way of producing energy with almost constant cost, no greenhouse gases, and with high energy security. All 3 of which are extremely important to our society. I can't understand people who are against it tbh!
 
bibalasvegas said:
Nuclear power is the best way of producing energy with almost constant cost, no greenhouse gases, and with high energy security. All 3 of which are extremely important to our society. I can't understand people who are against it tbh!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. We NEED nuclear power or we are doomed.
 
After watching too many Chernobyl documentaries I'm quite against it.

Plus it costs almost half a billion to make 1 station then there is maintenance costs, would it pay for its self over time? I doubt it.
 
Nothing against nuclear energy at all.

Reactor mechanics and design engineering at an existing nuclear plant or research centre.
Click to expand...

Design Engineering and Reactor Mechanics sound intresting id be happy to do any of these as long as it didn't have any affect on my life with illness and working close to a reactor etc.


I feel the same about Solar Energy too , i find it fascinating
 
Last edited:
LeJosh said:
After watching too many Chernobyl documentaries I'm quite against it.

Plus it costs almost half a billion to make 1 station then there is maintenance costs, would it pay for its self over time? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that Chernobyl was caused by systems being shutdown that would have stopped it?
If it wasn't run by morons it would not have happened?

Technology moves on, safety is much improved.
People need to stop dwelling on previous mistakes and move on.
 
LeJosh said:
After watching too many Chernobyl documentaries I'm quite against it.

Plus it costs almost half a billion to make 1 station then there is maintenance costs, would it pay for its self over time? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

You will know more about the incident than me, but from what I've read there were a number of reasons why what happened, happened. A lot of mistakes made by the people involved in the running of the plant and I think it's very much an isolated incident.
 
I have worked in the nuclear energy industry on my degree industrial placement years ago. It's not as sexy as you might think, hopefully the inevitable new investment will spark things up again.
 
I was wrong about the costs to create reactors in this day and age - it costs Georgia $14 Billion for 2 AP1000 and china $8 billion for 4 AP1000 reactors.

The cost for KW/h is undeniably cheaper but the costs to get the things up and running are silly high.
 
LeJosh said:
After watching too many Chernobyl documentaries I'm quite against it.

Plus it costs almost half a billion to make 1 station then there is maintenance costs, would it pay for its self over time? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

you dont think any other power stations have ever killed people directly ? or harmed whole generations with fumes/pollution/chemicals ?


and of course it makes its money back. or why would anyone bother building them? they can be cheaper than many other types of power


nuclear power is the future. efficient , clean , safe
 
LeJosh said:
They had to shut it down to implement a new security system... Ironically.
Click to expand...

I read that it was due to massive power increases, the Soviet scientists were running some kind of experiment despite knowing / being informed that it was unsafe to do so in the current conditions.

Is that incorrect?
 
"andy" said:
you dont think any other power stations have ever killed people directly ? or harmed whole generations with fumes/pollution/chemicals ?


and of course it makes its money back. or why would anyone bother building them? they can be cheaper than many other types of power


nuclear power is the future. efficient , clean , safe
Click to expand...

Ofcourse other power stations have had a bloody past but we're specifically talking Nuclear just now.

It costs $2.5k (edit) per Kg of fuel I think, including enrichment and uranium purchases. Accoriding to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
 
Last edited:
K1LLSW1TCH said:
I read that it was due to massive power increases, the Soviet scientists were running some kind of experiment despite knowing / being informed that it was unsafe to do so in the current conditions.

Is that incorrect?
Click to expand...

It was an experimental (testing a new so to speak) security system as far as I'm aware, so had to turn off the original security system... Bad idea! :eek: It's in that documentary I linked. You know the radiation spread over the entire world? Affected Wales adversely and pretty much all of Europe, if the water had hit the fresh uranium it would have destroyed Europe apparently. They had men dig underneath chernobyl plant to divert the water I think. Watch that documentary, really interesting.
 
Last edited:
so go on then how do you suggest we get power ? considering oil and gas wont be around for ever

the world knows it is dangerous and thats why so many people work on ways to reduce the risks. it is already far far safer than it was in the 80s

it took lots of little problems for chernobyl to happen. not even one of those would be allowed anymore
 
Last edited:
I love nuclear energy and would happily work in the industry. Quite a lot of money to be made in certain areas of nuclear power if you can get your foot in the door at a more senior level.
 
With talk about the recession and the debt that the UK is in, would it be worthwhile spending billions on new reactors?

There are many other ways of getting power but they're in such an infantile stage it probably isn't even worth our time as of yet but technology does advance and we can harness safer natural elements of the Earth than looking at unstable radioactive elements.

The five known 'renewables' are, solar, wind, hydro, tidal and geothermal.

Reading on Wind, apparently provides 20% of UKs Energy. Just a shame they're not exactly the prettiest.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like your typical scaremongering one sided internet documentary...
I'll give it a watch during the week though, as I do find the disaster/aftermath interesting.

Nuclear is the future.
We do not use ancient, flawed soviet reactor designs here I don't think? :|
Lessons have been learned, systems have improved, technology improved. Safety in all industries is improving, it will be heavily monitored in the nuclear energy industry.

LeJosh said:
The five known 'renewables' are, solar, wind, hydro, tidal and geothermal.
Click to expand...

Head-in-hands moment...
I would like reliable power, that's cheap, efficient and clean.

You focus too much on the construction costs, these costs will be recouped over time. They aren't flash-in-the pan short term earners...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom