10 myths about nuclear power

slambo69

slambo69

slambo69

Soldato
Joined
28 Feb 2006
Posts
3,819
Location
London
Doing some research for my energy project and have to write a little about nuclear and came across this document. Ive always been pro-nuclear but this article seems to highlight points which even surprised me. I really dont understand how people cant accept that nuclear is a great source of energy as part of a whole diverse solution.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4259/

I think civil nuclear power has been given too much of a hard time thanks to lefties spreading nonsense.

Im not sure how accurate the information is and Im not using it as a reference but thought it was worth sharing.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against nuclear power, as long as it's properly regulated, well maintained and all safety precautions are adhered too, it should have no major effect on the enviroment.

If the plant is safe and run properly, there is no pollution, it is a effecient and damn site better than burning coal/oil.
 
At the end of the day it's just a steam generator. The problem really isn't the initial radiation, it's what the hell you do with the waste product afterwards. It's continual as well, those waste barrels don't just stay as barrels, they have to be cooled continually till they reach a point (many years later) that they don't need active cooling as such.

Perhaps if we could harness this heat SAFELY it would be beneficial as it could also be converted to electricity meaning that the costs of disposal are minimised and disposal is potentially beneficial.

but.. anyway.. about to read link.
 
I agree with the rest, it echos what I have heard,
But 1) Uranium is running out
I have heard this even in New Scientist. This is purely because of the way Uranium is used. We should have Fast Breeder reactors which CAN make their own fuel, but this greatly increases Plutonium production. While not an issue for us, I think they are scared by the technology! There are many reactor designs out there which are far better than what the government was proposing last time.
 
XRAY said:
Hypothetical - I have very little knowledge on the subject so please bear with me.

Would it be possible to convert these plants to fusion plants in the future (assuming we find a working solution to nuclear fusion within the next 50 years).
Click to expand...

No.

Fusion is completely different. That would be like converting a coal fired plant to a wind farm. The land could be used, but that is all.
Fusion has and always has been 50 years away.
 
I remember seeing a Greenpeace advert years ago showing a family walking down a beach near a nuclear power station. The camera pans to show a commercial jet flying straight into the power station and implies there would be a huge explosion. I am not nuclear physicist but somehow I don't think that would happen.
 
xibinim said:
I remember seeing a Greenpeace advert years ago showing a family walking down a beach near a nuclear power station. The camera pans to show a commercial jet flying straight into the power station and implies there would be a huge explosion. I am not nuclear physicist but somehow I don't think that would happen.
Click to expand...

This would only happen if there was a major sytem failure causing the cooling to fail. Which would be unlikely from a plane crash.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I'd dispute that. It's a slow process admittedly, but I'm sure I'll see it before I retire.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree, but they still have not even recouped the energy they put into it, never mind a self sustaining reaction that gets more than is put in.

http://www.jet.efda.org/fusion-basics/fusion-as-a-future-energy-source/
'Thermonuclear fusion also bodes well for the future and could take over the reins from some existing energy sources towards the middle of the century’.
So 40 years, they think . . . .
 
Aren't modern reactors in need of constant intervention to keep the reaction going? Unlike Chernobyl which needed constant intervention to keep the reaction sustained otherwise it could go out of control?
 
high-level radioactive waste for the past 50 years and the next 30 years would fit in just one Royal Albert Hall, an entertainment venue in London that holds 6,000 people (and which seems, for some reason, to have become the standard unit of measurement in debates about any kind of waste in the UK)
Click to expand...

Made me chuckle, similar to football pitches, everything big is x football pitches long.

But anyway I'm all for nuclear energy, I do believe it is the best solution.
 
XRAY said:
Hypothetical - I have very little knowledge on the subject so please bear with me.

Would it be possible to convert these plants to fusion plants in the future (assuming we find a working solution to nuclear fusion within the next 50 years).
Click to expand...

Nuclear reactors aren't PSUs - swapping one out for another, especially a completely different technology would probably require so much work to the existing structure that it would just be cheaper to build from scratch.
 
Noticed an error in the article (at least I think it's an error). They say uranium is only fuel to produce more fuel when burnt? How so? burn would, get charcoal (if done right)... now technically this is producing more fuel even though the process isn't used for 'fuel', but could quite easily be, after all a Nuclear reaction is just a controlled process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom