Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2011, 02:59 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2011 04:14 AM by DeepThought.)
Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Well, with Japans reactor problems it will easily setback nuclear power for another 20 years, mostly thanks to a frightened uninformed public. One thing that could be learned from this incident is maybe to use alternate energy sources for high risk earthquake areas.

It just frustrates me that a scared ignorant public is what ends up determining government policy.

Coal Power...
Why doesn't anyone look into the effects of coal power plants? These things have been operating for over 50 years so it seems the public has forgotten the health effects and risks associated with running these plants. Coal contains radioactive isotopes of carbon and thorium. The radiation released into the atmosphere by these plants makes Chernobyl look like a kids playground. I haven't even started on the particulates. What about the affect of mining the coal - and miners dieing in thier 40's from black lung disease (CWP) and emphysema.

If you want to look at death toll's Chernobyl is ~30,000-40,000, The radiation since it more confined to a local area. Anyone can do a simple search to find sources on this stuff.
Simple Death Toll Overview

What about Climate Change and my health?
I would personally feel happier about living next to a nuclear plant than living next to coal plant. Try explaining that to the general public.. Confused
What about the co2 released? Nuclear when it's run properly is very clean compared with fossil fuels and doesn't release all that co2.

Well thats the end of my rant/article for the week...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
09-04-2011, 10:08 AM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
I would probably be a supporter of Finland's Green party if they weren't so anti-nuclear power. I hate ''party discipline'', which means that if you're a parlamentarian, you have to vote what the party's official opinion is, regardless of your own opinion. If you don't, you're kicked from the party, and without a party you can't get to the parlament.Undecided

I don't get why FFFFUUUUUUkushima's situation has had such an effect on the public's opinion on nuclear power. No, actually I might get it: the harm done by Fukushima's and Tsernobyl's disasters is so much more concrete than the harm done by, say, coal power.
Or do they really think that a tsumani could hit in a location like Finland's coast? Huh

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2011, 06:18 AM
 
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
(09-04-2011 02:59 AM)GodVirusDeleted Wrote:  If you want to look at death toll's Chernobyl is ~30,000-40,000, The radiation since it more confined to a local area. Anyone can do a simple search to find sources on this stuff.

What is the source for that death toll number? I think you will find that death toll number is grossly exagerated. Most research I've read suggests the death toll from Chernobyl is actually still less than 100:

Quote: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008.
Source: Wikipedia
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2011, 08:00 AM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
(10-04-2011 06:18 AM)Baron Wrote:  What is the source for that death toll number? I think you will find that death toll number is grossly exagerated. Most research I've read suggests the death toll from Chernobyl is actually still less than 100:
For Chernobyl I added the increased cancer deaths etc of people in the affected area. I thought it was in the 30k though I didn't put that much effort into it.

I believe there were allot of deaths that happened 20 years later.

Even at 40k it's still looks good next to burning coal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2011, 08:56 PM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Interesting that you mention Thorium. Thorium is also a radioactive material that can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. It is safer, more abundant and can yield more energy than Uranium. It is also a pleasing fact that Norway has the 3rd largest Thorium deposit in the world. Some quotes from wikipedia:

Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of the fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production.[14] Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), has worked on developing the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors. Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.

A 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses potential benefits along with the challenges of thorium reactors.[22] According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."[23] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 04:59 AM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Wouau, this thorium sounds great. Even without this knowledge I was always a supporter of nuclear energy, if done correctly it safe, clean and produces no CO2 or radiation around the plant. Coal plant has 20 times more radiation around plant than nuclear one. And this is an interesting site.

http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

Until we have enough money to produce solar and wind made electricity, the nuclear power is the best solution. And I base my opinion on statistics, it's like airplanes, everybody is afraid that their plane may crash, but airplanes are still statistically safest way of transport. Same thing is with nuclear plants, in all this time in history we had 2 major problems, Chernobyl and now Japan. First was a human error, second was a tsunami problem. All other nuclear plant problems were localized and fixed with no major breaches or problems. And do I need to start counting problems with coal and oil, from exploitation to the usage inside power plants...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 07:06 AM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
/*sarcasm/
Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24200 years.
Why not wait with further nuclear exploitation a tenth that time to figure out:
What to do with the waste and it's containment
What to do with the waste and it's containment after it becomes 80 years
What to do with the waste and it's containment after it becomes 160 years
What to do with the waste and it's containment after it becomes 320 years
What to do with t...
/sarcasm*/

Still... We are giving a nice present to the grandchildren of our grandchildren's grandchildren. (true... we don't know these people)


Can we really be sure what we are up against after those mere 60 years we are using nuclear power?
Why not look for positive, reliable and human sized alternatives? Why is it that people always expect a silver bullet for a problem like this? This is mere a technical problem people, and humanity has over the last 1000 years proven to be good at those. We don't have to quit it just like that, but at least understand that nuclear power shouldn't be here to stay forever. I think we need to evolve out of the nuclear age.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Observer's post
11-04-2011, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2011 09:07 AM by Kikko.)
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Quote:Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal.
Holey sheet that's awesome!
Quote:We don't have to quit it just like that, but at least understand that nuclear power shouldn't be here to stay forever. I think we need to evolve out of the nuclear age.
Nuclear power is not sustainable, but it's better than the other unsustainable options. In a country where alot of energy can be produced from renewable sources (Finland's not one of these countries), highly contaminating sources like coal power should be replaced with them, and after them, if it's possible, nuclear power should be replaced with them too. But as long as energy companies don't have great interest in sustainable energy forms (as long as other sources are cheaper and a significant amount of people don't demand 'green energy'), there wont be much progress.

I really don't get the anti-nuclear people's passion against nuclear power. Why aren't they protesting coal power with the same passion? Why would they rather have renewables + coal than renewables + nuclear?
_______________________________________________________________________________
The internet is full of great tips to achieve infinite energy. Why aren't we using them?
[Image: magents.jpg]

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 06:40 PM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
You missing the whole point about Thorium! The point is WE have it! Norway needs more money!!

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 06:58 PM
RE: Nuclear Power and the Japan Reactors
Right now building sub critical reactors isn't all that practical. They are very expensive to build and run since a particle accelerator is 1 component of the system. Sub critical reactors are the ones that burn the nuclear waste and/or thorium and convert it into isotopes with a short half life.

If the whole world adopts nuclear power we will need a few sub-critical reactors running to burn the waste they produce. The cost of building these reactors will be more than justified if there are enough nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: