Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Should all nuclear power stations be decommissioned? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:12:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,437
Location: Alabama, United States
stormblue wrote:
Strange no one's mentioned the safe, clean, cheap to set up, limitless sources of solar, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal energy...

Fossil-fuel vs. nuclear is another false dichotomy the establishment has hypnotized us into seeing as the only available options. They're not.



Poppycock





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, June 27, 2011 6:09:53 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
Live near the Missouri or Mississippi rivers in America? Get your drinking water from either of them? Do you have any idea how many nuclear power plants are alongside those rivers?

I don't, but even one power plant is one too many.



Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 11:03:08 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
This article only mentions America, but I'm sure it applies equally to the entire Northern Hemisphere.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/29/radiation-in-our-food/

Even as thousands of Japanese workers struggle to contain the ongoing nuclear disaster,
low levels of radiation from those power plants have been detected in foods in the United States.

Milk, fruits and vegetables show trace amounts of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daichi
power plants, and the media appears to be paying scant attention, if any attention at all. It is as
if the problem only involves Japan, not the vast Pacific Ocean, into which highly radioactive water
has poured by the dozens of tons, and not into air currents and rainwater that carry radiation to
U.S. soil and to the rest of the world.

And while both Switzerland and Germany have come out against any further nuclear development,
the U.S. the nuclear power industry continues as usual, with aging and crumbling power plants
receiving extended operating licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
as though it can’t happen here. But it is happening here, on your dinner plate.



Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
standingbear
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2011 2:03:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
After Chernobyl the radiation in Scotland rose 10,000%. That's a distance of about 1400 miles. There have been thousand of cases of cancer as a result of that particular failure all over Europe. Meltdowns aren't like explosions, they don't kill vast amounts of people right away, the damage is done over decades. Thyroid cancer rates skyrocketed after Three Mile Island. The Earth is not a stable environment. There is no way to determine that a spot which seems safe for a nuclear reactor today will be safe forever, the same is true of waste disposal areas. U-235 and U-238 produce Plutonium 239 as a byproduct of fission. Hundred of thousands of pounds per year. Pu-239 is a weapon grade material. Eighteen pounds of it is enough to make a bomb like the one used in Nagasaki. Nuclear power is safe and clean only under perfect conditions. The waste can only be stored under perfect conditions, anything less is very dangerous. The United States infrastructure is crumbling. We can't keep bridges in repair much less nuclear power plants. The NRC has ignored safety issues and kept power plants online even when it means ignoring regulations. In our present political environment, where we go out of our way to bend over backwards for any and all corporate interests, it's foolish to think that the public will be protected by the people who are supposed to be watching out for our safety.

"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:22:35 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
I just read an article in the Oct 17th New Yorker magazine, concerning Fukushima and the ongoing catastrophe. You can't read the article unless you're paying The New Yorker for the privilege...so the 'net is your next best bet.

You do realize this situation is still ongoing? That our media has simply moved on to the next story and the next story and... right?

Much like the Gulf of Mexico oil contamination of the summer of 2010 - which is still, an ongoing catastrophe which is not being widely reported on.

Here we are, nine months later...and we still don't know the truth. Can we not handle it or do we just prefer to ignore it?



Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:20:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
It definitely is a shame that the media has moved on to the next story. It would be nice if the general public had a longer attention span, and still cared about issues after the first week. But let's face it. Most of us reach our limit around the end of the first week, and start saying "enough with _____ already, there's other things going on in the world." Maybe it's a problem of concentration. That the media doesn't just go with one story on an issue per broadcast. It has story after story, at the expense of all other news. Which makes us tire of it sooner.

Reality also doesn't help. Things like measuring the full extent of radiation contamination, or investigating the causes and potential mistakes made in a massive disaster don't happen over night. Our society's desire for instant gratification means we want answers now. And a lot of people don't think about how accurate those answers can be if they are given the night after an incident. We just want to know who to blame and why, so we can move on with our lives.

The full truth on the Japanese nuclear disaster, and the Gulf Oil Spill, probably won't be known for years. And even then, in the case of the nuclear disaster, no one will ever really know if any plant configuration could have withstood a natural disaster of that magnitude. In the end, the only thing we will ever know with certainty is that if the nuclear plant didn't exist, it wouldn't have melted down. But nobody wants to suggest that the world should turn back the technological clocks 200 years to avoid our electrical generation issues. So instead, we look for ways to make things safer, take time to investigate the problems fully, including the long term effects, and try to avoid problems, while at the same time realizing that there will always be the potential for things to go wrong.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 9:01:43 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
Building nuclear fueled, electrical generating plants in flood plains or atop fault lines could be avoided I'd think.

In the case of Japan or other ring of fire countries... Surely those plants could be engineered to withstand 10.0 earthquakes (even if those are a once-in-1000 year event)...as well as the resulting tsunamis.

Hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes need to be factored in also.

That entire industry just does everything as fucking cheaply as possible cutting corners everywhere. And then there is the issue of what to do with the highly radioactive spent fuel rod storage.

It is just such a poorly designed and then implemented solution to providing power for the countries of the world.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
easy_rider75
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:44:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/29/2011
Posts: 437
Location: Playing with knives , United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Building nuclear fueled, electrical generating plants in flood plains or atop fault lines could be avoided I'd think.

In the case of Japan or other ring of fire countries... Surely those plants could be engineered to withstand 10.0 earthquakes (even if those are a once-in-1000 year event)...as well as the resulting tsunamis.

Hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes need to be factored in also.

That entire industry just does everything as fucking cheaply as possible cutting corners everywhere. And then there is the issue of what to do with the highly radioactive spent fuel rod storage.

It is just such a poorly designed and then implemented solution to providing power for the countries of the world.



Ya would think that right there would just be plain common sense to an engineer

“I'm not one of those complicated, mixed-up cats. I'm not looking for the secret to life.... I just go on from day to day, taking what comes.”~Frank Sinatra~
Guest
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:22:14 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
Engineers don't have common sense. All they see is what's on paper in front of them. After seeing some of the roads they've designed, I'm convinced more than ever that they design while high on something.
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:24:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 550
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Of course not all nuclear power plants should be decommissioned but some of them should be moved to safer locations.
hobbhorn
Posted: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:43:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/8/2011
Posts: 320
Location: Andrews
Probably nobody looking at this chain any longer but I just came across it and found it very interesting -- thanks for educating us Jill... I have worked in the electric utility business all my career - hydroelectric (personal favourite), fossil (oil --- yes oil --- off grid diesel generation for remote native communities in northern reaches of Canada that are off the grid), coal, and for the last 6 years nuclear. So far there are no major sources of power generation that are without risk or without some harm to the environment and ultimately human populations... I personally managed the coal yard at a plant that burned 1700 tons of coal an hour at peak capacity... that coal travelled by train from the powder river basin and floated down the great lakes to get to us... a LOT of pollutants generated along the way to our homes and businesses. Like a lot of things, how we get our electricity is a careful balance between what is available locally, what is affordable, and the dynamics of the demand curve for electricity. One item I want to add to the discussion involves this last point and relates to G's comment above.

electricity is being used by consumers at virtually the same time it is being generated, and there is a wide range during the day and seasonally between peak power demand. In Ontario for example in a hot spell in the summer, the daytime peak demand can easily be double the nighttime peak demand. I'm sure the same is true in many parts of the world, a function of daytime heat / nighttime cold and business/factory shift cycles.

to deal with this reality, grid operators need to have a LOT of "dispatchable" generation at their disposal - sources of power that can be turned on and turned off on pretty short notice. Most nuclear power plants are not set up to cycle on and off -- they are "base load" generators which are intended to run at efficient capacity 24/7. there are some variations on this of course, but that's the rule of thumb. so in Ontario for example, about 50% of the generation is nuclear and the practical reality is that is near the limit --- the balance needs to be coal, gas, oil, and in hydroelectric - to the extent water is available in storage dams.

To G's comment -- I strongly agree that we need to be paying greater attention to wind and solar generation to name two -- but the key issues I think are two: the geography of good wind and good solar is not always close to large power demand (where land is typically too expensive for massive solar or wind).

Two more breakthroughs are needed -- storage methods need to be developed - a "battery" of sorts -- for example in Ontario we have a pumped storage unit which is a hydroelectric generator with a pond uphill and a pond downhill... when power is cheap or the sun shining or the wind blowing, water is pumped up and when demand is high and supply tight, water runs down through the turbines. the second breakthrough we need is cheap transmission -- direct current is better for transmission than alternating current, but line losses are still significant and NIMBY syndrome limits transmission corridors.

Personally, on the nuclear question, I am a fan -- there are risks, indeed, but there are also risks associated with hydro dams breaking (many have died this way historically), fossil plants exploding (many have died this way too). The nuclear risks can be managed and must be managed. Like anything else - if we do a sloppy job at it, people will die.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:00:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
This is a very interesting thread.

I don't have all that much to add to other than in countries like Scotland, Wind farms are popping up everywhere as are hydro electric stations, solar too although to a lesser degree.

I believe these options are greatly preferable to nuclear - people say that nuclear is a clean safe option, but the risks are too great and in addition, the effects too long lasting - in my opinion, the detriment to health is much much worse from radiation than from the relatively simple pollution from fossil fuels.

Perhaps if more people could be encouraged to provide their own power, with solar panels, turbines etc, the demand on the national grid would be less, with excess energy being sold on by them too.

With the huge dependency which we have on electricity, surely more self-sufficiency makes sense - it means that even in the event of a massive general power failure, people would still have power...

Also, in this day and age, we should be looking to more energy efficient devices etc to lessen the need for power? I'm all for investing in new technologies...


Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:11:29 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:22:28 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
we have two choices.
keep the reactors.... in that case get ready to glow in the dark
destroy them... and have a better future
deal1
Posted: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:21:51 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/22/2011
Posts: 38
Location: United States
No, they should not.
Some of the older ones should be taken off line and be upgraded or decommissioned, but to take all of them off line would be asking for more coal fired power plants to be built.
Those in "danger zones" ie earthquake, hurricane or tsunami prone areas should be decommissioned with clean, viable alternative power plants as replacements.
Wind is not viable everywhere, neither is hydro, which is the cleanest and brings in the most revenue for the surrounding area through recreation.
My suggestion would be solar on every new building and for existing infrastructure, solar farms.
For now, nuclear is the best source..just build them with safety checks coming out the yin-yang and dispose of the waste properly (burying it in huge salt domes is the best way to go with that)..
Just my two cents worth..My 2 cents
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:06:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
This is a fascinating read and shows just how undecided even intelligent people are on energy sources. There is another much harsher solution: to wind down our use of all forms of energy, or even worse to wait until the catastrophy strikes making hay while the sun shines. There are experts who think that is just what we are doing and they could be right.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:05:28 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
Mazza wrote:



Excellent pun!! Aren't you just a breath of fresh air? evil4
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:55:11 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
If the world should catch one of these in the near future, any electrical generation method won't really matter much at all.

The nations of the world should be hardening their delivery grids. But that costs moola, and the power brokers are too busy enjoying their massive profits to even think of reinvesting, building and securing.

Imagine not having any access to electricity in our current culture for more than a few days...to weeks, months... We'd all be FUBAR.

On March 13, 1989 a severe geomagnetic storm caused the collapse of the Hydro-Québec power grid in a matter of seconds as equipment protection relays tripped in a cascading sequence of events. Six million people were left without power for nine hours, with significant economic loss. The storm even caused auroras as far south as Texas.

The geomagnetic storm causing this event was itself the result of a coronal mass ejection, ejected from the Sun on March 9, 1989.


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:03:47 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,404
Location: Atlanta, United States
Dude that would fuck us all up for sure!

AngelHeart01
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:14:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2010
Posts: 3,172
Location: ♥ Southern Style ♥, United States
The question reads .. should all . My vote is No, not all
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:08:11 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
Anytime there's been black outs in the past citizens react like cavemen. Looting, rapes, murder beatings all go on the rise. If it's dark, they think they can't be seen or caught. boxing There's not enough peacekeepers when the lights are on so shutting them off makes it much worse.
One of the problems is the nuclear stations we have now aren't maintained and up to date as it is. That costs money as WMM said. People don't like to cut into their pocket money and profits. "Hurray for me and fuck you".
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:51:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:06:17 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,471
Location: Cakeland, United States
stormblue wrote:

Strange no one's mentioned the safe, clean, cheap to set up, limitless sources of solar, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal energy...

Fossil-fuel vs. nuclear is another false dichotomy the establishment has hypnotized us into seeing as the only available options. They're not.


lafayettemister wrote:
Poppycock


Germany fed a whopping 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour into the national grid last weekend, setting a new record by meeting nearly half of the country’s weekend power demand.

After the Fukushima disaster, Japan opted to shut down all of its nuclear power stations and Germany followed suit after considerable public pressure. This seems to have paved the way for greater investment in solar energy projects.


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Buz
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:14:15 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,404
Location: Atlanta, United States
ANARCHY!

I'm ready! Bring it on!

scooter
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:49:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
I grew up about 5 miles from the famed Thomas Edison.
There are actually two different cities that have a continuous feud over his actual birthplace to this day.
Mine being Milan, Ohio.
Thomas Edison was a Jack Ass. He was just smart enough though to develop the most costly,
least efficient means of making and distributing electric possible.
After jumping in bed with White Westing House, he now had the money and the power to destroy Nicholas Tesla's genius mind.
Had this event in history not developed, I really don't think we would have this issue.
Although scientist today are taking second and third looks at Tesla's journals,
I doubt they will ever recover half of what he knew.

If Edison was alive today, I'm sure he too would be on the Nuke band wagon.
Like any Wall Street tycoon would do. Put your money on the big money
and bail out, just before it explodes.

scooter
nazhinaz
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:01:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 294
Location: Longview, United States
Yep, surely all neuclear power stations should be decommisioned as soon as possible.
There hardly can be two opinions about it.
We should go for Solar, wind and enegy from waves.
We surely can manage for the entire World.
I know of a vision whereby solar energy could be harness say about 300 miles above and transmitted down; and that the energy is estimated to be several times more than the present utilization in the World.
We have developed electrical cars as well as Hydrogen based vehicles.We need to focus more and maybe in next decade we can come up with the solutions.
Human mind is so inventive and if collectively focused, we can come up for solutions soon.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:32:40 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 674,224
Tesla"s patents are all held by JP MORGAN all 700 of them. He discovered free energy by harnessing the over 800 lighting storms taking place every day around the planet. When JP Morgan learned that Tesla was producing worldwide free electricity he pulled the financing and the patents wich he took a 51% stake in. Currently US Troop use this free energy technology. So do our drones. Electronics used by specail ops have no stored power source. Japan has now shut down all 60 of its nuclear power plants preparing for a full nuclear meltdown of FUKASHIMA#4. iT MIGHT ALREADY BE TOO LATE!
TransitionalMan
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:27:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 108
Location: Ohio, United States
Certainly the recent accident made a powerful argument against nuclear power but I'd say no. The truth is poor people don't care about the environment, and we need power in order to keep people working. We also have a big upcoming issue with carbon pollution. Solar and the increasing use of wind power can help, but they'll only handle the growth of our population. There is no such thing as clean coal, so yeah, we do need to keep the nuclear plants going and even produce new ones to ensure a continuous supply of clean energy. And we allso need to learn from that accident and put that knowledge into the design of new plants.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:51:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster Goes From Bad to Worse

A little more reason to shut down nuclear power plants. They need to continually flood the damaged reactors with water to avoid a complete meltdown, and are having trouble creating enough secure storage facilities for the contaminated water. When nuclear goes wrong, it can REALLY go wrong.
MadMartigan
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:16:08 PM

Rank: Raised on Blackroot

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,191
Location: United States
If only cold fusion were real.

I think we all wish we had other options than nuclear.

Just so many things can go wrong under the right circumstances like they did in Japan.

Nuclear power in the US accounts for about 20% of the electricity output I believe.

Are there options out there that can come as cheaply? I dunno.

Hydropower has about as bad an effect on the environment as anything.

Solar is about the best option, especially if you had a space elevator funneling power back down to the earth.

Wind? There are issues with turbines in specific geographical areas and can mess up the biosphere and habitats of plants and animals.

That said, I think the power grid is inefficient in the first place and wastes more energy than it produces.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.