Anti-Nuclear

[methylatedghosts]

Ok, as you should know, the recent APEC meeting (which bush confused with OPEC??) did discuss issues on climate change and how to combat global warming. Many leaders agreed that Nuclear power was the way to go for clean-and-green electricity in an attempt to combat global warming. Our prime minister, Helen Clarke, held up our view as New Zealanders that we do not want nuclear power here, and we do not want to jump on that bandwagon. In a One News poll, they asked people if we should combat global warming and if we should "go nuclear"

60% replied YES to combat global warming
80% said NO to nuclear energy.

Now, we aren't a large country, and we haven't got the huge amount of natural resources some other countries do. I'm not sure exactly where I'm heading with this, but I'd like to hear thoughts and/or opinions on the subject. (NOT the "is global warming really happening" debate!!!). What other options are there for us? Do we really NEED nuclear power to survive?

The power supply to my house is geothermal, so that's clean-and-green anyway. Before I lived here my power supply was hydro power.

What can we do?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Nuclear power can be made to be clean and safe, but then it will become not economical.

 

[yossarian22]

Nuclear power can be made to be clean and safe, but then it will become not economical.

what are you talking about?
It is safe and clean. Environmentalists just blow Chernobyl and Three Mile Island out of proportion.

Anyhow, nuclear is by far the best option for alternative energy, but environmentalists hate it for some reason. Hydro in the US is tapped out I think, but the more extreme environmentalist factions want to tear down those as well. Solar sounds great, as soon as a couple states agree to being plated by solar panels we can switch over.

 

[greatcalgarian]

what are you talking about?
It is safe and clean. Environmentalists just blow Chernobyl and Three Mile Island out of proportion.

Anyhow, nuclear is by far the best option for alternative energy, but environmentalists hate it for some reason. Hydro in the US is tapped out I think, but the more extreme environmentalist factions want to tear down those as well. Solar sounds great, as soon as a couple states agree to being plated by solar panels we can switch over.

You do not read carefully. Nuclear is clean provided you spent lots of money to ensure that. Nuclear also has not considered the cost of disposal of spent tubes. Guess you are only aware of one nuclear incident? Do you know how many incidents related to nuclear energy plants have taken place?

Try to check all google links:
nuclear plant incident - Google Search
and wiki:
List of civilian nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for example:

April 10, 2003 — Damaged fuel rods spilled spent fuel pellets to the bottom of a tank of heavy water. Chemicals were added to the tank to control criticality and absorb iodine-131. Paks Nuclear Power Plant, Hungary. Rated INES-3. [26], [27]
April 19, 2005 — Sellafield, UK. Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 liters of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [28].
November 2005 — Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station.[29] Later, in March, 2006, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Exelon because of six such leaks, demanding that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents although no well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards. The lawsuit is a class-action suit representing two communities roughly two miles away from the plant and not including the closest community to the plant.[1][2] According to the NRC, "The inspection determined that public health and safety has not been adversely affected and the dose consequence to the public that can be attributed to current onsite conditions is negligible with respect to NRC regulatory limits." However, the chairman of the NRC, said, "They're going to have to fix it."
March 6, 2006 — Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant in Erwin, Tennessee (USA) had a spill of 35 liters of highly enriched uranium solution. The danger was that this solution could have pooled in an elevator shaft sump and achieved criticality. The incident entailed a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant. [30] [31]

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In your own country Geothermal is a real option... and could be developed on a grand scale.
some other countries Nuclear is a real option.. but not without problems.

 

[methylatedghosts]

In your own country Geothermal is a real option... and could be developed on a grand scale.
some other countries Nuclear is a real option.. but not without problems.

Not as much as you might think. Some of the Geothermal land is spiritually significant to Maori tribes, and they don't want to change it, and so we've got to respect that.

As for the rest that CAN be used, if we open up the area to access the heat too much, it'll cool down faster than is being heated, and then naturally, we'll have no more heat left to power the stations. This happen a few decades ago in Rotorua, too many people had bores opened for the heating for their baths, and eventually the water wasn't getting heated anymore. SImple solution to that is to close the bores.

And as for nuclear, what happens to all the waste? I don't want to throw more waste into the ocean than we as a planet already do. And hurling it into space isn't really economically viable.

It is safe and clean.

Yeah, if you ignore the waste right?


We are looking at wind farms, but no-one wants their scenery ruined by huge white windmills. (Although, how that's as bad or worse than scenery being ruined by coal station smoke, I don't know)

 

[Kungfuzed]

And as for nuclear, what happens to all the waste? I don't want to throw more waste into the ocean than we as a planet already do. And hurling it into space isn't really economically viable.

We bury the waste deep in all the coal mines we'll no longer be using.

 

[Valjean]

what are you talking about?
It is safe and clean. Environmentalists just blow Chernobyl and Three Mile Island out of proportion.

Granted, modern nuclear technology is much safer than it used to be, But I don't think TMI or Chernobyl are being portrayed out of proportion. When crops must be left to rot in the fields and milk dumped -- as far away as Scandinavia -- that's a significant effect. TMI did not get that far out of control, but the potential was there.

Anyhow, nuclear is by far the best option for alternative energy, but environmentalists hate it for some reason. Hydro in the US is tapped out I think, but the more extreme environmentalist factions want to tear down those as well. Solar sounds great, as soon as a couple states agree to being plated by solar panels we can switch over.

I'm an environmentalist, and I don't hate it. I just think there are cleaner, safer technologies that should be explored before putting all our eggs in the nuclear basket.

My major beef with nuclear is the safe, long-term disposal of the dangerous waste it produces. This continues to be a political hot potato in the US, even with the relatively few reactors we currently use.

With regard to solar, I see no reason to "plate" the sun belt with photocells. Look at Germany. Germans are putting solar panels on their rooves and along the Autobahns. Homeowners are realizing significant electrical savings and solar is contributing a significant and increasing percentage of the country's electricity.

 

[yossarian22]

You do not read carefully. Nuclear is clean provided you spent lots of money to ensure that. Nuclear also has not considered the cost of disposal of spent tubes. Guess you are only aware of one nuclear incident? Do you know how many incidents related to nuclear energy plants have taken place?

So your argument is that because there have been a grand total of 22 accidents, nuclear reactors are unsafe?

 

[yossarian22]

And as for nuclear, what happens to all the waste? I don't want to throw more waste into the ocean than we as a planet already do. And hurling it into space isn't really economically viable.
Yeah, if you ignore the waste right?

Nobody proposed dumping radioactive waste into the ocean. We are going to bury it.

 

[MaddLlama]

And as for nuclear, what happens to all the waste? I don't want to throw more waste into the ocean than we as a planet already do. And hurling it into space isn't really economically viable.

Yucca Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yossarian22]

, But I don't think TMI or Chernobyl are being portrayed out of proportion. When crops must be left to rot in the fields and milk dumped -- as far away as Scandinavia -- that's a significant effect. TMI did not get that far out of control, but the potential was there.

Chernobyl was caused by the idiocy of the Soviets. It was not an industrial accident, but a research accident.
"Lets see how long we can keep the turbine spinnings at power levels far below the safety limits"

I'm an environmentalist, and I don't hate it. I just think there are cleaner, safer technologies that should be explored before putting all our eggs in the nuclear basket.

Nuclear is the only practical option we currently have now and for the foreseeable future. The current environmentalist movement states that we have to drastically lower emissions now, but they despise the only viable option

My major beef with nuclear is the safe, long-term disposal of the dangerous waste it produces. This continues to be a political hot potato in the US, even with the relatively few reactors we currently use.

Just bury them in old unused mine shafts or in the desert.
Arguing there is no space is the equivalent of arguing that we will run out of landfill space. We have plenty of land to dispose of our waste in.

With regard to solar, I see no reason to "plate" the sun belt with photocells. Look at Germany. Germans are putting solar panels on their rooves and along the Autobahns. Homeowners are realizing significant electrical savings and solar is contributing a significant and increasing percentage of the country's electricity.

"Significant"?!
The percentage is so low that it got stuck in the "Other" category of their power breakdown. Solar power is at most 3.7% of Germany's power supply. In fact, if you consider the entire "Other" category to be non nuclear renewable energy, you get a whopping 5%. Great role models aren't they?

 

[methylatedghosts]

We bury the waste deep in all the coal mines we'll no longer be using.

Could this not be an "out of sight, out of mind" solution?