Nuclear Plants - Environmental issues/jobs controversy

[dohupa]

The first nuclear power stations in 30 years have just been announced by President Obama - bound to heat up the debate on discussion boards whether nuclear energy is safe, needed, environment-friendly and so on and so forth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm

What are your thoughts? Any chemical engineers or other experts on board?

[mes1127]

My 2 cents. 30 years is a long time since TMI. Technology has evolved.
Coal vs. Nuclear.. I choose nuclear. Don't forget....it takes about 10 years to build one.

[otokonomidori]

I'm indifferent - they can fuel them with cute live baby seals if they like as long as the lights go on when I press the switch.

[Alvin Lucifer]

Pay now or pay later. A coal-fired power plant spews junk into the atmosphere now. A nuke plant produces wastes so poisonous we have to keep them buried for 200,000 years and cross our fingers nothing goes wrong, like an earthquake!

How is the real estate market over there in Chernobyl? Yeah, that's what I thought.

If one of those nuke plants melts down you can count the place uninhabitable for the next, oh, I don't know...mankind hasn't been around long enough to measure it. If it's a really bad meltdown near a major city, a couple of million people could die -- some immediately from radiation sickness, others eventually from cancers. It could also mess up people's chromosomes so your grandchildren are born with six thumbs and three heads or something. But these are just ifs. If we do everything right the first time every time, we won't have a problem!

Now, once you get the nuke plant up and running, you don't need fossil fuels, but to build one you need about a gazillion tonnes of fossil fuels. So there's that.

We also have trouble getting private investors interested, so it's going to have to be largely state subsidized. This was the case fifty years ago too. Since America doesn't have its own money anymore, we'll have to borrow it from the Chinese -- if they'll lend it to us.

I'd march around with a "No Nukes" sign like my parents did in their day, but our government is going to build 'em anyway!

[Tmee2020]

There never seems to be any problem at the Springfield nuclear plant, so providing they get someone like Mr Burns to run them everything should be fine.

[1952224]

there all yellow and have three fingers

[mdv2000]

As long as people want cheap electricity, we will have to keep building these. I live 40 minutes away from one, so they build another in Georgia not a big deal to me... if the sirens go off, we are all screwed anyway! At least my power bill less than $100 a month!

[Nobody1]

Read that and decide for yourself.


http://de.indymedia.org/2009/03/243580.shtml

[knobby109]

There's perceived risk and actual risk.More people died at Chappaquiddick than at 3 mile island .The dangerous parts of nuclear power are guarded against so what's left is the unexpected.Chernobyl had its own set of circumstances which won't be repeated.
The whole picture needs to be addressed.Coal fired stations involve coal mining and transport , both of which cost a significant number of lives and occupational diseases.They also kick out a certain level of pollution though this is vastly less in the past through technology.
Roll on fusion!

[Lurkio]

ass this debate has raged fro at least thepast 30 years, and probably 30 years yet, may I make a few observations (as I understand them, and which may be wrong):

1/ Chernobyl was caused by the administration wanting to know what would happen if the system was allowed to run out of control: the safety mechanisms were purposely switched off. Also, it was the water jacket that exploded, not the core.

2/ can anyone actually list the number of casualties of the chemical & petroleum industry? eg. Bhopal, 25000, etc. ..

3/ more people have been killed/ injured and more pollution created since 1960 by cars

Perspective is often forgotten, even though the essential points are correct. It's a pity that nuclear technology has been allowed to languish for 30 years - how far could we have come by now if only a little political will had given it some development time?

I remember in the 1970's concern about oil running out (we had an estimated 30 years left), yet no alternatives were seriously investigated. NS gas is virtually exhausted. But I suppose there was no govt duty to be earned on cheap fuel.