How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

oh, you mean like when certain children get leukemia etc., living in the vicinity of a nuclear processing plan, and parents and people obvously complain, and want some answers, and are met with, by the authorities who own the plant, and their scientists: 'there is no evidence there is a connection'?? kind of ting?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing like that was said by Kibbles,
he mentioned only newspaper rumours and talks by some other people,
that is no evidence.

In fact I shouldn't even be replying to you, because that's so obvious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Avatar, your "That is no reality because you have no evidence" idea is erroneous. No one had evidence of invisible radio waves a few centuries ago. The general public didn't have solid evidence that jet aircraft existed while it was being developed by the military. People don't usually find evidence of a scam til it's too late.

The lack of evidence of something is irrelevant to the state of its existence.

I am not trying to prove to you that such things happen, merely asking you to consider the possibility of something that my professors, some journalists, and certain military personel believe is going on.

You seem determined to ignore and simply deny the idea without even some discussion or exploration into the matter. Why?

I'm all for properly run nuclear power plants and all but my real concern is, where will the waste material go and will it reach my country?

So... would you happen to know if the nuclear waste processing centers that your country will be employing are based in or near the pacific region?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pacific region is on the other side of the planet from Latvia, so it is not realistic, considering that you need a permission from each country you go through with the waste.
We have no need for it when Russia is just next door over the border.

Because it's not a problem of nuclear science or nuclear production as such, it's a problem of how some governments might be abusing their powers.

 

From slashdot.org =>

<em>As oil, coal, and gas become increasingly expensive, energy utilities take another look at nuclear power. The nuclear reactor builders are jostling for business as more than 26 plants may be ordered or constructed over the next five years in Canada, China, several European Union countries, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa. Companies in the US and UK may order an additional 15 new reactors. Physics Today magazine has a global roundup of the <a href="http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html">new plants on construction</a>, and how the builders are getting around some of the potential road blocks in their path.</em>

 

On 12/12/05 I addressed the nuclear waste problem with the following:

"As for the storage problem, I think it dangerous as currently done in US, basically on site - a tempting target for terrorists, but it could be safely shipped to 4 or 5 central well guarded facilities and stored for roughly a decade to let the shorter half-life isotopes decay. Then, it should be glassified (mixed with glass) to form a disk about an inch or two thick and foot in diameter*, so steady state temp is no more than 100 degrees C, which are then coated with a thin layer of pure glass - thick enough to stop the Alpha particles.

Ships with disk-hurling slings etc. or air guns, on their sterns steaming above a deep ocean trench should then send the disks on a multi-billion year trip much deeper into the earth. (The disk shape, instead of balls insures that they will not roll to any one low point and disperse much more that the ship can throw them. Glass is very strong in compression and will take any pressure the deepest trench can provide.) I.e. IMHO, the waste is not a big problem and we can solve it with less than the current risk."

I do not know where "your country" is but one of the deepest trenches near US is just north of some Caribean Islands. Glass is also resistant to sea water attack. The disks will be yards deep in the sediment in less than 10,000 years and even then, you could still safely use a disk as you dinner plate with the advantage that your food would not get cold.

This disposal plan is very safe and economical. It is however some what a shame to throw away all the isotopes. Some can be used medically. For example to cure prostate cancer etc. Others can be used for fission power.
______________________________________________
*The total long-life-time isotopes produce by an "all electric" set of about 25 US familes, during the entire life of each member (100 years and 100 people), will fit in one disk! I.e. Two coast guard cutter sized ships would be more than adequate for the entire US even if all electric power were generated by nuclear energy, but specially designed ships with the disk load stored in a fat bottom and loaded into the sling guns automatically would be preferred as some gamma radiation would escape the disks.

 

Well, at least I'm sure now that it's not heading here and I suppose that Russia has learned enough from past nuclear accidents how not to handle the stuff (I 'm ignorant on that point and just guessing) so that's good at least.

I was under the impression you were writing an essay to encourage the use of nuclear power in your country. This is not a mere problem of nuclear science or production but also of economics, politics, and bureaucratic administration. This will affect more than just your country if things are handled wrong. I was merely suggesting you look into those issues as well if you want to make a balanced essay based in on real-world conditions.

For an extreme example, would you build a nuclear power plant right at the border of two warring nations? Of course not. This is not a problem of nuclear science or production yet it should be noted in an essay about nuclear power relevant to that particular region.

 

Our's a stable region and I see no reason why our government would fuck up the project if it were deployed.

speaking of nuclear power stations, read this ->

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html

 

fuck what up? deploy what?

 

That's nice

Looks like my concern is their concern too though (2nd to the last paragraph)

Things aren't so nice on this side of the world. Illegal anything is quite rampant, especially the dumping of industral or other waste, usually toxic. That's why I'm concerned when someone mentions a new nuclear power plant.

I'm assuming though that Russia does not want any more horror stories and is now in a decent position to handle nuclear waste so things should probably be fine.

Best of luck.

 

Thisis in our paper today:
'DROP NUKES: Nuclear power is not te answer to global warming, Tony Blair was warned yesterday.
New stations wold take too long to build and make little difference to cutting carbon dioxide emissions, said experts.
And problems such as getting rid of radioactive waste and the cost of new power stations mean ther is no justification for a nuclea programme.
The warnig came from the Sustainable Development Commission--wich advises Mr Blair--as part of the Government's energy review.
Mr Blair has signalled his belief tat nuclear is the best way to cut fuel bills and tackle climate change. Bu even doubling capacity would not cut CO2 at all by the 2010 Kyoto target date and would reduceit by only eight percent by 2035, said the SDC.
Britain would also find it hard to claim countries such as Iran could not launch power programmes - and with other countries' lower safety standards the rik of accidents and terrorist attacks was enormous.
The SDC called for energy efficiency and low carbon strategies. Chairman Jonathan Porrit said: "The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix - there simply isn't one."
Energy Minister Malcom Wicks said: " No one has ever suggested that nuclear power or ny oter individual source could meet all the challenges."
Shadow Energy Mnister Alan Duncan said: "This puts a spanner inte works for te Government who eferybody believes hasalready made up its mind in favour of nuclear."
And Stephan Tindale of Greenpeace said: "We should go for thge commonsense, cleaner and cheaper option - decentralised energy." www.mirror.co.uk

 

We've already discussed this issue,
nuclear power is crucial in short term (fission) as well as long term (fusion).
Renewables like wind and solar are not sufficient enough to power modern cities,
but are suitable for smaller communities.

They all can cry and shout, but none seem offer any alternatives.
Maybe they can not reach Kyoto in 20 years, but it would still be reachable,
by continuing on fossil fuels it's just giving up and trashing our environment even further to an uncontrolled extent.

 

read article agin

 

I had read the information on BBC even before you posted it here (I have RS syndication on bbc science news). Thankfully I have my own mind that is not replaced by each new newspaper article.

That Sustainable Development Commission is limited in its' grasp on the situation and is partially political.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4778344.stm

 

Avatar, duendy won't listen until her 'renewable energy' source means that the lights start flickering, and then it will be the 'materialist scientists' fault.

Maybe duendy wants the lights to go out, mushrooms grow well in the dark!

 

I am with Duendy

Thoes with Nuclear should visit the forbidden nuclear zones