Nuclear Power Stations

An interesting subject, but I don't think you go into enough depth to give it the justice it deserves. This article is like the introduction to what should be a bigger article.

I briefly worked at the site of a decommissioned power station, and the level of security and the amount of rules they have are so high even on the site of an inactive station.

Also, did you know, that staff who work in the airline industry are exposed to more radiation than staff at a power station usually are on a day-to-day basis.

The vast majority of nuclear waste produced by nuclear power stations is what's classed as Low Level Waste, and that gives off less radiation than a cup of coffee!

But I would say that the main concerns regarding nuclear power stations, is the long decommissioning time they require, the amount of money they cost to run, and these days, the threat of "terrorists" crashing planes into them. But that last point is a whole new subject, since I believe that the real "terrosists" are the people who lie behind the scenes controlling the US and UK Governments.

Now I call this an interesting topic to discuss or introduce us to as it overpowering our world in the modern time. Also the comments by Marcus Edward John are useful.

There is much for and against these sites and this form of energy.I thought you did a great job.

It would be nice if people like you took the time to understand what you talk about (hell, even better if you learned proper grammer and punctuation).
You have an unexamined premise in almost every single sentence - many of them also an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. How is making a nuclear weapon equivilent to nuclear war? How would even a nuclear war exterminate mankind (exempting for the moment the once real possibility of the USSR). I\'m not saying alot of people couldn\'t die from use of a nuclear weapon, but you have absolutely no concept of what the capabilities of them are or even what could be created from nuclear waste (assuming that a terrorist group could create a multi-billion dollar facility to shield them from the radiation long enough to chemically seperate what they needed for the device - a fuel bundle from a nuclear reactor needs to be shielded by thirty feet of water, if it was in air, it would instantly kill anyone standing more then 100 ft away).
While you do highlight a valid concern on the safety of the plant, you don\'t even briefly consider the precautions taken for nuclear safety.
In contrast to your last statement: \"nuclear power may be the most dangerous form of man-made pollution,\" I would suggest that not using nuclear power would lead to the most dangerous outcome.
*The increasing use of ethanol has caused massive deforestation and creates far more carbon then is saved (see Newsweek from the 1st week in April I believe \"Ethanol Scam\" or something to that effect). Even if you are a global warming skeptic, the worst impact is the dramatic effect this has had on world food supplies - causing riots in several countries. Should we starve large portions of the planet to use that as a source of fuel? (Assuming you will duck out of the \"electric car\" style arguement I\'ll continue on the other types of power).
*Natural gas prices wildly fluctuate because of the need in various countries for heating during the winter and limited supply; additionally these are dependent upon countries like Iran and Russia that may have different strategic differences that may not include the comfort of the rest of the world.
*I\'m sure you have far more reasons for being against coal then I can rehash (or you can look them up quickly), but a quick summary includes: carbon emissions, mercury and other heavy metal emissions, and the cost of mining - mainly the cost to life in countries such as China where there were more then 4000 deaths due to coal mining last year alone.
*Hydro-power - limited number of dams available, subject to drought and seasons AND the impact on wildlife (look at what Cheney did to Washington in 2002 I believe for the 70,000 fish that died because of playing with water levels)

Finally, something that should really be examined is how poorly so-called renewables like solar and wind can hold up. In the power industry there is something called the capacity factor - it means how much time a plant is producing power. These renewables have a 16% capacity factor - they provide unreliable power for a minor fraction of the time. Would you want society to be brought to a halt because its cloudy out? Close the stockmarket because its raining? Not be able to watch TV at night because its not windy? Just last month (March) a part of Texas had a brown-out and almost blackout because the wind just stopped blowing. Ooops?

For comparison, Nuclear power plants are considered base-load in the US because they reliably provide power and can continue to do so in almost any type of weather. The amount of power produced by nuclear power has almost doubled since 1989 without a single new one being built because the efficiency has increased so dramatically. There are few other industries that have such a good safety record in the US - and certainly ones that are far worse. Just look to how the FAA cares about passengers and how many things make it past them at airports. TMI was the worst disaster in the US and noone died.

The least you can do before making wildly uninformed statements is look on Wikipedia and realize how hard it is to do any of what you claim is a problem. I\'m 100% certain that terrorists would love to get a nuclear weapon, and I\'m 100% certain that they won\'t get it from US powerplant waste. I\'m sure you could get a loose ready made nuclear weapon from the USSR far easier and much much cheaper then you could ever make one.

Wow, i never realised there were so many cruel people on Triond, there is nothing wrong with constructive critisism but blatant insults are totally uncalled for.
I have read many of your article's and I know how many people including myself enjoy your work.
Great Job.

great job, too bad about the insults others have left. Keep up the good work.

I can't understand how this article became "dugg" again. Please reformulate your basic assumptions and rephrase your article with even the slightest rudiments of research.

2 barely coherent paragraphs on an immensely important topic is uncalled for. I have no problem at all if you are for or against nuclear power if you lay out many of the associated arguments and support your position.

Folks,
I'd like to call your attention to the "thorium fuel cycle":
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

When we think of nuclear energy, we implicitly think of uranium and all the associated problems. Thorium doesn't completely do away with all these problems, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Please take the time to learn about it.

Thank you!

I love how thoroughly JJ pwns this drivel. Good work JJ.