10 Nuclear Events in 10 days -- Yikes

[quote=Kurt;6849811]The biggest problem with nuke power is Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Japan.[quote]

The Chernobyl one was a JOKE! They should never have CONSIDERED that! It was built with old methods, etc... The Japanese one, as I stated, wasn't built properly or in the proper area. I don't know if such an area is available in japan AT ALL! ALSO, in that japanese one, apparently they stored old rods, and stored them inappropriately. As for three mile island, as I recall, it wasn't THAT much better than chernobyl.

That is the one thing that ALWAYS bothered me. And the idea that someone may have to face almost certain death to merely make it a bit safer for the next guy, is a bad idea. And the idea of CAPPING? It would be nice if we could simply turn them off. MANY think we can, but we can't. It is essentially a tiny nuclear bomb that runs at a controlled burn. Hot enough to be VERY dangerous, even if it weren't radioactive, but cold enough that HOPEFULLY you don't get a chain reaction. Luckily Atom bombs use a high powered explosive to enhance the potential for the chain reaction, so that probably isn't too likely, but a radioactive cloud equivalent to the one that killed most of the people in japan at hirosima and nagosaki is downright CERTAIN if nobody takes desperate measures.

Yeah, there are too many people, etc... for it to be 100% any time soon. With nuclear, there is a lot of potential for high power but that is the problem with nuclear in a nutshell! A LOT of power in a tiny space. It has it's good points, but they all enhance the bad as well.

Nobody here has said it is perfect. Look at iran! They are using this as a guise to get, and refine, nuclear materials. It would be nice if we could have 30 years ago said US, GERMANY, IRAN, PAKISTAN, ETC.... HERE is the solution, NOW you can stop building those power plants! The world would be a safer place.

And have you seen how they build homes today? ****MY plan for the future?**** STEEL buildings built in a modular fashion with strong cross supports, and Openly accessible conduit throughout. HECK, it would stand up to earthquakes better, settle less, etc... many buildings APPROACH that today. THAT was my idea many decades ago.

So HOW did the future end up? OH, we don't need steel! KEEP the wood! We don't need cross supports! FORGET THEM! Maybe a couple, just to keep things up so we can build. NOBODY will know the difference! REBAR TIES? WHO NEEDS THEM? Roof ties? HECK, just LAY the roof, it's heavy enough! NO WAY will it move! CONDUIT? HECK NO! Let's STAPLE INSULATED WIRE!

NO KIDDING! A lot of that is US CODE! The result? Hurricanes come and EASILY blow roofs off! Earthquakes come, and the house may survive 99.9999% but is misaligned with the foundation because it wasn't tied, or it may fall down because it had no cross support. And SOME end up nearly falling apart because the nails pull out. I'm still waiting to see houses burn down, or other problems because of the electric code, but it is harder to fix things, etc....

Anyway, do they build nuclear plants, and the parts, with the same thought?

Steve

Look at France - 75% of the power is nuclear, much of the waste is recycled.

Actually, there are environmental groups saying green energy needs to be 100% - and soon. They are against fossil fuels, against nuclear...against any power generation that isn't renewable. I agree in theory - but wishful thinking doesn't produce electricity.

What options are there - if you discount fossil fuels and nuclear power? We're pretty much out of sites suitable for hydroelectric plants, geothermal can't be overused or we lower the GT field temperature and some of the drilling may interact with fault lines.

What people ignore about nuclear power is that we have the natural resources on earth to create nuclear power for a long, long time.
50 years ago we were talking about renewable energy and moving away from oil, coal and gas....how far have we gotten? Not far enough. Yet some peak oil experts predict we will be running out of oil 60 years from now. Anthracite coal is pretty much depleted now.

Chernobyl, three mile island and Japan - yes. But throughout that long span of time there were nuclear plants producing power reliably day after day in many parts of the world.

You can crash in a car - but we drive cars anyway. People are killed and maimed in war - but we go to war. With anything that is important to society there is a risk that balances rewards. But with nuclear power, in the U.S. it seems all people consider is risk. That may be short sighted - we'll see.

Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of an accident by failing to build new, safer plants and by choosing to extend the life of old facilities for a generation past the time they were intended to be used.