U-Know! Forum » WTF? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
PMM 3155 posts |
Mar 12, 2011, 10:05
|
The way the nuclear stuff has developed over the last 24 hours left me wondering what was being unsaid. Not the most open of industries is it? Still, massive explosions aren't something they can sweep under the carpet. I have to admit, I've been ambivalent about nuclear power. On one side there are the obvious risks, overruns and long term unsustainability of it. Yet people like James Lovelock and Mark Lynas have spoken of it as the only viable way of transitioning to a sustainable way of living. Building nuclear power plants on major geological faults seems like madness whatever the rights or wrongs. |
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 12, 2011, 10:38
|
PMM wrote: Building nuclear power plants on major geological faults seems like madness whatever the rights or wrongs. I think that's going to be painfully clear even to advocates for nuke power, if they end up with a meltdown or a big release of radiation. |
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Mar 12, 2011, 14:01
|
It was quite weird watching a Greenpeace representative talk about the situation in Japan on the BBC News earlier today. You could tell he was somewhat caught between sympathy for the people caught up in it and the moral considerations that entails and the bubbling under urge to say "I told you so!". Think there's gonna be a lot of that in days to come. Early days I guess, but as a very early scrabble for a bit of silver lining in the apocalyptic awfulness of what's happening you'd hope at least that whatever happens in Japan (and one hopesfor minimal fall-out in every sense!) it's going to make other Nuclear nations give their schemes a good, hard, second coat of looking at and thinking about from now on.
|
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 12, 2011, 19:58
|
PMM wrote: I have to admit, I've been ambivalent about nuclear power. On one side there are the obvious risks, overruns and long term unsustainability of it. Yet people like James Lovelock and Mark Lynas have spoken of it as the only viable way of transitioning to a sustainable way of living. Thing is, it's not transitional. It takes ten years to get the plant onstream (during which time we could've got a lot of renewables up; running and delivering for ages); it is lower carbon than fossils but still takes a hell of a lot of high-carbon input from fossil energy and concrete; it relies on uranium that (like oil) is concentrated in a few places and leads to appalling wars in those areas as demand rises; it has always been more expensive than promised even including the effective subsidy of selling many byproducts to the weapons industry. As a climate change solution, it's the least bang for the most bucks outside of fossils http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=89 |
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Mar 12, 2011, 21:14
|
A whole load of info and debate here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/#more-3897 | |
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Mar 14, 2011, 13:22
|
Seems there's been a number of anti-nuclear protests in a few countries following the reactor explosions. Will anyone listen I wonder?
|
|
Squid Tempest 8768 posts |
Mar 14, 2011, 15:57
|
Merrick wrote: ...it's the least bang for the most bucks outside of fossils Or, potentially, the most bang of all fuels. IYSWIM. |
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 15, 2011, 00:02
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Merrick wrote: ...it's the least bang for the most bucks outside of fossils Or, potentially, the most bang of all fuels. IYSWIM. It is the best thing for powering robots in deep space (or deep diving subs, or anything else that needs to work for extended periods without refueling). The Voyager spacecraft were launched in the seventies, and are still operating and sending back signals from the boundary between the solar system and the interstellar medium. That they are working at all is directly due to the warmth the onboard nuke generator supplies. It's clear that despite all the safeguards, nuke energy is still very a dangerous beast that's NOT easy to put back in it's cage when it breaks out. I'm not convinced by the experts I'm hearing who are downplaying the risks... I think they're overconfident of their containment's integrity (giant hydrogen explosions outside the vessels aren't weaking them?)
|
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Mar 15, 2011, 09:34
|
Given what I've read (nowhere near enough true) it may be not going nuclear (as bad as that is) may be signing our species or the planet's death warrant | |
jshell 333 posts |
Mar 16, 2011, 15:08
|
ratcni01 wrote: Given what I've read (nowhere near enough true) it may be not going nuclear (as bad as that is) may be signing our species or the planet's death warrant Nail hit squarely on the head. We cannot survive without nuclear. An article putting the Japanese problem in perspective: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198421680697248.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t#articleTabs%3Darticle More from the British Embassy: http://ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566914282 |
Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
U-Know! Forum Index |