Who else think Nuclear power is way to dangerous to use?

Question

With what we know about nuclear and the dangers involved is it stupidity to choose this over renewable energy for our source of power. What will become of the nuclear waste, even if its store deep down in the bowles of the earth waht happens when theres and earthquake or a metorite hits, will out future generations feel the fall out from our stupidity?

This myth that renwables are not good enough to produce the energy we need is government garbage, look at the facts rather than listening to the hype and you'll see the truth for yourselves. Wave energy has massive potential, just that the government wont invest in it as the researchers for this energy wont give as big back handers as the people in the nuclear buisness, and to all you sun readers that believe the gumpth that is tossed out by blair and his associates just remember that the future is in your hands... Just lucky theres some more inteligent people who can acchieve more than some of you on here otherwise we'de be down the pan !!!!!!!

Answer 1

i agree. there is such a lack of imagination amongst the elites that they turn to something so dangerous and expensive instead of investing heavily in renewables and leading the world in green technology.

nothing which leaves dangerous waste for thousands of years can seriously be called 'green'

in europe we had the chernobyl disaster, in the UK there have been serious leaks which have gone unreported at the time and revealed yeatrs later. as well as being a potential terrorist target, humans make mistakes, which could kill hundreds of thousands with nuclear technology.

Answer 2

Nuclear power is a very effective means of generating electricity - far more predicatable and stable than renewables (possibly with the sole exception of Hydro, Tidal Barrage and maybe tidal or even wave power) it produces power without the harmfull CO2 emissions from fossil fuel, the raw material is in realtively abundant supply. nuclear plant (in the UK) is built on geologically stable ground. if there is a meteor strike (or terrorist event) on sufficent scale to compromise a nuclear plant then we are probably all doomed already.

BTW unlike the sneering comments mentioned above I dont work for BNFL or anybody acdtively or potentially involved in Nuclear Power or power generation for that matter

wind turbines are a joke - you need to have dramatic overcapacity to cater for the days when the wind dont blow or blows too hard (and happens more often than you think). Also you have to plan for the seeminlgy normal 15%..33% failure rate when the wind is blowing but the turbine doesn't spin). In fact some professionals are claiming that you need the fossil or nuclear plant as well as wind power to guarantee power supplies.

solar panels can make a contribution on the margins - but not for high loads during the day or during the night.

unless people are preapred to forgeo power on days when renewable power cannot meet demand then it would be extreme folly to choose renewables over nuclear. I alwasy say to treehuggers demanding no more nucelar (or fossil fuel) plant is that if they sign up to a pledge that means no power for them when the renewables wont provide enough power then fien, otherwise we need a mix of power supply just in case....

Tidal barrages like Hydro schemes tend to be blocked by protestors complaining about 'the delicate environment' - just don a scuba mask and go see how delicate the environment is...."

Answer 3

Nuclear power is the only alternative to gas/oil and coal fired power stations. Renewable sources such as wind, tidal and solar are simply not capable of generating anything like enough electricity to cover the shortfall. A nuclear power station is not in itself dangerous and the example of Chernobyl is a bit misleading since at the time The Soviet Union was not the most safety concious country on earth.
So you have a choice, either stay with the CO2 producing power stations, go with Nuclear or try and rely on the renawable alternatives which will mean that we all need to stop using anything like as much electricity. That would mean no more PCs for a start.

The whole problem with this debate is that the people arguing for the wind and tidal power generation are misinformed and simply don't choose to listen to the fact that they alone are not able to generate enough electricity to fulfill our requirements.

Answer 4

Nuclear energy is only as safe as the idiots putting it to use. That said - - - yes there are other methods of obtaining energy that are inherently safer. The push behind nuclear comes from two divergent ideas in unholy matrimony. One is the 'magic bullet' theory - - - this comes from the days of the big hydroelectric dams when it appeared as if one powerplant could supply power for millions. When Nuclear power became feasible the thought was that one efficient nuclear power plant could replace dozens of inefficient 'older' power plants. Naturally greed plays into this equation. With one source supplying all the power try to get a fair price.
But I am dithering - - - yes Nuclear is dangerous and for some of the reasons that you mention but Nuclear is even more dangerous because it intends to put power in the hands of one company such as Haliburton that will use that power to control society. Whereas there are forms of energy generation that could be controled by individuals as well as buildings neighborhoods towns etc - - - the proponents of Nuclear seek to literally hold power. That is their true goal /// for example, instead of an inner city hospital utilizing power from its own wind driven turbine, the city hospital gets its power from what I will call H-Brt Power - - - then suppose the hospital allowed abortions to be performed for whatever reason - - - H-Brt says no and cuts the power! Gettng off track - - - just want you and others to be aware that inssues are way more complex than metorites and Earthquakes. Humanity skewers all equations.

Peace....

Answer 5

It is lack of knowledge about nuclear power that scares people so much, mention the word nuclear and people instantly think of chernobyll and hiroshima, the fact is, its emissions to power output is very good and nuclear waste when well managed shouldnt really be an issue, i think the biggest problem is peoples education in what nuclear power actually entails. Meteorites striking would cause a few problems that the planet would have to deal with before worrying about nuclear waste being disrupted. understand that car and home emissions are doing far worse to the planets future then power stations ever could, but are you gunna wear a fleece instead of turning the heating up? walk to the shops rather then jumping in ur fossil fuel burning car? Thats a far more urgent issue then what ifs over the nuclear industry!

Answer 6

Nuclear power is the SAFEST and cleanest form of energy production that there is. You can argue on the back end, that we dont have enough in the way of long term storage of waste, but one cannot argue the plants are dangerous

Answer 7

Two points to consider here:
1: Would you prefer blackouts as a reasonable way of life?

2: Nuclear power is a safe and logical way to go IF HANDLED PROPERLY. So the next point is Are the Brits sufficiently competent to handle it? Hmmm?

Answer 8

I have to disagree.We can send the refuse into the Sun,it will happen in our
lifetime more than likely.

The melt down scenario is wicked and horrible I agree,but nuclear power that
is manufactured under the strictest of safety guidlines is an excellent way to
provide electricity.Better than any Green technology to date sorry to say.

Answer 9

After Chernobyl and the consequences all of Europe are still dealing with - I think some of the above answerers work for BNFL totally agree with you!

Answer 10

Nuke is good,the sun runs on it,there is a big reactor beneath us.Its polution free.It powers the universe.