Lots More Nuclear Power - Good Thing or Bad Thing?
Nuclear power – an abundant source of carbon free energy, or a dangerous and expensive power source with huge risks to our health and environment?
Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.
Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.
Whilst nuclear energy has at least one advantage in providing plentiful carbon free power, there are numerous objections, not least due to concerns over safety, long term handling and storage of radioactive waste and the potential distraction from long term renewable energy projects. Indeed, there are many complex arguments behind the nuclear question, a topic which cannot be succinctly summarised in a single blog post, and on which I must admit I lack a clear opinion.
Therefore I decided to call in some people who actually know what they are talking about.
Rod of Atomic Insights and Matt from TalkClimateChange have agreed to lend their expertise to this discussion in a currently ongoing debate on our discussion boards, which I am sure will provide the necessary depth of argument and cover the full range of pro’s and con’s.
We’ll be back with a follow-up post containing the highlights (and maybe a final opinion) from this debate next week. In the meantime, feel free to watch the debate or chime in with your views.
Dear God in Heaven….when will we humans ever wake up and decide to look at long term solutions. Why do we trade one poison for another only to eliminate the eventual onslaught for now, and relegate it to another future generation. Go solar!! go wind! and let humanity live another epoch.
Rubbish and hogwash…as the previous comment states: why replace the energy problem with an even bigger problem. Nuclear energy might sound glamorous, vogue and even chic but this is because the industry spent millions upon millions of dollars convincing the world that global warming is drowning polar bears. The reality is that they took this angle rather than considering safer, renewable energy resources and conservation.
The other issue is as the oil wells dry up, the costs rise and are passed on the consumer who has no recourse.
As a final thought that you can easily prove is that the uranium needed for the nuclear renaissance is mined in areas mostly located in Africa, Australia, and North America: all areas are found near or on Native American, Native African or Australian Aborigine land; thus presenting extreme hardship and deaths resulting from the uranium mining.
Nuclear energy is not safe, nuclear energy will not replace coal, nuclear energy is not worth the nightmares it will cause.
NO NUKES
NO COAL
NO LIES
NO NUKES
NO COAL
NO POWER
NO COMPUTERS
NO MORE COMMENTS
The newest third generation nuclear reactors are extremely safe and have very little waste. Fourth generation reactors improve on both safety and waste significantly including safe shutdown with no operators needed.
Chernobyl was a first generation reactor and the meltdown was due to untrained technicians performing a dangerous ill-advised test. They had a small crew of which many were untrained coal miners. Many of the technicians working there objected to the test which involved shutting down the water pumps. The gamble failed and thus the meltdown. First generation reactors had very few of the numerous safety systems and protocols of modern reactors.
Three Mile Island was a second generation reactor. A broken valve caused a coolant leak into an area designed for that purpose. A long chain of errors and misunderstandings led to a partial meltdown and the shutdown of the reactor. Despite the a long line of errors and misunderstandings the reactor shut down exactly how it was designed to do. No radiation leaked out into the environment and 0% increase in cancer was predicted to people living in the area. The safety systems worked and Three Mile Island continues to operate safely today. It was the first and only significant nuclear accident in American history.
Since these disasters, the last in 1986, hundreds of nuclear reactors have operated safely and continuously with no major incidents. Nuclear power is a viable alternative to carbon emitting power plants and more people are harmed by fossil fuel burning plants.
50,000-100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer caused by particulate air pollution the biggest cause of which is coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east. Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident EVERY THREE WEEKS to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is.
I agree that we need to develop energy sources such as wind and sun further and to get as much power as we can from clean sources of energy. But before we demonize nuclear power, let us take a good look at the facts and decide what is best with our minds and not our hearts.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092
NO NUKES
NO COAL
NO POWER
NO COMPUTERS
NO MORE COMMENTS
MORE TALKING
MORE SHARING
MORE SINGING
MORE GROWING
MORE DANCING
MORE LOVING
MORE WORKING
MORE BEING
I don’t really think that we need to make and use more power, I think we could use vastly less and be happier without having to trade off between different ways of destroying the world. We could keep small amounts of power for things like medicine and lighting and forget about things like patio heaters and manufacturing crap we don’t need.
Simon,
Generally agreed.
so is it good or bad?
No computers. well considering you needed one to write this i thinkypur pratically contridicting yourself.
More dancing you need to see a professinal
why is nuclear power so bad