Nuclear Power Stations
Nuclear power stations are extremely dangerous even though they are very effective in energy production.
There is strong opposition to erecting any nuclear power stations,partly because they themselves may be dangerous,partly because of radioactive waste,but mainly because they produce materials which could be used in nuclear weapons,perhaps by terrorists.It is nuclear war,which could exterminate mankind,which is the great danger.It can be argued that most countries could build nuclear bombs whether or not the nuclear power industry expands,and that mankind might as well derive the maximum benefit from this source of energy,remembering that if it works as planned it causes far less pollution than does the use of foil fussels.
However,the larger the number of power stations,the greater the risk of an accident,with the release of a dangerous amount of radiation.It seems likely that with an enormous number of these installations in all countries,it will be difficult to ensure that all observe the type of precaution at present in force in the few existing stations,particularly with regard to the disposal of radioactive waste.Thus although nuclear power has,so far,done little harm,in the long run it might well be the most dangerous form of man-made pollution.
Liked it
25 Responses to “Nuclear Power Stations”
On March 2, 2008 at 1:55 am
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.
On March 2, 2008 at 1:59 am
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.
On March 2, 2008 at 3:50 am
There is much for and against these sites and this form of energy.I thought you did a great job.
On April 7, 2008 at 7:47 pm
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.
On May 5, 2008 at 5:32 am
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.
On May 5, 2008 at 5:33 am
great job, too bad about the insults others have left. Keep up the good work.
On May 7, 2008 at 10:21 am
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.
On May 17, 2008 at 11:14 am
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!
On May 17, 2008 at 11:16 am
I love how thoroughly JJ pwns this drivel. Good work JJ.
On July 19, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It’s naive to beleive that a 1 in a million chance makes these plants dangerous. Nuclear power plants in The United States are very well guarded, especially following September 11th. The federal and state governments have made strict regulatory laws to keep what the author is writing about from happening. This is to say that we’re better off without electricity because a few people get electrocuted, better off without homes because they sometimes collapse, better off without boats because they sometimes sink. Obviously the government takes countless measures to ensure that nuclear power stations are safe and secure. Nuclear, Wind, and Solar are the future.
Visit: http://hotfixamerica.com for more information on alternative energy, gas tax’s, etc.
On September 15, 2008 at 5:39 am
I think nuclear power is the right way to go for energy. This is because…..
On September 15, 2008 at 5:41 am
i think itist xcfy
On December 6, 2008 at 9:03 am
I love how Jeff thoroughly kisses JJ’s ass.
On February 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Efficiency, in terms of total cost/effort for use, is increased through self management, no maintenance, and ease of reprocessing. In fact, the 4S version of the design is intended to operate without repair, refueling, or manned intervention for 30-40 years. Estimated price per kWh is 5 cents. No other implemented design has reached this low of a cost for power without extensive subsidizing. Now, before you again say I don’t understand (btw, do you even have a technical degree?) you might just want to read the following sentence (remarkably similar to my previous statement - the one you managed to not read): If we are to contemplate nuclear power, then we should consider all the available options for such power.
On February 6, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Did I really see someone bring up Chernobyl? Seriously that is like saying since the Titanic sank so lets quit making large ships. The technology for a nuclear power plant, including the waste handling, has improved dramatically. I find it funny that the EU has quite a few nuclear plants and they have not had any problems. This is merely green scare tactics and I for one am tired of them.
On February 16, 2009 at 10:58 am
hahahaha its so funny how other people want to give good comments on this page, and they end up fighting, for gods sakE!
i think this is brill
it helped me with my GCSE coursework and made it MUCH more interesting than it was!!
thanks and keep up the goood wooorkkk;)
On February 16, 2009 at 10:59 am
I love how Jeff thoroughly kisses JJ’s ass. !!!????!!!???
so NOT uncalled for
On March 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm
With fossil fuel running out and coal and oil prices soaring, nuclear power is the only energy source that is guaranteed to work consistantly and produce enough electricity to satisfy the worlds demands!
Thanks for giving me a load of disadvantages for my GCSE case study on nuclear power.
On March 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm
WOW…interesting article, but what a lot of strange comments.
On March 16, 2009 at 6:33 am
I agree that this is a very important topic to look upon, but the way most of you are going about it is thoroughy childish. with all of the incessant name calling anyone would think you were a group of eight year olds. However I do have you to thank for giving me some disadvantages of nuclear power for my GCSE case study. Good luck with you ‘debate’
On March 22, 2009 at 6:28 am
What are foil fussels?
On April 12, 2009 at 11:50 am
Check out Nuclear Betrayal at http://www.nuclearbetrayal.com. I had a friend who worked at a nuke plant and said exactly what the author is saying. Exactly.
On April 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm
These are sick, thankyou, it really helps with my exam 4 science and dat.
Keep It Up!
On May 21, 2009 at 4:03 am
I\’m very intrested in nuclear power and i\’m currently thinking of changing my name to noris because after doing some research into coronationstreet i think it well get me a better response from the ladies to change my name to noris.
star trek forever!
x
X
x
On June 6, 2009 at 1:46 pm
the picture was usefull. thats all.
Post Comment