Should we rely on nuclear energy? [ENDS 24/04/2011]

Should we rely on nuclear energy?

ENDS: 24/04/2011

Nuclear energy has been back in the spotlight recently with the devastation at the ***ushima nuclear power plants. First question into call is safety, they are probably one of the riskiest energy sources we have at the moment, look at the recent panic in Japan and devastation in Chernobyl over such energy. The risk of human life and long term devastation is not worth it. It doesn't help when such plants age at an alarming rate. Also, we must be aware of the fact that it will run out, so why invest in a technology that is not ever-lasting, statistically uranium will run out in about 50 years. Many power-plants have to spend millions on maintenance, and the costs are just not worth it.

On the other side, people are debating with the view that a lot of the safety issues are marred by propaganda and media hype and that the reality is that nuclear power plants are built in such a way to withstand any major threats- with Chernobyl being said to be built incorrectly, with an unprotected reactor. Nuclear energy also has low fuel costs, 80% that of other fuel resources. Huge amounts of energy are allowed to be produced from a small amount of Uranium and substitutes for Uranium are currently being researched into. What's more positive is the fact that it is a much cleaner source of energy compared to resources such as oil. With nuclear energy being possible in any country, even those with a lack-luster amount of energy resources such as Japan some say this is the step forward.

Many countries are stepping up their programs, such as China and Russia; whilst others such as Germany are phasing them out. This shows one thing, that this debate has such a mirage of views that it is interesting to grip one's teeth into it.

In my opinion we shouldn't rely on it however we should use it.

***ushima & Chernobyl are 2 of 100s of nuclear plants...***ushima was damaged by a Tsunami, Chernobyl was poorly built. As long as they are correctly built and maintained there is no risk to the public from radiation.

Also - uranium is not the only element they can use in Nuclear energy. There are several other elements.

Whilst I support Nuclear as it is the only way to get clean energy easily at the moment, I believe we shouldn't rely on it and continue to develop new ways such as solar which could potentially be a lot cheaper and cleaner but we haven't quite got there yet.

I think that until the day comes that we can use nuclear fusion instead of fission, then we shouldn't rely on it too much. That said in general it's cheaper,cleaner,more efficient, better and for the mostpart safer than nearly all other energy sources.

I was very dissapointed when our government in Ireland gave into a few protesters when we were about to go nuclear a few years back. As Robbie said, there are other elements that can be used. It's just that uranium is the most economical at this point and time.

Much more people have died from other energy sources than nuclear. For example nearly 50 people have died from wind energy sources in the last 10 years yet nuclear is below 10 in the last 10 years.

No we shouldn't.
1. Danger to the environment- (I think)
2. If the nuclear power plant were to be damaged, and radiation leaked, like in japan, then it's a danger to people.
3. There are other sources of practically the same energy, which, in the long term, are cheaper and more effective and better for the environment.

We shouldn't rely on it as such, but we should use it, not as much and not everywhere, especially in areas where there is a possible threat of danger, if a natural disaster occurred like in japan.

I am strictly against the use of nuclear enegry for power since something that un-stable can destroy a island such as japan if something were to happen. And idk if this has anything to do with it but they are trying to make it so the can make there own miniuture sun to provide energy but if something wre to go wrong with the sun it would destroy the entire planet. i think the same applies with nuclear power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewillisfun

I am strictly against the use of nuclear enegry for power since something that un-stable can destroy a island such as japan if something were to happen. And idk if this has anything to do with it but they are trying to make it so the can make there own miniuture sub to provide energy but if something wre to go wrong with the sun it would destroy the entire planet. i think the same applies with nuclear power

---

Where the hell did you get that from?

Japan hasn't been destroyed. An area of about 15 miles is at risk from radiation, that's hardly the whole of japan. Plus, we can't help natural disasters. You know what would happen if it was a coal station? The power would've completely gone and most of the raw materials completely wasted.

And it's not un-stable. 2 crises out of several hundreds or thousands of power stations isn't much. It's like saying I refuse to take the bus in London because 1 got bombed.

i am not saying it has but if somethin were to go wrong that was even worse then was going on now japan as we knew it could be lost forever or atleast for a long time sorry if my wording didnt make sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewillisfun

i am not saying it has but if somethin were to go wrong that was even worse then was going on now japan as we knew it could be lost forever or atleast for a long time sorry if my wording didnt make sense

---

you're not making much sense, 2 major nuclear disasters, and the whole world could end?? worst worst worst case scenario.

If you think about it though, they're not really that major.

I hate to phrase it like this but only 50-odd died in Chernobyl directly and no one has died as a result of the Japan mess. Admittedly it does raise cancer rates in regions but it's still nothing that great, it's said to be about 2000 in Chernobyl but about 4000 people die in car accidents in the UK each year. For instance, every few weeks there is a plane crash somewhere in the world and quite often hundreds lose their lives, but I don't see people forbidding air travel.

Even when nuclear power is shown to go very badly wrong, it's really not that bad when you put it in perspective and it's very very rare. It's just you hear a lot about it in the uneducated media because of the N-Word, Nuclear.

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?
Nobody has died from Japan's radiation mess, but aren't they still on edge about another explosion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

If you think about it though, they're not really that major.

I hate to phrase it like this but only 50-odd died in Chernobyl directly and no one has died as a result of the Japan mess. Admittedly it does raise cancer rates in regions but it's still nothing that great, it's said to be about 2000 in Chernobyl but about 4000 people die in car accidents in the UK each year. For instance, every few weeks there is a plane crash somewhere in the world and quite often hundreds lose their lives, but I don't see people forbidding air travel.

Even when nuclear power is shown to go very badly wrong, it's really not that bad when you put it in perspective and it's very very rare. It's just you hear a lot about it in the uneducated media because of the N-Word, Nuclear.

---

Completely agree with putting everything into perspective. In my citizenship class we were talking about the London Bombings, my father was, at the time, working in London and was so pissed off about the complete overreaction in that roughly 1.5 million were inconvenienced by the death of roughly 50 people. This is very much the same, even if people are to die, heaven forbid, in Japan in another explosion, this should not hinder the progress of the living in the development of more viable methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?

---

Like what? Wind farms? A wind turbine less than 6 miles away threw solid chunks of ice through people's roofs a few years back. And solar panels are completely useless.

Nuclear power is the way forward and until the uninformed masses grow up they'll just have to be angry and confused.

With the depletion of resources, the high inefficieny of solar panels, and the problem that wind farms stop when the wind stops... yes, we should rely on Nuclear and Tidal power alone IMO.

The only problem with Nuclear power is the insecurities people have where they assume they will blow up at any given moment. It's very sufficient, clear and safe. The only problem is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong, which is very rare anyway. Renewable energy like wind, solar and tidal energy are useless and do not provided as much wind needed to power the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

The only problem with Nuclear power is the insecurities people have where they assume they will blow up at any given moment. It's very sufficient, clear and safe. The only problem is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong, which is very rare anyway. Renewable energy like wind, solar and tidal energy are useless and do not provided as much wind needed to power the country.

---

Yeah but the technology has improved massively, yes it would still be a big problem, but nowhere near as huge as Chernobyl for example.

I just can't see why people have such a skewed perception of nuclear energy and refuse to budge, even with the facts :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

I just can't see why people have such a skewed perception of nuclear energy and refuse to budge, even with the facts :(

---

It may not necessarily be the people's fault - afterall, when something goes wrong you will hear about it, but of course you won't hear when something is working well :P

"Today Bradwell Nuclear Power Station was working as expected" = boring.
"Today, Bradwell Nuclear Power Station exploded, creating a hole into southern Essex that will be named "Bradwell Bay" to commemorate the newest addition to the East Anglian coast line" = Amazing.

Unfortunately, people hear of one incident in a few thousand and assume they're all bad :/

All I hear about nuclear energy is bad things, that's why my view of it is negative.
I obviously don't know the full facts about the issue, myself and others, have only one sided views on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

worst worst worst case scenario.

---

Nope. Literally couldn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

All I hear about nuclear energy is bad things, that's why my view of it is negative.
I obviously don't know the full facts about the issue, myself and others, have only one sided views on this.

---

That's because there's nothing new or interesting to report about nuclear power plants if everything is working properly, seeing as that's the norm. What really gets the media and people ticking is some saga resulting in a nuclear reactor that may blow up etc. I think your view here is caused by media sensationalism.

As you say you don't know the facts (as don't most people). That is why they are easily swayed by the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?
Nobody has died from Japan's radiation mess, but aren't they still on edge about another explosion?

---

Because there arn't any forms of energy which give out such high levels with no CO2 released. This is a major benefit to this form of generating energy as CO2 is the major contributor to greenhouse gases.

In their entire history of operation in the United States, nuclear power plants have been responsible for no deaths.

I think most people are now in agreement which is resassuring, as only a few years ago it was the minority which held this view with the rest of us all fooled into the cult of anthropogenic global warming. I support a nuclear industry not because of carbon and all of that nonsense, but because of energy security. I do not think it wise to rely on the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and other nations for our energy and I doubt anybody here would also think that (see the example of Ukraine). It is interesting to note, that whatever we do - the lights are going to go off thanks to the EU energy policy of which we are bound by (see below) which is impossible to achieve. I know people get rather sick of hearing this and think i'm pinning the blame on the donkey, but sadly its true - these issues are now fundementally linked with our membership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_QB_cyoJxQ

Now as for renewables concerning wind farms, not one single coal or gas fired power plant has closed anywhere in the world so that is a dead end, they do not work. They do not work in low pressure weather systems (cold winter days, hot summer days) and they can only operate in certain temperatures when electricity is needed. Wind turbines need coal and gas power stations to back them up, they are nothing but an expensive waste of money hence why the figures now show that our energy bills are 1/3 higher than they should be thanks to the government (told to do so by the EU) so install these subsidised ugly and useless machines.

Sadly the people in office are people like Mr Kirkhope, so a return to the 1970s huddled around gas hobs and candles looks very likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I think most people are now in agreement which is resassuring, as only a few years ago it was the minority which held this view with the rest of us all fooled into the cult of anthropogenic global warming. I support a nuclear industry not because of carbon and all of that nonsense, but because of energy security. I do not think it wise to rely on the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and other nations for our energy and I doubt anybody here would also think that (see the example of Ukraine). It is interesting to note, that whatever we do - the lights are going to go off thanks to the EU energy policy of which we are bound by (see below) which is impossible to achieve. I know people get rather sick of hearing this and think i'm pinning the blame on the donkey, but sadly its true - these issues are now fundementally linked with our membership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_QB_cyoJxQ

Now as for renewables concerning wind farms, not one single coal or gas fired power plant has closed anywhere in the world so that is a dead end, they do not work. They do not work in low pressure weather systems (cold winter days, hot summer days) and they can only operate in certain temperatures when electricity is needed. Wind turbines need coal and gas power stations to back them up, they are nothing but an expensive waste of money hence why the figures now show that our energy bills are 1/3 higher than they should be thanks to the government (told to do so by the EU) so install these subsidised ugly and useless machines.

Sadly the people in office are people like Mr Kirkhope, so a return to the 1970s huddled around gas hobs and candles looks very likely.

---

Acid rain and rising water pH is a major problem caused by coal plants but I guess that doesn't matter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Technologic

Acid rain and rising water pH is a major problem caused by coal plants but I guess that doesn't matter....

---

I don't believe i'm arguing here for more coal plants so what is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?
Nobody has died from Japan's radiation mess, but aren't they still on edge about another explosion?

---

Please tell me these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I don't believe i'm arguing here for more coal plants so what is your point?

---

I believe his point is that nuclear power doesn't give off any of these making it one of the cleanest energy sources that has the capability to give off so much energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syphon

I believe his point is that nuclear power doesn't give off any of these making it one of the cleanest energy sources that has the capability to give off so much energy.

---

Well no idea why the response was addressed to me because thats exactly what i'm arguing for.

..and besides it's not all that true with coal fired power stations which are fitted with filters (developed nations) although is a problem in developing nations as they usually do not install them.. but thats a matter for them, oil/gas/coal remain the best sources of energy for poorer nations as they can be built in such a short space of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well no idea why the response was addressed to me because thats exactly what i'm arguing for.

..and besides it's not all that true with coal fired power stations which are fitted with filters (developed nations) although is a problem in developing nations as they usually do not install them.. but thats a matter for them, oil/gas/coal remain the best sources of energy for poorer nations as they can be built in such a short space of time.

---

After reading what he said it does look like his claim was supporting your reasoning. People prefer coal, but for some reason they completely ignore the fact that coal causes high pH levels and acid rain, and is incredibly messy. It's how I read it at least, though I can see how it looks like he was against you :)

All the major disasters have come about through human error in some way so i don't think it's the nuclear energy that is the problem the plants have the capability to be safe however I don't think i trust the people running it to be able to do a safe job! Ideally we need to develop the technology to move onto fusion not fission and also to an element which has a shorter half life so the waste material isn't as radioactive for as long which also reduces the risk. So as the state of play is now, no i don't think we should rely on it however with a couple of changes i think it could be a good source of energy as traditional fuels are running out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lxce

All the major disasters have come about through human error in some way so i don't think it's the nuclear energy that is the problem the plants have the capability to be safe however I don't think i trust the people running it to be able to do a safe job! Ideally we need to develop the technology to move onto fusion not fission and also to an element which has a shorter half life so the waste material isn't as radioactive for as long which also reduces the risk. So as the state of play is now, no i don't think we should rely on it however with a couple of changes i think it could be a good source of energy as traditional fuels are running out.

---

What tsunamis are humans fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milestone

What tsunamis are humans fault?

---

Don't build a power plant on a fault line. Simple but it you want an answer no they're not, obviously, however the way it was dealt with afterwards was bordering embarrassing. The melt down warnings have been inconsistent and the radiation readings are unreliable.

I have a solution JUST USE COAL!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeptis

I have a solution JUST USE COAL!!

---

Yes that would be a fantastic idea.

Lets use up all the coal - then we are screwed once more.

Don't get me started on health.

I always feel hesitant to post in the debates section as I feel like I'll be crushed by some of the great minds and highly intelligent people we have on this forum.

I'd just say I support the use of nuclear power because it can provide lots of power efficiently and doesn't add to greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. The fossil fuels being burned at many power stations at the moment won't last forever and they obviously release harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The only thing I'm not sure on is toxic waste?