Why is the developed world turning away from Nuclear Energy?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by busydude, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. StrangerGuy

    StrangerGuy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because people are comfortable to do everyday things that kill themselves slowly and predictably by the millions instead of images of glowing green mushroom clouds in their heads.
     
  2. unokitty

    unokitty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. dud

    dud Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Messages:
    7,161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Experience?
     
  4. Joepublic2

    Joepublic2 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    5
    And? I see scary bright colors with no explanation of what they actually are. If you want to talk about ruining the ocean coal has dumped so much mercury into the ocean that it's not safe for pregnant women or young children to eat predatory salt water fish on a regular basis anymore.
     
  5. rcpratt

    rcpratt Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    10,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NRC approved SCANA's V.C. Summer combined license application for two AP1000 units in South Carolina today.
     
  6. bradley

    bradley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,664
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bright colors are radioactive leakage, pretty self-explanatory. ASR Limited is a very credible company who has been tracking Fukushima floating debris and leaking radioactive seawater from the beginning.

    Of course, the eventual official admission was begat by years of ASR Limited's research.

    Fukushima Plant is Leaking Radioactive Water Into the Sea
    July 23, 2013 2:30 PM
    http://www.dailytech.com/Fukushima+Plant+is+Leaking+Radioactive+Water+Into+the+Sea/article32026.htm
     
  7. Agent11

    Agent11 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    1
    Fukushima was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission and that did not follow industry best practices, it should hardly be used to judge all nuclear.

    There are many types of reactor, not all are equal and many designs are much safer inherently than the light water design of Fukushima.
     
  8. blankslate

    blankslate Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    Because the spent fuel for the Uranium reactors is a PITA to store safely.... compared to the proposed Thorium reactors. Spent thorium would be easier to store...

    However, the nuclear arms races pretty much guaranteed that Uranium reactors would be used instead of thorium reactors.

    There is an experimental thorium reactor which is beginning a trial run.

    If that test goes well then Nuclear energy with a safer fuel could be an alternative to the current reactors.

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rovide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy

    Hopefully the test goes well.
     
  9. Patranus

    Patranus Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    9,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    All started in the US via the fear mongering by the progressives circa 1979.
    Ironically they would rather destroy the environment with solar, wind, and hydroelectric.
     
  10. JimmiG

    JimmiG Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    This. Compared to all the other ways we ruin our planet, nuclear accidents barely register.

    I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal plant.
     
    #160 JimmiG, Jul 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013
  11. Raghu

    Raghu Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    1
  12. Acanthus

    Acanthus Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are suggesting that nuclear is dirtier than fossil fuels?

    Of the high density solutions, nuclear is by far the safest and cleanest.

    Coal: Spews carcinogens and ironically radiation directly into the atmosphere, creates many tons of CO2.
    Oil: Expensive, spews carcinogens directly into the atmosphere, creates many tons of CO2.
    Hydro: Out of places to put new dams, dams destroy square miles of land.

    Wind: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.
    Solar: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.
    Tidal: Expensive, Low density, not continuous.

    Geothermal: Great where you can install it.

    Fusion: Maybe in 50 years.
     
  13. StrangerGuy

    StrangerGuy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't bother arguing with logic anymore it doesn't work with the puny, paranoid minds. I have worked with chemists that won't even dare to drink their own tap water they themselves tested as safe. What chance would the masses have then?
     
  14. Acanthus

    Acanthus Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trace amounts are not destructive.

    We have gotten very good at detecting very minute levels of radiation.
     
  15. alkemyst

    alkemyst No Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Messages:
    83,988
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO oil dependency is another way of wealth redistribution. They don't want alternatives.
     
  16. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    I actually do live next to a nuclear power plant. And you really don't get it.

    When you live as close as I do you get to hear all the stuff that goes on at the plant. The stuff is pretty shocking. Nuclear plants are constantly breaking down. Management appears to be incompetent and lie about everything.

    Oh, has nuclear waste been released? We can't imagine how that happened! What do you mean leaky pipes? We don't even have any pipes! Oh, you mean those pipes? Ok, we leaked a little but its all fixed. Oh, there's more leaks? But we don't have any more pipes! Well, yeah, we just found out we have more pipes.

    The above is an actual incident that occurred down the road from me at a nuclear power plant.
     
  17. disappoint

    disappoint Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    LOL I've heard that one before. Chernobyl was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission! They make much safer plants now!

    Until something goes wrong with another plant. 3 mile island was an outdated plant that used an outdated form of fission! They make much safer plants now!

    ALL plants are outdated after a certain number of years! Because progress!
     
  18. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, the problem was not with the plant but with the company running it not following procedures, etc.

    Well, you can count on the companies running nuke plants to cut every corner they can to save money and put profits into their shareholders hands.

    That's my basic problem with nuke plants. Profit making corporations plus governments that are controlled by corporate interests are what make nuke plants dangerous.
     
  19. Ventanni

    Ventanni Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is that problem solvable though? (lol can you solve stupidity?) What was France's track record with their nuclear plants? I know they had an issue with oversupply of electricity, but was it cost effective for their citizens? The reason I ask is because what you describe is just people doing what people do. People push boundaries until they're held accountable to do the right thing. It just so happens to be that in this case, those pushing of boundaries can cause tremendous damage to the immediate area.
     
  20. JimmiG

    JimmiG Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nuclear power plants evolve like everything else. Most of the stuff we used 50 years ago - engines, pesticides, medicine, plastics etc. are considered dangerous, outdated, unreliable etc. today. Huge advances have been made in safety and efficiency of nuclear reactors, but unfortunately the public resistance is causing everyone to hold back on spending and keep running the old plants for as long as they can.

    Chernobyl is an outliner though. It was basically a nuclear ammunition factory that also happened to produce some electricity.
     
  21. Paratus

    Paratus Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,189
    Likes Received:
    75
    Good points. Coal and oil plants don't suffer from any of those problems.....,
     
  22. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, there is no difference between an accident at a nuclear power plant and an accident at a coal or oil power plant.

    Except maybe for the millions dead and an area the size of New Jersey made uninhabitable.

    Aside from that, exactly the same thing.:eek:
     
  23. NikolaeVarius

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,011
    Likes Received:
    1
    Millions have never died from a nuclear power plant.

    As for "uninhabitable"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood

    Awesome.
     
  24. BladeVenom

    BladeVenom Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,541
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's cost effective, compare them to other Western European countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
     
  25. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    IIRC Frances reactors are privately owned but run under government rules where profits are set by the government. No incentive to cheap out for the company to make more money.