I couldnt believe it when i saw some news saying that this was proving nuclear power was unsafe.. i mean.. wtf? 2 massive disasters both on a scale never recorded before, id say it was safer than we could have imagined, that plant running here in england would have had no issues at all in its life.

One can build safe nuke plants but, mining uranium ore is not yet safe and to store used fuel has not yet any good solution i.e. copper will corrode after about 1000 years and that is not enough.

Quote from: Serious on March 17, 2011, 00:32:14 AM
I thought these nuclear power stations were supposed to be 110% safe? They said the cooling rods drop in and that's it, full shut down.

Think some scientists have been talking a load of bull over the years.

the public are treated like mushrooms.. kept in the dark & fed sh*t

Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.

Quote from: bear on March 17, 2011, 12:22:07 PM

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.

Alternative is black out/brown out or burning through what little fossil fuel remains..

Quote from: bear on March 17, 2011, 12:22:07 PM

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.

Building more new nukes with new technology will also make them safer and cleaner. If we shut them away and forget about them we'll never see any development of what is an important technology that could have tremendous benefits for the future.

Quote
1111: The BBC's Tim Wilcox, in Tokyo, says that some people in the city are capitalising on the crisis. He spoke to one UK-born banker who lives in the city who said he was being quoted £1,500 ($2,400) to buy his own geiger counter.

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:23:51 PM

Quote from: bear on March 17, 2011, 12:22:07 PM

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.

Alternative is black out/brown out or burning through what little fossil fuel remains..

I think we all need to help out by using less energy in our homes, I am changing my bulbs to LED ones, one can improve insulation in ones house to lower energy used for heating and use timers etc. so lights etc. is not on when not needed. If everyone were careful with there own energy use where would be no need for more nukes.

It's bad but nuclear energy is kinda needed for the time being. It's not a light decision to make either. I find the nuclear legacy we'll leave behind fascinating though and recommend people who are interested read into the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), and the "Message for the future" which basically is all the planning going into trying to ensure that there are warnings that are understandable to mankind that will remain for 10000+ years on top of the nuclear waste sites...

The story of Yucca Mountain is worth reading if you're interested in the future of nuclear waste disposal

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

Quote from: bear on March 17, 2011, 12:22:07 PM

Quote from: Binary Shadow on March 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.

Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.

Not true bear.
New Zealand is run mostly by renewable power plants 0 hydro mainly. Other countries too.
LOTS of technology progression on these things. Problem is it is all to expensive and companies do not adopt them. Business decisions and money and legal crap is what stopping it kicking off properly.

Other standard plants exploded and went nuts and were destroyed in the earthquake and the NP is still standing (just) and was hit worse.
Like I said, still dam good going, like Binary Shadow said.

should go back to good old fashion coal.
The UK is built upon some of the best coal in the world.

Windfarms dont  work. Powerstations still need to be kept on for when theres no wind - or even a change in direction.
There is also a huge hidden tax we are paying because the goverment subsidised these farms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8028328/Britains-offshore-windpower-costs-twice-as-much-as-coal-and-gas-generated-electricity.html

France is seeing the benefit of Nuclear power I beleive.

Their nuclear stations generate more than they need and sell the rest for a fotune, alot of it to us.

Quote from: DEViANCE on March 17, 2011, 19:13:11 PM
France is seeing the benefit of Nuclear power I beleive.

Their nuclear stations generate more than they need and sell the rest for a fotune, alot of it to us.

thats because we have wind farms, that dont produce enough electricity, have not replaced our old power stations
and instead buy from france.