Why not just nuke the plant?  A small, tactical nuke would probably be less hassle in the long run. 

Quote from: Eagle on March 20, 2011, 18:13:08 PM
Why not just nuke the plant?  A small, tactical nuke would probably be less hassle in the long run. 

They have power and the things to keep things cool are working so it is looking good now. Things look to be sorted.

But I say do not build any more of them spend the money on developing Fusion plant, preferably cold fusion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

Quote from: bear on March 23, 2011, 06:38:13 AM
But I say do not build any more of them spend the money on developing Fusion plant, preferably cold fusion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

If you want nuclear fusion then you're going to have to put up with fission stations for a while yet. Nothing to do with the science but for political and economical reasons, do you honestly believe that if you stop building fission plants right now that the public would allow the building of fusion power stations in the future? The second you tag the word "nuclear" onto anything it becomes mud and the media would create such a furore that the idea would be laughed out of parliament. If you stop building nuclear plants now and we have a gap before the first fusion plants come on-line then you will never see them; they simply won't be allowed. The discontinuation of nuclear power now will be heralded as a triumph by every "green" and "eco" minded person out there and the media will jump onto this bandwagon. The second people start talking about building fusion plants these arguments will be dusted off and used again. It would be political suicide for any party in power to even consider signing on the dotted line against the weight of so much public opinion so it would simply never happen.

You need more modern fission plants so we can gradually transition into fusion power in the future. Politically this is the only way it will ever happen. Common sense has to be considered secondary to public opinion and political will in these situations unfortunately.

fusion is all very well and should be investigated to the fullest extent possible, but we're not going to see economically viable fusion power stations for at least 20 or 30 years yet, by which point we'll have a serious power shortage which renewables alone are not going to fill.

If we don't build more Nuclear stations, we will have to build fossil fuels instead to plug the gap.

Indeed, fusion has been under development for how long now? and they still cant get a sustained reaction!

they're moving towards burning plasma states, I believe they will get there but the current timescale is ~2020 for ITER and 2033 for DEMO (which will be the first comercial scale fusion electricity generator). Bear in mind they haven't even designed DEMO yet because they can't until they know how well ITER works, I'll be surprised if it's even under construction by 2040. I hope I'll live to see a fusion plant running, but I'd bet against seeing it before I see my first pension cheque.

An interesting article from a Guardian writer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Fission plants makes sh*tloads of money as long as a lot of money is made the will to do something else is very low sometimes things have to be forced  to happen. It is all about money that is the problem in my mind. Also people need to learn to use less energy , there is so much stuff turned on that is not needed we can do with the plants we have if we stop being so gadget crazy. If the enormous profits made on selling power were used for science and research instead of lining the pockets of the already crazy rich corps we would have fusion and other good power sources much faster building more nukes delays rather than speed up. It is the same with oil powering cars, sh*tloads of money is made and even used to twart competing invention just to be able to continue to make sh*tloads of money.
Political and economic reasons yes but I believe that is wrong, won't change because the want to stay in power is
or the want to make sh*tloads of money is just beneficial for a few.

http://pesn.com/2011/01/27/9501752_Italian_cold_fusion_saga_continues_with_new_papers_released/

http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

it's not a question of fission stations speeding up or slowing down the development of fusion, it's about what we use to power our countries until fusion is ready to take over.

Even assuming we somehow managed to figure out tomorrow morning how to make a fusion power station, it would take years to build the first one and no-one is going to start building a second until they know the first one works.

Fusion on any scale (ie multiple plants generating multiple GW in multiple countries) might happen by the mid 21st century but we're going to have big energy shortages long before then if we build nothing.

There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.

Im sure like many households here in britain im burning my money by using more power than i need, hell I boil a kettle non stop because I can. Get real mate we have all cut as much as we can without ruining our quality of life.

EDIT: the population is continuing to increase, dwellings are being built non stop. the demand for electricity is going only one way.. UP!

Quote from: bear on March 23, 2011, 16:29:49 PM
There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.

and just going down the Wikipedia list of power stations in the UK and adding up the capacities scheduled to close soon, by the end of 2015 this country will have lost 16074MW of generating capacity.

Of course educating people about being energy conscious is worthwhile, but you're not going to cover the reductions in capacity over the next few years without building something. 

Quote from: bear on March 23, 2011, 16:29:49 PM
There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.

And what difference will that 540W make to anything? Your local power station willstill be running at the same capacity, electricity cant be stored so if what is generated is not used it is wasted.

Powerstations waste 10000,s of Watts everyday by running huge motors and discharging/recharging capcitors that are not connected to anything just to keep the load balanced.

People that say switching off at the plug and fitting low energy lamps makes any difference doesn't have a clue how the system works.