Nature Is nuclear the best source of energy?

nick6899

Banned
Messages
64
Reaction score
1
Points
8
do you think the nuclear energy should be used by every state, or is it better optate for other like the renewables?
 
Nuclear energy has its pros and cons, but it has the two great merits of being nearly carbon neutral and cheap. What's more new generations (III+ and IV) of reactors are much safer than old reactors like Chernobyl (I and II).

1280px-GenIVRoadmap-en.svg.png


Bill Gates and Kurzgesagt have both argued in favour of nuclear. I am particularly dismayed at Germany's decision to close its nuclear plants to replace them by dirty coal plants.

 
I knew engineers that worked at ABB, (was Westinghouse / Combustion Engineering), … very conscious of the impact of their work, they’re smarter than average for sure… lots of structural and mechanical engineering variables involved, their math is strong and so is their structure.
 
I just re-watched the renowned series "Chernobyl", so I'd say no.
 
I just re-watched the renowned series "Chernobyl", so I'd say no.

I've seen it once, years ago. And I learned the movie twisted some facts, allthough I don't remember the details any more.
But didn't they break the rules in order to do some experiments?
And after the accident they didn't do dammage controll either for a while. Denial was more important untill it wasn't possible any more.

I can't imagine a similar accident and folowing events happening here in western Europe as it happened there and then.
 
I've seen it once, years ago. And I learned the movie twisted some facts, allthough I don't remember the details any more.
But didn't they break the rules in order to do some experiments?
And after the accident they didn't do dammage controll either for a while. Denial was more important untill it wasn't possible any more.

I can't imagine a similar accident and folowing events happening here in western Europe as it happened there and then.

To be honest if it can happen in Japan, Western Europe would surprise me much less. Sometimes no mistakes are required for things to go wrong, freak accidents happen, force of nature is a thing.

Nonetheless I am pro nuclear energy, as I do not see any other way to reach our climate goals... But at this point it might be too little too late.
 
To be honest if it can happen in Japan, Western Europe would surprise me much less. Sometimes no mistakes are required for things to go wrong, freak accidents happen, force of nature is a thing.

Nonetheless I am pro nuclear energy, as I do not see any other way to reach our climate goals... But at this point it might be too little too late.

what happened in Japan was an exceptional natural diseaster - 14.000 drowned because of the Tsunami
these Japanese coastlines are prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, but they had never experienced a Tsunami of that magnitude
still, I don't think it was wise to build a nuclear plant in that area
I don't know of any nuclear plants in western Europe being built in such risky zones

anyway, in Germany it was sold as a nuclear diseaster and not a tsunami, blaming all the victims on the nuclear
they seized the momentum to opt out of the nuclear, but I don't think it was a wise decision
as you point out, if you want to reach climate goals, there are no realistic alternatives
Germany is now burning coal again, and small villages are being destroyed for exploitation of the coalpits
 
I've seen it once, years ago. And I learned the movie twisted some facts, allthough I don't remember the details any more.
But didn't they break the rules in order to do some experiments?
And after the accident they didn't do dammage controll either for a while. Denial was more important untill it wasn't possible any more.

I can't imagine a similar accident and folowing events happening here in western Europe as it happened there and then.

Some of the characters were consolidated and conversations were "imagined", but I have it on good authority that the facts of the actual disaster were accurately portrayed.

The pressure was on them to perform a "safety" check so instead of waiting for the experienced day crew they went ahead with inexperienced line engineers who had never done it before, and the supervising engineer was an idiot and party hack who pushed the reactor beyond what it could withstand so that he would look good for getting it done on time.

However, if not for a design flaw involving graphite tips, a design flaw which some of the leading engineers and the party bureaucracy had hidden, it probably would never have happened.

Yes, they denied what was going on, but that was after the catastrophe had taken place, and the people who died were the poor souls who went in without protective gear because the "responsible" people, including the scientists, didn't want to admit what had happened, and didn't evacuate people early enough. Everyone should watch it. Very sobering stuff.

Japan is not Russia and that was another narrow miss.

Plus, there are some places where they should never be built, Italy and Greece and Turkey among them, anywhere in California as another example; way too many faults and too much seismic activity. Neither should they be anywhere near huge population centers which can't be easily evacuated.

I live on Long Island where the only way off is through one tunnel and a couple of bridges. We had a nuclear power plant here and the opposition was so fierce they shut it down at great cost to the local power company and ultimately to us, the consumers. I remember that my brother, an engineer who worked on nuclear reactors, told me to just suck it up because they had reached the only sensible decision. Since there was no way we could have gotten off the island in time if it blew, our only option would have been to drive toward it and make it quick.

So, no, I don't want to live anywhere near one. I also would never buy a house near high tension wires, and since once you get out of N.Y.C. on the island you're drinking ground water, and it all used to be potato fields sprayed with DDT, I drink and cook with completely filtered water. It may be tasteless, but it's safe. My brother again, whom I go to for all such questions, told me that as an assistant to a professor at MIT he helped with a study showing there was a perfect inverse correlation in the U.S. between the purity of the drinking water and cancer rates. New Orleans, surrounded by petrochemical plants, was number 1 for cancer death rates. N.Y.C. drinking water from upstate reservoirs, was the best of the big cities.

After certain elections I've fantasized moving out to Montana or Wyoming or Idaho somewhere but that's probably where they'll build the damn reactors and dump the waste. Plus, all the Cali Woke idiots are moving there in droves. Don't think I could handle Texas, though; too damn hot and humid, and too damn flat and ugly.

All the big Wall Street money has been buying in New Zealand for the last 15 years or so; something about prevailing winds from the northern hemisphere getting there late if not at all. It's not within my reach, so I haven't really investigated it.
 
Nuclear energy has its pros and cons, but it has the two great merits of being nearly carbon neutral and cheap. What's more new generations (III+ and IV) of reactors are much safer than old reactors like Chernobyl (I and II).

1280px-GenIVRoadmap-en.svg.png


Bill Gates and Kurzgesagt have both argued in favour of nuclear. I am particularly dismayed at Germany's decision to close its nuclear plants to replace them by dirty coal plants.


I agree with you Maciamo. Especially next generation nuclear energy has a great future. Wind and sun are in pretty dense populated NW Europe imo not a solution. Coal plants are dirty and coal is a sneaky killer (every year many mine workers). Gas gives earthquakes in my region and dependance from Russia.

Series like "Chernobyl" spoil the thing, that reactor would not have been used in the same design here in the first place....
 
Last edited:
There is a way to make nuclear energy extremely safe but we will have to change the way we design the plants. Right now, every nuclear plant is a custom job. We have to standardize the sizes. People have proposed that we agree on a size standard, eg 250MW or 100 MW. So if you want to have a 500 MW plant you buy an off the shelf 2x250MW plants, standardized down to the pipe lengths. No more 667MW plants, 702MW plants, etc. Nuclear engineers envision putting them together like legos.
 
I think each source of energy has pros and cons for people, economy, nature.
I don't have enough knowledge to say something, but can say that nuclear source of energy is dangerous, that I know for sure
 

This thread has been viewed 3188 times.

Back
Top