Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe...

crimsonaudio · Mar 14, 2019

“By now close to one million people have died of causes linked to the Chernobyl disaster,” wrote Helen Caldicott, an Australian medical doctor, in The New York Times. Fukushima could “far exceed Chernobyl in terms of the effects on public health.”

Many pro-nuclear people came to believe that the accident was proof that the dominant form of nuclear reactor, which is cooled by water, is fatally flawed. They called for radically different kinds of reactors to make the technology “inherently safe.”

But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.

In other words, the main lesson that should be drawn from the worst nuclear accidents is that nuclear energy has always been inherently safe.

It Sounds Crazy, But Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe

Bamaro · Mar 14, 2019

Properly designed and implemented, nuclear fission used for electricity generation is very safe except for the waste issue.

Jon · Mar 15, 2019

Bamaro said:
Properly designed and implemented, nuclear fission used for electricity generation is very safe except for the waste issue.

and there is the entire problem. There is simply no good way to get rid of the waste, nor does there appear to be any solutions on the horizon

CharminTide · Mar 15, 2019

Jon said:
and there is the entire problem. There is simply no good way to get rid of the waste, nor does there appear to be any solutions on the horizon

Yup. Just to be clear, this is the reason people oppose fission as a true energy solution. The process is fine, but the waste it produces is not.

That being said, I cannot see a feasible transition away from coal that doesn't involve nuclear energy at the moment. So I choose to see it as a necessary stop-gap measure rather than a long-term solution.

twofbyc · Mar 15, 2019

Jon said:
and there is the entire problem. There is simply no good way to get rid of the waste, nor does there appear to be any solutions on the horizon

And that is a problem that NO ONE who supports nuclear energy will properly address; there simply is no viable solution.
Like what do we do with our trash now that China and other third world countries won’t take it? No viable alternative. But that’s OK, because it’s too expensive to come up with one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio · Mar 15, 2019

Jon said:
and there is the entire problem. There is simply no good way to get rid of the waste, nor does there appear to be any solutions on the horizon

There have been rumors swirling for the last couple of years that the Chinese are either on the verge of (or have finished perfecting) molten salt reactors.

BamaInMo1 · Mar 15, 2019

I'll address the issue of nuclear waste.
There's no good solution.
I'm all for green energy as long as it is efficient and cost effective.
I would also agree that we as a country and the world in general need to get away from coal and stuff like that. No arguement from me there.
My question (serious question because I do not know) is that with all of the technology we have (we've sent people to the moon and used spacecraft like the space shuttle and such) we can't produce affordable green energy? Why is that?

Bamaro · Mar 16, 2019

BamaInMo1 said:
I'll address the issue of nuclear waste.
There's no good solution.
I'm all for green energy as long as it is efficient and cost effective.
I would also agree that we as a country and the world in general need to get away from coal and stuff like that. No arguement from me there.
My question (serious question because I do not know) is that with all of the technology we have (we've sent people to the moon and used spacecraft like the space shuttle and such) we can't produce affordable green energy? Why is that?

Fusion is the ultimate answer if we can ever figure out a way to do it.

Tidewater · Apr 16, 2023

I guess this belongs here as well as any other place.
Germany shuts all of its nuclear plants – and is warned it will regret it
If any nation on Earth can run nuclear power plants without mishap, it has to be the Germans. Heck, the French do a good job at running theirs.
I believe the net effect will be to increase reliance on oil and gas, at least in the short term.

TexasBama · Apr 16, 2023

Tidewater said:
I guess this belongs here as well as any other place.
Germany shuts all of its nuclear plants – and is warned it will regret it
If any nation on Earth can run nuclear power plants without mishap, it has to be the Germans. Heck, the French do a good job at running theirs.
I believe the net effect will be to increase reliance on oil and gas, at least in the short term.

France gets seventy percent of their power production from nuclear.
yes, they will regret it.

Bamaro · Apr 16, 2023

Germany is being foolish. Until there are better options (all current options have a down side), nuclear fission remains an option to be used to mitigate climate change, which must be done.

CrimsonJazz · Apr 16, 2023

Tidewater said:
I guess this belongs here as well as any other place.
Germany shuts all of its nuclear plants – and is warned it will regret it
If any nation on Earth can run nuclear power plants without mishap, it has to be the Germans. Heck, the French do a good job at running theirs.
I believe the net effect will be to increase reliance on oil and gas, at least in the short term.

That's exactly what will happen. Doesn't the U.S. sell a lot of LNG to the Germans?

crimsonaudio · Apr 16, 2023

Tidewater said:
I guess this belongs here as well as any other place.
Germany shuts all of its nuclear plants – and is warned it will regret it
If any nation on Earth can run nuclear power plants without mishap, it has to be the Germans. Heck, the French do a good job at running theirs.
I believe the net effect will be to increase reliance on oil and gas, at least in the short term.

Mind-boggling.

Tidewater · Apr 16, 2023

CrimsonJazz said:
That's exactly what will happen. Doesn't the U.S. sell a lot of LNG to the Germans?

I believe US companies want to sell to Germany, but LNG is more expensive than "normal" natural gas.

TexasBama · Apr 16, 2023

CrimsonJazz said:
That's exactly what will happen. Doesn't the U.S. sell a lot of LNG to the Germans?

about 65% of US LNG exports go to Europe.

TexasBama · Apr 16, 2023

On the nuclear energy generation topic, France re-processes their spent nuke fuel. We don't.

UAH · Apr 16, 2023

TexasBama said:
On the nuclear energy generation topic, France re-processes their spent nuke fuel. We don't.

Is a breeder reactor required for that?

TexasBama · Apr 16, 2023

UAH said:
Is a breeder reactor required for that?

Breeder reactors are a type of reactor that converts Uranium 238 into U 235, and/or Thorium 232 into U233. U233 & U235 are fissle and are what creates energy.

The nuclear waste is reprocessed using liquid extraction, a similar process to how water is demineralized. The 'good' parts recovered are used again in nuclear fuel.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe...

Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

Administrator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!