Whats the problem with nuclear power?
As the thread title says "Whats the problem with nuclear power?", there seems to be plenty of people especially those in the green party that don't like it, from my point of view it seems to be more down to 'religious' reasons than fact, does anyone have strong feelings either way here.Further can someone give a credible reason why we shouldn't be either going strongly nuclear or at least keep it as a vital part of the energy mix? The main perceived problem with nuclear power, as far as I know, is what to do with the spent fuel at the end of a station's working life, as it stays radioactive for, I believe, thousands of years.
Having said that, I personally think, as I believe so too do you, that at least some of our power should be generated this way.They are talking about 20% of our power requirements coming from wind turbines but, my question is, what do we do on a freezing cold day in the middle of winter when there is no wind blowing, where does our power come from then?
Cheers,
Martin. Would you live near a nuclear power station? Yes, statisticaly the safest form of power generation, would you travel by aeroplane? Yes areoplane, no nuclear Can I ask why, just general fear or is there a rational reason?
Would you rather live near Coal/Gas power staitions, what about geothermal or a huge Dam that generates electricity?
I think most if they had and option would live as far away from land fills, quarries, mines, (waste) incinerators, recycling plants and numerous other essential requirements to modern society.Of all of those I think I'd rather live near and in all honestly, a nuclear power plant. Not any more than I would want to live beside a Coal Fired Power Station, an Oil Fired Power Station or a Wind Farm for that matter.But, that's not really the point, as they can be built away from towns, villages, etc.Look at France, they have built a lot of nuclear power stations and have no fear of power cuts in the coming years - the same cannot be said of the UK.
Cheers,
Martin. It's probably what most people think, a lot of fear
Chernobyl did not help Barring sudden and unforeseeable breakthroughs in other forms of energy (only fusion fits that bill, though), in the medium-to-long term there is simply no alternative to fission nuclear power.
Even global warming apart, there is no chance that (a) renewables will be able to meet the growth needs; and (b) the oil will last for much longer. The only long-term viable energy source is electricity, and the only long-term viable source of electricity is nuclear.
We need fossil and/or bio-hydrocarbons for two purposes for which electricity itself is not suitable:
Aviation, although electrically-sourced hydrogen might prove workable;Chemicals, especially plastics, and pharmaceuticalsIt is criminally wasteful to burn hydrocarbons for heat energy when they should be preserved for these two purposes. Even Jonathan Porritt, the environmental campaigner, has said this. We have hundreds of years of coal reserves we can always use.