Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Japan is heavily dependent on the energy source, with 54 plants and eight slated for construction'--I just read this on the CNN site.
What has happened in Japan is an extreme example but it has happened. It happened in Chernobyl and it happened with Three Mile Island. How many minor leaks occur that are never even reported? Is it safe to live near a nuclear power plant?
How is the nuclear waste safely disposed of--or is there any safe way? Is it true that the waste is transported at night and there may be problems with radiation escaping?
It's been controversial for decades, plants were shut down, some that were to be built were stopped. Now the world has gone full speed ahead with nuclear energy--is it a mistake and should we make this road a dead end and figure out some other way to get the power we need?
keep em going. wait till a windmill falls and destroys something. the cause-heads will be against windmills. maybe they could design better locations. but we must have energy.
It's probably unwise to concentrate so many of them in one of the most geologically unstable places on the planet... but honestly, Japan has few other options for power generation on the scale it needs. If they didn't have nuclear energy, they wouldn't be able to remain a 1st world country.
"Japan is heavily dependent on the energy source, with 54 plants and eight slated for construction'--I just read this on the CNN site.
What has happened in Japan is an extreme example but it has happened. It happened in Chernobyl and it happened with Three Mile Island. How many minor leaks occur that are never even reported? Is it safe to live near a nuclear power plant?
How is the nuclear waste safely disposed of--or is there any safe way? Is it true that the waste is transported at night and there may be problems with radiation escaping?
It's been controversial for decades, plants were shut down, some that were to be built were stopped. Now the world has gone full speed ahead with nuclear energy--is it a mistake and should we make this road a dead end and figure out some other way to get the power we need?
1. There wasn't a meltdown.
2. Chernobyl was a Russian design and not nearly as safe and the 3-mile island plant was also a design from 50 years ago or so.
Frankly, until something better comes along it's either this or lots more CO2 so it's currently IMO the lesser of 2 evils. Hopefully we can move on from them in the coming decades.
"Japan is heavily dependent on the energy source, with 54 plants and eight slated for construction'--I just read this on the CNN site.
What has happened in Japan is an extreme example but it has happened. It happened in Chernobyl and it happened with Three Mile Island. How many minor leaks occur that are never even reported? Is it safe to live near a nuclear power plant?
How is the nuclear waste safely disposed of--or is there any safe way? Is it true that the waste is transported at night and there may be problems with radiation escaping?
It's been controversial for decades, plants were shut down, some that were to be built were stopped. Now the world has gone full speed ahead with nuclear energy--is it a mistake and should we make this road a dead end and figure out some other way to get the power we need?
You mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
As far as I know there was a big difference in those events. As I understand and have read we made ours with as many safety issue in mind so when we had our problem there was very minimal damage to the environment around whereas the Chernobyl areas is still much ruined. Japan is also a nation that does have and follow much better safety precautions like the U.S.
Also, let us compare the Japan incident. How many car batteries acids, lead, etc. were all basically mixed with all the water Tsunami? Also, how many other countless chemicals ended up out in the environment and mixed with all the water. Now, what is that environment damage done by those two areas as compared to the damage so far from the Japan plant?
Also, what is the percentage of damage from power plants as compared to so many other environmental damage?
We need to make sure we do not jump into hysteria. We need to look closely and see what is the damage and at the same time whether we just need other precautions we can take. We cannot elimininate damage 100%. We can try to reduce it a much as possible. We need to see what risks we are willing to take that are worth having that techonology for the benefit of a society without affecting his national interest greatly, take care.
Sure, knee-jerk reactions and hysteria are uncalled for.
However, there are alternatives. Wind, water (including tidal), solar, geothermal etc are far from being developed and used to their full potential. In the 50s and 60s there was massive government spending on nuclear research and development. At the time we thought that we could control all risks through technological advances. Had similar amounts of money been spent earleir on developing alternative energies, we would be in a much better position now. True, we cannot turn the clock back but we must learn from the past and change our thinking for the future.
I work in a safety critical industry (aviation) where we try and plan for the worst through redundant system design and training. A single failure or error will not usually lead to catastrophe but if all the wholes line up (the swiss cheese model) there will be a catastrophe somewhere at some point in time All we can do in all safety critical industries is to try and manage and mitigate those risks. However, this will not always work.
It is not a question of "if" a major nuclear accident will occur but when and where.
We must also keep in mind that this is a business and as such there will never be the highest possible safety level but only a "reasonable" safety level.
What we can do now: Reduce our need for energy by being smarter about our energy usage. The amount of kilowatthours used for heating and cooling homes that could be much better insulated is one example. More efficient appliances another. Sure, a side-by side American fridge will always use more energy than a model typically used in Europe for example. Cooling a 3000sqft home will cost a lot more than cooling a house half the size.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and we all know it. Yet, we tend to ignore that fact.
If we really want to reduce our energy use and increase renewable energy it can be done. Germany will be doing away with all nuclear powerplants within the next couple of decades or so. By that time it is estimated that we will be able to cover most of our energy needs using renewable energy.
It's funny how people only become concerned about such things when they have a direct affect on their finances. Same with fuel. People have such short memories, it's amazing. Having said that, there is a lot of money to be made by being the leader in this field of alternative energies. America should realise that and invest accordigly.
We should also ask ourselvees in what kind of world we want our children and grandchildren to live. To me, ideally that would be in a world where we don't need to burn coal, gas and oil and don't need nuclear power plants, either.
I firmly believe that this can be achieved within one generation if the society demands it and enough money is spend on alternative technologies.
America (just like any other leading nation) is a great country that can be very innovative but it should put this advantage to good use for its future and that of the world.
Fact is: There is no such thing as a 100% safe nuclear powerplant. And a major accident will not just affect the local area but very likely millions of people.
Yep ;we always are reactive like always and those with a agnda not for the bettermjent will always take advantage of it to their enrichment.I really see no choice that will not leave america at a severe disadvantage in the competitive world other than oiol for the present and better use of coal and nuclear.All the pir i theskyforms will just mean we lose out competitively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
