Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?

**Yomanze** · 11-12-2017, 20:03

Between solar, wind and tidal we now have the technology to make it happen, problem is big oil lobbying will not want that to happen. As for nuclear I am all for fusion, and see fission as a dangerous thing to handle, to dangerous for mankind obviously as multiple disasters have already happened.

**Ali Tait** · 11-12-2017, 20:07

No we don't. When you factor in the power required to run the world's vehicles when the oil runs out, renewables can only provide a fraction of what is required. Check the figures.

**struth** · 11-12-2017, 20:13

Hydro is one of the better clean ones but it's costly and disruptive to land and ecosystems. Nuclear really has to have its place like it or not

**bobvfr** · 11-12-2017, 20:23

Originally Posted by jandl100

The elephant in this particular room that hasn't been mentioned is population growth.
There are simply more of us than the planet can sustain. In terms of food production and energy needs etc.
I can't properly recall, and I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment!, but I think a sustainable population for our little blue dot is about 2 billion.
We are currently heading for 10.

We either limit ourselves and stop behaving like demented rabbits or "Nature" will do it for us.

Spot on, there are no shortages of raw materials, just far too many people wanting them.

**walpurgis** · 11-12-2017, 20:27

I wouldn't worry too much.

The world and humanity are overdue for a major cataclysm which could massively reduce or even eliminate the population. No doubt there will be one sooner or later and the need for energy resources will become very secondary.

Worldwide war? A global viral pandemic, maybe a super contagious VHF? That would do the job. Asteroid strike? Super-eruption? Giant solar flare? Magnetic pole reversal? Take your pick!

**Ali Tait** · 11-12-2017, 21:05

Always looking on the bright side Geoff. :-)

**walpurgis** · 11-12-2017, 21:14

Originally Posted by Ali Tait

Always looking on the bright side Geoff. :-)

Yup. Can't have folk being unduly optimistic!

**Ali Tait** · 11-12-2017, 23:04

LOL

**Minstrel SE** · 11-12-2017, 23:08

Yeah dont build one near me but its how easily the radiation spreads

What was interesting is that they could work surprisingly close to the reactor where one Gamma ray might pass through you but not right on/beside the reactor ruins where loads of Gamma rays would pass through giving a large radiation dose. It is quite scary and I understand radiation sickness more as it destroys the cells ability to function especially if ingested.

These rays need 94cm? of lead as a barrier so there is little protection at the moment against 200 tonnes of decaying fuel rods. That dome is real Human achievement but its costing billions.

I just dont think it should be messed with. Those Russian reactors were not good enough. I dont know if it can ever be considered foolproof.

Im interested in how the fallout affects the land as it was killing large areas of trees. They photographed plenty of wildlife but there must have been serious consequences for all plant and animal cells exposed to the radiation

**Minstrel SE** · 11-12-2017, 23:19

Originally Posted by jandl100

Acceptable risk.

I feel sure that far more people have died as a result of the coal mining industry than nuclear power.
Why is that more acceptable?

Yes that is a fair point in any debate about this. We would need to see all the graphs and pie charts but energy generation is expensive and mining coal could be dangerous

Thread: Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?

Thread Tools

Display

Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?

Posting Permissions