• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

There is still the risk of a nuclear chain reaction starting in the damaged 250 tons of radioactive material sitting in the reactor 4 pond. We have to hope this won't happen, as it will be very dirty if it does.
 
Christian Klippel said:
BTW, it is interesting to see that the anti-nuke people here have as main reasons, beyond a few others, that nukes are so expensive to build and operate, that waste storage is a huge problem and very expensive, and that decomissioning is very expensive as well. And that the people have to pay for all that either by taxes, subsidies, etc.

<snip>
Click to expand...

DC said:
Do you have data how the frensh finance their nuclear industry?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "finance"?
They are operated by EDF, which is still a national company, although a small part of the capital has now been privatized (84% still belongs to the state).
Areva, which is a company specialized in nuclear technology, is also state owned.
However both companies are very active and agressive on the international market. Areva has healthy profits, EDF is not too bad.

Building the nuclear plants was an huge public investment. But Christian Klippel has a point: it was very effective. 80% of French electricity is nuclear, the energy is quite cheap, we export some of it at a good price. Oil price variations are less of a burden in this sector. I have not made a cost-analysis, but it does seem to be very profitable on the long term.

Regarding waste storage and decommission, though, it is still a bit unclear. We have a former site that was supposed to be an example for decommission... 25 years ago. Still not finished.
 
Laeke said:
What do you mean by "finance"?
They are operated by EDF, which is still a national company, although a small part of the capital has now been privatized (84% still belongs to the state).
Areva, which is a company specialized in nuclear technology, is also state owned.
However both companies are very active and agressive on the international market. Areva has healthy profits, EDF is not too bad.

Building the nuclear plants was an huge public investment. But Christian Klippel has a point: it was very effective. 80% of French electricity is nuclear, the energy is quite cheap, we export some of it at a good price. Oil price variations are less of a burden in this sector. I have not made a cost-analysis, but it does seem to be very profitable on the long term.

Regarding waste storage and decommission, though, it is still a bit unclear. We have a former site that was supposed to be an example for decommission... 25 years ago. Still not finished.
Click to expand...

especially the financing is not transparent. also decomisioning of the old mines seems to be questionable. But endstorage and decomisioning of old plants should be paid by those running the plant.
the price is indeed good, we also buy cheap nuclear electricity to fill up dams over night. but from what i read it might get a bit more expensive with the newer laws for a bigger decomissioning fund.
 
Can this be for real?
As powerful earthquakes continue to jolt Japan and radiation levels near Tokyo are rising, the Asian country's authorities are considering moving the capital to another city.


The most probable location for a new capital are Osaka and Nagoya, according to ITAR-TASS. Both cities are located near international airports.
Click to expand...
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127294

That really inspires confidence. Not!
 
Christian Klippel said:
I have given that link already some time ago, but i'll give it again, because it's really worth it. Go to this site (entsoe.net) and register there. After you have an account, you can see what country in Europe imports and exports how much electricity to what other country. You can select a date and an hour to look at. You can also download the data for each day as an Excel file, or the data for one year as XML file. That way you can easily calculate yourself how much Germany has exported/imported before they turned of the nukes, and how much afterwards.
Click to expand...

Snipped for brevity.

Very informative post.

Thank you.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Dynamite is perfectly safe. You can set it on fire and it won't detonate (in fact, that's how bomb disposal squads get rid of dynamite, by burning it). It takes a blasting cap to detonate dynamite.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you responded, as it brings to the front several important issues, which apply to nuclear power, and safety.

It's easy to say something like, "Dynamite is perfectly safe", you could even say "Plutonium is perfectly safe", or "A nuclear reactor is perfectly safe", or even "A Hydrogen bomb is perfectly safe", and then follow up with a quick hand waving to explain it.

I suppose you could also say "A thousand tons of spent fuel rods are perfectly safe", and point out in each case that "It takes a blasting cap" or some other rare and impossible event to make these things "unsafe". Some people may actually believe this logic.

Like Tom. Tom has twenty crates of dynamite in his garage. The authorities, being silly twits, they want him to store it someplace "safe", but Tom counters with your argument. He argues that it's only unsafe when it gets old, and by then he will have used it, or will move it.

Corsair 115 said:
It's only old dynamite that poses a risk. That's because the nitroglycerin it contains can "sweat" out of the material and pool in the bottom of the container. It's that pool which poses the danger as raw nitroglycerin is very easy to set off. And if that nitroglycerin pool is detonated, it may explode with enough force to trigger the detonation of the dynamite.
Click to expand...

Now see that? "It's only old dynamite that poses a risk", it's the sort of illogical and removed from any reality known kind of statement that is baffling.

Faced with such a statement, and even worse, that nobody responded to it, I'm looking around and wondering if I am being made fun of. That everyone here is in some sort of cult of comedy, and everybody got together and conspired to make fun of me.

"Hey, lets tell her 'Dynamite is safe' and see if she buys it. lol won't that be funny? Now remember, nobody say anything until we get her good".

And it's a pretty good joke too. If I respond and point out how ridiculous that is, everybody will get a good laugh. Because of course it is, and only fool would even respond to such baiting!

But if I say nothing, that is tacit consent that I agree, which makes me look like a fool. It's a Catch 22
 
I find the title of this thread inane to the point of being offensive on a skeptics' forum.

Any supposed skeptic ought to understand that NOTHING is completely safe. Nuclear power, or hydropower, or cars, or swimming pools, or horses, or horseshoes all pose certain risks. Any of these things should be considered in context. Does the risk outweigh benefits? How does the risk-benefit ratio compare to that of alternatives? How are risks tied to external circumstances? (Hint: nuclear power is rather less safe on Pacific Rim than in the middle of Eurasian plate) Etc.

Anyone who claims "nuclear power is unsafe and should be banned!" or for that matter "nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable!" without taking all of the above into account, is not worth listening to.
 
r-j said:
It's easy to say something like, "Dynamite is perfectly safe", you could even say "Plutonium is perfectly safe", or "A nuclear reactor is perfectly safe", or even "A Hydrogen bomb is perfectly safe", and then follow up with a quick hand waving to explain it.
Click to expand...


Those things are all perfectly safe—depending on the context of course. Context matters.


r-j said:
Now see that? "It's only old dynamite that poses a risk", it's the sort of illogical and removed from any reality known kind of statement that is baffling
Click to expand...


If you bothered to read the details, you'd know precisely what the risk is and how it applies. Again, context. Which matters. The lesson is simple: dispose of your dynamite before it gets to the point where it might leak its contents. In which case it is perfectly safe. In other words, any danger actually relies on misuse by the operator. Which, really, is pretty much the case for most things. A butter knife is not dangerous if used correctly. A cell phone won't usually get you killed.

Facts and context matter.
 
ceptimus said:
Thanks r-j!

I enjoy your well written and thoughtful posts. And I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have to tell you, at first I thought you were joking. Then I realized, it's always best to err on the side of good intentions.

So if you are joshing me, which I suspect, it's still all good.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Facts and context matter.
Click to expand...

Of course, and saying that is like saying "we need air or we die", it's not like anybody thinks anything else.

But as for "safe" or "risk", you completely leave out the real world in your hand waving away all problems. It's so over the top, I suspect you are having me on a bit.

It's so obvious what is wrong with your idea there, that when I don't see anybody else calling you on it, I suspect a big practical joke.
 
r-j said:
But as for "safe" or "risk", you completely leave out the real world in your hand waving away all problems.
Click to expand...


You have an odd view on this point, so you're going to have to explain more. By any factual measure nuclear power has killed vastly fewer people than automobiles and cigarettes, to name two items. Yet you do not appear concerned over the very real and numerous deaths those two things cause, routinely, daily. But you seem overly alarmed at even the mere suggestion of nuclear power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom