Nuclear power stations: "no cancer risk"

Former Member · June 2005

Hmmmm. They've been saying that fusion power is just around the corner for the last 50 years.

Former Member · June 2005

Actually no they haven't, they've been saying stages of it around the corner. Progess has been made.

Former Member · June 2005

Actually, yes they have. There were plenty of newspaper articles in the 50's saying it was just around the corner. As a kid in the 70's watching Tomorrow's World, I was led to believe it was just around the corner.

Former Member · June 2005

Well, honestly, the comparative scientific accuracy of newspapers and tomorrow's world (though a show that I loved when it was on) and the actual scientific journals released are different. Though it it hard to predict how much progress you'll make and when, especially considering how complicated and delicate the physics is behind fusion power, but most things are now in place for successful fusion. Especially considering a fusion reactor is actually in the planning stages of construction.

I did a group project on this, was worth a fair chunk of my module.

Former Member · June 2005

We would not need nuclear power stations if we didn't use so much electricity.

Thus it seems interesting to complian so vehemnetly about power stations whilst frivously wasting electricity looking at thesite...............

:rolleyes:

Former Member · June 2005

Well not being privy to the scientific journals, all I have to go on (like the rest of the general public) is how the media presents it. And they've been presenting it as just around the corner for about 50 years.

Former Member · June 2005

Which is a shame really. As it's not quite accurate, though as I say, prediction is occasionally inaccurate, I no longer think it's fair to say "well, they've been saying that for 50 years now" it really is a genuine option fairly soon, though I wouldn't really like to hazard a guess as to how soon. I suspect as oil runs low fusion will pick up funding and pace.

ETA: It's weird what you read when you go to the source, what you find out, compared with textbooks even.

Former Member · June 2005

Unless BornSlippy you are merely suggesting we bury radioactive material under soil only? That will be helpful for gamma radiation!

Former Member · June 2005

Fiend_85 wrote:

Which is a shame really. As it's not quite accurate, though as I say, prediction is occasionally inaccurate, I no longer think it's fair to say "well, they've been saying that for 50 years now" it really is a genuine option fairly soon, though I wouldn't really like to hazard a guess as to how soon. I suspect as oil runs low fusion will pick up funding and pace.

ETA: It's weird what you read when you go to the source, what you find out, compared with textbooks even.

Yes, I know. I think fusion would be great, but I ain't holding my breath, 'cos as I said, we've been told its around the corner for 50 years or so.

Former Member · June 2005

The obvious question, if you dont want nuclear plants what do you want?

Wind? - Nope, too expencive and we'd have to have millions

Wave? - Nope, again far too expencive and difficult

Oil/Gas/Coal? - Nope, it gives out CO2

We need a mix of things, the wind/wave/hydro plus a few nuclear ones too.

Former Member · June 2005

If nuclear plants and the processing of fuel was made absolutely fail-safe, then nuclear energy would be perfect. And one day I guess we should be able to perfect the technology to enable us to do this. But until that happens nuclear energy remains a problem.

Until then, like bong says, a combination of sources is the best way forward. Let's not forget solar power either. The manufacturing of solar cells has become much cheaper than it used to be- and I'd imagine one day they'll be dirt cheap to make and buy.

Former Member · June 2005

Aladdin wrote:

Until then, like bong says, a combination of sources is the best way forward. Let's not forget solar power either. The manufacturing of solar cells has become much cheaper than it used to be- and I'd imagine one day they'll be dirt cheap to make and buy.

Dont you need really nasty chemicals to make solar cells? Not that nuclear waste is great of course.

I do think that all new homes should have those black water heaters of the roof though, they are dirt cheap and help a lot with the heating.

Former Member · June 2005

Yes, I believe at present the environmental cost of making solar cells is high. Hopefully one day they can be manufactured in a clearner and cheaper way, because that'd be the way to go for half the planet.

Former Member · June 2005

Aladdin wrote:

If nuclear plants and the processing of fuel was made absolutely fail-safe, then nuclear energy would be perfect. And one day I guess we should be able to perfect the technology to enable us to do this. But until that happens nuclear energy remains a problem.

Until then, like bong says, a combination of sources is the best way forward. Let's not forget solar power either. The manufacturing of solar cells has become much cheaper than it used to be- and I'd imagine one day they'll be dirt cheap to make and buy.

solar cells you know much waste is produced in making them.....

they can helppartially like nuclear can help loads partially and so can a variety of sources, but the majority will have to be nuclear as its the only non burning form where you can control output to meet demand so it has to be the majority with the others helping, far more than at moment too

Former Member · June 2005

some plank in here suggested blasting the waste into outer fucking space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one accident ...one rocket explodes ...as they do now and again and you have the best method going for the release and very wide spreading of lethal shite!

Former Member · June 2005

morrocan roll wrote:

some plank in here suggested blasting the waste into outer fucking space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one accident ...one rocket explodes ...as they do now and again and you have the best method going for the release and very wide spreading of lethal shite!

im sure superman can do it

Teh_Gerbil · June 2005

Would the explosion penetrate that rather large and tough container? Bear in mind that they are made a tad thick, considering the radiation must be contained inside them.

Hmm, although a big fat heavy container could hurt someone if it landed on them.

Former Member · June 2005

None of those are worth bothering with.

Regardless of what the (mostly left wing) scare-mongers would say, we have plenty of oil and natural gas and coal to use up before we need to even think about alternatives.

Couple this with advances in fuel efficiency and our supplies should last for well over 500 years.

Former Member · June 2005

You really have no evidence for that Mat.

Former Member · June 2005

The planet is fucking big. Theres a hell of a lot of stuff down there that we aint found yet.

Former Member · June 2005

You really have no evidence for that Mat.

Former Member · June 2005

The Matadore wrote:

None of those are worth bothering with.

Regardless of what the (mostly left wing) scare-mongers would say, we have plenty of oil and natural gas and coal to use up before we need to even think about alternatives.

Couple this with advances in fuel efficiency and our supplies should last for well over 500 years.

I've never ever seen a source than says anything can last that long.

Even my old Geography text books say about 100 years max.

Former Member · June 2005

and we wont run out as in the sense of that, cheap oil will becomemore scarse and more erm intrusive methods will be required

nuclear no matter what is part of the temporary solution as well as renewables but we need a stable majority supply which can give controlled energy outputs and only non atmospheric pollution one is nuclear

Former Member · June 2005

What about the hot water pollution?

Teh_Gerbil · June 2005

Yeah, 100 years! Mat doesn't care, he will be dead by then.

Let the next generation sort it out. Right, Mat?

Nuclear power stations: &quot;no cancer risk&quot;

Comments

Nuclear power stations: "no cancer risk"