Modern-day Tower of Babel

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeShlabotnik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Eight Strikes Against Nuclear Power​

1. Nuclear waste:​

The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space, so the nuclear industry is turning to other types of storage that are more costly and potentially less safe.

2. Nuclear proliferation:​

There is great concern that the development of nuclear energy programs increases the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear fuel and technologies become globally available, the risk of these falling into the wrong hands is increasingly present.

3. National security​

Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations…

4. Accidents​

A massive tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several power plants in 2011, causing three nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area. Hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Fukushima, especially among children, rose significantly in the years after the accidents.

5. Cancer risk​

Studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia.

6. Energy production​

The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to.

7. Not enough sites​

Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident.

8. Cost​

Unlike renewables, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall.
 
FYI - earthquakes occur all over the place.
The Japanese built it where they built it because you need water for cooling purposes for a nuclear reactor.
Knowing that tsunamis are the byproduct of an earthquake, they should have know that this kind of disaster would be possible.
The tsunami took out the power and the loss of power led to the meltdown.
When you are dealing with dangerous stuff like radiation, you have to have look at all the things that could happen.
Ever play the game, the worst-case scenario?
 
You didn’t answer the question. Indeed, you copied and pasted something without citing your source.
 
There are several nuclear power plants at Naval Operating Base Norfolk and Norfolk Naval Shipyard. I, along with millions of people, live within 20 miles of them.
 
444 nuclear plants. I was unaware that there were so many of these potential Fukushima disasters waiting to happen. That is a scary prospect!
 
You speak as though nuclear plants can explode without warning. Many of them aren’t even the same kind of reactor as Fukushima Daiichi. More modern designs are inherently safe from such failure modes.
 
You know the US government was caught making a computer virus designed to make an Iranian nuclear research facility explode right?

These are the acceptable tactics of our world.
 
Anrakyr said:
You know the US government was caught making a computer virus designed to make an Iranian nuclear research facility explode right?

These are the acceptable tactics of our world.
Click to expand...
You mean the Stuxnet virus which did infect an Iranian nuclear research facility and messed up the centrifuges which enriched the uranium and was never meant to make the plant blow up (partly evidenced by the fact that place didn’t blow up)?
 
Last edited:
Even if the designs for more modern nuclear reactors is safe, where do you place the radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor?
At present, it is stored onsite at nuclear plants. Very dangerous stuff.
If you move it elsewhere, there are risks in transporting this radioactive stuff. There is the possibility of train derailments or truck accidents.
The federal government has been trying to force Nevada to accept this stuff at a site there, but the folks in Nevada had done as much as possible to block this plan.
There should be a national moratorium on the continued use of nuclear energy until there is a comprehensive plan for dealing with the waste products.
 
Disposing of nuclear waste is a problem there seems to be no answer for.
These nuclear power plants seem to be stuck with this problem.
This is the radioactive elephant in the room.
 
Fauken said:
You mean the Stuxnet virus which did infect an Iranian nuclear research facility and messed up the centrifuges which enriched the uranium and was never meant to make the plant blow up (partly evidenced by the fact that place didn’t blow up)?
Click to expand...
The internet security teams of the world disagree with you. Because things worked out doesn’t mean they couldn’t have gone the other way. There was a more than a high chance the damage could have been overlooked and contamination was likely.
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree.
Coal, gas and other energies have killed more people, because they have been around a lot longer than nuclear energy.
Where do you plan to safely dispose of the nuclear waste? Some of this garbage will be radioactive for over 100,000 years.
No one wants that stuff stored near them.
Imagine the number of nuclear plant targets there are across this world for terrorists. Most plants store their radioactive waste onsite.
 
Anrakyr said:
The internet security teams of the world disagree with you.
Click to expand...
On what? The fact that the Stuxnet virus targeted centrifuges? The fact that it was never designed to make the facility blow up? How stupid do you think the US is? First of all, I don’t think the code for Stuxnet has been released, since it’s afterall a cyberweapon owned by the US and releasing the code for it would be a dumb idea. On what basis do the “internet security teams of the world” say that it was meant to make the building blow up? Even if it was meant to make it blow up, that would be tantamount to an act of war. Sabotaging a process is not the same thing as blowing it up.

I could never hope to code something like Stuxnet if I had twenty extra years experience. I likely never will. And they had a whole team of programmers of such an extremely high caliber to create it. As a developer myself, I can pretty much guarantee you that they didn’t just throw it out there after the last line of code was written. It would have been tested extensively because having the source leak in the centrifuge would be indeed catastrophic. An operation like that could have gotten that exact set up that Stuxnet targets and put spent uranium in the centrifuges to keep things as realistic as possible. They made something complex enough to target a specific operating system using specific PLCs, but are apparently too dumb to test it? I think not.
Anrakyr said:
Because things worked out doesn’t mean they couldn’t have gone the other way.
Click to expand...
That’s still a far cry from being
Anrakyr said:
designed to make an Iranian nuclear research facility explode
Click to expand...
As incredibly unlikely as it would be for the reasons I listed earlier.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear power has been with us for about 60 years or so.
Other forms of energy have been with us for a much longer period.
Nuclear waste from these reactors is lethal to human beings for a long time. Most of it is stored onsite. Why? Because no one knows what to do with it. No one wants in buried close to where they live.
You can say that nuclear power is safe all that you want. But, If you were to ask 99 out of 100 people, if they would mind living next to a site where nuclear waste is buried or even next to a nuclear power plant, they would say No.
 
Those same people couldn’t give the correct answer to which power plant emits more radioactivity: nuclear or coal, or else they are just averse to living near power plants.
 
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. All disasters. All killers. After the many years since the meltdown, Fukushima continues to pollute the ocean with radioactive contamination.
Nuclear power is the worst at polluting the environment because the effects of the radioactive contamination last for the longest amount of time.
You can continue to spread your malarky, but it is malarky nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top