CPC464 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Yes, but coal mines used to go bang when they had a roof fall or a flash fire. No where near the same scale of a nuclear disaster though is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 No where near the same scale of a nuclear disaster though is it! Many thousands of people die in coal mines a year, and how many ex coal miners die each year due mining related illnesses? That's ignoring the amount of deaths that many scientists attribute to global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Therefore, nuclear energy is the way to go. What do you think?I've said as much for over 2 decades. For the cost of faffing for the last 20 years and lossily-ploughed into "renewables", we could have had enough nuclear plants to provide enough electricity to heat, power, etc. the entire UK twice over, and not worry a day about Russians turning the tap off, Arabs playing the oil barrel market and the North Sea reserves running out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I don't think wind and tidal will contribute enough. We need big nuclear, and as soon as possible. Note the use of the words: "True renewable energy is feasible" in my post. I am aware that there are plenty of issues with the current set of alternatives - that doesn't mean we should use the availability of nuclear to fall back into complacency about our energy future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 No to nuclear. I will change this view when they build nuclear power stations in the centre of London and store the waste from it in the town centres of oxford and cambridge.If its safe then its not a problem is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Why would they do that when there are communities in Britain that are happy to get the stations there, like Anglesey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 No to nuclear. I will change this view when they build nuclear power stations in the centre of London and store the waste from it in the town centres of oxford and cambridge.If its safe then its not a problem is it? Nuclear power wins hands down against all fossil fuels. Numbers don’t lie; nuclear power wins the safety contest hands down. After 14,000 reactor-years of operation, over a 50-year history, three significant accidents have occurred: Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima(2011). With this extended operation history, only Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted in radiation exposure with the worst nuclear death toll of 58 people at Chernobyl, and none so far from Fukushima. Increased thyroid cancer as a result of radiation released from Chernobyl involved about 4000 people, of which most was curable. Compare this safety record to coal and petroleum; statistically a lot deadlier. Pollution: For oil pollution, look no further than the Gulf of Mexico spill or its contribution to global warming. Coal, although inexpensive to recover, has mercury and carbon dioxide as by-products, both requiring expensive treatment options. In addition, the amount of radiation produced from a coal plant far exceeds that of a nuclear plant. Health Risks: Let’s talk about death tallies. In one year, over 4,000 U.S. coal miners are injured and nearly 24,000 die prematurely from diseases such as lung cancer (black lung disease). http://www.decodedscience.com/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682 jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 No where near the same scale of a nuclear disaster though is it! No - lots more people die in coal mines and disasters than in nuclear accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Even looking at the worst ever nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, it's not even that bad, compared to disasters in other fields. The world health organisation says that about 50 people died directly and up to 4000 may have shortened lifespans due to radiation exposure. Some 200,000 people were relocated. But that happened in a very rural area in a country that had major control over its citizens at the time. Transfer the disaster to the UK and you'd have a major disaster and the cost would be staggering. I can't recall the link now but there was a great Google Maps overlay that put the Chernobyl reactor over any UK power station of choice. It then showed the size of the exclusion zone and gave stats on how many people would need to be relocated. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in the nuclear "gift" like the OP suggested. I just think humans are currently the wrong people to manage it, when lowest bidder seems to win contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Nuclear power wins hands down against all fossil fuels. http://www.decodedscience.com/fossil-fuel-vs-nuclear-for-safe-and-clean-power/7682 jb So the government will be happy to build this stuff in London, Cambridge and Oxford won't it. I don't particularly have any love for fossil fuels and think its time that renewables got much greater investment and development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.