We have a nuclear power plant in the nearer are of my hometown Hamburg.
Problem is who has to proof what.
There are far more cases of cancer (blood cancer) infected childs but even today the private persons have to proof (which is nearly impossible) that the cancer infection of their children is owing to the plant. I say vice versa !
Just my 2 cents
And remember Tschernobyl !
Originally posted by darvlayonly hundreds of meters. but the problem is that bedrock is not stable at Long periods of time, nor it is without fractures to begin with. the capsules are calculated to endure corrosion for around 100 000 years or so, but well, that's an estimate. who can say what really happens during the next 100 000 years. to me, assuming things will go as expected for that long a time spells pipe dream.
What's wrong with having a "dump" vault thousands of metres underground?
Originally posted by Rochadethe daughter of a friend of mine was diagnosed with a thyroid cancer induced by radiation. there's been 30 other cases in finland linked to chernobyl. and it was thousands of kilometers away.
And remember Tschernobyl !
I once counted all the serious nuclear accidents, divided it by the number of reactors in the world, and took into account the average operational time of a nuclear plant. considering the effects of those accidents, it didn't look very good. -if I remember right, it gave about 1000 years of 'mean time before serious accident' for a single plant. with around 450 reactors, it isn't much. - of course, most of those accidents won't be chernobyls, but it's still far from the 'completely safe' picture the power industry likes to sell.
Originally posted by NoontidalEveryone already DOES live on the coast, actually. So that's one problem out of the way.
That's an outright looney fantasy you have right there. A solar power plant that produces anything near what a typical coal plant produces would take up hundreds of square kilometers. Combine that with the inefficient and inconsistent power output of solar energy and the sheer mass amount of manual labor just to keep it at decent productivity level and c ...[text shortened]... the coasts and plow 50% of the farmland, your idea just might work, until the next cloudy day.
And solar panels are becoming much more efficient.
Originally posted by wormwoodDo you think we'll even be around in 100,000 years?
only hundreds of meters. but the problem is that bedrock is not stable at Long periods of time, nor it is without fractures to begin with. the capsules are calculated to endure corrosion for around 100 000 years or so, but well, that's an estimate. who can say what really happens during the next 100 000 years. to me, assuming things will go as expected for that long a time spells pipe dream.
I've heard of planning for the future, but that's a little ridiculous.
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodI think you'll find that chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Right from the drawing board it was thrown together as quickly as possible just to gain oneupmanship against America during the cold war. Big corners were cut from its design right through to its realisation.
the daughter of a friend of mine was diagnosed with a thyroid cancer induced by radiation. there's been 30 other cases in finland linked to chernobyl. and it was thousands of kilometers away.
I once counted all the serious nuclear accidents, divided it by the number of reactors in the world, and took into account the average operational time of a nuclear but it's still far from the 'completely safe' picture the power industry likes to sell.
I can't foresee such a disaster ever happening again, give the amount and depth of safety checks in place.
As for nuclear waste though, this is a serious problem that just cannot be swept under the carpet.
The only benefit of nuclear power that I can think of, is to use it as a stop gap, from when fossil fuels are depleted, until other, more efficient and cleaner energy generating technologies are developed.
Originally posted by jimslyp69Wouldn't Iran (for a current example) have also incentives to build a plant as quickly as possible?
I think you'll find that chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Right from the drawing board it was thrown together as quickly as possible just to gain oneupmanship against America during the cold war. Big corners were cut from its design right through to its realisation.
I'm not sure that one can safely say that no country has incentives to do the same thing.