SG Broadband Community

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned there is no water left in the spent fuel pool of reactor No. 4 at the plant, resulting in "extremely high" radiation levels. High-pressure water cannons will now be used to try and spray water into the reactors.

The situation has been described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as "very serious" and US officials now say radiation levels at the plant may give emergency workers "lethal doses" in a short period of time, meaning their ability to take corrective measures will be hampered.

Sources: MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering / Professor Stephen Lincoln, School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide.

JBrazen wrote:I live near a nuke plant here in New York, Indian Point, and our new Governor, whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.

JBrazen wrote:I live near a nuke plant here in New York, Indian Point, and our new Governor, whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.

Humboldt wrote:Not familiar with the situation but if I lived near a nuclear plant (which I do...5 miles) I'd be nervous too.

With my limited knowledge nuclear energy CAN be clean and safe, but only in a perfect world.

Reactors are one thing and pose one host of problems.
Spent fuel is just as large a consideration, they go hand in hand.

IMO , given our current technology, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.

Humboldt wrote:Not familiar with the situation but if I lived near a nuclear plant (which I do...5 miles) I'd be nervous too.

With my limited knowledge nuclear energy CAN be clean and safe, but only in a perfect world.

Reactors are one thing and pose one host of problems.
Spent fuel is just as large a consideration, they go hand in hand.

IMO , given our current technology, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.

JBrazen wrote:whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.

Sava700 wrote:yeah too much of this going on... too many getting all upset over nothing. There are measures in place for just about everything, but providing current events keep up with the 2012 timeline ya never know what could happen. Hell even the moon is getting on it with it coming closest to the Earth in over 20years!!!

Humboldt wrote:
IMO , given our current technology, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.

Qwijib0 wrote:http://atoc.colorado.edu/~englishj/Coal-indirect.html

Coal may not have the immediate-risk possibilities, but as safe, reliable and 'green' power goes-- nuclear is pretty much it. Decommisioning nuke plants and replacing them with "clean" coal will have more long-term health effects, discounting even climate change.

First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth.

Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.

During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.

***

Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.

What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.