Shut Down All Nuclear Power Stations!!! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-30-2001, 10:59 PM   #1
War Child
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Clare, Ireland
Posts: 647
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Shut Down All Nuclear Power Stations!!!

Is there any1 who still thinks these things are safe and good to have on the earth???

Well there probably is a fair few, but I think they are just the most stupid things ever, and I know there is millions, probably a big majority that think the same. We gotta get rid of em!!

Here in Ireland, for like ages, we have been trying to get the British Government to shut down Sellafield, which is situated right across from Dublin in North Cumbria in Wales. But they've never budged, and at the moment, are actually increasing activity there!

I think it is ludicrous, and it has been proven that there is a much higher cases of cancer around that region and also even the east coast of Ireland than the rest of the country!

And since September 11th the cries for it to be shut down have gotten much louder, it's another Chernobyl waiting to happen, all it takes is another complete nut to go and hyjack a plane and use it as a detonator and with that ruin Ireland and the UK.

In the US same story, there is a Nuclear Power station just outside NY, forgetthe name of it. But if it was to be blown up, everyone within 20 miles would be immdeiately killed, wiped out, and the lives of 20 million people would be hugely affected. Still in Chernobyl and the surrounding areas like Belarus it is a very very sad state, new born babies in awful health, they fly hundreds of the kids over to families here in Ireland each year for a break, the fresh air is meant to add years to their lives, cos it is so unhealthy over there.

Does any1 want that? Does anybody actually overlook the risk and argue they should be kept going? Or is everyone in agreement that they are like a timebomb, and way too big a risk in the dangerous, unstable world we live in???
__________________

__________________
lazyboy is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 11:45 PM   #2
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 10:05 PM
are you serious?

what is it you propose to replace all this energy with? windmills???

I think nuclear power should be utilized even more, because I would like to see the world depend less and less on the Middle East for it's fuel and energy supplies, at least until "other" options become more viable

everyone thinks of what would happen if another Chernobyl incident occured, but where and when have all these accidents happened? meanwhile, look at all the blood on the hands of the world at the expense of oil and gas

but yes, I agree that poorly run nuclear power plants should either be run safely or shut down altogether, since they are health hazzards and issues of global security, but somehow I don't think terrorists are interested in Belarus, and I'm not sure people in places like that want to have no jobs and no energy... it's a sad state of affairs indeed, but you simply can't take something away without providing an alternative

__________________

__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 02:42 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 11:05 PM
well you are definetely right that a poorly maintained nuclear power plant can become a hazard very quickly and a terrorist could definetely smash a plane into them. but you're logic of shutting all of them down just doesn't hold water.
all world stability issues aside, nuclear power is currently the best viable option for the power needs of our world. just when it looked like power consumption may drop about 50 years ago a wave of electronic devices began to appear each one needing to be plugged in, and then the internet further increased the demand.
though many other safer and cleaner alternatives are being considered, nuclear power remains the only one that is both technically and economically feasible.
this is all assuming that they are well kept and maintained-which of course costs great deals of money.
i don't know the specifics of sellafield, in fact i don't know the specifics of anything outside of canada. here in ontario a scathing report was released of the pickering nuclear facility, which provides power to much of southern ontario, a couple of years ago. i believe two of the four reactors there were immediately taken offline and are just now beginning to being reintegrated.
as for the threat of attack there are many dangers we will have to eliminate if we are going to begin living with that much fear.
if cared for properly nuclear power is the only 'clean' method of power generation available at the moment on a large scale.
lmao @ the windmills wanderer.
*disclaimer--i should mention my father is one of the directing engineers at the pickering site for atomic energy of canada limited(aecl), the company that built and with ontario power, maintains pickering. so in other words, nuclear power is paying for my way through college.

------------------
you can stuff your sorries in a sack mister
__________________
kobayashi is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 10:50 AM   #4
War Child
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Clare, Ireland
Posts: 647
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Yep I'm serious, maybe not about ALL, but definitely about Sellafield, if you guys wanna risk having your lives ruined forever by some fuckin nutcase, and its not so unlikely, if some1 told you before september 11th that 2 planes were gonna slam into the WTC and completely destroy the 2 towers, you woulda thought it unlikely too. Very unlikely. And the pentagon??? ha! C'mon, can't you see?? if those 2 landmarks can get hit bigtime, so can some "petty" power station.

And the windmills jibe Yeah actually, here in Ireland that is a strong proposal, I know they do it in other "non nuclear" countries, and they are strongly thinking about it here, not yer feckin wooden works of art, have you not seen any "wind produced energy fields" full of these things? And of course oil is needed, the US just hate depending on some1 else, that's there problem, and it is a big problem with such a big power as the US.

But in regards Ireland, the government has officially launched a case against Britian for the closure of Sellafield. So in that regard I am dead serious.

And I didn't say terrorists were interested in Belarus, where did you get that? I was merely pointing out what they went through, from merely being a neighbour to Chernobyl. I know Chernobyl was badly maintained, very badly, but no matter how well maintained, there is no guarantee that some psycho won't set off the disaster himself.

I think it is better to be safe than sorry, and I am sure there is an alternative, maybe it is a bit more complicated for the US, of course it is, but if you had seen the documentary on Chernobyl and how the people of the surrounding areas' lives were destroyed, you'd be thinking about looking at the alternatives.

__________________
lazyboy is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 05:40 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Well, here is a distinction you must learn about nuclear power plants. I must admit: I know nothing about Sellafield, so I won't comment on it. The dangerous nuclear plants are the graphite core plants, like Chernobyl. The problem with them is that when power gets dangerously low, they have a meltdown--which is exactly why Chernobyl did have a meltdown. Modern plants do not have this problem, as when power does get dangerously low, the fission rods pop out automatically or something like that. Chernobyl was a dinosaur even in 1986. Most of the world had converted to the other model prior. As a result, I do question whether even crashing into a nuclear plant could really cause a "second Chernobyl," but I am not familiar enough with the science.

What is a valid concern is the waste from spent fuel rods. Increasingly, we are burying it deep underground, although, still, we have lots of waste refinement facilities still, which convert a lot of the waste into weapons-grade materials. I would love to see a day when nuclear fusion could become a reality, although I can just imagine the Pandora's Box that would open, since I bet it could create one hell of a big bomb as a result.

Melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 05:46 PM   #6
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 03:05 AM
I too think that any poorly run or 'crappy design' nuclear plant is just a huge disaster waiting to happen.. But I wouldn't be so quick to negate nuclear power.. Just recently.. and the name slips my mind.. and i'm too lazy to try and look it up, but I think there's a type of nuclear plant in South Africa called 'Pebble Rock Power Plant'.. It's like the size of a regular 20 X 20 School classroom, and It's one of those things that is 'meltdown' proof for some reason or another, but Give that a quick look into if you're interested...

And Also.. one more quick thing.. Lazyboy.. .. never put one of those 'roll eyes smiley faces' in your posts again.

Happy new year ya'll.
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 05:53 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 11:05 PM
well following the events of september 11th there was a lot of publicity about security @ pickering nuclear, especially since it is about a half hour from downtown toronto.
my father told me pickering, much like what we imagined the WTC to have been, could withstand the power of a jet in existence at the time. ie a 727 could not do catastrophic damage but something more recent than the buildings construction, ie a 767, could.
immediately following the tragedy in the U.S. the canadian government was considering installing missile launchers at all of their nuclear sites though i believe that has now been abandoned.

------------------
you can stuff your sorries in a sack mister
__________________
kobayashi is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 06:31 PM   #8
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 07:05 PM
the main concern is the the nuclear waste. that stuff is the real danger. it would be good if they can just put all the waste on a rocket and launch into the sun not exactly economical but would work like a charm
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 11:51 PM   #9
War Child
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Clare, Ireland
Posts: 647
Local Time: 03:05 AM
This is for you Lemonite

I learned from the best, Zoomanda

And well, good points Melon, I'm just backing up the Irish government with regards Sellafield, not sure what tyoe of core it is either, but I do know it has been proven about the increased frequency of cancer cases around that area. And well about the nuclear power stations, I just don't think they are worth the risk they give out. Until they prove they are zero risk, then I am against them.

I'd rather live without power than have nuclear power.

it is admittedly much easier to say so in Ireland where we can have oil, gas, Hydro and wind power easily, but I just think it's crazy. But thanks for the other perspective melon.

Kobayashi, you just strengthened my fear with the fact they have abandoned strengthening security.
__________________
lazyboy is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 12:50 AM   #10
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist:
the main concern is the the nuclear waste. that stuff is the real danger.
This is my concern with nuclear power plants...the waste they produce. There is no way to get rid of it. Right now there are waste sites where they have put old nuclear reactors in a pool to keep them cool. And that's how they dispose of them. That frightens me. If these facilities malfunction in any way, everything suffers. So until a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste is presented and put into action, I will have to advocate alternative ways to deal with producing power. And by the way, windmills are not so far fetched an idea, and neither is solar power. In fact, solar power should be researched heavily...If we would all build our homes in environmentally safe ways (ie. insulation, solar windows, etc.) our power eating would be reduced anyway...I would like to see this happen. But unfortunately, I think this kind of thing will only happen when we finally run out of oil.

------------------
"A Bono approved event is a good event!"

You can dream, so dream out loud!

"The way to be optimistic is not to shut your eyes and close your ears." -Bono

Create Light, Create Unity, Create Joy, CREATE PEACE!
__________________
hippy is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 01:13 PM   #11
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Hopefully fusion (as opposed to fission) reactors will be perfected someday, then nuclear power will have much safer potential.

Check out this link for a description:

www.fast-times.com/edge/nuclear.html
__________________
the olive is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 01:34 PM   #12
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 10:05 PM
nuclear fusion still seems so far away, I'm still doubtful as to whether we will see it in our lifetime
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 02:32 PM   #13
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 07:05 PM
the problem with fusion is that it takes too much energy to kick off, also it's extremely difficult to contain.
but it would be great if it can be done.
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 05:22 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Everybody who disapproves of Nuclear Energy alwasy uses Chernobyl, but the fact is; properly and efficiently maintained Nuclear Power Stations are not only safe, efficient and relatively clean (if you forget the waste, which is something that needs ratification) but also economically favourable. For every Chernobyl you have five Frances. France, almost 75% nuclear in its energy resources has never had an accident.

Not only should Nuclear Energy be allowed to continue as fuel (instead of say, coal and other foosil fuels), but it should be increased, countries should use more of it, as France does.

Having said that, though, I wouldn't like to live next to a Nuclear Power Plant, it could be run by someone like Homer Simpson, or even worse, Mr. Burns!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE! HAVE A WONDERFUL YEAR!

ANt.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-01-2002, 05:49 PM   #15
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Here's some info on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor that I mentioned.. An Excellent step up in safety and production....

THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR: ESKOMís BRAVE NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

Lindsey Collins, SAEP intern

April 4, 2001

While South Africa relies upon its cheap and available coal supply for 93% of the countryís energy demands, the manifold environmental problems inherent in a coal-powered economy illustrate the need to develop new and sustainable energy sources, for both economic and environmental reasons. In a country where nuclear power is historically connected to the apartheid regimeís weapons programme and, given the international stigma surrounding nuclear plants, it seems unlikely that nuclear power could re-enter the political landscape as a viable energy alternative. Yet Eskom, South Africaís state-owned electric utility and foremost energy supplier, asserts that the development of its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) holds the potential to not only produce a clean, low-impact, affordable and sustainable form of energy, but make South African technology competitive in the international market and create new jobs domestically.

The PBMR is a relatively small (110 MW) nuclear power station. It combines helium coolant, a graphite moderator, and ceramic fuel pellets, which allow the reactor to operate at higher temperatures, increasing the amount of energy it can convert to electricity. The PBMR also creates less spent fuel than the pressurized water reactor (PWR), which is the design of the Koeberg nuclear power station operated by Eskom near Cape Town. Koeberg, the only nuclear-fired electricity plant on the African continent, is comprised of 2 965-MW reactors (actual total net capacity is 1,840 MW). In 1998, Koeberg generated 13.6 billion kilowatt-hours (bkwh) of electricity, accounting for 7.1% of South Africa's electricity generation.

The initial phase of the PBMR project, which was given the go-ahead by the South African government in April 2000, involves undertaking a feasibility study, an environmental impact assessment, and a public participation process. The test facility would probably be built near Eskomís existing plant at Koeberg. The Environmental Impact Assessment is due to be completed in mid-2001, but has been somewhat delayed to provide greater opportunity for public participation. Although a final report has not been published, critics, most notably environmental activists from organizations such as Earthlife Africa, have voiced their concerns about what they deem to be Eskomís hasty building plans, short-circuiting of the public participation process, and nuclear waste storage problems. On the other hand, another major environmental NGO, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, has come out in support of giving the PBMR "a fair and objective hearing" of its possibility as an alternative to fossil fuels.

The PBMRís technology differs from conventional nuclear plants in many favourable ways. The proposed PBMR reactor, which is currently slated for construction at Koeburg near Cape Town, takes less time to build than standard reactors, takes up considerably less space, and, due to its design, is inherently accident-proof, thus eliminating the risk of disasters such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The system, classified as a high-temperature reactor (HTR), is unique in its reliance upon small, graphite-encased "pebbles" of uranium oxide for fuel. The pebblesí physics ensure the PBMRís smaller-scale and less expensive production, largely due to eliminating a need for the expensive safety backup systems found in standard nuclear power plants. Despite the apparent advantages of the new nuclear technology, PBMR plants still produce nuclear waste, the storage of which remains a major obstacle. The current plan is for storage to occur on-site because a permanent waste facility has not yet been located.

Proponents believe other nations will recognize the PBMR system as a solution to their own CO2 emissions problems and wish to buy the technology from South Africa. In the meantime, the plants will create new manufacturing jobs and, according to the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), one of South Africaís leading environmental NGOs, protect against the continued loss of biodiversity related to the burning of fossil fuels. Some advocates of the plant, such as Dr. Roger Wedlake, have suggested that the surplus of land surrounding a PBMR could be used "to maintain a largely undisturbed example of local flora and fauna." EWT contends that the PBMR will "provide a much-needed component to the South African economy, provide new jobs and new training skills, provide valuable foreign currency and, importantly, maintain a leadership role for South Africa in Africa and the world."

These optimistic speculations, however, rely upon the assumption that South Africa can finally make safe and cost-effective nuclear technology available worldwide, where so many other similar projects have failed. Steve Thomas, a senior research fellow with the Energy Policy Programme of SPRU, University of Sussex, notes the troubled history of international PBMR development and casts doubt on the viability of a lucrative nuclear energy market. Thomas writes, "the USA, Germany, the UK and France have now abandoned all interest in HTRs, while Japan's development programme is very slow and there are no plans to build commercial power plants." Critics also cite Eskomís mislabeling of their "test" site, as construction and funding has already begun, as evidence of the PBMR programmeís "continuing disproportionate funding allocations, a lack of coherent energy policy and questionable application of law," according to Thomas.

Eskom, with an estimated R132m already invested in the project, has, however, been successful in lining up some international investors for its venture. In November 2000, Pennsylvania-based PECO Energy announced its investment in the development stage of the PBMR project. PECO joined British Nuclear Fuel as the two international investors in the project. Eskom and its South African partner, the Industrial Development Corporation, jointly hold over 50% of the shares in the project. A 10% stake is reserved for a black empowerment company.

While both sides of the environmental debate acknowledge the need for Eskomís continued research into solar power, opponents of the PBMR claim that SA does not currently have the necessary facilities and resources to make nuclear power sustainable; thus investments in solar power are much more economically feasible.

Whether or not the PBMR technologyís benefits outweigh its risks, neither South Africaís economy nor its citizens will benefit from hasty legislation and funding that would derail a thorough public participation process. Meanwhile, the results of the environmental impact assessment process are eagerly awaited by all parties.



__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com