PUBLIC DEBATE : Nuclear Energy

[Kalvaer]

I just got sent this via email, and was told to let anyone else who might be interested know about it.

There is so much misunderstanding about nuclear energy, and everyone always concentrates on things like Chernobyl, with out even know a single thing about anything else. Even the current situation in Japan is blown way out proportion.

Anyway.. if anyone is interested, here are the details


YOU ARE INVITED TO A PUBLIC DEBATE

Nuclear Energy

The University of Johannesburg (UJ) and the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) are jointly hosting a high-level debate on nuclear energy and its safety. The current crisis in Japan has highlighted the importance of safety measures regarding nuclear plants. This is an opportunity for the general public to get answers to their questions from nuclear energy experts including representatives from both Necsa and UJ. The debate will be facilitated by Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Prof Adam Habib. This discussion will explore scientific, political and social issues involving nuclear energy.


DATE: THURSDAY, 31 MARCH 2011
TIME: 18:00 FOR 18:30
VENUE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MADIBENG BUILDING
AUCKLAND PARK, KINGSWAY CAMPUS
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

RSVP: Ayanda Msibi on or before
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Email: ayandam@uj.ac.za or
Call 011 559 6928

Parking will be available opposite the Main Entrance in Kingsway. Use pedestrian bridge over Kingsway Road to enter University premises.

 

[Wyzak]

None of those who really need to hear it will hear it at that debate. The ones who really need to hear it have made up their minds a long time ago and don't care what anyone else says or what the truth is for that matter. To them, nuclear is bad! *Insert nuclear radiation symbol* *freakout*

 

[MidnightWizard]

The Fukushima tragedy - is Koeberg next ?

There is also a similar lecture at UP

See below

GSTM Lecture: The Fukushima tragedy - is Koeberg next?


GSTM Lecture: The Fukushima tragedy - is Koeberg next?

Co-sponsored by GSTM
The recent events at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan that followed the massive earthquake and tsunami have been one of the major focus areas in all the news bulletins up to now.
A number of the messages in the media conveyed rather conflicting opinions that served to confuse rather than clarify what was, and still is happening.
This lecture will serve to explain what happened at Fukushima starting from the generic basic principles on which reactor technology is based
and will show what is currently happening at Fukushima is rather well predictable given the current boundary conditions surrounding the plant.
Some features of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant will be explained which will serve to highlight its capability to handle these types of external events.

Location:
Building: UP Conference Centre
Room Number: Sanlam Auditorium
University of Pretoria
Pretoria, Gauteng
South Africa 0002

Date: 24-March-2011
Time: 06:30PM to 08:30PM (2.00 hours) All times are: Africa/Johannesburg
Email meeting contact... RSVP: By 23 March 2011 with Chantelle van Rensburg
E-mail: chantelle.vanrensburg@up.ac.za Tel: 012 420 5179

==============

 

[Lounger]

None of those who really need to hear it will hear it at that debate. The ones who really need to hear it have made up their minds a long time ago and don't care what anyone else says or what the truth is for that matter. To them, nuclear is bad! *Insert nuclear radiation symbol* *freakout*

Nuclear power has the capacity to get out of control very quickly with disastrous results. We saw this at Chernobyl, as well as in Japan. Not to mention 3-Mile Island, Windscale, and plants in Germany.
I would rather they concentrated on renewable energy like solar or wave power than an extremely dirty system like fission.

 

[BCO]

IMO: Wind/solar/wave/geothermal > hydro > nuclear > coal/gas/oil.

 

[Rosaudio]

What is all this 'Is Koeberg next?' kuk?

 

[w1z4rd]

Nuclear power has the capacity to get out of control very quickly with disastrous results. We saw this at Chernobyl, as well as in Japan. Not to mention 3-Mile Island, Windscale, and plants in Germany.
I would rather they concentrated on renewable energy like solar or wave power than an extremely dirty system like fission.

More people die every year from getting coals outta coal mines than in the entire history of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be pretty close to renewable, we just need to improve the current systems.

 

[w1z4rd]

What is all this 'Is Koeberg next?' kuk?

Hysterical people.

 

[Archer]

Nuclear power has the capacity to get out of control very quickly with disastrous results. We saw this at Chernobyl, as well as in Japan. Not to mention 3-Mile Island, Windscale, and plants in Germany.
I would rather they concentrated on renewable energy like solar or wave power than an extremely dirty system like fission.

Lets see -
When coal works 100% the way it was intended to its creates massive amounts of air and water pollution and usually results in respiratory diseases (Look at China where 1 in 3 people over 40 are suffering)
When nuclear works 100% the way it was intended to nobody gets hurt in any way and you get huge amounts of power
When wind power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, you kill lots of birds, and you need huge areas of open land
When solar power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, and you again use up vast amounts of land
Geo/hydro are good options but they have some development problems last time I checked (anyone have info on these?)
Then there is always the holy grail - nuclear fusion, which beats everything without even trying AND is 110% safe because it can not get into a runaway meltdown/explosion situation

 

[Lounger]

More people die every year from getting coals outta coal mines than in the entire history of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be pretty close to renewable, we just need to improve the current systems.

How does Uranium get out of the ground - does it just appear on the surface. Use your loaf man!

 

[Kalvaer]

None of those who really need to hear it will hear it at that debate. The ones who really need to hear it have made up their minds a long time ago and don't care what anyone else says or what the truth is for that matter. To them, nuclear is bad! *Insert nuclear radiation symbol* *freakout*

Exactly.. and somebody here already mention Chernobyl sigh...

Its the same as the BS with Cell phones. Do you know you get more radiation from eating a banana, than you do from a Cell phone.. I don't see Green peace attacking the fruit industry though?

Here is an interesting Chart with some of the doses.. of course most people wont look at it http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

IMO: Wind/solar/wave/geothermal > hydro > nuclear > coal/gas/oil.

In theory.. Yes, But have you had a look at the environmental implications of setting up wind or wave generation systems that can even come close to something like Koeburg? The generators required for wave, would destroy something like 500 km's of our coast line. Killing whales, fish, dolphins, etcs. The land surface area required for wind, would take up most of the karoo, again, killing if not destroying the natural environment, etc, etc

If anyone wants the real story of whats happening in Japan.. Look at this website: http://www.niasa.co.za/blog/ They also have information about the REAL stats with regards to koeburg, and not the ramblings of some mad idiots

 

[alloytoo]

Lets see -
When coal works 100% the way it was intended to its creates massive amounts of air and water pollution and usually results in respiratory diseases (Look at China where 1 in 3 people over 40 are suffering)
When nuclear works 100% the way it was intended to nobody gets hurt in any way and you get huge amounts of power
When wind power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, you kill lots of birds, and you need huge areas of open land
When solar power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, and you again use up vast amounts of land
Geo/hydro are good options but they have some development problems last time I checked (anyone have info on these?)
Then there is always the holy grail - nuclear fusion, which beats everything without even trying AND is 110% safe because it can not get into a runaway meltdown/explosion situation

Hydro is vulnerable to droughts, and damming rivers does have environmental consequences.

Geothermal power is great, but it is (for now) limited to active geo-thermal areas, is subject to the water table being adequate and not being over exploited.

 

[alloytoo]

How does Uranium get out of the ground - does it just appear on the surface. Use your loaf man!

fraction of the tonnage of coal with far smaller environmental mining footprint.

 

[BCO]

Lets see -
When coal works 100% the way it was intended to its creates massive amounts of air and water pollution and usually results in respiratory diseases (Look at China where 1 in 3 people over 40 are suffering)
When nuclear works 100% the way it was intended to nobody gets hurt in any way and you get huge amounts of power
When wind power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, you kill lots of birds, and you need huge areas of open land
When solar power works 100% the way it was intended to you only have power 50% of the time, and you again use up vast amounts of land
Geo/hydro are good options but they have some development problems last time I checked (anyone have info on these?)
Then there is always the holy grail - nuclear fusion, which beats everything without even trying AND is 110% safe because it can not get into a runaway meltdown/explosion situation

You neglected to mention nuclear waste that occurs when nuclear is working 100% the way it was intended. I'm not anti- nuclear, before anyone starts pointing fingers, but I do find that pro-nuclear people tend to approach the issue with rather rose-tinted glasses.

Re. wind and solar working only 50% of the time, the ultimate goal is to generate power from a combination of renewable sources, as well as a "smart grid" in order to deliver base load power 100% of the time. Also, there are certain solar systems that can provide power into/throughout the night - think molten salt.

 

[BCO]

In theory.. Yes, But have you had a look at the environmental implications of setting up wind or wave generation systems that can even come close to something like Koeburg? The generators required for wave, would destroy something like 500 km's of our coast line. Killing whales, fish, dolphins, etcs. The land surface area required for wind, would take up most of the karoo, again, killing if not destroying the natural environment, etc, etc

If anyone wants the real story of whats happening in Japan.. Look at this website: http://www.niasa.co.za/blog/ They also have information about the REAL stats with regards to koeburg, and not the ramblings of some mad idiots

Do you have any sources on all the claims re. environmental damage of the renewables you mentioned? I'm not saying they have zero environmental impact, but it seems to me you're painting a rather bleak picture...

 

[Kalvaer]

You neglected to mention nuclear waste that occurs when nuclear is working 100% the way it was intended. I'm not anti- nuclear, before anyone starts pointing fingers, but I do find that pro-noclear people tend to approach the issue with rather rose-tinted glasses.

And anti-nuclear people tend to do the exact same thing, more times than not, its as if they are completely blind instead.

I also agree with you on the waste created, but in terms of the damage it has on the environment when compared to the others, we aren't comparing apples with apples anymore

 

[BCO]

And anti-nuclear people tend to do the exact same thing, more times than not, its as if they are completely blind instead.

I also agree with you on the waste created, but in terms of the damage it has on the environment when compared to the others, we aren't comparing apples with apples anymore

Hence why I said I'm not anti-nuclear. It's definitely better than fossil fuel power sources, but I'm not convinced that, environmentally speaking at least, nuclear is superior to renewables.

 

[w1z4rd]

How does Uranium get out of the ground - does it just appear on the surface. Use your loaf man!

No it doesnt, but you dont need large amounts of it like you do coal. Take your loaf and stick it up your...

 

[Nerfherder]

What is all this 'Is Koeberg next?' kuk?

They think that Koeberg is going to be hit by a tsunami and an earthquake....

 

[Kalvaer]

I do think that there is a lot of work still to be done to make the renewable souces work. If for example we were allowed to push power back into the grid, and get discounted for what you push back from eskom, I would make sense to everyone to have solar panels installed on their roofs. If the government helped to subsidise this as well, making it viable for EVERYONE to do and we wouldn't have the problems of massive wastage of land for industrial sized panels. We would very quickly have a situation where solar energy would be able to take a massive load off of our current power stations.

Of course, that might take another 100 years to happen here