Seven reasons to back nuclear power

haha i like reason 6.. to bad the US makes the public think otherwise.
 
Very well written article - with facts.

I don't get these tree-hugger activists. One moment they are protesting at Koeberg about nuclear power destroying the fabric of nature, another moment they are protesting at Eskom about Koeberg not making any power??

I don't see these activists walking everywhere and living in caves to protect nature. I see many of them living in old houses with poisonous asbestos wall fillings and driving old worn out cars that bellows earth-killing smoke from its exhausts.
 
This is a really good article and I think that the nuclear industry really needs to do some marketing to sell nuclear as a "green" power solution. The fact that coal power stations make up 50% of our greenhouse gases in SA is pretty scary.

The only thing I don't like in the article is the misuse of statistics in section 5. The graph is misleading, while it is ok to talk about the number of incidents, it is meaningless to discuss without disclosing the severity of those incidents. Yes, Chenobyl was the only serious nuclear power plant accident. Yes, it was because safety procedures were not followed in a badly designed reactor system. However, the severe impact of this one incident cannot be overlooked. Not only on the local human poputation (336 000 people displaced, a huge area of the Ukraine rendered unproductive etc.) but also on the whole of Europe's environment.
fin24 said:
The only such nuclear power accident was Chernobyl, caused primarily by a crazy reactor design that would never be allowed in the West. According to the 2005 Chernobyl Forum, an expert report from eight specialised UN agencies, the number of deaths so far from the accident is about 50.
Click to expand...
Having recently watched a documentary (on discovery channel :))about the accident, I think that 50 deaths is a very low number (possibly these were the deaths that occurred immediately, not those that happened later due to radiation poisoning).
wikipedia said:
It is difficult to tally accurately the number of deaths caused by the events at Chernobyl, as the Soviet-era cover-up made it difficult to track down victims. Lists were incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates. Most of the expected long-term fatalities, especially those from cancer, have not yet actually occurred, and will be difficult or even impossible to attribute specifically to the accident.

Estimates and figures vary widely. The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases).[2] Nearly 20 years after the disaster, according to the Chernobyl Forum, no evidence of increases in the solid cancers and, possibly more significantly, none of the widely expected increases in leukemia have been found in the population.[3]
Click to expand...
source

It's fine to argue one side of the argument, but you risk damaging your credibility by not disclosing the full picture.
 
Last edited:
While I see nuclear power as a necessary evil I'd like to challenge you to this:
Show me ONE disused nuclear power station where the environment has been rehabilitated to any degree. To the best of my knowledge it has never been done. Those sites will remain toxic graveyards for generations to come.

Another thing: The diaposal problem of nuclear waste is STILL a huge problem which nodody has yet solved satisfactory, despite what this article claims. I've seen one scheme where it was proposed that nuclear waste should be dumped on the ocean floor in an area of techtonic subduction so that the waste will be drawn into the earth's mantle. This sounds okay but at present it remains wildly theoretic.
 
StrongTurd said:
While I see nuclear power as a necessary evil I'd like to challenge you to this:
Show me ONE disused nuclear power station where the environment has been rehabilitated to any degree. To the best of my knowledge it has never been done. Those sites will remain toxic graveyards for generations to come.
Click to expand...
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_clo.../1350877_nuclear_power_station.php?id=1350877
Nuclear power stations are not toxic per se. Thus the environment in the vicinity needs no rehabilitation. The waste from the reaction is toxic and needs to be managed and disposed.

Another thing: The diaposal problem of nuclear waste is STILL a huge problem which nodody has yet solved satisfactory, despite what this article claims. I've seen one scheme where it was proposed that nuclear waste should be dumped on the ocean floor in an area of techtonic subduction so that the waste will be drawn into the earth's mantle. This sounds okay but at present it remains wildly theoretic.
Click to expand...
You are correct, disposing of nuclear waste is an issue. But it must be compared to the environmental impact of other power generating methods.
 
Why don't they just fire it off into outer space ? never understood why not
 
krycor said:
Why don't they just fire it off into outer space ? never understood why not
Click to expand...

1. It's extremely expensive.

The Russian Zenit 2 rocket is the cheapest LEO launch vehicle to use in terms of payload versus cost. ($1167-1667 per pound)
In 2005 Eskom wanted to build a demonstration model, 110 megawatt Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor in Koeberg which will generate about 760 tons of waste over it's lifetime.
At about R27380 per kg it would require about 20.8 billion Rand to get that waste just into LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and much more to actually get it headed out into space.

2. It's dangerous - launches fail
Ever thought about the consequences of a failed launch with tons of radioactive material on board? The chances of a failure is there no matter what launch vehicle you use whether it be Russian, European or American technology.
Until you can guarantee 100% successful launches it's a no-go.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear waste is a problem but the quantities are relatively small compared to other generation methods.
 
An advertorial for nuclear power (I wonder why?)

I note mention of the accident has been removed from the wiki on PMBR's.

For comparison.

Science needs entrepreneurs, says Page
-
Solar energy installations in the Nevada desert were capable of producing 800 megawatts per square kilometres, somewhat less than half the 2 000 megawatts of a nuclear power plant, he said. (A mid-sized natural gas-powered plant generates around 400 or 500 megawatts).
Click to expand...
 
Only problem is what happens to your kick ass, solar power generation facility when the sun sets or mother nature sends in a cold front?

Solar power = 0%
Nuclear = 100% (well maybe not if Eskom are maintaining the plant ... :D )
 
Paul_S said:
Only problem is what happens to your kick ass, solar power generation facility when the sun sets or mother nature sends in a cold front?

Solar power = 0%
Nuclear = 100% (well maybe not if Eskom are maintaining the plant ... :D )
Click to expand...
In the karoo (or the nevada desert?) Never mind 3/4 of southern africa is desert. But yeah, let's build lots of nucleur power stations. There's no alternative right? ... And yes, I am sure there are similar creative methods of storage.
 
kilo39 said:
In the karoo (or the nevada desert?) Never mind 3/4 of southern africa is desert. But yeah, let's build lots of nucleur power stations. There's no alternative right?
Click to expand...

The sun doesn't set in the Karoo or Nevada deserts?
I really must think about moving in that case.
12 hours of practically zero power generation each and every night and very little just after dawn and before sunset.
Oh and in winter it gets a lot worse and that's when you need the most power.

... And yes, I am sure there are similar creative methods of storage.
Click to expand...

Name one successful large scale, efficient storage method.
The fact is that there is none.
If someone could come up with one then solar and wind power would be a lot more practical but until then they're a complete waste of money.
 
Last edited:
The worst ever nuclear accident at a nuclear power station in the West was at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979. It killed no one, injured no one and had no health effects.
Click to expand...

That is patent crap.

From the wiki entry:
Over the next week the steam and hydrogen were removed from the reactor using a recombiner and, more controversially, by venting straight to the atmosphere. It is estimated that a maximum of 13 million curies (480 petabecquerels) of radioactive noble gases were released by the event, though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released.
Click to expand...

480 petabecquerels had some health effects you better believe.

And as for all this "safety", see my post at:
http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=859058&postcount=28
:eek:
 
Here's ONE good reason why NOT to back nuclear power..

Consider this. Just to give you a sense of the time scales involved:
If the Ancient Egyptians had nuclear power, and something went wrong with their reactor.

We'd still - in 2007 - not be able to go anywhere near the area in Egypt, without risking DNA mutation,
birth abnormalities, and death, from radiation.

Want to take chances with those kind of insanely long-lived, long term problems, if something goes wrong?
 
Last edited:
rwenzori said:
480 petabecquerels had some health effects you better believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that is the total - it is not what each person experiences.

"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was estimated to be 8 - 30 millirem (mrem), and no more than 100 mrem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."

Increased risk - certainly.
Major health disaster - bull dust.
People keep blowing the risks all out of proportion - you probably have more chance of getting lung cancer living near the coal power station in Witbank.
 
rwenzori said:
480 petabecquerels had some health effects you better believe.
Click to expand...

Really? So that must mean they've actually produced conclusive evidence that it has had a negative health impact? Or are you just making it up?

This is the effect the radiation has had so far on Chernobyl.
wikipedia said:
Some cattle on the same island died and those that survived were stunted because of thyroid damage. The next generation appeared to be normal.

In the years since the disaster, the exclusion zone abandoned by humans has become a haven for wildlife, with nature reserves declared (Belarus) or proposed (Ukraine) for the area. Many species of wild animals and birds, which were never seen in the area prior to the disaster, are now plentiful, due to the absence of humans in the area.
Click to expand...

Furthermore these proposed models for human health concerns based on exposure to radiation are inaccurate:

Wikipedia said:
The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. It will be impossible to attribute specific deaths to Chernobyl, and many estimates indicate that the rate of excess deaths will be so small as to be statistically undetectable, even if the ultimate number of extra premature deaths is large. Furthermore, interpretations of the current health state of exposed populations vary. Therefore, estimates of the ultimate human impact of the disaster have relied on numerical models of the effects of radiation on health. Furthermore, the effects of low-level radiation on human health are not well understood, and so the models used, notably the linear no threshold model, are open to question.

Given these factors, several different studies of Chernobyl's health effects have come up with substantially different conclusions and are the subject of considerable scientific and political controversy.
Click to expand...

The chances of you dieing are extremely small compared to the chance of being killed by another person/disease such as AIDS/etc.

Although I admit it's not something I would like to be exposed, the chances are slim of it happening and even then the greenhouse gases produced by other power plants are also bad for human health not to mention the secondary effects it has like ozone depletion (increased risk of skin cancer because of the sun, increased heat levels on the planet,etc.). Those effects are always present were as nuclear power it only happens in freak accidents.
 
Last edited:
I ask myself - who is the author. I see a name Andrew Kenny.
Now why did he not sign it with his title, I ask? He is apparently an 'energy researcher at UCT'.

This is what The South African Climate Action Network (SACAN) says about him:

The local representatives of this outfit are a familiar pair of local commentators: Andrew Kenny has been widely quoted in the press on energy issues over recent months – a particular favourite of the business press – and was apparently the Department of Minerals and Energy’s expert of choice for briefing parliament. Kelvin Kemm has a column in Engineering News, has a consultancy in the energy sector, plays the international conference circuit and has a long history of characterising concerns about the health or sustainability of ecosystems as the hysteria of self-serving bunny-huggers.
Click to expand...
http://www.sangonet.org.za/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6423&Itemid=389

So it seems he is a global warming denialist and one of Erwin's boyz.

Here's another article he wrote on the PMBR website
http://www.pbmr.com/index.asp?Content=101&MState=DT&Article=12
- THERE is something dreadfully patronising about Michael Cope`s advice on nuclear and renewable energy to us benighted Africans ("First World options make for a bleak future, Mr Mbeki", Cape Times, November 23).

Clean, safe, economic nuclear power is the single biggest source of electricity in Western Europe and provides over 80% of French electricity.

France, Finland, Japan and other nations are building new nuclear power stations.

But Cope wants us backward people on the Dark Continent to be happy with third-rate energy sources.
Click to expand...

So he is a PMBR supporter/website contributor.

I could have listed more, but this is more than enough to write him off as an unbiased source. This also explains why he never added any credentials in his article.

I'm always suspicious and sceptical when so-called journalists start writing dishonest copy in financial newspapers. He's left a lot out and much of it is quite distorted as many have commented above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X