Pages

Sunday, March 27, 2011

The End of Nuclear Power?

I really hope that those in charge of our energy supply make the right decision, and STAY with nuclear power. Ever since the catastrophe at the Fukishima-Dai Ichi plant in Japan, the main focus of news coverage has been how dangerous nuclear power can be. However, I think we should look at this differently. This plant has 6 very large nuclear reactors, housed in a facility that is over 40 years old, on the coast with little protection, and has withstood a THIRTY FOOT tsunami that has knocked out all 3 backup power supplies. Even through all of this, nobody has died from radiation sickness, and the highest levels of radiation measured outside the evacuated zone has been minor fractions below the federal limit for caution, let alone danger. Think about it this way: if you had a Coal Power Plant hit by such a force of water, you would wash thousands of tons of coal, tillings, and hazardous chemicals into the water supply, causing untold amounts of sickness and environmental damage. The same goes for Oil. Its almost as if we've forgotten about the Deepwater Horizon spill last year: a loose security door caused a massive explosion and the release of over a hundred million gallons of oil, covering beaches and leaving behind environmental damage that still hasn't been fully accounted for. I think we should do the right thing and choose the safer option for energy, one that emits zero greenhouse gases, provides cheap and long-lasting energy, and becomes safer every day with research.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576226524171107988.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

34 comments:

Photo Blog said...

nice point, thanks for sharing!

MikeRoStevenson said...

In addition to all of this. I'd also go on to say its more geo-politically viable for the United States. We import most of our oil, yet most of it comes from politically unstable and often hostile areas. By continued investment into nuclear energy we reduce the need for oil and hence reduce the need to be so dependent on this area. The political consequences of achieving this would be immensely beneficial, ie not building relations with dictators, not feeling the need for military intervention, etc.

Jok3r said...

Nice post, keep going ;)

Elliot MacLeod-Michael said...

totally agree man. this is an isolated thing in japan, with special circumstances involved, and the whole the pros of nuclear power outweigh the cons.

George Valentine said...

can't be the end of nuclear power, it's too good

Wayward Disposition said...

ALL of the worlds nuclear power plants need a good refurbishing. However, I think it's a horrible idea to get rid of them all together.

freddieblue1 said...

lets hope so, good post

Darkkal said...

really good info to know, i got family back there :O

Kaneda said...

Well I agree on some parts.
I think nuclear power can work, but it has to be safe. 40 year old systems should've been rebuilt long ago, this is just careless and stupid.
And we have to find a way to store all the nuclear waste without poisoning the world.

Pappa Püllï said...

One disaster and the end of nuclear power? Ridicilous! No way, i want nuclear power, i want it now! Cheap, safe and reliable power. People need it, so we can't say we dont want Nuclear Power...

JuX said...

I agree 100%.

Patres said...

I agree with that. The main problem with nuclear power is in fact we don't develop it because of these scared eco mentalists. What we are left with are 30-50 year old designs instead of brand new, super techy, super efficient plants.
And for those who fear radiation deaths, how many coal miners, outshore oil rig workers, etc. die trying to get to the fuel for the other kinds of reactors?

Shoeby said...

I agree, we should stay with nuclear power as it is safe and effective. We need to work to progress the technology further.

EmoGoth said...

I think it's in everyon's best interest to continue using nuclear power, but to heavily reseach other forms of power as well.

Xuian said...

I do agree. I wouldn't call this a disaster at all, though. What happened IS a disaster, but the nuclear plant itself wasn't a disaster. Sure, some stuff happened and minor radiation is leaking, but hear me out. They are taking care of the problem and there was no meltdown! No one has died from it. This is the worst case scenario when all failsafes fail? I'll take it! How often is a MASSIVE tsunami going to hit nuclear reactors? And even when they do, no one dies.

I sure hope it isn't the end, but it looks like it. Time for more coal power, let's all die thanks to us killing our atmosphere! woohoo!

Willy Wade said...

Nuclear is necessary if people want all this power. You can't have it both ways, people need to either cut their usage, or stop moaning about where this power comes from.

I had never considered the comparison to the oil spill actually.

red9987 said...

kinda have to have the nuclear power, with the amount of electricity people consume on a daily basis, it basically requires to production capacity of nuclear plants.

Kingmush said...

You bring up excellent points and I do wish people would consider what you posted. Nuclear power is just so stigmatized in popular media people overlook the good and focus on the bad.

Axis of Evil said...

I agree completely. The dangers of nuclear energy are greatly exaggerated by the media.

Anthony C said...

I've seen news reports now saying that even with what has happened in all of the history surrounding nuclear power, it is still safer than coal. Approximately 120 deaths per year because of coal, compared to 0.0001 deaths per year because of nuclear. Even with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in perspective, nuclear is still safer than coal.

shaman said...

cant wait until fission power becomes common

Mr Duke said...

I've noticed nothing happens instantly in this day of age. Take hybrids for example, they are slowly being introduced into the market so companies can squeeze profits out of fossil burning fuels vehicles before they become obsolete.

ColdFyre said...

Nuclear or bust! Considering no new plants have been built in the US since TMI and we STILL get 20% of our power from nuclear, that just shows how much we really need it.

Jellybro said...

Oh wow, Nuclear power is efficient though, at least when its contained properly.

Wayne said...

Man i still think nuclear power is the way to go, even given the potential risks :/

Doc-Mitchell.blogspot.com said...

yesterday in a part of germany the first environmental friendly partie was elected to rule.

Lincoln said...

very good point i never thought of it this way

Stevesonaplane said...

The first step is utilizing energy more efficiently.

Jesper said...

wind power will take over ;)

Merkin said...

I totally agree about nuclear power. it's the future, but so many people are so quick to dismiss it because of the stigma.

Alexis said...

I don't think the end of nuclear power has been marked at all. I think, this marks an age of extremely cautious and, probably oximoronic, safe nuclear power. You know, like, building it in the middle of tectonic plates where there are absolutely no earthquakes. That seems like the right way to go. Or build them in deserts. That could work too.
I don't think we (as a global population) will be saying good bye to nuclear just yet.

Pseudonachrichten said...

nuclear fusion would be a good alternative if it gets finished

Tibble said...

Just getting rid of it isn't the answer, its too powerful and we dont have anything efficient enough to replace it

ironchefman said...

If we adopt new breeder reactor designs, we can realize great gains in efficiency while reusing and reducing nuclear waste. Just need to get over the existing stigma of nuclear power.

Post a Comment