Our dependence on electricity

[MertzMan]

Variety is the spice of life and so it should be with power generation. I'm not against Nuclear power but it does have to prove itself in terms of safety.

 

[sandbender]

As well as the gold and silver mines that supply the raw materials.

Not to mention the energy needed to get all the materials out of the ground, shipped, refined, processed, shipped, turned into components, shipped, manufactured, shipped, sold, shipped and installed.

And all that energy will come from oil.

What is the lifespan of a typical solar panel? Because there will come a point when making panels becomes impractical as the cost of the oil to get the materials out of the ground, turned into panels and put on your roof will be too great.

 

[rik_uk3]

Variety is the spice of life and so it should be with power generation. I'm not against Nuclear power but it does have to prove itself in terms of safety.

Two accidents involving old reactors, the safety record is good.

I like the idea of a portable solar/wind setup for camping but thats a hobby

 

[wingstoo]

Variety is the spice of life and so it should be with power generation. I'm not against Nuclear power but it does have to prove itself in terms of safety.

I laugh because it is most probably the one source of power that has the least number of accidents attributed to it than any other.

I think I am correct in saying that in some 14,500 cumulative years of power production in 33 countries there has been three major incidents.

There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/S...afety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UnUa2aFFDNw

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability.pdf

There have only been

31 deaths at Chernobyl directly attributed to the accident
0 deaths at Fukeshima directly attributed to the accident
0 deaths at Windscale directly attributed to the accident (although this wasn't in the power generation plant which was next door and had nothing to do with the accident)

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-windscale-disaster/

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

 

[British Red]

I really don't think one can describe the outcome of Chernobyl as a "good" safety record. Fukushima was hardly safe either, contained perhaps but not safe.

The number of major incidents with nuclear power stations is arguably three if you count in three mile island. There are 450 nuclear reactors. That means a greater than one in 200 chance of any given nuclear reactor going critical. That does not qualify as a good safety record in my opinion. Particularly because, in the past, when anyone voiced a safety concern they were met with responses of "nothing can go wrong, there cannot be a leak". Then this was re-iterated after Chernobyl....and it happened again. Sure some very brave men averted a more serious problem in Japan - but it has to be acknowledged that much worse could have happened.

I am not anti nuclear but I do not believe their safety record is good.

 

[santaman2000]

I laugh because it is most probably the one source of power that has the least number of accidents attributed to it than any other.

I think I am correct in saying that in some 14,500 cumulative years of power production in 33 countries there has been three major incidents.



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/S...afety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UnUa2aFFDNw

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability.pdf

There have only been

31 deaths at Chernobyl directly attributed to the accident
0 deaths at Fukeshima directly attributed to the accident
0 deaths at Windscale directly attributed to the accident (although this wasn't in the power generation plant which was next door and had nothing to do with the accident)

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-windscale-disaster/

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

That doesn't list the reactor incident on the Soviet submarine K-19. Fifteen crewmen died over the two years following that and there's no count of the repairmen who died later.

 

[wingstoo]

That doesn't list the reactor incident on the Soviet submarine K-19. Fifteen crewmen died over the two years following that and there's no count of the repairmen who died later.

Now ask yourself why that isn't included Santaman...

Has a nuclear sub got anything to do with electricity supplies to the national grids of any country?

 

[wingstoo]

I really don't think one can describe the outcome of Chernobyl as a "good" safety record.

I don't believe I said it was "good".

Three incidents have directly caused 31 deaths, and that was actually only one incident that caused those... NONE of the other incidents has caused any direct deaths.

 

[rik_uk3]

I really don't think one can describe the outcome of Chernobyl as a "good" safety record. Fukushima was hardly safe either, contained perhaps but not safe.

The number of major incidents with nuclear power stations is arguably three if you count in three mile island. There are 450 nuclear reactors. That means a greater than one in 200 chance of any given nuclear reactor going critical. That does not qualify as a good safety record in my opinion. Particularly because, in the past, when anyone voiced a safety concern they were met with responses of "nothing can go wrong, there cannot be a leak". Then this was re-iterated after Chernobyl....and it happened again. Sure some very brave men averted a more serious problem in Japan - but it has to be acknowledged that much worse could have happened.

I am not anti nuclear but I do not believe their safety record is good.

A good few 'first responders' at Chernobyl died saving the lives of many, the Fukushima death toll remains to be seen as a direct result of an old reactor design (both were) that would not be allowed these days (passive cooling et al).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

I've nursed a lot (dozens) of ex coal miners who eventually died from lung complaints bought on by years of working underground; very few old miners around these days in the UK...they're all dead). Coal fired power stations have killed more than nuclear stations by far so I'd say nuclear is a far safer way of producing power...its safe.

 

[British Red]

That's a weird definition of safe. The fact that the leaks have so far not caused massive death does not mean its safe.

That's the same logic of driving in busy streets whilst drunk and exceeding the speed limit and declaring "I haven't killed anyone yet - so it must be safe"

 

[wingstoo]

yep, 5% of accidents are caused by drink drivers, which means 95% are caused by those who are stone cold sober...

So what definition makes one thing safer than another...

 

[santaman2000]

Now ask yourself why that isn't included Santaman...

Has a nuclear sub got anything to do with electricity supplies to the national grids of any country?

Yes actually. Quite a lot. A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor. Whether it's on land or at sea. They're built, maintained and work the same. They're either safe or they're not.

That said, I also believe the safety record is astounding (particularly when you take into accountthe vast number of reactors afloat)

 

[wingstoo]

Yes actually. Quite a lot. A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor. Whether it's on land or at sea. They're built, maintained and work the same. They're either safe or they're not.

That said, I also believe the safety record is astounding (particularly when you take into accountthe vast number of reactors afloat)

But not within the context of this thread Santaman.

 

[santaman2000]

But not within the context of this thread Santaman.

The question (within the context of this thread) is, "Are nuclear reactors safe?" To answer that question accurately, all nuclear reactors have to be accessed for their failure rates. Their location is irrelevant.

 

[rik_uk3]

That's a weird definition of safe. The fact that the leaks have so far not caused massive death does not mean its safe.

That's the same logic of driving in busy streets whilst drunk and exceeding the speed limit and declaring "I haven't killed anyone yet - so it must be safe"

No its not Red by any means and I believe you know that, but for whatever personal reasons you have you've become a forum Troll, a wind up merchant and a pedant. Not just my view either.

 

[wingstoo]

Sorry, I thought the thread was "Our dependence on electricity" which in my mind relates to land based needs.

 

[Andy BB]

Good grief! If the figures shown above about deaths/kwh aren't going to persuade anyone of relative safety, nothing is.

And the most dangerous of all? Solar. Think of how many deaths skin cancer is responsible for.......................

 

[rik_uk3]

There was a documentary about the proposed Russian moon landing project, good gosh its great they never tried to use the equipment. Apollo was flying by the seat of their pants but the Russian rig looked like a converted British rail signal box...levers and all.

 

[santaman2000]

Sorry, I thought the thread was "Our dependence on electricity" which in my mind relates to land based needs.

Agreed. Our dependence on electricity is the land based needs.

But to rate any type of electrical production's safety, one needs to evaluate the entire safety record of that method.

 

[rik_uk3]

Agreed. Our dependence on electricity is the land based needs.

But to rate any type of electrical production's safety, one needs to evaluate the entire safety record of that method.

And nuclear kills less than coal.