From Fukushima Kumi asks Italians to "Save Italy from Berlusconi's Nukes"

Nuclear is the solution. Not the problem.

You say "This should never happen - not in Ukraine", but consider this: since that di...

Nuclear is the solution. Not the problem.

You say "This should never happen - not in Ukraine", but consider this: since that disaster Ukraine has commissioned more and more nuclear power plants. They now have 15, plus two new reactors that they started building in 2004. They supply 50% of the countries power. Does that sound like a country terrified by nuclear? They are also much more likely to be carbon-neutral years and years ahead of other countries.

Japan was stupid to build a nuclear plant on an earthquake zone. They were sensible to close their other plant down. They will now experience the lights going out this summer which may soften some of the anti-nuclear sentiment. The disaster in Japan was a complete vindication of nuclear power safety. A 30 year-old plant hit by two of the most terrific forces that nature has to offer - and nobody has died because of radiation. A handful people are tragically sick, but just like with Chernobyl the death toll has been hysterically exaggerated.

You say to Italy "Nuclear energy is never safe", well it's much safer that many alternatives. Consider the Hydroelectric Dam at Vajont, Italy. Over two thousand people lost their lives there. Compare that with Fukishima - nobody died because of radiation.

Fantastic advances have been made in Nuclear safety. Modern PWR's are passively safe - as the reactor heats up the energy falls, cooling itself. Thorium reactors are safer still, as their core is liquid as it heats up it expands and spills into a specialised spill tray - which cools the reactor down again. They can simply be switched off also.

To ignore advances like this, and power which has the BEST safety record of any power source is stupid, and condemns us to more carbon emissions worldwide. Greenpeace's efforts to save the world, may end up costing it.

AP1000 "passive" safety feature is a water tank on the reactor which can cool the core even in a blackout. But the capacity is that it can d...

AP1000 "passive" safety feature is a water tank on the reactor which can cool the core even in a blackout. But the capacity is that it can do that for 72 hours, which is impressive but would have not been sufficient in Fukushima. New reactors are safer? On what statistics you can say that? No EPRs and no AP1000 are existing at the moment! The nuclear propaganda has been built on the performances of 2nd generation nuclear reactors... the same that blewed in Fukushima...

Hi Guiseppe,

You are correct that some of the new designs haven't been built yet - that's because they are new!

If you wan...

Hi Guiseppe,

You are correct that some of the new designs haven't been built yet - that's because they are new!

If you want statistics how's this:
Deaths from Nuclear power accidents:
1950's 2 Deaths
1960's 30 Deaths (all on a Russian Icebreaker)
1970's 0 Deaths
1980's 48 (47 at Chernobyl - plus 87 workers very ill , and 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer in the population - all from the Gov't not banning milk...)
1990's 2 Deaths
2000's 0 Deaths
2010's 0 Deaths

HydroPower:
2010 (Kazahkstan) minimum of 43 Deaths
2009 (Russia) 75 Deaths
2000 (Switzerland) 3 Deaths
1982 (Colorado) 3 Deaths
1977 (Georgia, USA) 39 Deaths
1975 (China) 26,000 Deaths (plus 145,000 from epidemics and famine)
1979 (India) 1,800 Deaths
1963 (Vajont, Italy) 2,000 Deaths
1923 (Italy) 356 Deaths

Even if you add in the hysterical figures that people quote about Chernobyl then Nuclear still does not come close to being as deadly as "safe" hydropower. Coal power is, of course, the deadliest of the lot.

But statistics isn't the whole story. The irrational opposition to new nuclear plants has resulted in an anomaly: the old, less safe, reactors stay, while the new, safer, reactors aren't built!

However 4 AP1000's are being built in China, EPR's are being built in Finland, France and China, and thankfully China are also building Thorium reactors - which is pretty close to the holy grail. That is safety - a rector that cools itself, and can just be turned off in an emergency. Much less dangerous waste of a far lower quantity. And no reliance of despotic foreign regimes for fuel supplies!

@Daithesci

Why don't you ask the people who are still getting sick or watching their children get sick, or parents get sick in the former...

@Daithesci

Why don't you ask the people who are still getting sick or watching their children get sick, or parents get sick in the former Soviet Union. The impacts of Chernobyl are still being felt, and those people are too stricken with looking after the ill, paying for doctors or burying their family members to stop the disastrous nuclear industry and foolish governments from making the same mistakes....

Chernobyl is a gaping wound that is still threatening the Ukraine as they figure out how to contain the disaster zone and cover the nuclear fallout at the plant.

Will we never learn?

This mindless quoting of deaths is not the whole story. Similarly, reactor safety is only a small part of the issue. It does not take a very smart per...

This mindless quoting of deaths is not the whole story. Similarly, reactor safety is only a small part of the issue. It does not take a very smart person to understand how dangerous and destructive nuclear power is. Nuclear waste is far too harmful, potent and long-lasting to ever make nuclear a viable option. Not every technology is suitable for use. Any technology that renders portions of the planet uninhabitable is absurd. There are many better options than nuclear or dams.

Dear Mr Caine,

You say: "Why don't you ask the people who are still getting sick or watching their children get sick, or parents get...

Dear Mr Caine,

You say: "Why don't you ask the people who are still getting sick or watching their children get sick, or parents get sick in the former Soviet Union. "

The best answer I can give to that is to let someone better qualified than me to say it for me:

[Quote]
"For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world's leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation. The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, including four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia.

In the rest of the population there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children – arising "almost entirely" from the Soviet Union's failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131. Otherwise "there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure". People living in the countries affected today "need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident".

[Dr Helen] Caldicott told me that Unscear's work on Chernobyl is "a total cover-up". Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention."
[end of quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Mr Caine - you have been misled.

Dear B1,

You say: "Nuclear waste is far too harmful, potent and long-lasting to ever make nuclear a viable option."

Dear B1,

You say: "Nuclear waste is far too harmful, potent and long-lasting to ever make nuclear a viable option."

Spent uranium fuel rods will be 100% safe in 100,000 years.

That's a long time.

What this 'headline grabbing' number doesn't tell you is that radiation diminishes in a half-life decay. After 40 to 50 years the waste is 90 % safe. After 600 years it's 99% safe. It's only the last 1% that takes the millennia.

There are plenty of places in this earth that could store waste for 50 years, or even 600 years. After that it's not really an issue. A better solution is to leave it undersea at the edge of two tectonic plates where it will be drawn to the centre of the earth in a subversion zone.

Problem solved.

people ,wake up !
when we talk about energy it is not an issue of cheap or expensive technologies !
It is about being fair to the environm...

people ,wake up !
when we talk about energy it is not an issue of cheap or expensive technologies !
It is about being fair to the environment !
we live in an age of change .
German scientists are experimenting a long time ago with storage by pumping water upstream in the hidro powerplants when solar and wind is available and it is excessive,and then reusing this energy when it is needed.
In Spain it was built a solar -thermal plant that can store energy for 15 hours with no sun.
Photovoltaic technology is every day cheaper,almost comparable with the price drop of recordable CDs.And Pv plants built today can be replaced after decades with modules having at least the double efficiency.If they are feasible today,how would they be tomorrow ?
Altough sounds impossible,cleanenergy will be cost effective! When ?!Well,when we decide to forbid all forms of fossil fuel based electricity production !
All this sounds crazy ?!Well,for a gangster it could sound crazy to have a decent job !

Daithesci, thank you for elaborating upon nuclear waste. It still seems too risky of a proposition to consider. How much from 600 years ago can still ...

Daithesci, thank you for elaborating upon nuclear waste. It still seems too risky of a proposition to consider. How much from 600 years ago can still be accounted for today? The drawbacks and dangers of nuclear energy are too overwhelming. There is too much potential for harm to be a wise choice. Very few other things upon this earth have the potential for such consequences to life.

Dear Geza2,

Wind and Solar are fine. The problem that they have is energy storage (as you alluded to). Compressed air is inefficient, mol...

Dear Geza2,

Wind and Solar are fine. The problem that they have is energy storage (as you alluded to). Compressed air is inefficient, molten salt only lasts 15 hours. The pumped storage you talk of is great, it's been done before, but there just aren't enough high level reservoirs to make it a viable solution worldwide.

If most of the energy can't be stored then you are faced with two choices:
1) risk only having power when the wind blows, or the sun shines, or
2) for every Mw of renewables have a Mw of backup.

If you go the first option then whichever government suggests it will be out of office come the next election. The population won't stand having power unreliable and/or rationed.

If you go the second then which backup do you choose? If you don't want Nuclear, then you are stuck with Fossil Fuel as the only viable alternative.

It gets worse than that. Power plants need a long time (hours) to get on line. You can't just turn them on when the wind dies. This means to have reliable power you must have them on "spinning reserve", i.e. turned on all the time, but at lower power. But they still are burning fossil fuel ALL the time.

There is no ideal solution. But the one that comes closest in my opinion is Nuclear. No CO2. Reliable cheap power. The best safety record of any power generation sector.

The only issue is the waste. It is seen as a "problem" but has resulted in no proven deaths in 60 years. High level waste can be quarantined underground for 50 years, before being put in a subversion zone. We are talking, in reality, about a small quantity of waste: around one ton per reactor for a *year* of reliable energy. Compare that to the millions of tons of coal required for the same amount of power.