Wasn't meaning to say you would prefer the CO2 melty ice cap route, just suggesting the alternative that so many people seem to miss Wind and Solar power you say are green. But hydroelectic is causing lot's of damage to the environments its used in. Some places are flooding way to much, others are drying up because of the impact of huge damns, hardly a green option in my mind. The way it appears to me is that, whatever we (realisticly) do there are going to be problems for future generations, we can only go so far before things will have changed so much that we its foolish to try and think what the people of that day will do. Still, I think we're thinking along roughly the same lines Uncle Psy, I just like to play devils advocate.
specofdust - the stuff that comes out of nuclear reactors may have a shorter half life, but it isnt significant enough! Its still dangerous for many many years (and some so radioactive that when it comes out the reactor it has to be immersed in water for a long time!). There are methods of containing nuclear waste where it is mixed with a glass like substance so even if it was floating around in the sea, there would be little to no contamination! Do that, wrap it in a bit of lead, cover it in concrete, bung it here and your laughing! The only problem is it has to be looked after for several thousand years (which tbh, wont also be a problem as we will have cost effective space travel by then (or will have destroyed ourselfs! though i prefer the former ). Chernobyl can't happen again. Computers won't allow it, and nuclear technicians are alot smarter (and likely vetted alot harder) now. Hell, you arent even allowed visitor stations in nuclear plants now because of the safety concerns. The casing on reactors are tougher, and the british way of cooling nuclear reactors relies on converction, so the hotter it gets, the more it cools, and it stabilises. Of course theres a point at which the pipes will burst, but these things are built to be very close to failsafe, it wouldnt even surprise me if there were sensors in the plants to detect incoming projectiles, and vast holes under the reactors just in case the reactor needs to be neutralised. I agree wind farms are fairly attractive to look at, but there still lame Solar power could be soooo soooo good if only we had efficient solar panel to collect it with, iirc its ~1380 Watts per meter squared at the earths surface. So, if we were 100% efficient in our collection of solar energy (which cant be achieved, but for example)... Area of atlantic ocean: 106 400 00 km If we covered 0.01% of the atlantic in these solar panels... 106 400 000 000 / 10 000 * 1380 = 14 683 200 000 Thats 14.6832 BILLION Watts per second, for half the day, and will last approx 5 billion years (though i couldnt say that for the panels ). Granted, 0.01% of the atlantic is still a huge area, but you get the idea! Still, i'd prefer fusion edit: the example may be a bit misleading, at 100% there still wouldnt be that much power generated. The 1380 is an average and in areas its likely to be less than that, but the example stands as the benfits of solar power If only we had (or could build) efficient panels
All a terrorist faction would have to do is find the nuclear reactors and detonate a small bomb near it and all he|| would break loose...
nuclear reactors are shielded with like half a meter of lead, and several meters of concrete. With the barriers surrounding nuclear facilities, it would have to be a big bomb, or an air carried projectile.
It'd be a waste of a bomb. The nuclear material they use in power plants isn't nearly as potent as the stuff used in tac-nukes anyway. Your statement is indicitive of the problem surrounding nuclear power though - misinformation. Many people think the same sorts of things, even though their not true, so many think that if we all used nuclear power then we'd be having lot's of mini nuclear bombs going of all the time. Look to France, they use nuclear power for the majority of their power. It works fine, and they're still alive.
yeah but who wants to bomb france pfft... they can eat all the french toast they want nobody cares... I was just pointing out the misinformation as well. It's quite a common problem that the countries must deal with. It is nuclear fission not fusion. Therefore more stable.
No it's not. Not considering the security on such a sites and youd need a huuge bomb pretty close to the main reactor (talking meters away) in order to cause significant damage. I think youve been watching too much 24 Jack Bower will save us anyway. It's also too hard for ***** terrorists who like to target easy civilian targets to cause the maximum amount of fear and damage. Im with spec - typical public misinformed statement. Is also doesnt help that most peoples views and opinions of nuclear power come from watching the simpsons, and ive yet to meet something that glows. Ive worked on a medical site that is classed as a radioactive site. I worked 5 feet from a fridge that contained tritium and isotopes of iodine, but the security for even that kind of site and the government restrictions in it is immense. France is 98% nuclear. Japan is also something like 90+.
It takes something in the magnitude of several thousand pounds of explosives to kill a nuke plant-and at last check, a nuclear power plant is restricted air-space.
I reckon an airliner would do it. Of course, you'd have to be insane to crash a jumbo jet into a building, wouldn't you... If I remember properly New Scientist did a study a few years ago to try and work out what would happen if a jumbo jet *did* hit a nuclear power plant. I think the conclusion was that in the short term there would be little damage, but in the long term it would make Chernobyl look like a picnic... Sam
You couldnt make fusion explode even with a bomb (edit: unless it was a plasma compression and deuterium/tritium injection bomb, but such sophistication would be difficult even for Geordie La Forge ) I think if you placed a bomb so it would destroy any computers which control the temp of the reactor then a bomb could do damage, but that equipment is also likely to be well shielded, and there are always human controllable failsafes! In short, if you want to terrorise the UK, or any other country who "look after" its reactors, your far better off placing it in a city or wherever!
And on another note, Fusion breaks down the second magnetic containment fails; if you blew the darn thing apart there would be no ill effect to ANYTHING.
doubt it, even if you could crack the containment vessel control rods would drop down and you'd probably just get a bit of radiation escaping, not a full on meltdown
Well labour and the conservatives havn't ruled out the idea totally just yet and I hope they do come round and decided to build new power stations in the future. I think it's more about the costs for all this new infrastructure than anything seeing as though we've just wasted a lots of money on a needless war no government is gonna be able to aford this any time soon. It'll be a massive initial investment but in the long run (this maybe a few decades though) this would all pay off.
Didnt i already stress that terrorists are pussys and wouldnt bother to jack another airliner cause they're less likely to get away with it again, considering all the security increaments now (not that that's perfect i know).
It doesn't need to explode. All it needs to do is get the radioactive material out and into the atmosphere. The cancer rate in the UK would skyrocket. Sam
What million degree celcius fireball? http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html Breaching the fusion reactor would contaminate the reaction, resulting in failure and a scattering of high energy particles.
