Stop the government building Nuclear power stations

[coldarc]

our entire universe is powered with electric currents and all matter in it is in a state of ionized plasma. even atoms behave like plasma. its a nebula like environment. nuclear elements is produced in stars at low temperatures and is caused by strong electric currents that produce cold electricity. what we use to power powerplants is fuels that is already processed in stars only to convert it back into electricity. why not extract the electric currents directly from our own ionosphere?

[Theaverable]

Nuclear is the future.

[LukeNAESA10]

Wind and solar are total shit nuclear all the way.

[xmichiganfanx]

Seriously? Wind and solar? WHat are we trying to power a calculator? I assumed we needed to power cities and the best, greenest choice is nuclear power by far.

[zassounotsukushi]

Your video is of a coal plant.

Observe the flue gas stack and conveyor system on the left. Nuclear plants have no tall, thin chimney putting out pollution, only the cooling towers, which I'm assuming are the reason you mistook this plant for a nuclear plant.

[radfax]

The governments have plans drawn up to negotiate contracts with local boroughs, councilors and officials to facillitae storage bunkers in urban areas.

There is another way, a more holistic way, we are in the forefront of innovation and secured progression if we seize the moment and the opportunity. Wind power, solar power, along with many other technological advancements can indeed provide solutions both in the short and long term

[bumpas11]

Say NO to what? Science? Progress? Reason? I've got a better idea. Say NO to fear-mongering and technological ignorance. Join the modern human race or stay in your cave and watch it go by.

Chernobyl design is history. There is no evidence that anything like it could ever happen in the west. It was only possible in Russia or another closed-minded country where the "govt" controlled your every thought. Simply not possible elsewhere, physically or in any other way of thinking.

[brizihe]

cant wait till nuclear fusion come online in the next 50- 60 years :)

[raamya123]

in car bombs

[DosuZakuKin]

Nice set of arguments there "Chernobyl is proof that these facilities are not failsafe"

You do realize that was 20 years ago an technology has improved greatly since then. Also waste management for Nuclear waste isn't such a problem anymore we've learned how to deal with it.

[LukeXgamer]

I say no to your opinion. Nuclear power owns.

[radfax]

Question?

Where are they going to put all the nuclear waste????

[MarsMoonEuropa]

@radfax Storage Bunkers.

I'm going on a holiday to see one that's a laboratory in Sweden. I'm looking forward to it - it looked so pretty in the pictures!

[xxBAMSTERxx]

i say yes when you think of how many power stations there are and the fact that you can only name chernobyl makes them seem pretty safe. i think greenpeace would like to talk to you.

[radfax]

Do your research pup

[theshitinator]

i live in russia my dad is an energy coordinator and even if im only 13 years old ,i know a lot more about nuclear energy than the dude who made this video.The russians deliberately shut down the safety mechanisms at the plant . At first they wanted to conduct the experiment in Murmarsk but they refused because it was a dumb idea. Anyways american power plants have a safety dome over the reactor (that can resist an an airplane crash ) which prevented the 3 mile island disaster.

[hiraku0n]

Since when did any gov. say they are build more RBMKs? No agency will allow such reactor without a containment building be build not to mention that RMBK had a + feedback design.

The obvious answer to climate change is to replace fossile fuel plants with nuclear.

Indeed, share information but not anti-nuke propaganda; at least get your nuclear basic straight. Global warming by GHG is by far more serious threat than any nuclear waste, as these are within engineering control.

[radfax]

You should do some research on hydrogen and its potential as a renewable energy source, there are many other steps being taken in researching other methods for sustainable renewable, green energies. Besides this you seem to be missing the point, that is that the governments of the EU are adopting proposals to build nuclear waste storage bunkers underneath you homes.

[trekbiker91]

@radfax hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a way to produce energy

[DethWshBkr]

Also, what caused Chernobyl? VERY VERY VERY poor safety and regulatory controls.

Comparison of apples to oranges.

I lived literally 15 minutes from Three Mile Island (surely that one rings a bell too!), yes, it was a malfunction, but a contained malfunction, and during a time when we still were learning about nuclear power. Done properly, Nuclear is by far the best option

What are we to do for energy if we do not increse our nuclear capacity? More coal, or the insufficient solar/wind?

[BAJJMiller]

Because the radioactive waste that will be deadly for the next million years isn't dangerous at all.

[MarsMoonEuropa]

@DethWshBkr YEAH! It's like, should we ban road building because 12 million people died building one in Russia?

The Greens are manipulative tyrants.

[tk421gunslinger]

That car you are using to drive by that power plant is doing more harm to the planet than that plant ever will.

[radfax]

tk421, check out the posts appearing at regular intervals and this may give you a clue that the vehicle is not a car, but a train,

[tk421gunslinger]

haha, got me....Regardless, I believe that a power plant as this one is the way to go. I live in Texas and work at a wind farm. I would much rather see a wind farm nuclear power plant combo than these stinky oil plants we have everywhere. And as far as waste goes, I would put that into the government hands, but I hear that there are companies willing to recycle and responsibly dispose of the waste.

[tk421gunslinger]

Also there is talk, locally, about water running very thin. But benaeth our underground fresh water supply is a even larger supply of brackish water(underground salt water). There are talks of building reverse osmosis plants to make this usable. But enormous amounts of energy will be needed. A power plant like this could not only give us tons more water, but supply water to big cities like Dallas and El Paso.

[MintyKanesh]

Yes, nuclear waste is the main problem with nuclear power today and is much more dangerous than any other pollution you are likely to come in contact with. However, every single one of us breaths in a dirty coctail of pollutants in the air every day. In our lives, we are near 100% unlikely to come into contact with nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste is dangerous, and lasts a long time but it is relatively easy to control. It is solid so can be put in one place, moved around etc.

[dacowboys81]

Chernobal was 30 some years ago. Safety standards have risen since then and a meltdown is almost a nonfacter. Its cheap and clean energy. The biproducts are steam(god knows thats bad) and nuclear waste, which we are finding ways to better get rid of and even reuse.

[spontaneoussam2]

Exactly. The new breeder reactors can recycle about 99% of nuclear "waste." And nuclear power is certainly viable in the uranium-rich US.

[radfax]

The waste from nuclear power plants has a half life of some 10,000 years; this means that in 10,000 years time the toxicity of the radiation will be half as strong. This will still kill anything that it comes into contact with either directly or indirectly. The UK government proposes to offer your local council a cash incentive to allow them to build storage bunkers for the depleted uranium. It would be beneficial to for you to sign the petition against it.

[vipervr4]

This is true Plutonium-239 half life is 24,110 years and is the byproduct of the reaction. Also the spent spent fuel rods are not completely waste. There is still alot of energy in them that can be reprocessed. I think if they want to build more plants. They should be required to reprocess the spent fuel and not just store it. This can be reused in the reactor but one problem I noticed this is what bombs can be made from. In the US they are building local storage on sites as well.

[vipervr4]

I think they are safe for awhile. But as for 24,000+ years I don't and that something that must be considered and addressed.

[radfax]

That's the trouble with the selfish inclusiveness of human beings, they do not consider the ramifications of their actions, and are often noted to say, "well it won't effect me".

[mmysama]

Most nuclear waste can be reprocessed into fuel. What remains can be stored in the yucca mountain mountain repository. (it's more secure than fort knox and would take an act of god to breach) Also, within the next century or so it may become cost effective to send waste into space.

[radfax]

The image of cooling towers used in this piece is just to convey an image of the power industry.

The arguement put forward is not only regarding how failsafe atomic power stns are, but the fact that the nuclear waste is NEVER safe and therefore nuclear power should not be

used full stop

[vipervr4]

nice pictures of cooling towers. coal power plants have the same thing. Nuclear is safer than you think. By the way. Most of the bad things said about nuclear power generation is myth. Chernobyl is nothing like US designed plants it had no containment. It was more a less in a Morton building. It was a different type of reaction that our designs do not use. Chernobyl happened because operators shut off safety system and alarms. It was the result of human error.

[mmysama]

A containment dome alone would have been enough to stop the explosion. The Chernobyl disaster is far more telling of the shortcomings of the soviet union than the dangers of nuclear power. The fact that hardly any environmentalists point that out makes me wonder how many of them are supporters of the soviet cause.....