thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kinksterparty Well, if people stop freaking out over nuclear - which, with only 2 serious accidents during the millions of runtime-hours accumulated by 1000's of reactors, has a miniscule impact on health & environment, compared to the less news-worthy but far more damaging ongoing pollution from coal and oil - maybe, just maybe, we could have a viable energy solution. The worst disaster, Chernobyl (Pripyat, actually), was caused by a military reactor that was originally built to breed weapons-grade uranium. It was NEVER designed to be a power-generating solution, and was only put into place because the USSR wanted to show off how technologically advanced they were. There are no active commercial reactors of that type anywhere in the world, so a "Pripyat repeat" is not possible. With the exception of major structural damage (like Fukushima), modern reactors would "spin down" and shut off, rather than "run away" like the Chernobyl one. Fukushima is a different story. Can't fault the reactor design, but ask yourself this: "who the HELL builds a nuclear power station in an area vulnerable not only to tectonic instability but also tsunamis?". If it was 30 miles further inland, the consequences wouldn't be anywhere near as severe as they are now. Still... TWO, coun'em, TWO, major failures. Compared to the millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants emitted by the fossil-fuel power plants. Actually there have been more than two. Would it be kewel if we stash the spent fuel rods under your bed for the next million years or so?
|