nukeular, it's pronounced nukeular...
Ahh is there no situation that can't be summed up by a Simpsons quote? Probably not.
Was in a discussion with a few people the other night and it swung around to nuclear power. Specifically the use of nuclear power stations in Australia. I'm personally all for 'em. Find any other way of powering Sydney feasibly for the next 100 years considering it's already on the brink of power supply collapse.
Well one guy in the group was totally against them and without any real basis except the fear of another Chernobyl. Fear (sic) enough. Only not quite. The fear is a totally emotional point of view driven by a lack of undrstanding about the actual thing itself. The idea that any and every nuclear power station could meltdown as simply at it seemed the Chernobyl one collapsed seems totally reasonable but it 'aint. It's just that in this part of the World we've never needed to look closely at the concept.
Anyways, I found some good articles and info about the subject here:
:: Nuclear Energy & Society general info
:: Answers.com rips Wikipedia here
:: howstuffworks.com explains the process here
:: FEMA's emergency fact sheet
:: IAEA.org - International Atomic Energy Agency
:: IAEA.org - 20 years after Chernobyl
:: Maps showing power stations Worldwide
Brief info taken from a few links above:
:: The first nuclear power station was built on December 20, 1951 in Idaho USA
:: By 1979 there were 249 reactors Worldwide
So for all the NPP's (nuclear power plants) and the length of time operating, the fact that we can only name one (so far, touch wood) that has ended in complete disaster must mean that things may not be so negative for the future of nuclear power. Just don't get Russian contractors in on the job is all…
quote for the day:
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt FDR (1882 - 1945)
Was in a discussion with a few people the other night and it swung around to nuclear power. Specifically the use of nuclear power stations in Australia. I'm personally all for 'em. Find any other way of powering Sydney feasibly for the next 100 years considering it's already on the brink of power supply collapse.
Well one guy in the group was totally against them and without any real basis except the fear of another Chernobyl. Fear (sic) enough. Only not quite. The fear is a totally emotional point of view driven by a lack of undrstanding about the actual thing itself. The idea that any and every nuclear power station could meltdown as simply at it seemed the Chernobyl one collapsed seems totally reasonable but it 'aint. It's just that in this part of the World we've never needed to look closely at the concept.
Anyways, I found some good articles and info about the subject here:
:: Nuclear Energy & Society general info
:: Answers.com rips Wikipedia here
:: howstuffworks.com explains the process here
:: FEMA's emergency fact sheet
:: IAEA.org - International Atomic Energy Agency
:: IAEA.org - 20 years after Chernobyl
:: Maps showing power stations Worldwide
Brief info taken from a few links above:
:: The first nuclear power station was built on December 20, 1951 in Idaho USA
:: By 1979 there were 249 reactors Worldwide
So for all the NPP's (nuclear power plants) and the length of time operating, the fact that we can only name one (so far, touch wood) that has ended in complete disaster must mean that things may not be so negative for the future of nuclear power. Just don't get Russian contractors in on the job is all…
quote for the day:
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt FDR (1882 - 1945)
posted by brent c. airey at 3:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home