UK regulator approves design for new nuclear power stations - Polidicks

Liquid thoriums reactors are the future. I know the UK did research into them. Not sure why they aren't going to construct a station for one.

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;38815636]The only problem is, if they accidentally come across an underground lake and there's a crisis like in Chernobyl, you've pretty much radiated a possible water supply which could do unnoticed until it's too late.[/QUOTE] also would be more expensive to stick all the buildings underground

[QUOTE=Maucer;38816318]The whole fukushima explosion could have been avoided using hydrogen removers, which is a standard on all reactors in finland and The current finnish one also has two walls; inner wall is gas sealed and can withstand quite big pressures. The outer wall is designed to withstand a collision of a commercial airplane. If the core manages to melt, it doesn't just melt trough everything but there's an actual 170m^2 area where its supposed to flow to be cooled. There are four different safety systems that all independently capable to keep the systems running.[/QUOTE] Finnish master race. If everyone copied Scandanavia and Finland then the world would be a better place.

[QUOTE=Mortson;38825076]Finnish master race. If everyone copied Scandanavia and Finland then the world would be a better place.[/QUOTE] On some things perhaps. But we got nuclear problems too. Mostly to do with aging reactors and opposition to building new ones. We could use a kick to get better (and safer) reactors too Also we have the advantage of smaller populations which does help

[QUOTE=bohb;38822222]It doesn't matter where you put the reactor. If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation. If the reactor explodes, it's going to contaminate hundreds of miles and make everything uninhabitable, as well as spread all over the planet via the jetstream depending on how large the boom is. UK regulators and anyone that thinks a new nuclear powerplant is OK to build is an idiot.[/QUOTE] You're dumb as shit, you do this every thread that the world nuclear is mentioned, modern reactors are safe as fuck, current reactors are already pretty god damn safe. [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;38822695]Fuck that, just have him remind you how many times there's been an 'uranium lava' meltdown.[/QUOTE] GUYS I'M TELLING YOU, EVERY NUCLEAR REACTOR KILLS BABIES AND DESTROYS FAMILIES, NOT TO MENTION THE THOUSANDS OF CHINA SYNDROMES [I][HIGHLIGHT]EVERY DAY.[/HIGHLIGHT][/I]

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38828249] CHINA SYNDROMES [/QUOTE] I fucking love you man

[QUOTE=mini me;38829115]I fucking love you man[/QUOTE] I remember reading an old donald duck comic where there was this black goo that could melt any substance and if you spilled it on the ground it would just dig straight down to duck-china

[QUOTE=Jsm;38822419]Remind me again, how many major nuclear disasters have there been since nuclear power stopped being experimental?[/QUOTE] HAHA. Nuclear energy never stopped being experimental. [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;38824061]But forget about how coal and oil kill people because of pollution, accidents, ect, yeah lets forget [i]three hundred thousand[/i] people that die worldwide from the current energy source we use.[/QUOTE] :downs: yeah, let's just forget about all of the children in Russia forced to live near Chernobyl that get weird cancers and horrible birth defects from the radiation poisoning their parents and them continue to receive. And all of the orphaned children with the same problem but their parents are dead from radiation poisoning. Let's not forget about the millions of animals that suffer the same problems. Let's also forget about all of those people in Japan that will eventually have the same problem from the Fukushima disaster. The number of people suffering from nuclear contamination worldwide numbers in the [B]millions[/B], it [B]far[/B] exceeds your "300,000 people" dying all of those accidents. Stop being an idiot and saying the reactors that did melt down are insignificant, they will continue to cause problems for another hundred thousand years or more. [QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38828249]You're dumb as shit, you do this every thread that the world nuclear is mentioned, modern reactors are safe as fuck, current reactors are already pretty god damn safe[/QUOTE] Yeah, you keep telling me they're safe until one of them burps out some radioactive steam because of some problem, then come up with more excuses to exhonerate why it was allowed to happen. Tons of safety protocol and backup systems aren't actually insurance until an actual event has happened, hen you can see if they help you, and not every incident is the same.

[QUOTE=bohb;38829299]HAHA. Nuclear energy never stopped being experimental. :downs: yeah, let's just forget about all of the children in Russia forced to live near Chernobyl that get weird cancers and horrible birth defects from the radiation poisoning their parents and them continue to receive. And all of the orphaned children with the same problem but their parents are dead from radiation poisoning. Let's not forget about the millions of animals that suffer the same problems. Let's also forget about all of those people in Japan that will eventually have the same problem from the Fukushima disaster. The number of people suffering from nuclear contamination worldwide numbers in the [B]millions[/B], it [B]far[/B] exceeds your "3,000 people" dying all of those accidents. Stop being an idiot and saying the reactors that did melt down are insignificant, they will continue to cause problems for another hundred thousand years or more.[/QUOTE] Those weird cancers were mostly thyroid cancers and they were treated succesfully with iodine, so you're wrong there. Fukushima is nowhere even close to being as bad as Chernobyl. There are are roughly 3,000 deaths that can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, the radiation released by coal burning power plants far exceeds that of nuclear so worry about that more than nuclear power stations dude.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38829363]Those weird cancers were mostly thyroid cancers and they were treated succesfully with iodine, so you're wrong there.[/QUOTE] Yeah, then explain to me the kids with rare types of Leukemia, bone cancers, brain cancers and others. Don't forget the kids born with horrible birth defects like twisted/missing appendages and deformed features. And even more kids born with severe mental retardation. [QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38829363]Fukushima is nowhere even close to being as bad as Chernobyl. There are are roughly 3,000 deaths that can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, the radiation released by coal burning power plants far exceeds that of nuclear so worry about that more than nuclear power stations dude.[/QUOTE] If someone is killed in a fossil fuel plant accident, you have grieving family. If someone is killed by a nuclear accident, you better bet their family is nearby. And although they aren't dead yet, their sufferng will continue for a lifetime unless they decide to relocate, and many don't because they can't due to financial or obligations reasons. This doesn't include the millions of people subject to radioacive fallout. Nobody has done proper research on the effects of such things, other than saying it will likely cause cancer and complications with pregnancy from meosis being corrupted from damaged genes.

[QUOTE=bohb;38829588]Yeah, then explain to me the kids with rare types of Leukemia, bone cancers, brain cancers and others. Don't forget the kids born with horrible birth defects like twisted/missing appendages and deformed features. And even more kids born with severe mental retardation. If someone is killed in a fossil fuel plant accident, you have grieving family. If someone is killed by a nuclear accident, you better bet their family is nearby. And although they aren't dead yet, their sufferng will continue for a lifetime unless they decide to relocate, and many don't because they can't due to financial or obligations reasons. This doesn't include the millions of people subject to radioacive fallout. Nobody has done proper research on the effects of such things, other than saying it will likely cause cancer and complications with pregnancy from meosis being corrupted from damaged genes.[/QUOTE] Do you not realise that the deaths from coal plants aren't because of industrial accidents, it's from nuclear isotopes in the emissions and from general pollution. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/[/url] Read the table and weep.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38816317]Because that's a terrible idea and we have no efficient way to transfer power back to the ground.[/QUOTE] Not a terrible idea if it was possible to build a space elevator and transfer the power through high voltage lines to the surface.

[QUOTE=tristanguy2;38830593]Not a terrible idea if it was possible to build a space elevator and transfer the power through high voltage lines to the surface.[/QUOTE] It would still be a terrible idea because current high voltage lines are composed solely of 49% AIDS, 50% Cancer and 1% conductor.

[QUOTE=bohb;38829299]HAHA. Nuclear energy never stopped being experimental. :downs: yeah, let's just forget about all of the children in Russia forced to live near Chernobyl that get weird cancers and horrible birth defects from the radiation poisoning their parents and them continue to receive. And all of the orphaned children with the same problem but their parents are dead from radiation poisoning. Let's not forget about the millions of animals that suffer the same problems. Let's also forget about all of those people in Japan that will eventually have the same problem from the Fukushima disaster. The number of people suffering from nuclear contamination worldwide numbers in the [B]millions[/B], it [B]far[/B] exceeds your "300,000 people" dying all of those accidents. Stop being an idiot and saying the reactors that did melt down are insignificant, they will continue to cause problems for another hundred thousand years or more. Yeah, you keep telling me they're safe until one of them burps out some radioactive steam because of some problem, then come up with more excuses to exhonerate why it was allowed to happen. Tons of safety protocol and backup systems aren't actually insurance until an actual event has happened, hen you can see if they help you, and not every incident is the same.[/QUOTE] Your entire argument is moot the second you bring up Chernobyl. Maybe you weren't aware, but that plant was built ignoring countless basic safety mechanisms that were already standard in its own time, MUCH LESS ones that are standard today. Also, unlike what you seem to think, the lava flow doesn't simply burn though anything down to the center of the earth. Surely you've seen this image before? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Chernobyl_lava_flow.jpg[/img] The flow is quite easily stopped and redirected. Finally, additional shielding is now standard in case of reactor explosions that don't happen anyways.

[QUOTE=bohb;38829588]lots of full potato level words[/QUOTE] i was wondering how someone could be so dense and biase ...just noticed the title under his name