Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Swiss stand in support of nuclear power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Swiss stand in support of nuclear power



    Excellent news!!!
    Let us return to the moon, to stay!!!

  • #2
    While nuclear power is not all bad.

    I would just like to ask where they are putting there nuclear waste.

    Nuclear power is okay IF you take responsibilty for your own waste. That means burying or storing it in your own back yard so as to speak.

    Exporting it to dodgy countries who need to make a fast dollar is just passing the buck and will come back to haunt a lot of countries.

    Comment


    • #3
      As I understand it, most of Europe has France, the UK, or Russia reprocess the nuclear waste.
      Let us return to the moon, to stay!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        And where is left over stuff put?

        Comment


        • #5
          The countries whose waste is being reprocessed are obligated to take it back.

          Japan is presently reprocessing their nuclear waste in the UK, while they construct their own reprocessing facility.

          The US presently does not reprocess, nor has it built a new nuclear power plant in over 20 years...
          Let us return to the moon, to stay!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            I wish germany would pull out of funding nuclear power with tax money. This is the only reason that stuff is economically viable here - wish we'd just put the money into research, wind parks, or private solar panel (photovoltaic or warm water) subvention.

            AZ
            There's an Opera in my macbook.

            Comment


            • #7
              OK, please let me stick my oar in here.

              Switzerland has some of the strictest nuclear regulations in the world. Spent fuel rods are sent mostly to France, where 96% of the radioactive material is recycled and repacked into fuel rods. The other 4% of highly radioactive material is sent back (representing a total volume of about half an oil drum, if it were all put together) and vitrified into stainless steel drums. By law, they are stocked at the Federal Nuclear Research Centre in the canton of Argau for a minimum of 40 years, with continual monitoring, before they are permitted to be disposed of.

              There are several sites within Switzerland that have been identified as suitable for depositing low and medium wastes. These are mainly in thick anhydrite strata (by definition dry), which are in very low seismic activity parts of the country and which has been stable for a minimum of 100,000 years. No decision has been made yet where the highly active wastes will be deposited.

              The two nuclear initiatives that were voted on called a) for a continuing moratorium on the construction of new nuke power stations and b) the dismantling of the existing ones within a decade.

              Happily, the populace rejected both by a good majority and all but one half-canton rejected the second and two half-cantons the first. These were Basel-Land (BL) for both and Basel-Stadt (BS) for the other. There is a historical reason for this. A nuke power station was under construction at Kaiseraugst near Basel some 20 years ago when the greens launched a moratorium initiative which passed and work was halted in mid-stride, wasting billions. The Baslers are obviously being nimbyish by being alone for voting for these initiatives, last Sunday.

              Currently (pun intended), Switzerland is having to import power at peak times, this being very costly. If this initiative had not passed, they would have had to build a couple of fossil-fuel thermal stations, which would have buggered up their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. and caused more pollution. As nuke, while not being perfect, is a good, reliable and, above all, pollution-free means, all major HE possibilities being exhausted, the Swiss wisely voted with their heads.

              The two largest nukes, Liebestadt and Gösgen, there, between them generate nearly 30% of the country's needs and have had a remarkably good safety record with very few unprogrammed stoppages or reductions in output. Both work to over 90% capacity, including programmed stoppages for maintenance and changing fuel rods.

              Incidentally, each of the five nuclear power stations is a corporation (Aktiensgesselschaft) and is profitable in its own rights with no federal subsidies. By law, they are even obliged to generate reserves for the cost of decommissioning. Pricewise, the juice they generate is roughly on a par with that generated by the 62% supplied from hydroelectricity, which has historically caused far more deaths than the nukes. The only federal intervention in the running of the nuke power stations is that there is an inspectorate to ensure safety at each power station.

              Bravo to the Swiss who have not shot themselves in their collective feet, like the Belgians recently did!
              Brian (the devil incarnate)

              Comment


              • #8
                I would definetely prefer nuclear power instead of what we have now. In fact, we've almost finished building nuclear power plant - it never happened probably because of hysteria after Tchernobyl. Instead we have, initially though as temporal thing, the biggest brown coal power plant in the world, supplying 1/5th of our energy (with 1/3 from all brown coal power plants).

                Good for me I live far from it (but I wouldn't mind living close to nuclear one...).

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would vote in favour of nuclear power IF:

                  - I were sure about its safety
                  - We would know what to do with the highly radioactive waste
                  - the state wouldn't pay millions and millions both directly, for waste storage, and for waste transport security forces

                  AZ
                  There's an Opera in my macbook.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    az

                    The MTBCF (mean time between catastrophic failures) of a properly designed modern nuke reactor is in the tens of thousands of years and all of them, for about the last 25 years, have been designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 737 or larger flying into them or an earthquake of Richter 8.5 or higher. We must not be paranoid because of Tchernobyl.

                    We do have the technology to deal with the waste, but we don't want to apply it, the biggest opposition coming nimbyists.

                    Not every state subsidises it, Switzerland being a case in point. The nuke AGs themselves pay for the storage and I've not heard of security forces being required in CH.

                    I've often said that I would prefer to live next door to a nuke power station (or waste depot) than downstream for a hydroelectric dam. Over 1/4 million persons have been killed worldwide due to dam and penstock accidents in the last 50 years. That makes even the Tchernobyl statistics seem like child's play.
                    Brian (the devil incarnate)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Japan is presently reprocessing their nuclear waste in the UK,
                      actually, thats under review, as some of the Sellafield engineers were caught mislabelling some of the drums for shipment back to Japan.....

                      RedRed
                      Dont just swallow the blue pill.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sellafield has not only labelled some drums wrong, but is currently dumping radioactive material into the sea. Esp. Strontium 90 is dumped in larqe amounts, this has lead to increased radioactivity in the ocean btw Ireland and UK, and also increased strontium levels in the North atlantic and esp, around Norway. The postive side is that when I go diving, I don't need a flashlight anymore, I can see the glowing fish swimming around.
                        But on the other hand, increased radiation poses a risk, esp, when you are eating it. (Alpha and beta radiation poses only a great risk when eaten.) The skin can usually block Beta, and Alpha can be blocked by a few inches of air. And increased strontium levels has been found in North atlantic cod.


                        James
                        Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Brian, I too wouldn't want to live downstream of a hydroelectric dam(n), but I'd not want to live near a nuke, too.

                          A serious question: If there is only a very small amount of highly radioactive waste, why don't we shoot it into the sun?

                          MTBCF doesn't really mean much, because in reality, it can happen anytime (just like MTBF is an indicator of quality, still many harddrives fail well before that, and you can't always predict when), plus, you still have human error.

                          Guchi: Imported to or from germany?

                          AZ
                          There's an Opera in my macbook.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by az

                            A serious question: If there is only a very small amount of highly radioactive waste, why don't we shoot it into the sun?

                            AZ
                            hehe, lots of fears

                            1. they are afraid to get it in their heads if the launch is a failure

                            2. they are afraid that the added nuklear material might change the balance in the sun

                            3. Alien species can take it as a hostile act if we launch atomic garbage into space (yeah, im not kidding its one of thereasons)

                            4. Greenpeace & gang

                            I have heard more stupid reasons but I can't rememebr em now
                            If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

                            Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The latest science and technology news from New Scientist. Read exclusive articles and expert analysis on breaking stories and global developments


                              A new pill to protect against radiation sickness is in development. Seems rather interesting.

                              The US bury their waste in big underground chambers. And its pretty smart, for perhaps some day, you need some of the Isotopes, then you can bring them up to the surface again.


                              James.
                              Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X