Comments on: Chernobyl and Nuclear Power http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143 A British expat on Sakhalin Island Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:21:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Alexei http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-5252 Alexei Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:44:02 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-5252 In two words, Chernobyl taught the world how not to run a nuclear power plant, though at an enormous cost. In two words, Chernobyl taught the world how not to run a nuclear power plant, though at an enormous cost.

]]> By: John B. Chilton http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-4708 John B. Chilton Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:04:18 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-4708 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html" rel="nofollow">Going Nuclear</a>: "In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change." [Patrick Moore] Going Nuclear: “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.” [Patrick Moore]

]]> By: Tim Newman http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-4554 Tim Newman Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:20:07 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-4554 When the Titanic sank, it didn’t have a direct effect on the inhabitants and ports for generations.

That is true, yes.

But the danger of nuclear power/weapons can be seen in two examples–Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl.

I think you’re making a huge mistake in treating nuclear weapons and nuclear power as interchangeable. IMO, they should be kept completely apart and dealt with separately.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the problems of nuclear power is that the costs of a running a plant exceeds the return on energy. Is this true?

I’m not sure, but I’d hazard a guess that the returns on investment already expended on nuclear power are probably slim. However, this money has already been spent and future generations of nuclear power will be able to build on the knowledge gained from this expenditure. Nuclear power should therefore be much cheaper to generate than it was in the past.

We also have a big issue here about where to dump of nuclear waste. What is your opinion about how to deal with this concern?

I’ve got no idea. :) The disposal of the waste is a big problem, but I’d treat this separately from the safe operation of a nuclear plant.

Oh, and thanks for reading!

The pleasure’s all mine!

And I assume that you are enjoying Night of Stone?

Very much so, thanks.

]]> By: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Belarus, Ukraine: Chernobyl Meaning http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-4442 Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Belarus, Ukraine: Chernobyl Meaning Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:21:22 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-4442 [...] Vilhelm Konnander explains the meaning of Chernobyl for Belarus 20 years later. Tim Newman of White Sun of the Desert disagrees with Sean Guillory’s take on the lessons of Chernobyl: “To use Chernobyl as a reason to abandon nuclear power is like using the Titanic as a reason to discontinue all shipping.” [...] [...] Vilhelm Konnander explains the meaning of Chernobyl for Belarus 20 years later. Tim Newman of White Sun of the Desert disagrees with Sean Guillory’s take on the lessons of Chernobyl: “To use Chernobyl as a reason to abandon nuclear power is like using the Titanic as a reason to discontinue all shipping.” [...]

]]> By: browler http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-4403 browler Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:01:21 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-4403 Agree with this post (despite also agreeing with the first sentence!). Thanks Agree with this post (despite also agreeing with the first sentence!).
Thanks

]]> By: Sean http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-4328 Sean Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:57:10 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-4328 I don't have a rational counter argument that is based in any real knowledge about nuclear power. Admittedly, my rejection of it is based on a fear of nuclear war, something I had nightmares about as a kid. I could never watch that stupid nuclear holocaust movie the Day After, starring that grand actor Steve Guttenberg until I was like 20 or something. So for better or worse my opposition to nuclear power is based on fear. I do however disagree with the Titanic analogy. When the Titanic sank, it didn't have a direct effect on the inhabitants and ports for generations. It might have had a psychological effect on passenger cruising. But the danger of nuclear power/weapons can be seen in two examples--Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl. Not only was the scope of devastation wide, the effects of that devastation continue to the present, whether they be psychological or physical. Now perhaps you and many others are correct that nuclear power is much safer than before. That does bring me some comfort since it doesn't seem to be going away. But concerns remain and anniversaries like Chernobyl do present the opportunity of discussion and reflection. I do have two questions though. I remember reading somewhere that one of the problems of nuclear power is that the costs of a running a plant exceeds the return on energy. Is this true? Second, one issue here in California is the fact that the plants take an enormous amount of sea water, bringing concerns of nuclear waste. We also have a big issue here about where to dump of nuclear waste. What is your opinion about how to deal with this concern? Oh, and thanks for reading! And I assume that you are enjoying <i>Night of Stone</i>? I don’t have a rational counter argument that is based in any real knowledge about nuclear power. Admittedly, my rejection of it is based on a fear of nuclear war, something I had nightmares about as a kid. I could never watch that stupid nuclear holocaust movie the Day After, starring that grand actor Steve Guttenberg until I was like 20 or something. So for better or worse my opposition to nuclear power is based on fear.

I do however disagree with the Titanic analogy. When the Titanic sank, it didn’t have a direct effect on the inhabitants and ports for generations. It might have had a psychological effect on passenger cruising. But the danger of nuclear power/weapons can be seen in two examples–Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl. Not only was the scope of devastation wide, the effects of that devastation continue to the present, whether they be psychological or physical.

Now perhaps you and many others are correct that nuclear power is much safer than before. That does bring me some comfort since it doesn’t seem to be going away. But concerns remain and anniversaries like Chernobyl do present the opportunity of discussion and reflection.

I do have two questions though. I remember reading somewhere that one of the problems of nuclear power is that the costs of a running a plant exceeds the return on energy. Is this true?

Second, one issue here in California is the fact that the plants take an enormous amount of sea water, bringing concerns of nuclear waste. We also have a big issue here about where to dump of nuclear waste. What is your opinion about how to deal with this concern?

Oh, and thanks for reading! And I assume that you are enjoying Night of Stone?

]]> By: Mark Holland http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143&cpage=1#comment-3982 Mark Holland Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:19:54 +0000 http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=143#comment-3982 Mr Burns: That was close, we turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island. Mr Burns: That was close, we turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island.

]]>