OT: China's 37th reactor enters commercial operation

[The Natural Philosopher]

So much for reneable energy

[whisky-dave]

I found this more interesting, I wonder how many windmills stayed working.

[Jethro_uk]

Run a big cable across Russia, and we could avoid Hinckley B and just buy electricity direct. Not that we'll be needing so much in future.

[harry]

As more reactors appear,the chance of nuclear accident increases.

[Chris Hogg]

As people get more experience with their design and operation, the chance of a nuclear accident decreases.

[Brian Gaff]

Nothing wrong with Nuclear when its working properly and you have a really huge deep water trough to dump all your radioactive waste into, since nobody has worked out what to do with it yet. Brian

[Tim Streater]

So what if there's an accident. Two of the three we've had so far have produced no injuries, no deaths. The other one killed less than 100 people, and the Sovs had to work quite hard to make that one happen (or to be as bad as it was).

Instead, try worrying about chemical spills or deaths caused when fuel tankers crash. Like this, f'rinstance:

[Tim Streater]

You are harry AICMFP.

[Fredxxx]

But a lot less accidents than in renewable and fossil fuel industries.

[harry]

Which accident would you want near your home?

[John Rumm]

Well if its like the Banqiao Dam failure in the 70's, I would rather take my chances with a meltdown!

"more than 230,000 were carried away by water, in which 18,869 died.[9] It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking"

[Huge]

How many times has harry been shown the "fatalities per TWh" graphic for various power technologies, now?

[John Rumm]

Here is a new approach for him:

I quite like the explanation of the methodology:

"The energy system with by far the greatest amount of controversy about its risk is undoubtedly nuclear power. In a study of this type, we could not review all the claims and counter-claims about nuclear risk which have been made, especially with respect to reports such as the 4000-odd pages of the Rasmussen study on nuclear reactor safety (WASH-1400). Instead, a survey was taken of the major papers in the scientific literature which had estimated aspects of nuclear risk, including a monograph written by a well-known nuclear critic, John Holdren of the University of California at Berkeley. For each component of risk, the highest value from the group of scientific sources was used This procedure, not followed for any other energy system, was chosen as a way of removing suspicion of pro-nuclear bias which often clouds energy debate"

[Vir Campestris]

That's the wrong question. We only need one nuke per county. I already have a windfarm on the horizon, and half the time it's doing *** all. It would take an awful lot of them to cope with calm days - and then I would be at risk of shed blades etc.

BTW are you aware of

It doesn't seem to be on the UK news...

Andy

[The Natural Philosopher]

No conceivable nuclear accident could put anyone's life at risk.

So although I don't want an accident, I'd be happy to live a mile from a nuclear power station.

[newshound]

They have certainly got a problem with that spill-way but is it *really* "teetering on the brink of collapse"?