New nuclear power plant to Finland!

[Stefu]

Finn's shouldnt need that much reactors.

Wow, you're sounding like the Green Party.

[faded glory]

Ahh so your admitting that your helping terrorist groups acquire weapons of mass of destruction?

hmm.....wheres my 25 million$$$, rewardsforjustice.com ?

[Stefu]

We admit nothing!

Is that a bomber I'm hearing? Viuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu BOOOOOOOM

[Rasbelin]

More on this issue...

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20020524IE9

BTW accidients with nuclear power plants are not always related to bad design. I.e. in the Chapelcross nuclear power plant in the UK, 24 highly radioactive poles of fuel fell to the floor from a 15 m height. And that was a close shave! So you can't just blame bad design or that something is made in the former USSR. Njet!

There has already been two accidients or serious situations this year; one in Germany and one in the US. Not to forget two leaks at the TVO's plant in Hästholmen two years ago.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: New nuclear power plant to Finland!

Originally posted by aaglo
On 24th of May, 2002

The finnish parliament has voted for the construction of fifth nuclear power plant to be built in Finland. The vote was tight: 107 for - 92 against.

What do the fellow Apolytoners think about the desicion to build nuclear power plants? Should they be done, or shouldn't they?

Comments, if you have any?

i think it is a dangerous business but that it could prove to be much more safe and less damaging to the envioronment than convenstional power generation plants. and much cheaper

it all depends on the control and the quality. because if you slip, you get hurt big time.



in koslodui, bulgaria there is an agein and extremely dangerous nuclear plant. it is chernobyl waiting to happen. but it provides like 70% of the energy of our neighboring country. luckily we arranged for them to get the money from the EU and us to close it down part of it and renovate the other part.


also in turkey (SE opposite of Cyprus) they wanted to build a nuclear plant.

sorry but i dont trust them to keep it safe and due to the police state they have, democratic pressure would not do anything to change things
luckily there too we managed to lobby internationally and scuttle that plan too.


all things considered about nuclear plants i'm not tottally againmst it IF the whole thing is done in a VERY safe, VERY quality like manner and the country that has them NEVER runs out of money

[Bereta_Eder]

also i have a question: what happens if someone bombs a nuclear plant? will there be large contamination? (logically)

[TCO]

nuclear power is not a walk in the park (has real dangers) but it is a pretty good method for power production. Much of the cost comes from regulatory methods which are stringent but are not properly focused. For instance in US civilian nuclear power, there is huge emphasis on automatic systems (design) rather than on having more intellegient operators. The US Navy in contrast has simpler plants but has more capable operators.

[Rasbelin]

Paiktis, I assume it really depends on the structure of the NPP and safety systems. If the reactor is automatically switched off, then it might give you some extra protection, but as the NRC has reported, a NPP can only cope with a small plane crashing into it, but nothing larger than that. So yes, the would be a nice catastrophy. Have a look at this picture that shows the globe on 27.4.1986. That shows how far the pollution from Tshernobyl was spread. That may give you a hint on your question.

[Bereta_Eder]

thanks
yes i was talking about bombinmg like plane dropping firing bombs or cruise missile bombing.

[Thue]

Originally posted by faded glory
The thinking behind nuclear waste is, one day they should find a bacteria or somthing to eat the waste or send it somewhere.

I hope that was a joke .

[faded glory]

It would take a huge bomb to crack the towers above the reactors. Russian reactors dont have containment towers,well they do but much weaker. so they are at alot of risk.

I would be more worried about a Nuclear powered Submarine. But they say thats very safe.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by GP
For instance in US civilian nuclear power, there is huge emphasis on automatic systems (design) rather than on having more intellegient operators.

That might have something to do with the fact that many of the NPP acciedents happened in the US have been caused by lack of inspections (i.e. the acciedent in Davis-Besse earlier this year).

So my point is that why not head for energy forms that really are safer than nuclear power. It's far more safe to use solar power or to build windmills. And it's still free and we won't run out of wind. As a matter of fact the Earth is getting windier.

I do understand partially why some want to have NPP's, but at least I prefer to live next to a hydro plant, than an NPP. I suppose even Stefu agrees with me. Or...

Those were my two cents.

[Stefu]

1. Finland has as a matter of fact already reached the emission limits of the Kyoto convention, so you can't argue this positive decision with that.

And building fossil fuel plants, including gas, would push us over the limit.

2. This very recent voting result means that Finland will be the first European country to build more nuclear power for decades.

Nope. French built a nuclear power plant as recently as 1998.

BTW accidients with nuclear power plants are not always related to bad design. I.e. in the Chapelcross nuclear power plant in the UK, 24 highly radioactive poles of fuel fell to the floor from a 15 m height. And that was a close shave! So you can't just blame bad design or that something is made in the former USSR. Njet!

There has already been two accidients or serious situations this year; one in Germany and one in the US. Not to forget two leaks at the TVO's plant in Hästholmen two years ago.

Deaths caused by Western nuclear power plants=0. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. None. Looks like a pretty good record for 30 years. OTOH, if one wants to bring up Chernobyl (deaths: 31) one might also want to consider that worst gas accident cost lives of 3350 (India, 1984) and second worst 650 (Soviet Union, 1989). Not to mention the effect it must have had on atmosphere - methane, after all, is 20 times worse a greenhouse gas than CO2, and gas leaks tend to get pretty lot of it to air.

Paiktis, I assume it really depends on the structure of the NPP and safety systems. If the reactor is automatically switched off, then it might give you some extra protection, but as the NRC has reported, a NPP can only cope with a small plane crashing into it, but nothing larger than that.

Considering the issue is whether to build an additional reactor to one of two nuclear plants that already exist, I don't see how much terror is in connection to this particular issue, ie. fifth nuclear reactor. :hmm:

And anyway, Finland, being a small non-NATO country with no homegrown terrorist groups, shouldn't be a prime target on any sort of terrorist's list.

It's far more safe to use solar power

In FINLAND?

to build windmills. And it's still free and we won't run out of wind. As a matter of fact the Earth is getting windier.

Well, except when it's winter or, uh, a windless day. Hmm, winter - what season would be the one when we need most energy? And, of course, wherever wind power's used, it's always heavily subsidized by the state, and still is much more expensive than nuclear power.

Bottom line is that if we have expensive eco-friendly form of energy production, and non-expensive eco-friendly form of energy production, then it's wiser to choose the non-expensive one, wouldn't you agree?

[Grrr]

I voted yes, so it can melt down and slow the finnish invasion .

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Stefu




In FINLAND?

LOL

actually solar and wind energy harvesters are more and more growing in importance here. but i'm not sure if they can generate significant amounts of energy (all by themselves)