Belgarion wrote on Aug 10
th, 2022 at 5:34pm:
...Yes, the unpredictable is always a risk. Earth might be hit by an asteroid, a pandemic may wipe out vast numbers, Aliens may invade.....and the chance of a serious issue with a nuclear reactor or its spent fuel is about as likely as any of these. ( Less so compared to a pandemic)
In 68 years of nuclear power plant operation there has been one major incident, Chernobyl, where the problem was a combination of shoddy workmanship and a system that did not allow for initiative and problem solving. The other two non- incidents beloved of the anti nuclear alarmists, Three Mile Island and Fukushima caused no radiation related deaths or injuries.
There are currently 439 nuclear power plants operating world wide, not only in countries we think of as major players in the nuclear game, but in places like Mexico, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Brazil and others.
The 'waste' problem so beloved of opponents is being solved by reprocessing. Currently around 90% of used fuel can be reprocessed and used again. The technology is improving all the time and the amount of spent fuel requiring long term storage is minimal.
There is no reason that Australia cannot take advantage of this cheap and clean source of energy.
I agree totally. Chernobyl was based on nuclear power generation
using 1948 technology, and should of course never have been built.
An inexperienced team and inadequate designs at the plant were
later found to be the cause of the disaster.
Unfortunately it's become the default safety "standard" by which the
tree-huggers judge current nuclear power stations. Last year, in China,
93 coal miners died, and 10 in the US—but you never hear the greenies
mentioning that in comparison to the zero deaths in nuclear power
stations during the past ten years, or even the single confirmed death
from Fukushima.
Forum
Pages: 
