Nice work there TS. These diagrams are very good. Especially those on documenting fatalities. Hopefully people can clearly see the statistics which clearly bust the MYTH that nuclear power is dangerous.

Its akin to comparing on why travel is by far the safest mode of transportation.

I would like to add a question to detractors of nuclear power. You say of the long term effect of nuclear waste, exposure and so. Wouldn't a fiery explosive death be far more of a scary thought when all the methane gas that is trapped in the Siberian permafrost is released and combusted due to global warming which is directly related to use of fossil fuels?

Nuclear fusion actually uses the isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Not the standard hydrogen we know. Until scientist can find a different way to initiate the fusion (only way is true fission initially) and sustain it, nuclear fusion as a source of power is still not viable.

I'm not so clear on how deuterium and tritium is obtained, but if it involves electrolysis of water, it is definitely worth it. A cup of water can generate as much energy as million of tonnes of oil.

The main benefit of nuclear energy, aside from its insanely cheap power/cost ratio ( on the long run ), it is also environmental friendly. It won't be a waste at all seeing how we get to reduce the greenhouse gasses. Politically, we will turn many heads in the international scene. Though i don't see a negative reaction on our 1MW fully operation nuclear research reactor.

Earth has alot of natural resources, but we Malaysia are running out of oil. Perhaps the true cost benefits of having nuclear will not be seen until we become a net importer of oil.

Dangerous? How bout the flying aeroplane that flies over Klang valley everyday? Do you think a meltdown is more likely then a plane crashing into your neighbourhood?

Ponder on these.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 20 2009, 01:20 AM

Doesn't fish eat algae as well?

Chernobyl is 1 in a few million hours of reactor operation.

Don't underestimate Malaysians, they'll probably hire foreigners

I would prefer not to risk earth's climate going through an irreversible warming.

The rate of the fish eating the algae would be far greater then any warm water induced algae boom can do. We are not dumping nitrates into the ocean mind you. Just plain fresh H20.

We may be at the equator, but don't forget, we are a tropical country. When thunderstorm comes, we lose power. Until energy storage( which is infact one of the hardest thing to do) becomes better, we cannot use solar as our main source of energy.



This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 20 2009, 03:14 AM

I guess you really don't get the point of going nuclear do you?

What i was trying to say is, if we were to make say 75% of our powergrid sourced by solar, in the event that the sun does not shine, we will have power shortages. It is even more impractical to harvest the energy and store it in giant batteries.

Yea fissionable material is not renewable as well. Though it certainly will last much longer than fossil fuels. If only cold-fusion isn't fiction.

Dare we say that fresh water supply is in dangerous of depleting before uranium does? Especially if we consider the most grim consequences of global warming.

When it comes to the science of physics, equations and calculation is the basis of everything.

Mind to explain what do you mean by einstein age?