Common perceptions of nuclear energy are full of inaccuracies.

1) Even older "second generation" nuclear power plants produce 93
times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the
energy used in their construction and decommissioning. The idea that
nuclear power is not energy and cost efficient is just plain wrong,
and nuclear power plants currently produce electricity for about 3
cents per kilowatt-hour (2008 estimate), a rate comparable to
hydroelectric power and less than natural gas or coal. The cost of
coal power is even more expensive if you figure in damage to buildings
due to acid rain and increased human health costs: the monetary value
of 24,000 human lives lost each year to coal plant air pollution, plus
those who are simply made ill.

how to make nuclear plants 99%% secured against catastrophies like the
one in Chernobyl? Im not talking about USA or western, developed
countries, safety, but the undeveloped or underdeveloped ones.

sirupdzija wrote:

What catastrophe ?

After 20 years we can say that the number of dead following Chernobyl
are a lot less than the number of dead caused by a thermoelectric plant
while it produces the same amount of electric energy.

The nimby put it like it is "nuclear plant" against "green meadows" ...

The real comparision is "nuclear plant" against "thermoelectric plant",
'cause if you need 1000 MW of electric power you don't have many choices.

So, again, what catastrophe ?

If the thermoelectric plant runs on coal, a coal mine implosion kills
about the same number of workers, and the atmospheric emissions of the
electric plant causes a lot more cases of cancer.

On Feb 6, 4:42 pm, sirupdzija wrote:

Would YOU want one built in your backyard, or would you rather have
solar panels on your roof?

Candu reactor technology from Ontario Power Generation in Canada.

"sirupdzija" wrote in message
news:ce1f39f3-19ba-47c1-8c55-c184459a5090@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

"aol@aol.com" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d2094c-e14c-42b5-bdd5-f1d4e4345256@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

I don't get it. Are you saying that a solar panel on my roof is the same
thing as a big nuclear power plant?

Vaughn

On Feb 6, 5:23 pm, "a...@aol.com" gmail.com> wrote:

I would rather live across the damn street from a nuclear power plant
than i would a coal plant. While the chances of a meltdown or even a
small realease from the nuke is almost nil, the releases in
particulate from the coal plant would almost surely put me in an early
grave since I have asthma. Coal in the US alone kills over 30,000
people A YEAR. Nuclear energy in the US has killed ZERO people over
it's entire lifetime. Hello!?!

David

On Feb 6, 7:34 pm, RLDeboni deboni.name> wrote:

"ronwagn" gmail.com> wrote

The UN estimates that emissions from fossil fuels and biomass energy use
kills around 2.5 million people per year. Around 6,850 per day. Coming
up on 52.5 million since Chernobyl...

Karl Johanson

And where is the energy to mine the uranium?

At 0,2%% it's expected that mining costs as much energy
as the found uranium produces

Also electric energy demand will go up very much.

We have to replace 80 million barrel crude oil a day
for more demand and less production

To replace this at an average exchange of kWh electric
power per litre curde oil,

27.000 TWh electric power per year necessary.
That's about 4000 atomic power plants.

Only photovoltaic has the potential to producde so much energy