Worldwide Support For Nuclear Power Drops 324
ProbablyJoe writes "A poll for the BBC shows that worldwide support for nuclear power has dropped significantly in the past 6 years. However, while support has dropped in most countries, the UK has defied the trend, where 37% of the public support building new reactors. Unsurprisingly, support in Japan has dropped significantly, with only 6% supporting new reactors. The U.S. remains the country with the highest public opinion of nuclear power, though support has dropped slightly. Much of the decline in approval has been attributed to the events in Fukushima earlier in the year, although a recent Slashdot poll indicated that many readers' opinions had not been affected by the events, and there was an even split between those who found the technology more or less safe since the events. With reports on the long lasting effects in Fukushima still conflicted, is nuclear power still a viable solution to the world's energy problems?"
Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:5, Insightful)
What do they think of nuclear power in comparison to the other options?
I don't think anyone was ever truly a fan of nuclear power, it's still way more dangerous than hydro electric, geothermal, solar, etc. etc. But it was the best of a bad set of options.
its because of the time scales (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear accidents can make areas uninhabitable or unfarmable for many generations. It isn't a one-time event that gets cleaned up in a few days. It's something with lasting impacts on the environment and habitability of the area, over generations. In a country the size of Japan, the effects are even worse because they don't have so much land area to be throwing parts of it away like that. The exclusion zone around Fukushima is now unfarmable.
And just like after Chernobyl we were all assured by the nuclear proponents that "there can never be another nuclear disaster", we're being assured that now too. But there will be. It WILL happen again. If we are lucky, it won't be as bad as Fukushima. If we are unlucky, it will be much worse. The only certainty is that it will happen, and it will be because of something unprepared for that is only obvious in hindsight.
Captcha: "Trauma".
Re:Less radiation, more calcium. (Score:5, Insightful)
Another example of people thinking reactively (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fukushima proved nuclear cannot be made safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Life cannot be made safe. No matter what precautions are taken, nature and the mistakes of man will inevitably cause a disaster.
FTFY
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially since being opposed to new nuclear power stations effectively (given the lack of alternatives) means that you are in favour of old nuclear power stations, many of which are passed the end of their intended operational lifespan already. I bet 'shut down all existing nuclear power plants over the next ten years and replace them all with modern, safer, designs' wasn't one of the poll options...
Personally, I'm opposed to nuclear power and would like to see everything powered by magic (which is non-polluting and 100% sustainable). In the absence of commercial magic power plants, I'll go with nuclear...
Re:Fukushima proved nuclear cannot be made safe (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Fukushima proved that, given a disaster that killed at least 15,000 people, with many thousands still unaccoutned for, that the entire world will forget it and focus on a dangerous yet manageable situation which has thus far caused no deaths directly, and might, given a worst-case-scenario playout, cause 1,000 cases of cancer, not deaths.
I'm against old nuclear plants (Score:4, Insightful)
And plants with outdated designs.
Bring on the new designs.
Question should be about reactor design ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets try to take some of the emotion and politics out of the issue. If someone asked you "are cars safe?", wouldn't you want to know which car? Different car designs offer a wide range of safety. Not just due to cost compromises, size/weight and design goals, but also due to when it was designed. Materials, technology, scientific understanding, computer modeling, etc have greatly improved our capabilities over recent decades. I wouldn't feels safe in any race car from the 1940s driving at 100 mph wearing a leather helmet, however I would feel safe doing so in many higher end passenger cars today. Maybe a recent reactor design is far more safe than say some 1960s soviet design?
Science and engineering are making great advances in solar, wind, tidal, etc. Aren't they also making great advances in the area of nuclear?
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with nuclear power is, that even though the risk of a meltdown may be very small, the consequences if it does happen are unbearable.
If a nuclear reactor in France or Germany should experience a meltdown, it would be a catastrophe. France and Germany are relatively small, densly populated countries. A meltdown could expose more than 10% of the countries land area to dangerous radioactive contamination. That could mean evacuating ten million people or more and leaving entire strips of land unusable for decades. The country's economy would collapse, leading to a further economic and social meltdown. It takes just one nuclear reactor to blow to ruin an entire country, with all of the consequences to the european and world economy. Japan was lucky that the wind was blowing the other way and there's nothing but sea on the other side. That is not the case in central europe. The risk is just not worth it.
Re:Less radiation, more calcium. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Less radiation, more calcium. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now people are dying from cancer and other illness due to coal power plants, it is adding tones of carbon to the atmosphere. Nuclear solves these immediate problems. Are their potential future problems? Yes they are. But after we fix our current problem we have time to fix the next set of problems.
It isn't a perfect world, But doing nothing will only make it worse.
"Green Energy" isn't quite there yet. The longer we wait putting off those "Greener Energies" in hoping you will get Good "Green Energy".
OK Natural Gas Fraking has an environmental impact. But it is better then strip mining.
Nuclear Energy needs to be highly regulated and maintained and its by products are toxic for thousands of years, but that is better then toxic gasses floating in the air you breath.
Can we get coal to burn even cleaner? How many cars can befit from hybrid technology? We as a world culture is spinning our wheels on trying to get a perfect solution. There isn't one... Sorry... But why don't you get off you butts and stop opposing everything and start supporting better solutions that are available now.
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't a fair comparison. Hydro power had absolutely nothing to do with the failure of that dam, which was built to prevent flooding. Power generation was just a bi-product.
You could say that high speed rail or aircraft are unsafe because there have been accidents in China. Actually both are very safe when done properly. Nuclear seems to be beyond the ability of developed nations to get entirely right, and as Chernobyl demonstrated we really don't want less developed nations using it.
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:3, Insightful)
The risk of meltdown will stay the same until either all nuclear power plants are shut down OR we use the latest generation reactor designs which shut the reaction passively if there is a water pump or generator failure.
Fukushima wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had the latest revision instead of something that should have been retired decades ago.
Tsunami hits the diesel generator. This shuts down the generator. But instead of the reactor melting down since the water pump was unable to function, it merely shuts down. Instead of radioactive babies for generations, it would of been a minor story about a power outage.
The pro-nuclear crowd is trying to resolve the safety issues. It is unfortunate that anti-nuclear fear mongers won't let them do so.
I live within the immediate fallout range of a nuclear power plant. It of course has an old reactor design. I'd rather have them replace it with a better nuclear reactor than have to deal with a bunch of coal power plants to replace it. But my options are either a small chance of fallout or guaranteed radioactive particles from coal burning.
Politicians, I know you like being able to get elected by playing on the fear of nuclear power, but there are other things out there that can fulfill that role just as well while not risking the safety of those living near the dinosaur reactors. Just use the usual topics of for/against gay marriage, abortion, birth control, pre-marital sex, etc.
Re:its because of the time scales (Score:4, Insightful)
The only certainty is that it will happen, and it will be because of something unprepared for that is only obvious in hindsight.
The monstrous earthquake/tsunami combo the Fukushima reactor was hit by was "obvious in hindsight?"
If it took a direct hit from a meteor you'd be saying the same thing I guess. There's no certainty that there will be another nuclear disaster. In fact, if no new reactors are built in Natural Disaster Central I'd bet that none of them will suffer disasters, pretty much in line with the rest of the history of nuclear power. If EPIC_STUPIDITY = 0 && BUILT_ON_NATURES_SHOOTING_RANGE=0 then NUCLEAR_DISASTER=0.
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem. There are no "ideal" options. Anybody telling you different is selling you a line of bullshit.
Nuclear, done right, is safe, efficient, and the waste can be recycled numerous times. What's left at the end, while quite dangerous, it very compact and can be stored, long-term, safely. It's a damn sight better than breathing it in from coal plants and having thousands of miners dying every year.
Wave generation is in its infancy. And we aren't actually sure about what environmental impact that's going to have.
The nasty part they try to cover up is that EVERY "renewable" energy scheme out there relies, at some point, on non-renewable resources.
Re:its because of the time scales (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Less radiation, more calcium. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear Energy needs to be highly regulated and maintained and its by products are toxic for thousands of years, but that is better then toxic gasses floating in the air you breath.
The "thousands of years" thing is FUD too. It comes from the half life of certain Plutonium isotopes (~24,000 years), but ignores that said Plutonium is not substantially more radioactive than the Uranium they mined out of the ground to make it in the first place. It also ignores that newer reactors can use it as fuel, which gets rid of it permanently.
The most difficult components of nuclear waste are the medium half life isotopes that last for a few years, because they're radioactive enough to be problematic but long lived enough that you need to wait a few decades before they're "safe." But characterizing having to store them for e.g. 50 years as an insurmountable problem just doesn't pass the laugh test.
Re:Less radiation, more calcium. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear Energy needs to be highly regulated and maintained
And this is the crux of the problem. Most people if you sit them down and talk to them, even those with pretty anti-nuke attitudes, will admit that it is theoretically possible to do fission in an environmentally responsible way with risks appropriate to the level of benefit. That is not the problem. The problem is the complete lack of trust in our corporate or even government culture to actually accomplish that goal. And there is no foot to stand on arguing that these institutions deserve that trust. In fact they've shown time and time again that they are the last people you should trust with this level of responsibility.
So since we obviously can't hand the keys to the car to the town drunk, and finding a new designated driver is going to take a decade or so of trust building, the OP raises an important question: "can nuclear power actual save us if public opinion cannot be swayed?" This is a political and social question, and frankly the technology doesn't matter much. On the renewable energy side, since the risks are lower and the responsibility is more distributed, the question being grappled with is "can renewable energy actually save us if the investor class never buys in sincerely?" This is also a political and social question.
At the end of the day we only have our own cultures to blame for failing to both produce and promote people with the education, common sense, and strength of character to be deserving of our trust.
Re:Doesn't really tell the full story... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you didn't get my point. Perhaps the risk can be made even smaller by installing the latest hardware and following whatnot security procedures. But the risk will never go away and the consequences if something does go wrong remain as unberable as before. Also, not all risks can be calculated. Will the latest hardware protect a nuclear power plant against a terrorist attack? Or a plane crash? Or a crazy, suicidal employee?
Nuclear power deals is a technology that deals with inherently unsafe materials that cause damages that are practically impossible to treat and last for generations. It can not be the solution.