If we build a nuclear station, where should we put it?

Judgement Day

gaynorvader wrote: »

Chernobyl is a bad example, as it was neglected and left in dangerous disrepair. Not to mention the fact that it was build over 50 years ago. Techniques have definitely improved since then! Plus Wales is hardly third world The reason they failed to build them in the North was probably something to do with an organisation called the IRA.;)

EDIT: Also, both the other accidents you mentioned happened ages ago!

As far as the British Government is concerned civilisation ends North of the Watford Gap (as it happens I agree) and places such as Cumbria and North Wales are regarded as the Third World by those in officialdom. I already alluded to the 'boys' in my reference to security being the reason no nuclear power stations were built in NI. As for 3 Mile Island and Windscale being ages ago that does not invalidate safety concerns about existing/future plants. How many nearer misses have there been - we will never know!

gaynorvader

Judgement Day wrote: »

As far as the British Government is concerned civilisation ends North of the Watford Gap (as it happens I agree) and places such as Cumbria and North Wales are regarded as the Third World by those in officialdom.

I don't know one way or another if this is true or not, so I'll trust to your knowledge.

Judgement Day wrote:

I already alluded to the 'boys' in my reference to security being the reason no nuclear power stations were built in NI.

Apologies.:o

Judgement Day wrote:

As for 3 Mile Island and Windscale being ages ago that does not invalidate safety concerns about existing/future plants. How many nearer misses have there been - we will never know!

Of course being over 50 years ago makes a HUGE difference! Computers 50 years ago were a joke compared to the ones we have now, plus the technology was new, so they weren't entirely sure of the best way to maintain it! We have more experience now and the sophistication of computers allows for much more stringent safety protocols to be implemented. Comparing the safety of nuclear power plants now to fifty years ago would be like comparing aircraft in WW2 to aircraft at the turn of the century! There's no comparison!:pac:

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh I’m well aware of the “proven strategies” for dealing with nuclear waste, which generally involve burying it in a big hole in the ground. How much will that cost?

For Ireland? I honestly don't know. I would need to get an epxert cost appraisal. And there would be no point in trying because we've got a government that won't even allow energy companies to look for Uranium, or to even consider nuclear issues, except in a terrified "NO MORE CHERNOBYLS" way.

But anyway, that’s not really what I was referring to. I mean literally, what happens when the batteries “expire”? Do we refuel them? How much will that cost?

My understanding is that for the Toshiba 4S, the reactor comes with the fuel load to be used during its design lifetime. I don't expect they would be refuelled.

Is the Toshiba 4S actually in use anywhere?

There is a plan to build one in Galena, Alaska. I belive it's in license-application stage with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As I’ve said before on nuclear-related threads, I believe the threat of Russia turning off the gas taps to the EU is greatly overstated; Russia needs the EU far more than the EU needs Russia.

You cannot possibly be serious? Russia may need the EUs cash (which I think is overstated) but we need the lights to stay on a lot more - depending day to day on a 3000km pipeline from Russia is just such a bad idea on so many levels.

1. Our economies are in shambles, partly because we don't produce anything anymore. We buy our goods from Asia, our oil from the Middle East, and our gas from Russia and sell them no goods or services to right the balance of trade. So this situation is sustainable only in as much as we keep printing dollars, Euros and Pounds, and they keep taking them. Eventually that will end, or come back to bite us in the backside. Or both.
2. Russia has shown no hesitation to play "pipeline politics." Witness the constant problems Russia has with its neighbors, the Ukraine, Estonia, Georgia - twice supplies to Europe have been cut because of disagreements with the Ukrainians, conspiracy theorists believe that Russia's quarrel with Estonia a few years ago had nothing to do with that silly Red statue their government wanted to move to a military cemetary, and more to do with a pipeline the Russians want to build in waters Estonia claims as its own. Furthermore, at the time of that whole brouhaha, the Estonian government website were hit by massive DDOS attacks - originiting from Russia!
   Also in their war on Georgia, the Russians tried to bomb the BTC (Baku Tiblisi Ceyhan) pipeline, which is the only pipeline taking hydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea westwards without going through Russia.
   
   Furthermore, Russia's on its way back to Communism and has been for the last while - with Mr. KGB man Vladimir Putin and his clique running the country for the last decade, Russia is up to its old tricks in a new millenium.
   Communism is an ideology which has plunged its victims into a nightmare of poverty and despair. I don't think Putin and his cronies would hesitate for one second to turn off the taps if they felt like it regardless of how much they do or do not need the cash.
3. Even if the arrangmenet is not politically dangerous, there is also the phsyical pipeline itself to worry about - we are at the end of some really long ones going from Siberia, and even a small rupture anywhere between Siberia/The Caspian Sea and Ireland, would leave us in the dark very quickly as gas cannot economically be stored. Such a thing could happen by accident or as a result of terrorism, and is a much bigger possibility than the same happening to a nuclear system.
4. Relating to point 3, nuclear fuels have the advantage of being both solid and minimal by volume per kw/h. One oft quoted figure by the World Nuclear Association states that one truckload of Uranium (2 tons) = 25 trainloads of coal (260,000 tons). http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ueg.htm
   Between this and the fact that nuclear plants generally use a single fuel loading for a long time (anything from 3 months to a year between fuel loadings at a traditional reactor) you can thusly see that a stockpile of nuclear fuel is the only economical way to store energy, either on a day to day basis or as part of a strategic energy reserve.

What evidence do you need? Ever hear of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Windscale ...or all those near misses that have been quietly hushed up?

Something other than disingenuous Greenpeace spin? First of all, the TMI accident did not cause significant damage to the environment, neither did the Windscale accident despite silly urban legends of it having caused Downs Syndrome births, an urban legend that has been proven false.

As for Chernobyl, Greenpeace would like you to believe that accidents of that kind, as well as huge mountains of waste, obscene levels weapons proliferation and every kind of horrible evil imagineable, are all inevitable results of using nuclear electricity. Specifically:

Greenpeace's website wrote:

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.

They are liars and by repeating these lies, you show your ignorance. When someone makes a statement like this, a logical person has a right to demand clear and conclusive evidence, which garynovader did.

The facts about Chernobyl clearly demonstrate that it could only have happened in the former Soviet Union or someplace with a likewise secretive and morally and financially bankrupt government on a similar scale. I suggest you do some unbiased research (if that is possible) into the accident itself, and by that I don't mean replying with pictures of poor little Natasha from Belarus.

Grudaire

Surely this option: "Nowhere. We should not consider using nuclear power." should read "It is my opinion that nuclear is not the best option", rather then putting words in mouths?!


It's is my understanding that Nuclear power is not the best option, not on a safety basis, but on a general environmental basis. It is a fact that the waste is not easily disposed, and by disposing it we just lock it up for years until it becomes less radioactive. Nuclear plants are a pain to decommission. Two solutions exist - dispose of tons (many many) of radioactive concrete etc, or leave the plant there for hundreds of years.

Secondly Nuclear power is unreliable. In a small country like this we would be rightly screwed if one or two power plants stop working. And I agree with this argument against wind power, but the number of plants that this country could support is so few that we would need to keep current facilities open to provide for this

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

You cannot possibly be serious? Russia may need the EUs cash (which I think is overstated) but we need the lights to stay on a lot more - depending day to day on a 3000km pipeline from Russia is just such a bad idea on so many levels.

The EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its gas, but Russia is dependent on the EU for more than 50% of its gas exports. If the Russians turn off the gas taps to the EU, who is going to pick up the slack for them? They’ll have a load of gas with nobody to sell it to.

SeanW wrote: »

Even if the arrangmenet is not politically dangerous, there is also the phsyical pipeline itself to worry about - we are at the end of some really long ones going from Siberia…

According to Bord Gáis, Ireland’s imported gas supplies are sourced from the North Sea.

IM0

NIMBY!

Carawaystick

Judgement Day wrote: »

What evidence do you need? Ever hear of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Windscale ...or all those near misses that have been quietly hushed up?

If, God help us a nuclear power station was ever built in Ireland it should be built in the SE tip of the country where the fallout would be most likely to end up contaminating the Irish Sea and SW England rather than Dublin City! Common sense dictates that you would build a nuclear power station where an accident, however unlikely, would cause the least damage. Why do you think the Brits built most of there power stations in Third World parts of the UK like Cumbria and North Wales? Come to think of it I am surprised they didn't build them all over NI - probably considered it too much of a security risk.

How many people died as a result of radiation or chemical contamination from 3 Mile Island?
Zero

How many verifiable deaths occurred from the radiation released in the Chernobyl accident?
The UN reckon < 50 so far and a total of about 4000. this is a lot of people, but this accident happened due to a flawed reactor design, run by eejits who did stupid things.


How many people die each year mining Coal for power plants?
in the 6 years 2001 to 2007, more than 4000 miners in China died in mining accidents per year, each year.


The ESB have a pretty good track record in buiding big power generating infrastructure. Ardnacrusha built in 1928, still going -
Turlough Hill built in 1974, still going strong. Moneypoint, Poolbeg etc.
They are (and pretty much have always been) profitable despite paying their staff crazy money. I'd trust them to operate a nuclear power station, not in my backyard, but just out of sight and upwind of where I live no bother.

Judgement Day

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't know one way or another if this is true or not, so I'll trust to your knowledge.




Apologies.:o



Of course being over 50 years ago makes a HUGE difference! Computers 50 years ago were a joke compared to the ones we have now, plus the technology was new, so they weren't entirely sure of the best way to maintain it! We have more experience now and the sophistication of computers allows for much more stringent safety protocols to be implemented. Comparing the safety of nuclear power plants now to fifty years ago would be like comparing aircraft in WW2 to aircraft at the turn of the century! There's no comparison!:pac:

Three Mile Island was 30 years ago (!) in, arguably, the most developed nation on the planet. If the reactor had achieved meltdown nobody really knows what the consequences would have been but possibly catastrophic on a global scale. :eek:

Judgement Day

Carawaystick ...you're like the UK MP who tried to argue that loads of people died in the Aberfan in 1966 therefore coal fired power stations are as dangerous as nuclear power stations. 144 died at Aberfan - very tragic - but people hundreds of miles away were not affected and people were not suffering from the after affects years later! :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Three Mile Island was 30 years ago (!) in, arguably, the most developed nation on the planet. If the reactor had achieved meltdown...

But it didn't. So-called "nuclear disasters" are extremely rare events and their impacts are usually grossly exaggerated. Besides, accidents tend to lead to tighter regulations - if something went wrong in the past, it's likely that measures have been put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again. The same is true of the aviation industry, for example. Planes have crashed in the past; does that mean that nobody should ever fly again?

Judgement Day

I think that a look at this frightening Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

says enough for further uninformed comment (from me) to be pointless. The China Syndrome is so utterly terrifying that it is difficult to come to terms with. If you think the Shell to Sea protests are getting bad wait and see what will happen if the powers that be try to ram nuclear power down our throats!

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

I think that a look at this frightening Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

says enough for further uninformed comment (from me) to be pointless.

Indeed. Under the section entitled "Meltdowns that have occurred", you'll note that most of these incidents occured in the early days of nuclear power, with the most recent meltdown being that pin-up of the anti-nuke brigade, Chernobyl.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

The EU depends on Russia for about 25% of its gas, but Russia is dependent on the EU for more than 50% of its gas exports. If the Russians turn off the gas taps to the EU, who is going to pick up the slack for them? They’ll have a load of gas with nobody to sell it to.
According to Bord Gáis, Ireland’s imported gas supplies are sourced from the North Sea.

The Chinese? There are 1.3 billion of them, getting richer quickly, and ravenously demanding energy. Unlike us, they also have lots of real money.
Even if the Russians don't have an alternative buyer, you have to remember that communists have no qualms about plunging their people into poverty and despair - as these are apparently central planks of communism - and Putin comes from a distinct KGB background. While they might not cut off supplies at the drop of a hat, I believe your argument understates the potential of them using it as a political weapon.

The North Sea fields are depleting quickly and I don't think our fields will be adequate to replace them.
However we may have a significant amount of Uranium in Donegal.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Three Mile Island was 30 years ago (!) in, arguably, the most developed nation on the planet. If the reactor had achieved meltdown nobody really knows what the consequences would have been but possibly catastrophic on a global scale. :eek:

False.

1. Unlike Chernobyl, Three Mile Island had full double containment vessels. Chernobyl only had a single partial containment vessel which was more of an afterthough in design, and was incapable of protecting the environment against a meltdown.
2. The Chernobyl-4 reactor had a dangerously large Positive Void Co-efficient. That means once the chain reaction started to get out of control - particularly from 12% of output which is where it started from in the botched "safety" test - the laws of physics demanded the reaction level continue to increase and become more difficult to control.
   This is why the RBMK reactor type was never used outside of the Former Soviet Union.
   The plant operators also acted with a total disregard for safety, which would be much more unlikely to happen outside the former Soviet Union.
   
   Neither of these factors affected Three Mile Island.

You either don't know how the Chernobyl accident occurred, and how it differs to the admittedly serious incidents in the West, or you are pursuing an agenda. Please get your facts straight.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Carawaystick ...you're like the UK MP who tried to argue that loads of people died in the Aberfan in 1966 therefore coal fired power stations are as dangerous as nuclear power stations. 144 died at Aberfan - very tragic - but people hundreds of miles away were not affected and people were not suffering from the after affects years later! :mad:

Again, I have to call NONSENSE on this. Coal burning has two dangerous downsides - the danger of deep shaft coal mining and the pollution from burning.

The Earth Policy Institute in the U.S. believes that the emissions from coal fired power plants cause 25000 premature deaths and a whole load of illnesses in America every year.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
Going further to state that due to mercury emissions from coal fired power plants, potentially 1 in 6 babies are a risk of brain damage from mercury absorbtion in the womb.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory goes further, stating specifically here among other things
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html


And none of this even begins to explore the damage done by our dependence of coal fired power.

Your attempts to suggest that with coal, all we have to worry about is the odd misplaced slag heap is transparently disingenuous.

Grudaire

Nobodies dealing with my post :mad: I suppose I better deal with some of yours...

SeanW wrote: »

But for Irelands small market, I would much prefer a nationwide layout of Toshiba "Micro Nuke" nuclear batteries.
Coming in capacities from 10MW to 50MW, the specifications call for these plant to be encased in concrete underground, with only a control room on the surface, no need for local engineering or refuelling during the plants lifetime, and it would immediately shut up the Greenpeace eco-whackos with their "but the terrorists are going to fly a plane into it" scaremongering.

Hmmm, I agree with most of your points, but you haven't dealt with the fact that this is really only in development (According to wikipedia anyway), and it's not as if Ireland is a leading researcher in Nuclear fission.

And can we stop the name calling - sheesh you're the first to mention terrorists in the thread, don't hit yourself then cry about it:rolleyes:

SeanW

Cliste wrote: »

Nobodies dealing with my post :mad: I suppose I better deal with some of yours...

Don't be offended Cliste
It's just that some folks are posting transparent nonsense that I felt had to be dealt with first.

Hmmm, I agree with most of your points, but you haven't dealt with the fact that this is really only in development (According to wikipedia anyway), and it's not as if Ireland is a leading researcher in Nuclear fission.

Both points very much true, but then again Ireland doesn't (yet) have the intellectual maturity to consider nuclear power beyond the realm of scaremongering, and by the time we are if ever, this and an array of other small nuclear technologies will be well matured.

And can we stop the name calling - sheesh you're the first to mention terrorists in the thread, don't hit yourself then cry about it:rolleyes:

You're right again, I really shouldn't lower myself to Greenpeace's level of debating. I am thusly corrected :rolleyes:

Grudaire

SeanW wrote: »

Don't be offended Cliste
It's just that some folks are posting transparent nonsense that I felt had to be dealt with first.

Both points very much true, but then again Ireland doesn't (yet) have the intellectual maturity to consider nuclear power beyond the realm of scaremongering, and by the time we are if ever, this and an array of other small nuclear technologies will be well matured.

You're right again, I really shouldn't lower myself to Greenpeace's level of debating. I am thusly corrected :rolleyes:

I thank you for this post

Now I would like to add that it is my firm belief that Nuclear power, though with a huge capacity to be dangerous, is safe. Most of the arguments about the lack of safety hinge on large incidents (Which were truly tragic). And if we look at the figures it would be very clear that banning all boats and installing nuclear stations everywhere would give the end result of far fewer lives lost!

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

The Chinese? There are 1.3 billion of them, getting richer quickly, and ravenously demanding energy.

Energy consumption in China is still way below EU levels and besides, they're far more likely to use their own energy reserves before importing on a large scale.

SeanW wrote: »

Even if the Russians don't have an alternative buyer, you have to remember that communists have no qualms about plunging their people into poverty and despair - as these are apparently central planks of communism - and Putin comes from a distinct KGB background.

Putin is also a major shareholder in Gazprom; losing the custom of the EU would likely result in substantial personal losses. Medvedev also has links with Gazprom, having served as the chair of the organisation's board of directors.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Energy consumption in China is still way below EU levels and besides, they're far more likely to use their own energy reserves before importing on a large scale.

I doubt it, they're getting richer while we're getting poorer. China is closer to the Caspian Sea than us, the Chinese are even talking about building oil pipelines in Canada just to get tar sand oil as far as the Pacific Ocean! Give it 20 years and there may be no case, either politically or financially to sell gas to the E.U.

Putin is also a major shareholder in Gazprom; losing the custom of the EU would likely result in substantial personal losses. Medvedev also has links with Gazprom, having served as the chair of the organisation's board of directors.

Money may trump politics, but the signs coming out of Russia over the last decade, plus our own battered economics, plus the sheer length of the pipeline involved, simply do not inspire me with confidence.

Judgement Day

Although this item has nothing to do with civil nuclear power, it has everything to do with the cavalier attitude to safety that continues to prevail throughout the entire and secretive nuclear industry.

Of course I am just scaremongering!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090427/tuk-safety-fears-at-nuclear-sub-base-6323e80.html

gaynorvader

Nuclear power safety worries seem to be a lot like aircraft safety worries. People (generally) focus on single accidents instead of the overall reliability of the two. For instance, the number of fatalities due to aircraft compared to fatalities due to road vehicles would lead one to believe the sky to be a safer place to be, however more people would believe the inverse of this to be true. The same seems to follow for nuclear power and some of the other power sources. These have already been referenced above, so I won't go into them again. I just wanted to draw a comparison between aircraft and cars and nuclear energy and coal, to show how common perception isn't always correct.

EDIT:

Judgement Day wrote: »

Although this item has nothing to do with civil nuclear power, it has everything to do with the cavalier attitude to safety that continues to prevail throughout the entire and secretive nuclear industry.

Of course I am just scaremongering!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090427/tuk-safety-fears-at-nuclear-sub-base-6323e80.html

This report fails to mention the age, state of repair, amount of coolant leaked or anything really significant. While it is worrying that this should've been allowed happen, the report is a long ways from a compelling reason for abandoning nuclear power.

SeanW

Judgement Day wrote: »

Although this item has nothing to do with civil nuclear power

Right first time.
From the article: "Civil radioactive safety regulations do not apply to MoD sites"
That's your first clue.

Judgement Day wrote:

Of course I am just scaremongering!

BINGO !!!!!!

Judgement Day

I would rather be a scaremonger than an ostrich. Anyway, as previously promised, I will not contribute any further to this debate as I am far more interested in Munster hammering Leinster on Saturday so let's hope they don't blow up the planet before then!

SeanW

Judgement Day wrote: »

I would rather be a scaremonger than an ostrich.

Ironically, you've managed to be both! Congratulations!

Anyway, as previously promised, I will not contribute any further to this debate as I am far more interested in Munster hammering Leinster on Saturday

Translation: "I've been caught talking nonsense and cannot respond"

so let's hope they don't blow up the planet before then!

Somehow, I think "they" will manage to avoid that. But remember, Greenpeace wants you to live in total terror of those horrible evil nuclear boogeymonsters, so be a good little anti-nuke and hide under your bed until the day of the big match

robtri

gaynorvader wrote: »

Nuclear power safety worries seem to be a lot like aircraft safety worries. People (generally) focus on single accidents instead of the overall reliability of the two. For instance, the number of fatalities due to aircraft compared to fatalities due to road vehicles would lead one to believe the sky to be a safer place to be, however more people would believe the inverse of this to be true. The same seems to follow for nuclear power and some of the other power sources. These have already been referenced above, so I won't go into them again. I just wanted to draw a comparison between aircraft and cars and nuclear energy and coal, to show how common perception isn't always correct.

EDIT:


This report fails to mention the age, state of repair, amount of coolant leaked or anything really significant. While it is worrying that this should've been allowed happen, the report is a long ways from a compelling reason for abandoning nuclear power.

Sorry... WTF are you talking about.... nuclear power worries are a lot like aircraft safety worries..... by that example you are implying that Nuclear power is safer than what... gas ?? coal generation powerstations???

gaynorvader

robtri wrote: »

Sorry... WTF are you talking about.... nuclear power worries are a lot like aircraft safety worries..... by that example you are implying that Nuclear power is safer than what... gas ?? coal generation powerstations???

Coal power, but not the power stations themselves, the mining of coal is extremely dangerous, and getting more dangerous as time goes on, whereas nuclear power is getting safer as time goes on.

robtri

gaynorvader wrote: »

Coal power, but not the power stations themselves, the mining of coal is extremely dangerous, and getting more dangerous as time goes on, whereas nuclear power is getting safer as time goes on.

coal mining has a lot go to compare against the damage and deaths attributted to Nuclear power stations accidents... and I would assume mining uranium is just as dangerous as mining coal....
so I still cannot see the comparision here...

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

coal mining has a lot go to compare against the damage and deaths attributted to Nuclear power stations accidents...

How many deaths are attributable to accidents at nuclear power stations? How many are attributable to coal mining accidents? I don't have the exact figures, but I would be amazed if the latter was not orders of magnitude larger than the former.

robtri wrote: »

and I would assume mining uranium is just as dangerous as mining coal....

Why do you assume that? How many deaths are attributable to uranium mining accidents?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

How many deaths are attributable to accidents at nuclear power stations? How many are attributable to coal mining accidents? I don't have the exact figures, but I would be amazed if the latter was not orders of magnitude larger than the former.
Why do you assume that? How many deaths are attributable to uranium mining accidents?

well I will do my best to help you out then... figures for 2004 shows 6027 deaths worldwide, coal mining...

and for uranium mining
"According to reports by the International Commission for
Radiological Protection (ICRP), work-related deaths in uranium
mines are estimated at 5,500 deaths"

and thats before we take accidents like chernobyl, into account...
or how about all these other accidents in very recent history...
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
how many people have died from these accidents over the years...

SeanW

robtri wrote: »

well I will do my best to help you out then... figures for 2004 shows 6027 deaths worldwide, coal mining...

and for uranium mining
"According to reports by the International Commission for
Radiological Protection (ICRP), work-related deaths in uranium
mines are estimated at 5,500 deaths"

Where do these figures come from? And what is the comparison exactly? It looks like the ICRP figures you posted are total figures, while for coal mining deaths you quote stats for just one year.
If that is the case, I'm going to have to call nonsense on this

and thats before we take accidents like chernobyl, into account...
or how about all these other accidents in very recent history...
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
how many people have died from these accidents over the years...

1. In playing the Chernobyl card, you prove that you know absolutely nothing about nuclear power in general or the accident itself. I suggest you research the Chernobyl accident, to find out exactly how it happened, and more importantly, how it could only have happened in a Communist country or similar craphole like the former Soviet Union.
2. Most of those "other accidents" are glorified industrial accidents that noone (particularly Greenpeace) would have cared about, were they not "nuclear" facilities.
3. Greenpeace is not exactly an unbiased source of information. Scaremongering maybe, but not unbiased information.
4. As I explained above, the worries we have from coal use go WAY beyond the thousands of people killed every year in coal mines, the burning is even more dangerous.
   Just that with coal its easier to hide the dangers and make them invisible. But from the obscene CO2 emissions, to the mercury emissions that threaten ever more babies with brain damage due to mercury absorbtion in the womb, to the SO2 and NOX emissions that form Acid Rain clouds that destroy all before them in Scandinavia, coal gets a free ride to dump its toxic witches brew of waste into the air.
   
   Nuclear plants emit nothing but the occasional column of clean steam, and the nuclear industry is the only baseline energy provider that seeks to deal with its own waste.

I used to be in your camp too - with an irrational fear of nuclear energy - so I have an idea of your approach. I am sure you are quite genuine in this, but I can assure you that you are mistaken.

gaynorvader

Looks like I arrived to late, what SeanW said.