Law against nuclear power?


by malawi_glenn
Tags: nuclear, power
malawi_glenn
malawi_glenn is offline
#1
Jun23-07, 05:43 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
malawi_glenn's Avatar
P: 4,739
Hi there nuclear lovers!

Myself lives in sweden, and here it is illegal to do research in nuclear power (experimental), and to build new reactors, research in new fissible nuclides and so on.

And also barley no money is invested in the reactors we do have, so they are not in good shape.. So it has become a very bad "spiral" in our country regarding nuclear power.

Do you know if any other countries have this "twisted" law against better and more safe nuclear power?

My self think it is the same as forbidding research in better medicines. Many people get killed every year due to this, that the medicines have bad effects on some etc...but not one single person has been killed due to nuclear power in our country.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
SensaBubble: It's a bubble, but not as we know it (w/ video)
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language
engineroom
engineroom is offline
#2
Jun28-07, 07:34 PM
P: 28
Check out the N laws of New Zealand. There is a very stong stand in that country against N weapons and many of the same sentiments exist about N power.

I'm not sure if N power is outlawed or just that the compliance costs would be that high its not worth it.

Funny considering Lord Rutherford was from New Zealand.
Morbius
Morbius is offline
#3
Jun29-07, 09:04 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,137
Quote Quote by engineroom View Post
Check out the N laws of New Zealand. There is a very stong stand in that country against N weapons and many of the same sentiments exist about N power.

I'm not sure if N power is outlawed or just that the compliance costs would be that high its not worth it.

Funny considering Lord Rutherford was from New Zealand.
engineroom,

Yes - New Zealand and certain ports in Japan don't allow nuclear reactors in their
jurisdiction. This creates a bit of a problem for the US Navy because the vast majority
of our aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.

Recently, when Admiral Mullens, the current Chief of Naval Operations; was named to
be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; C-SPAN ran the video of the Senate
confirmation hearings from a year ago when Mullens was named CNO.

There was concern by Sen Nelson of Florida about the aircraft carrier U.SS. John F.
Kenndedy. Evidently the Kennedy was in need of some refurbishment, and it was
stated that the Navy keeps the Kennedy around so that they have a conventionally
powered aircraft carrier in case they need to station a carrier in a port with a "no-nuke"
policy.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason is online now
#4
Jul5-07, 12:11 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 6,595

Law against nuclear power?


Making laws based on imperfect, incomplete or incorrect information can be very destructive. Good intentions are irrelevant. The Swedish nuclear laws may be a case in point.

The world prohibition against all use of DDT may have been another. DDT is still the most effective means of controlling mosquitos and the malaria they carry. A reasonable program for careful use of DDT might have saved millions of lives. Millions died directly due to the DDT ban. We are only now realizing that and reintroducing DDT in a measured and careful manner.

The bottom line: if you oppose something, you have an obligation to understand it thoroughly. If you do, you will rarely advocate that a complete ban is the best solution. If something is not economic, you don't have to pass a law to ban it.

AM
StuMyers
StuMyers is offline
#5
Jul5-07, 07:02 PM
P: 33
I've always been a very enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power, but I have to admit to a certain degree of apprehension regarding naval reactors. Bottom line is, they're classified and I don't know how they work. I read that they are PWR designed, but before I let them into my harbor I'd want to study the details.
engineroom
engineroom is offline
#6
Jul5-07, 07:27 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by Morbius View Post
engineroom,

Yes - New Zealand and certain ports in Japan don't allow nuclear reactors in their
jurisdiction. This creates a bit of a problem for the US Navy because the vast majority
of our aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.

Recently, when Admiral Mullens, the current Chief of Naval Operations; was named to
be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; C-SPAN ran the video of the Senate
confirmation hearings from a year ago when Mullens was named CNO.

There was concern by Sen Nelson of Florida about the aircraft carrier U.SS. John F.
Kenndedy. Evidently the Kennedy was in need of some refurbishment, and it was
stated that the Navy keeps the Kennedy around so that they have a conventionally
powered aircraft carrier in case they need to station a carrier in a port with a "no-nuke"
policy.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Actually New Zealand banned any ship equipped with N weapons but this has extended to N power and ships carring N waste. As the US navy have a neither confirm or deny policy concerning whether their ships have N weapons on board or not they can't enter New Zealand waters. A conventional powered US navy ship that is declared as not being N weapons capabity is welcome to enter a NZ port.

After the French goverment committed an act of international terrorism in a New Zealand port by bombing the Rainbow Warrior vessel the public opinion of New Zealand became entrenched towards a No Nuclear viewpoint.

New Zealand has been very consistant in its approach to Nuclear weapons and consisitly objects and protects anytime a test is (was) conducted. About 5 years ago a shippment of N watse was moved from France to Japan and this shipment was not allowed in New Zealand waters, I think the NZ navy shadowed the ship while it was close to NZ waters to be sure they stayed out.

It is fair to say that the antinuclear laws in New Zealnd are more a philispocial ideal than a technical problem.
engineroom
engineroom is offline
#7
Jul5-07, 07:38 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by Andrew Mason View Post
Making laws based on imperfect, incomplete or incorrect information can be very destructive. Good intentions are irrelevant. The Swedish nuclear laws may be a case in point.
AM

Just because one can should one?? I don't mean the law by that statement.

Swedish & New Zealand nuclear laws are reflecting strongly held opinions of the majority of the population in those counties - demoracy in action. Laws against N power, N waste & N weapons are never going to be bassed on technical reasons but moral reasons. These laws are quite different to laws that place technical paramenters and restictions on the how or where. These laws ask and challenge the fundemental why?
StuMyers
StuMyers is offline
#8
Jul5-07, 07:58 PM
P: 33
How can producing electricity be a moral issue?

It seems that the problem is an entire generation whose first word association after the word 'nuclear' is the word 'bomb'.

Maybe the NucE's need a re-branding? Call it plasma-power or something, rather than next-gen nuclear. Seems to be working for NASA... nuclear pulse propulsion is re-branded external pulsed plasma propulsion. No sign of the words 'bomb' or 'nuclear'.
Azael
Azael is offline
#9
Jul6-07, 06:01 AM
P: 324
Quote Quote by engineroom View Post
Just because one can should one?? I don't mean the law by that statement.

Swedish & New Zealand nuclear laws are reflecting strongly held opinions of the majority of the population in those counties - demoracy in action. Laws against N power, N waste & N weapons are never going to be bassed on technical reasons but moral reasons. These laws are quite different to laws that place technical paramenters and restictions on the how or where. These laws ask and challenge the fundemental why?
Not quite. In sweden the laws came into place after a referendum where you could vote no to nuclear power in three different ways. But there was no wat to vote for more nuclear power.

The options was.

1. Keep it as long as it is needed until it can be replaced by renewables. Finish the reactors currently beeing built, prohibit building new ones.
2. Was basicly the same as 1 except some minor twists.
3. Shut down all reactors withint 10 years.

The results where
1. 18.9%
2. 39.1%
3. 38.7%

Obviously the referendum was a big pile of ****. Atleast a overwhelming majority wanted to keep the existing reactors. But there is no telling how many wanted more nuclear power.

Today 31% wants to build new reactors, 48% wants to keep the existing ones as long as possible and 19% wants to shut it all down.

The reason things havent changed in sweden is because 2 small parties are keeping the entire energy policy in sweden hostage. The big left wing party(social democrats) are not quite big enough to get there own majority, so they have to cooperate with the communist party and the green party. But the commies and the greens want to get rid of nuclear power. The greens and commies togheter get around 10% of the votes.

On the right side 3 of the parties want to build more nuclear power while the fourth has strong roots in the anti nuclear movement. The fourth party gets around 7-8% of the votes.

So a 18 % minority is keeping sweden stuck on a nuclear phase out that has no public support anymore. Doesnt matter if right or left wins elections, it the same bull**** on both sides.

On the bright side it is no longer illegal to fund research into new reactors(previously only waste management research was legal and that included transmutation). Its also no longer illegal to make a economic comparison betwen nuclear and other energy sources. So all the brainwashing laws are gone.
malawi_glenn
malawi_glenn is offline
#10
Jul6-07, 07:38 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
malawi_glenn's Avatar
P: 4,739
Azael:

Indeed, much have been better in our country, but still far away from what many other countries have.

Good post!
StuMyers
StuMyers is offline
#11
Jul6-07, 09:39 AM
P: 33
Quote Quote by Azael View Post
Not quite. In sweden the laws came into place after a referendum where you could vote no to nuclear power in three different ways. But there was no wat to vote for more nuclear power.

The options was.

1. Keep it as long as it is needed until it can be replaced by renewables. Finish the reactors currently beeing built, prohibit building new ones.
2. Was basicly the same as 1 except some minor twists.
3. Shut down all reactors withint 10 years.
Number one is kind of interesting. Exactly what makes a 'renewable'? 5 billion year supply? 600 million? 500,000? From what I understand, there is a nearly limitless (on human life scales) supply of uranium and thorium.
Azael
Azael is offline
#12
Jul6-07, 09:47 AM
P: 324
Quote Quote by StuMyers View Post
Number one is kind of interesting. Exactly what makes a 'renewable'? 5 billion year supply? 600 million? 500,000? From what I understand, there is a nearly limitless (on human life scales) supply of uranium and thorium.
It seems like it is up to the green fanatics to decide what is renewable or not Imo splitting energy production into renewable and non renewable is utterly pointless. Anything lasting more than 200 years should be sufficient. The whole concept of renewable is laughable since it hides whats most important. How much polutants the energy source release into the environment. I hate to se biomass burning counted as renewable energy despite its negative environmental and health consequenses.

Offcourse the greens are trying there best to fool the public that uranium will run out within 50 years. I dont know how many debate articles I have seen in swedish newspapers where the biggest swedish environmental group is pushing that message. Getting a rebuttal printed in same papers are all but easy.
Morbius
Morbius is offline
#13
Jul6-07, 09:53 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,137
Quote Quote by engineroom View Post
It is fair to say that the antinuclear laws in New Zealnd are more a philispocial ideal than a technical problem.
engineroom,

It's neither a "technical problem", or "philosophical ideal"; it's just plain popular
ignorance and stupidity!!!

Hey, if New Zealand doesn't want to allow a Nimitz carrier into their ports - it's their loss.

The US Navy has tried to be accomodating - that's one of the reasons for keeping the
conventionally powered U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. It is well known that the USA has
nuclear weapons in its inventories that will fit on aircraft that the Kennedy supports.

However, I believe that the US Navy has stated that surface ships no longer routinely
carry nuclear weapons. The only Navy vessels that routinely carry nuclear weapons
are the Trident subs. The Navy ackowledges that the subs have the Trident missiles;
they just decline to confirm whether those missiles actually have nuclear warheads
installed in them. [ Like who doesn't know it - but that's the policy ]

Since the Kennedy could carry nuclear weapons, but routinely doesn't - do you know
if New Zealand would welcome a visit by the Kennedy?

The USA doesn't owe New Zealand anything. Most nations welcome the
US Armed Forces because that puts them under the USA's military "umbrella".

Do you know if the New Zealanders are so ignorant as to also exclude radio-pharmeceuticals?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius
Morbius is offline
#14
Jul6-07, 09:59 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,137
Quote Quote by engineroom View Post
These laws are quite different to laws that place technical paramenters and restictions on the how or where. These laws ask and challenge the fundemental why?
engineroom,

I would bet that if the former USSR had designs on New Zealand; they wouldn't have had
ANY PROBLEM with the USA showing up with nuclear arsenal in hand.

The USA was the only power that could force the then expansionistic USSR to back down,
and stay in line.

The present day Russia retains and maintains the nuclear stockpile of their former
incarnation - the USSR. There are other powers out there with nuclear weapons also.

As a counter to that - there stands the USA - so nuclear armed expansionistic powers
can not use their nuclear arsenals to advantage.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius
Morbius is offline
#15
Jul6-07, 10:04 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,137
Quote Quote by Azael View Post
Obviously the referendum was a big pile of ****.
Azael,

Yes - you can tell that from the way the referendum was constructed - they give the
pro-nukes two options in order to spilt their votes. That way a minority position can
win.

It's no different than having an election with 3 candidates - two of which are of the same
political philosophy. Even if a majority of voters are of one political opinion - they split
their votes between the two choices - and the minority view will win because they have
only one choice.

You can truly tell that that referendum was authored by some political shills that wanted
to foist their view on the populace - so they "rigged" the election in the manner I describe
above.

Some demonstration of Democracy. NOT!!!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius
Morbius is offline
#16
Jul6-07, 10:09 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,137
Quote Quote by StuMyers View Post
Number one is kind of interesting. Exactly what makes a 'renewable'? 5 billion year supply? 600 million? 500,000? From what I understand, there is a nearly limitless (on human life scales) supply of uranium and thorium.
StuMyers,

There's enough to last a VERY LONG time.

Long before we run out of fission fuel; scientists will have mastered nuclear fusion.

Then 1 out of every 6,000 or 7,000 atoms of hydrogen in the ocean will be nuclear fusion
fuel. That's an awful lot of energy that could carry the world until the Sun becomes a
red giant star and incinerates the Earth.

That's another thing - solar and wind don't offer our species the ability to escape the
certain destruction when the sun becomes a red giant. Nuclear power would be our
only hope for mankind to survive into the indefinite future.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
malawi_glenn
malawi_glenn is offline
#17
Jul6-07, 12:10 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
malawi_glenn's Avatar
P: 4,739
Quote Quote by Morbius View Post
StuMyers,

There's enough to last a VERY LONG time.

Long before we run out of fission fuel; scientists will have mastered nuclear fusion.

Then 1 out of every 6,000 or 7,000 atoms of hydrogen in the ocean will be nuclear fusion
fuel. That's an awful lot of energy that could carry the world until the Sun becomes a
red giant star and incinerates the Earth.

That's another thing - solar and wind don't offer our species the ability to escape the
certain destruction when the sun becomes a red giant. Nuclear power would be our
only hope for mankind to survive into the indefinite future.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
And nuclear bombs will protect us from asteriods :) [from Bruce Willis - Armageddon]
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#18
Jul6-07, 12:41 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
Quote Quote by engineroom View Post
Laws against N power, N waste & N weapons are never going to be bassed on technical reasons but moral reasons. These laws are quite different to laws that place technical paramenters and restictions on the how or where. These laws ask and challenge the fundemental why?
Quote Quote by StuMyers
How can producing electricity be a moral issue?
This is the engineering forum, but I would say it is quite clearly morally wrong to subject your populace to pollution, war, and even higher prices based on an irrational fear of the unknown. Killing people because you don't understand the alternatives should not be morally acceptable.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations? Nuclear Engineering 19
oil,nuclear power General Discussion 21
Nuclear Power High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 7
The Sun and Nuclear Power Plants Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 3
Nuclear Power Nuclear Engineering 61