How would you people see the nuclear perspective for Greece? I mean sooner or later we must enter into the nuclear club and it seems that France and Russia have quite modern technology and experience on the particular field. We must probably make a poll.

Smth else. How would you people see the nuclear cooperation with France? I mean sooner or later we must enter into the nuclear club and it seems that France has probably the most modern technology and quite experience on the particular field. We must probably make a poll.

When and if that happens, I believe it will either be with French of Russian co-operation.

^^You know how stuff works in Greece. We can't even have public consensus for a f*cking skyscraper not speaking about nuclear plants. Under this POV the Russian perspective seems not that good since people will recall Chernobyl. Moreover I think that politically isn't that good, we've already co-operation in other fields with them...

There is no reason for Greece to join the nuclear club! Greece should move towards the future growth energy market which means, renewable green energy. Going nuclear will only cause more political problems, either with which ever superpower doesn't sell us a nuclear reactor or even perhaps with neighbouring nations.

Again the main point of this discussion revolves around FYROMs name and even though Greece has done very well to secure the support of France more has yet to be done to secure the support of the US.

^^

Nuclear energy is fine if a country has the resources to make sure that the facility is up to standards and maintained safely. Unfortunately for Greece, aside that the resources are scarce, the threat of earthquakes also make nuclear power dangerous.

^^
I've got 2 things to say about what you just wrote chicagogeorge:

1)Etoloakarnania and Thraki. They found vast resources of uranium, especially in Thraki, in the Rodopi mountains, and the Bulgarians are already starting to exploit the uranium on their side of Rodopi. So, it's not that scarce...

2)Just look at California, Japan, Italy (that will reopen its plants). Not to mention that Turkey that has had worse earthquakes than us, is currently building or planning 7 nuclear plants...

It's just stupid not to build a nuclear plant when all your neighbours have one, build one, or are planning one...

I strongly disagree with you Arxitektonas. Simply because Greece may have uranium deposits doesn't mean it has to rely on them for future nuclear energy. Furthermore if Greece, Turkey and the other Balkan nations like FYROM join the nuclear club what's to stop them from turning that technology into weapons of mass destruction? It would be much better if Greece moved towards more green energy. The technology is out there to build structures that can operate off the grid, this is where the future lies, nuclear energy might be cheaper but their are too many problems associated with it, including the inability to safely get rid of the radioactive waste it creates. Greece is fortunate to have abundant amounts of sunshine, a large body of water and natural thermal springs, it should utilize its environment to create green energy.

I'd be very worried if FYROM tries to develop nuclear technology.

WTF are you saying? The distance between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is some decades. And if you ever achieve to do it without external help.
Of course Turkey, Albania and probably FYROM will build nuclear reactors. With the prices of the fuels it is 99% sure. Turkey has a huge economy to maintain, Albania has huge energy problems. Greece has also serious problems and we can't rely on our outdated thermoelectric stations in Ptolemaida. The nuclear energy IS green and the current technologies have enough anti-earthquake protection. Moreover when all your neighbors have/will have nuclear plants it's meaningless saying that we are a ''nuclear free country''.

WTF are you saying? The distance between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is some decades. And if you ever achieve to do it without external help.
Of course Turkey, Albania and probably FYROM will build nuclear reactors. With the prices of the fuels it is 99% sure. Turkey has a huge economy to maintain, Albania has huge energy problems. Greece has also serious problems and we can't rely on our outdated thermoelectric stations in Ptolemaida. The nuclear energy IS green and the current technologies have enough anti-earthquake protection. Moreover when all your neighbors have/will have nuclear plants it's meaningless saying that we are a ''nuclear free country''.
Huh?
I too support Nuclear power for Greece.

All I am saying is I wouldn't trust a country run by monkeys with nuclear technologies.

Well, I do prefer nuclear energy to petrol or coal...but there's alternatives! Sun, wind, water...New Zealand is already covering 70% (right, seventy per cent!!!) of its energy needs through such sources. It will cover 100% by 2025. Iceland and Norway are also at similar levels. It's just a political thing . If we want it, we can do it. And we can turn this into a profitable enterprise- I do believe strongly in free market and competition. But the fact that we are a building new petrol pipeline in this day and age, and then we are talking about it as if it's a big achivement, for me just shows we still have a long way to go...

Back to topic, FYRO proved that they are a joke of a 'nation' with the whole elections fiasco. What kind of a country must it be if an election causes deaths and wounds?

1)Etoloakarnania and Thraki. They found vast resources of uranium, especially in Thraki, in the Rodopi mountains, and the Bulgarians are already starting to exploit the uranium on their side of Rodopi. So, it's not that scarce...

You're wrong. We used to exploit the Uranium mines, but we closed them 15-16 years ago as it turned out that transportation of the Uranium to the Russian enrichment factories turned out not to be economically feasible. There are some plans to reopen some of them, maybe even one of them is working now (don't know for sure, I should do some research). However generally, noone wants them working (except some crazy idiots from the Government).

This is how a closed Uranium mine looks like...scary!

http://party-bg.net/news.php?extend.332

^^hehe nice pictures.

Well, I do prefer nuclear energy to petrol or coal...but there's alternatives! Sun, wind, water...New Zealand is already covering 70% (right, seventy per cent!!!) of its energy needs through such sources. It will cover 100% by 2025. Iceland and Norway are also at similar levels. It's just a political thing.
Iceland? Norway? N.Zealand? come on...we are in Greece. Sun, wind and water is nice but we have done few things during the last 15 years and nothing will change in the future. IF the Greek society wants relatively cheap energy + energy security then it should accept the nuclear plants. Otherwise we will build more ugly coal units and we will import energy produced 50km away from our borders produced by nuclear plants (:lol:). In other words, we just kid ourselves.

I don't buy the whole earthquake argument against nuclear power plants. Quite a few countries with nuclear power plants are also prone to earthqakes just as Greece is, yet that hasn't stopped them.

Olympios there are alternatives to both coal and nuclear energy. Furthermore as member of an architectural forum you should be aware of fact that the technology is out there today to build structures that are self sufficient and can produce enough energy to work off the grid. How can you consider nuclear energy to be green when the waste it produces is radioactive and will be active for thousand years? Just today there was an earthquake in Greece, so again why create a potentially hazardous environment by building nuclear power plants in Greece. With a little more creative thinking Greece could lead the way in Europe with Green technology, it just takes a public willing to demand more green energy production from its government. There is no excuse for saying because this is Greece it cannot work here, where are the optimists of this country?

NUCLEAR POWER + BALKAN/EASTERM MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES = DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

NO THANKS, NOT CAPABLE

RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THIS SUNNY PART OF THE WORLD IS THE WAY TO GO!!

^^hehe nice pictures.


Iceland? Norway? N.Zealand? come on...we are in Greece. Sun, wind and water is nice but we have done few things during the last 15 years and nothing will change in the future. IF the Greek society wants relatively cheap energy + energy security then it should accept the nuclear plants. Otherwise we will build more ugly coal units and we will import energy produced 50km away from our borders produced by nuclear plants (:lol:). In other words, we just kid ourselves.
Yes, New Zealand, Iceland and Norway are role models in this respect. I do not accept this attitide that says nothing can get any better.What does this: "we have done few things during the last 15 years and nothing will change in the future" mean? Don't we want to strive to make things better?
Again, I have no fear of nuclear energy and I prefer it to coal and oil. But clean, renewable sources are always the best.

in the meantime...

Σκέφτονται πυρηνικό σταθμό

Η Ιταλία, που αποφάσισε να στραφεί και πάλι προς την πυρηνική ενέργεια για να μειώσει την εξάρτησή της από τις εισαγωγές στον ενεργειακό τομέα, σχεδιάζει την κατασκευή πυρηνικών σταθμών για λογαριασμό της στην Αλβανία. Θα χρηματοδοτήσουμε με την ιταλική κυβέρνηση την κατασκευή ενός πυρηνικού σταθμού στην Αλβανία. Ιταλική ομάδα επισκέφθηκε την Αλβανία για να συζητήσει την πιθανότητα κατασκευής ενός πυρηνικού σταθμού», δήλωσε, μεταξύ άλλων ο Αλβανός πρόεδρος Σάλι Μπερίσα.

Isn't there already a research reactor in Greece?

These posts about nuclear power should be split into a new thread, its an interesting topic.

NUCLEAR POWER + BALKAN/EASTERM MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES = DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

NO THANKS, NOT CAPABLE

RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THIS SUNNY PART OF THE WORLD IS THE WAY TO GO!!
That's something which we can't control though.


Yes, New Zealand, Iceland and Norway are role models in this respect. I do not accept this attitide that says nothing can get any better.What does this: "we have done few things during the last 15 years and nothing will change in the future" mean? Don't we want to strive to make things better?
Again, I have no fear of nuclear energy and I prefer it coal and oil. But clean, renewable sources are always the best.
ehmm yes NZ, IS and NO are not comparable with Greece in nearly every sector (γιατί να το κρύψομεν άλλωστε). It's not the lack of optimism that makes me sceptical about the renewable energy, it's mainly my realistic opinion based on my personal experience of how Greece works.

ps. I must admit though that there is a big minus having nuclear plants. They are centralized energy production units which can be strategical targets in many occasions and it's a pain in the ass protecting them while the renewable energy is a more decentralized concept and though better.

^^

Nuclear energy is fine if a country has the resources to make sure that the facility is up to standards and maintained safely. Unfortunately for Greece, aside that the resources are scarce, the threat of earthquakes also make nuclear power dangerous.

Actually on the issue of uranium resources, Australia has over 40% of the worlds reserves. As a result of more mines being built to exploit this as well as existing mines being expanded, they are talking about establishing an entire nuclear industry here. Basically the uranium will be sent from Australia to other countries, and then sent back to Australia to basically end up buried in the desert. Don't know what the chances of that happening are, but it is something that for a country like Greece which does not have large swaths of uninhabitable land like Australia, would work very well. All that Greece(as an example) would be doing is using the uranium, then sending it back.

Just thought I'd throw this in here.

Not until they can resolve the issue of nuclear waste. There is technology on the horizon, but right now nuclear power is not clean enough in my opinion.

Well i can't really decide if i should be for or against nuclear power, there are definitely some positive points that we should think, but also few negative.

Electricity production through nuclear power is relatively cheap, and far more clean than the current lignite power stations.
So given the fact that we already need more power to cover our needs and also that hydroelectric stations have a hard time lately which means that we can't rely on that anymore, we have to build new stations, but unfortunately it has already been decided to replace the current old lignite stations with coal, which is cleaner than lignite but yet far worst than any other means.
Still those stations won't add much power since they will basically replace existing power plants, thus the need for energy that is actually clean is the only choice, by clean we mainly mean that it doesn't releases greenhouse gases, so yes nuclear power is in the basket and can be chosen as well.

The problem with Greece is that people are afraid of nuclear power as the only thing they know about it is the terrible Chernobyl accident.Of course they are right be afraid since a nuclear accident can cause massive destruction, but people should also know that nowadays accidents like that are extremely rear to happen.As for the pollution it is clear that a nuclear power plant doesn't pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, and thus can be considered as a strong ally in the fight against violet climate change.But there is a problem with nuclear waste, and even if there are some safe ways to dispose those even today, that still is a strong argument against this kind of energy production.

Also i should say that i would choose to accept nuclear energy only if we can get our own fuel, which is not going to happen most likely, since usually the one that sells you the technology gives you fuel as well, and in this case he is also responsible for waste disposal, which is a positive point.

Generally i can say that i am at least for a dialog as far as nuclear power is concerned, and that i prefer nuclear stations that lignite or coal, but of course i strongly agree with an extended use of eolic, sun, and hydrogen energy as means of electricity production and especially the last one could be a good choice for the future in order for oil to be replaced.

Japan's earthquake and potential nuclear catastrophe should convince us that nuclear reactors should not be built in earthquake zones like Greece. Fortunately I have never experience an earthquake, and when I see images of what happen in Japan I wonder how much humanity can truly prepare itself in the face of such power unleashed by mother nature.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-F46zeWtFA

Nuclear power should be out of the question for all countries.
What worries me about nuclear power is not the fear of some accident happening (which in today's world is rare) and I understand how some people who support them say that the plants themselves are very safe and are built to the highest standards, BUT what do we do with all the nuclear waste that remains radioactive for 100000 years??? what are countries (especially our neighbours) doing about that? other than storing them in water, which really isn't a solution (we are seeing what is happening now in Japan with it burning)

Only Finland is currently having a massive project to store its nuclear waste underground, in one of the biggest excavasion projects going on in the world. (which is going to be finished in 2100, then sealed shut and has to last for 100000 years! more that humanity's recorded history!) and all that only to store the nuclear waste from 2 nuclear powerplants!
Just shows that this energy source is not clean by any means and produces the worst kind of waste imo!

A really eye opening documentury about nuclear waste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RurTvL7NWGc
Just shows the dangers of it!
..and our persistence to still keep on building more nuclear power plants, with nuclear experts knowing about all this, is really disturbing to me :(

^^ We also don't know the long term effects of storing radioactive material underground. What if the water table underneath eventually seeps into the storage area then seeps back into underground water? No we should look into green alternatives before its too late.

That's something which we can't control though.


Yes, we can. By not building nuclear reactors in seismically-active zones.

Greece has perfect geography for solar, wind, and hydroelectric energies.

Η χωρα με τον περισσοτερο ηλιο και αντι να το εκμεταλλευτει....τελος παντων. Επικινδυνη η πυρηνικη ενεργεια για την Ελλαδα γιατι δεν θα ξερουν πως να την χειριστουν! Εκτος απο το οτι ειναι σεισμικη χωρα (δεν το εχω ως επιχειρημα), σκεψου τωρα τι γινεται: Εδω με το ρευμα και τα κανουν που και που μανταρα (να ειμαι επιεικης), σκεψου με την πυρηνικη ενεργεια τι θα γινει ετσι και κανουν λαθος!

To ξέρατε ότι η Ελλάδα έχει πυρηνικό αντιδραστήρα εδώ και 33...! χρόνια στην Αττική; Βέβαια δεν είναι αρκετά δυνατός ώστε να παράγει ενέργεια, αλλά χρησιμοποιείται για να αποστειρώνουν ιατρικά εργαλεία. Ο Λοβέρδος μόλις το έμαθε. Δεν ήξερε ότι υπάρχει. Όπως και εγώ, και φαντάζομαι μάλλον όλοι σας....

Πυρηνικός αντιδραστήρας στη Μαγούλα Αττικής!
http://te-ra-stio.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post_3682.html

Ακόμα και ο υπουργός Υγείας πληροφορήθηκε πρόσφατα ότι εδώ και 33 χρόνια λειτουργεί στην Μαγούλα Αττικής ένας πυρηνικός αντιδραστήρας, υπό την ευθύνη μάλιστα του υπουργείου Υγείας.

Ο πυρηνικός αντιδραστήρας όπως αποκάλυψε ο Ant1 χρησιμοποιεί κοβάλτιο και αποστειρώνει ιατρικά υλικά, όπως γάζες, και φιαλίδια για φάρμακα.
Οι ειδικοί επιστήμονες διαβεβαιώνουν ότι για τον συγκεκριμένο αντιδραστήρα κοβαλτίου έχουν ληφθεί όλα τα μέτρα ασφαλείας, ενώ σε σχέση με τους κλασικούς αντιδραστήρες παραγωγής ενέργειας είναι πολύ χαμηλής επικινδυνότητας.

Πάντως μετά την καταστροφή στην Ιαπωνία, και λόγω της υψηλής σεισμικότητας της Ελλάδας, ο υπουργός Υγείας έδωσε εντολή για επανέλεγχο της ασφάλειας του αντιδραστήρα στη Μαγούλα, από την Ελληνική Επιτροπή Ατομικής Ενέργειας.
πηγή: newsit.gr

:hilarious:

^^

:lol:

εγω νομιζα οτι υπηρχε μονο ο αντιδαστηαρας στο Δημοκριτο..

παντως εχουμε αλλα να φοβομαστε,,οι εφημεριδες λενε οτι σε λιγες μερες θα ερθει σκονη και λασποβροχη με ολα τα τοξικα των πυραυλων απο τη σαχαρα..

Μπορεί να μην παράγει η Ελλάδα ηλεκτρική ενέργεια από το άτομο, πλην όμως είναι ισότιμο μέλος της IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) και ως εκ τούτου (λόγου Δημοκρίτου και Μαγούλας) θεωρείται "πυρηνική δύναμη".

Remakarbly enough, there is a Greek company Defefkalion developing Cold fuzion nuclear reactors, to be on sale by the end of this year. The reactors produce no radioactive waste.

There technology works, and there planing to sell small "cheap" and safe reactors for home uses. DEI wont be very happy but whatever. They have funding from the Greek goverment. This may be a very big gold mine.

Bare reactor testing:
SuRGpRZ1t5E

Google news link on Defefkalion (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=defklion&oq=defklion&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2011l4745l0l4950l8l8l0l4l0l0l183l566l1.3l4l0#hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=xr41T4yJK8TL0QWpzayNAg&ved=0CCcQBSgA&q=defkalion&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d49f1ade8f2ff4dd&biw=1360&bih=705)

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/

^ Heard about that a while ago.
Some Italian scientist or professor is or was involved who was a rather sketchy fellow I think.
There's a lot of skepticism around this cold fusion reactor stuff.
Guess we will have to wait and see what materializes.