The Accidental Smallholder Forum

Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 06:06:16 pm

Title: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 06:06:16 pm
so, hitachi are to build at least 2 nuclear power plants here in good old blighty. one in gloucestershire and one somewhere i cant remember.  japan, following fukushima have turned off all of theirs and are pursuing some amazing alternative energy plans, whilst increasing the use of coal and carbon capture.
 
i wonder if all the nimbys saying no to those horrible wind turbines will now be happy, im sure the view of a nuclear plant will be soooo much better.
the estimated cost of the clear up of all our already produced nuclear waste is over 70 billion pounds. we still have no method of getting rid of it. so who was the bright spark who said lets build some more of them?
fulkushima is a crisis thats still happening. america has 5 plants in trouble thanks to sandy. why on earth are we going to build some more here??
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: plumseverywhere on October 30, 2012, 06:08:54 pm
Eww, that Gloucestershire one is a bit local  :o  Scary stuff.  (not that distance has any bearing on nuclear power but just seeing the proximity made me think ouch)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Ina on October 30, 2012, 06:46:08 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 06:06:16 pm
i wonder if all the nimbys saying no to those horrible wind turbines will now be happy, im sure the view of a nuclear plant will be soooo much better.

I fear that those nimbys will be happier with this - I always find it amazing how many people say that nuclear is the "green" option...

Unfortunately, even in Germany (which is officially getting out of nuclear now) a lot of folk are turning against renewables - because it seems a little bit more expensive! But then, of course, the long term clean-up costs for nuclear rarely get mentioned.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 06:56:37 pm
thay also forget to mention that each nuclear plant is also a target. thats why germany and japan have pulled out.  funny that they were both the most ;'controlled'; nations after ww2. theyre reducing their vulnerability.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on October 30, 2012, 08:23:43 pm
I think they are all deaf to our warnings.  I just spoke to a lassie on FB and she was enthusing about these two new plants and downing wind turbines like it was going out of style. Nothing I said would convince her that they would kill us all eventually and that there were other ways of producing and saving energy than building these monsters.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 08:37:21 pm
So, what do people think of wind turbines?
I shudder at the very thought of nuclear but having found out quite a lot about wind power/turbines, I don't think they are without many problems themselves. Big issue here in Mid-Wales and not popular with many. A lot of very knowledgable people do not think they are the way to go.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on October 30, 2012, 08:50:56 pm
I personally would like them a  lot better if they merged with their surroundings, but apparently it is a planning demand that they are grey - supposedly to blend in against the sky  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

They could be painted any colour I was told.  I was also told that there is little to go wrong with them that can't easily be replaced and that they don't have the limited 25 year lifespan that some people put about.  They also needn't be noisy - teh chap I spoke to at an Energy display at teh Glasgow Science Centre said he'd stood under one and hadn't been overwhelmed at all.

So they could be made to look nice, they could last for ever, and they needn't make a lot of noise.  That said I think the Corre Glas hydro scheme probably is a better bet even though it has it's opposition too.  Maybe we all need to do our own little bit - conserve power where possible, have personal wind turbines, stop moaning about renewable sources in our own areas?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 08:51:43 pm
theyre not 'the way to go' but they are, easily removable, with not toxic residue and are recyclable. there are other forms of energy that are realistic but have not been released cos there is no profit in them. the byproduct of nuclear energy is nuclear weapons. thats why they use them,.
spend 10 billion on wave energy. not trident etc. then see what can be achieved. germany has already supplied its entire energy needs for a weekend with solar alone!!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 09:13:10 pm
The turbines themselves maybe removable but I believe that the huge concrete pads that they stand on are left in situ. There are concerns here about habitat/peat loss on the uplands and the possible effect of flooding as a result of the concrete needed.
I don't think the turbines are going to merge with their surroundings ..... the ones planned for Powys are huge and numerous.  :o
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on October 30, 2012, 09:16:03 pm
That's the issue, if we invested the sorts of amounts of money in green energy that we do in nuclear, maybe there'd be ones discovered we don't even know about yet.

I can't believe we're pursuing nuclear energy when we've no idea what to do with the waste nor the problems it may cause future generations.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 30, 2012, 09:18:31 pm
I can't believe how short-sighted mankind is and how shortlived memory is.....
Isn't the weather a bit volatile for any more of these? Likely to calm down, is it?  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 30, 2012, 09:18:51 pm
Quote from: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 09:13:10 pm
  the huge concrete pads  :o

crikey, not huge concrete pads!
hardly radioactive for 100 000 years tho eh? ;)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: hughesy on October 30, 2012, 09:21:27 pm
6000 construction jobs is what has swung public opinion here on Anglesey. Personally I'd rather see acres of wind turbines.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 09:26:31 pm
I suppose we have to keep the lights on Jaykay, one way or another.
The technology doesn't seem to be with us yet to use renewables effectively. The wind turbines maybe more use if we can find a way of storing the power produced when they are actually working but at the moment that's not possible.
But the turbines are making a few even wealthier than they already are. :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: bangbang on October 30, 2012, 09:29:47 pm
Yup! I agree get rid of nuclear!

They should invest in space....a few big solar panels orbiting...several extention cables, and some sockets! It's only about 3 miles away.

This concept is not new, it's just we have not mastered the tech. yet.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 09:39:38 pm
DITW - no not radioactive as far as I know and no technology is going to come without a cost but just saying that wind power as it is at the moment also has drawbacks and not sure that the cost is worth it at present ..... they still need conventional power stations as back up, are unreliable and need heavy subsidies. Would it be better to spend that money working on new technologies. The companies even have to be compensated when they have to turn off the turbines because it is too windy and it is big money.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 30, 2012, 09:40:07 pm
I've seen Uranium mines - and the effect the s**t that gets blown about has on the people who live there (only a few natives, never mind those).  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 30, 2012, 09:41:40 pm
sorry, meant to say poison dust  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Lesley Silvester on October 30, 2012, 10:04:37 pm
I may be in the minority, but I like the look of wind turbines, especially when they're going round.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on October 30, 2012, 10:14:03 pm
Maybe none of this will matter if the Mayan Calendar is right  :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 10:17:24 pm
I think there are concerns about the health risks associated with the necessary pylons and high voltage cables and not just the turbines themselves or the appearance of them. We wouldn't have been directly affected but many around us would and were very concerned.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: bangbang on October 30, 2012, 10:22:40 pm
Quote from: doganjo on October 30, 2012, 10:14:03 pm
Maybe none of this will matter if the Mayan Calendar is right  :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:
Not long now it seems! :sofa: ;D
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on October 30, 2012, 10:55:25 pm
Yes , the end is nigh !
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on October 30, 2012, 10:55:42 pm
Yes , the end is nigh !
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 08:18:08 am
is it heckas like. thats half the problem, believing theres no point, there is a point! lets do it right for once.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: tizaala on October 31, 2012, 08:27:40 am
Amazing. We allow the bloody Japs the job. Perhaps because they made such a good job of their own , sited them on geological faults , that turned out ok!... Glouscester is only a floodplane, well, what could possibly go wrong?
We have plent of running water in this country going to waste , Rivers dont stop running here. hydro electric power could be the long term answer , why don't we use it . The wind does not blow constantly , our water flows all the time , even small rivers could be put to use and we have plenty of them. short sighted or what? :thinking:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 08:34:41 am
ah but you cant use water to put poisonous tips on your standard bullets.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: tizaala on October 31, 2012, 08:37:33 am
Just dip e'm in the Manchester ship cannal  :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 08:40:28 am
 :roflanim:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 08:42:55 am
Quote from: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 10:17:24 pm

I think there are concerns about the health risks associated with the necessary pylons and high voltage cables and not just the turbines themselves or the appearance of them. We wouldn't have been directly affected but many around us would and were very concerned.
there are indeed these concerns. however japan has in place a plan to evacuate 40 million people away from fukushima cause if it goes up they will all die. now thats a real health concern.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: the great composto on October 31, 2012, 09:00:33 am
Putting the gas prices up is one way to train 60million people to put an extra woolly on rather than turn the heating up.

The best answer is to use less energy not find ways of creating more with Nuclear power.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on October 31, 2012, 09:13:01 am
Agreed DITW ..... I don't support nuclear at all. That isn't where I'm coming from. Just discussing the present viability of the alternatives.
There have been studies to show that our present infra-structure for transporting energy from renewables is out-dated and is fit for purpose only from conventional/nuclear stations. However the "big" companies choose to ignore any independent research and seem unwilling to discuss it, certainly at any public meetings. What worries me is that all the developments are driven primarily by the desire to make profit. Is public money lining the pockets of these companies when it could be spent on the development of more effective green technologies? If we could store energy produced by wind that would perhaps be different.
I was told by a person "high up" in Scottish Power company that the money spent on the "project" in Montgomeryshire could have been used to give each and every household in the area £10,000 to install solar panels and that would have been far better use of the money. This was told to me "privately".
Sorry, lost all confidence in wind farm development in this area and no I am not a Nimby .... not directly affected and all for green energy. These companies seemed always very defensive and either wouldn't answer questions or gave different answer to the same questions when asked at different meetings  ::) . Others may have had better experiences. I hope they have because I must admit that I was previously very much for wind power but then I suppose being a trusting person I just assumed they must work or at least help. Having researched a little into things I am not too sure any more.  :( Hope I am wrong and we are not throwing money at big companies instead of investing it wisely. Maybe wind will work if we hurry up and develop the technology to store the energy.
It's very complex, like most things I suppose, when you look closely at what is going on.
Cross posted with GC ....  :thumbsup:  yep.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 10:12:59 am
i agree.
there, yoiu werent expecting that huh!! ;D
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: sabrina on October 31, 2012, 10:40:31 am
From our place I can see 6 wind turbines. The surrounding farms have them. I pass most of them every day but I am that used to seeing them that most of the time I forget about them. I have a friend who hates them and spends her time protesting to stop them being built. She thinks nuclear power is the way to go but not on her doorstep. People like this will be the first to complain when the lights go off.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 11:19:35 am
as anyone who has holidayed in cornwall will be aware, there are hundreds of them here.  20 within 2miles of my place,  i do not have the experience or knowledge to offer arguments regarding the financial implications oif them or hoe that is arranged. all i know is, they are a damn site better than a nuclear plant.
if they planned to put a plant here i WOULD be moving.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 31, 2012, 11:23:49 am
the Pr machine running over the last 30 years to sell nuclear as clean has obviously done a great job. I suppose global warming has not helped but came just in time to exploit carbon emissions as an argument. I am not surpised where things are going but deeply saddened. I do not envy the next generations, we've done a great job ruining it all for them one way or another. :&>
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on October 31, 2012, 11:39:41 am
My comment was a tongue in cheek one mate lol . I am probably the last one who would give up , not in my nature .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 31, 2012, 11:49:45 am
Quote from: RUSTYME on October 31, 2012, 11:39:41 am
My comment was a tongue in cheek one mate lol . I am probably the last one who would give up , not in my nature .

if this was meant for me - I wasn't responding to yours  ;D , just my thoughts on the state of things, not always the optimist :roflanim: . Honestly, I would not be  that keen on large turbines on my doorstep but something I could live with....what's a bit of noise compared with a timebomb?  :&>
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on October 31, 2012, 11:57:41 am
No , sorry Kerstin . I was replying to Dave , i didn't see your post till after i had posted my reply to Dave . I should have put his name on my reply , sorry mate , my fault !
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 31, 2012, 12:12:46 pm
no bother, Russ, made me smile even on this sour topic  ;D :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 12:42:52 pm
i knew you were tounge in  cheek m8 no problem.
whats needed is a 'global paradigm shift' a leap in conciousness, its nearly happening but there is some dark forces working out there. what has been said about uranium mining is true, ive researched lots, try googling 'shinkolobwe'  check out the death rates. the deformed babies (and animals........)
 
ive said before ( to ridicule) that schmallenberg was caused by the fallout from fukushima. you have the right to think im mad but the evidence stacks up, as i proved in a previous thread....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-radioactive-cut-that-will-not-stay-closed (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-radioactive-cut-that-will-not-stay-closed)   
tom zoellners book is worth reading.
 
this planet is not ruled by oil, it is ruled by uranium. simple.
and everytime people point it out they are called either comnspiracy theorists or 'nutters' 
im not, obviously refering to anyone here....
 
if you want a proper sensible energy plan then lobby your mp and PROTEST!!! its all we can do.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Cavendish on October 31, 2012, 01:08:21 pm
What I dont understand is why there is not more of a push to make every building in the land more energy efficient, surely that would half the burden on the current system, if every building was producing electricity, had rain water capture methods, good insulation, solar water heating etc etc etc...
 
Maybe I am just barking up the wrong tree, but it seems an obvious and reasonably low cost version compared to building and maintaining nuclear power plants and disposing of and the waste product.
 
thought I would throw my 2 pence into the mix, I must confess I have not read the whole post. ooops
 
 
If the people with common sense were in control, none of the old boys clubs would make any money I suppose.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 31, 2012, 01:48:21 pm
common sense and forward thinking is no that highly rated...
The fear is not to have enough electricity for industry - but for which industry I wonder??? The common householder is not the main concern...  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 02:11:42 pm
Quote from: Cavendish on October 31, 2012, 01:08:21 pm
What I dont understand is why there is not more of a push to make every building in the land more energy efficient, surely that would half the burden on the current system, if every building was producing electricity, had rain water capture methods, good insulation, solar water heating etc etc etc...
 
Maybe I am just barking up the wrong tree, but it seems an obvious and reasonably low cost version compared to building and maintaining nuclear power plants and disposing of and the waste product.
 
thought I would throw my 2 pence into the mix, I must confess I have not read the whole post. ooops
 
 
If the people with common sense were in control, none of the old boys clubs would make any money I suppose.

precisely. your logic is exactly right. however as this site shows regularly, independent thinking people are doing those things themselves. this is the evolution that is required. and it sticks 2 sticky fingers up to those 'old boys' who want our money!!!
 
the electricity needed for industry? its to power all those neon adverts in picadilly circus :-J
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on October 31, 2012, 02:55:22 pm
the problem with making existing homes more energy efficent is it's small scale. Govts don't like small scale, they like big solutions, preferable supplied by big companies, whose board of directors went to the same public school and belong to the same golf club as whatever crop of politicians are in whitehall.
Title: .bad hand
Post by: RUSTYME on October 31, 2012, 03:03:18 pm
The thing this is all about is , as always , money !
How do they get what they want ?
 Fear .
Talk of "major blackouts if we don't build nuclear power stations" , scare the crap out of the average person and 'they' get their way . More billions for the elite to dish out between themselves , oh and more fuel for nuclear weapons as a bonus .
The nuclear industry is totally corrupt , a complete fraud . Remember the shite they came out with to sell the whole nuclear idea , electricity so cheap it wouldn't be worth charging us for it ! Crap !
The by product was weapons grade waste and that was what they wanted .
Will 'they' listen to what the people say ? They don't with anyting else so why should they on this subject .
The only way to stop these bastards is pull the rug from under them . But , sad as it is ,  very few have the back bone to go that route .
The indoctrination of the masses is very affective and anyone who dares stand against the corrupt elite , are vilified as conspiracy theorists and the mob attack . Just take a look at what the dwp have done to the disabled , the unemployed etc . Even the people vilify and attack , in general .
It is the way of the system . A corrupt edifice built by a corrupt elite , to serve their own insidiuos needs .
The only way to stop them is remove them . They will not capitulate , they will not give an inch .  How do they get away with it ? We let them !
We even carry out their corrupt commands . Without us , they couldn't survive , and until the masses come to this realization , the elite will continue to do as they wish ,virtually unhindered .
Leave a bad apple in with the good ones  , and they will go bad too .
  The only way to stop the rot , is cut it out !
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 03:28:27 pm
whilst taking out the elite is one thing. and would probably only lead to a new set of elite anyway. the strength on the individual is in its own actions, lead by example . im not religious but a biblical quote that sticks in my mind is 'the kingdom of heaven is within each one' . removing demand removes profit. spend money away from big corps, keep your pounds within a community group.
 
the big one, is simple, grow your own fuel and food. no petrol miles, no waste.no reliance on the profit mongers. its not easy tho, as russ will (and does) tell.
 
i know, here, that if the lights went out we'd manage, just. but mainly only because i have a close group of friends who between us have the skills necessary to manage most things. theres actually lots of groups of people who are preparing for just this eventuality. building communication networks will be important. i reckon the old ham radio's a good one.
 
and the best thing is, if it doesnt go tits up, if the s doesnt htf youve not lost, youve only gained, your independence.  i consider myself to be a 'sovereign human' as is everyone. its worth remembering that when your being told what to do all the time.
 
 
tbh, the issue of nuclear energy is a red rag to a bull to me, how can it possibly be, that we use the most destructive element on the planet so recklessly. a bit of research into the history of uranium i would consider a pre-requisite to anyone wishing to understand why we are here, now. and it is very very scary.
Title: .bad hand
Post by: RUSTYME on October 31, 2012, 04:25:57 pm
Yes mate , it is hard to live as i do . Half the problem for me is due to the smash , albeit 30 years ago now , and trying to be as near self reliant as possible .
On an individual basis i can do my thing and they will leave me alone , but only to a point .
They want , need total control , and are now making their move to achieve this goal .
 What happens next depends on how far they push certain people .
If 'they' go the route of say 'gated communities '
and they leave those outside alone , then certain people would accept that and carry on as they do now .
But push certain people beyond cracking point and all hell will break out .
I think we are close to that scenario now .
'They' cannot , will not , leave people alone , as 'they' see all who do not comply as a threat . And 'they' need total compliance , subservience  to keep the status quo ( no , not the group ) .
Nuclear power is just one part of the problem , albeit a deadly one .
If tshtf tonight i would get by , although i would miss some things .
As i have said many times before , i do what i do and live as i do because i want to . Yes i detest the system as it is , and i think it is all going very wrong and the way we live will change on a huge scale , but i don't live as i do because of that . But if and when tshtf i will cope ok due to my lifestyle !
But what if one of their nuclear plants goes tits up ? Well fukushima me , i will be up that creek with all the rest .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on October 31, 2012, 08:28:03 pm
So to sum-up a lot of people are bothered by
- nuclear
- wind power
- biomass


while
- we import most of our gas and oil, substantially from difficult countries
- we have huge coal reserves which are now incredibly expensive to recover (thanks Mrs T) and very ungreen
- the remaining AGRs and many conventional stations are worn-out


but we all want the lights to stay on.


A read of http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/CF7E564E-BD49-4E3B-B772-F1A908EE0059/57213/UKFutureEnergyScenarios2012.pdf (http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/CF7E564E-BD49-4E3B-B772-F1A908EE0059/57213/UKFutureEnergyScenarios2012.pdf) which has just been published by National Grid is quite sobering.  It has three forecasts based on groups of assumptions.  They will be wrong but you have to start somewhere.


For wind power enthusiasts current installed capacity is about 3GW while consented and in-planning capacity is another 4GW.  However forecast 2020 wind capacity is around 16GW on the slowest assumption.  And 39GW on the fast growth assumptions.  About two-thirds of this is offshore but that's still a lot.



This report (and it's a chunky read) persuades me that nuclear power is worth a great deal of thought.


Japan is a particular case.  It's a country which shows all the downsides of individual and political consensus by spending the last 20 years not getting to grips with its financial crisis and ageing population.  Japan has no energy supply of its own so nuclear was a no-brainer.  Everything that followed was plain stupid, however.  They installed cheap reactors without proper containment in a geologically active country, then lied about the risks and took awesome shortcuts.


We do seem now to face a fairly unpleasant bunch of choices, one of which is to let the lights go out.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Birdie Wife on October 31, 2012, 09:28:18 pm
Quote from: the great composto on October 31, 2012, 09:00:33 am
Putting the gas prices up is one way to train 60million people to put an extra woolly on rather than turn the heating up.

The best answer is to use less energy not find ways of creating more with Nuclear power.

Completely agree - nail on the head there. Although I don't mind nuclear as much as wind turbines - far less propoganda as far as I'm concerned. I'd be interested to know how many of those who are against nucelar power have lived close to a nuclear power plant? France gets 80% of its power from nuclear and now they are exporting energy to us (EDF).
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: mab on October 31, 2012, 09:44:10 pm
the problem is that nuclear is that it's the energy equivalent of a credit card - cheap abundant energy now; pay later (or leave it for the next generation to pay for - like they're having to pay for everything else). very appealing to politicians thinking about the short-term.

It's hard to argue the case for funding renewables because, while there are a lot of good ideas, it's all as yet unproven or still being developed and people want guaranteed power.

There are viable energy storage solutions such as pumped hydro storage:

http://www.fhc.co.uk/index.asp (http://www.fhc.co.uk/index.asp)

but there's not yet enough to meet the needs of the renewable energy sector.

As has been said the best solution is energy conservation - there are still a huge number of buildings in the UK with very poor insulation.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on October 31, 2012, 09:47:13 pm
I grew up about 30 miles from one. It's not the view of the building or the cloud that I "don't like" them  ;D .There are more issues to consider - mining is very unsafe for the local population - and that dirty job is happening on mainly indigenous lands. and on the other side the rubbish can be turned into nice weapons. It's a similar argument like that flying is safer than cars - but when it goes down you're in deep trouble. Whoever promotes them is the sorcerer's apprentice or Homer Simpson, most likely a bit of both...delusional sense of omnipotence  :roflanim: :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 10:48:12 pm
''delusional sense of omnipotance''  what a great way of putting it.
 
if you are pro nucllear, ask yourself where the uranium comes from in the first place. check my link to shinkolobwe, and others. there is no such thing as a safe uranium mine.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on October 31, 2012, 10:49:56 pm
What do the pro-nuclears think about the waste?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 10:57:57 pm
they havent got that far. 100 000 tonnes of waste in the uk so far. most of it stored above ground in concrete boxes.
 
there is no known way of disposing of it safely. it will just grow and grow and grow.
 
 http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/summaries/ (http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/summaries/)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on October 31, 2012, 11:18:54 pm
Though more people die in mining coal than die from the nuclear industry.. before we even talk about emissions (remember acid rain). You need a mixture of energy sources which include renewables; fossil fuels; and yes unless you want the lights to go out nuclear.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 11:19:09 pm
some interesting reading here,
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-the-silver (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-the-silver)
 
from the above link....
''In 1998 the U.S. Department of Energy had about 500,000 metric tons of depleted uranium in storage. ''
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 11:21:24 pm
Quote from: escapedtothecountry on October 31, 2012, 11:18:54 pm
Though more people die in mining coal than die from the nuclear industry.. before we even talk about emissions (remember acid rain). You need a mixture of energy sources which include renewables; fossil fuels; and yes unless you want the lights to go out nuclear.

i agree you do need a mix. but are you seriously telling me that chernobyl and fukushima arent killing people.   maybe the 'industry' ie production and delivery costs less lives but when it goes wrong it kills millions. have you forgotten hiroshima and nagasaki??
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on October 31, 2012, 11:25:58 pm
My original statement stands - more people die in mining than in nuclear power plants.


Not sure our power plants are built near tectonic plates or areas where a tsunami will hit unlike Japan which historically gets impacted by these weather events. And of course the Soviets failed to invest in their nuclear industry safety programme so that argument is not comparing apples with apples.


You legitimately may not like nuclear power. Renewables cannot meet demand in this country no matter what rhetoric we get from politicians. Solar has the inherent problem of at times of peak demand - night time and Winter the sun, well, does not shine. Wind is intermittent.


You are left with coal gas and nuclear. We need all three.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on October 31, 2012, 11:46:54 pm
Quote from: escapedtothecountry on October 31, 2012, 11:25:58 pm
My original statement stands - more people die in mining than in nuclear power plants.


Not sure our power plants are built near tectonic plates or areas where a tsunami will hit unlike Japan which historically gets impacted by these weather events. And of course the Soviets failed to invest in their nuclear industry safety programme so that argument is not comparing apples with apples.


You legitimately may not like nuclear power. Renewables cannot meet demand in this country no matter what rhetoric we get from politicians. Solar has the inherent problem of at times of peak demand - night time and Winter the sun, well, does not shine. Wind is intermittent.


You are left with coal gas and nuclear. We need all three.

the comparison isnt valid.  do some research on the history of uranium mining.
 
coal, gas, yes, if we can capture the carbon effectively, whilst we INVEST and promote and deploy renewables. solar panels everywhere, wind turbines everywhere, whilst we sort out safe, ideally free energy.
 
but no more nuclear. its playing with fire. nfd's right ''delusional omnipitence''
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 12:00:13 am
the thing about uranium mines is they are rare and the source of the ultimate military weapon, as such they arent really in the sanme league as a coal mine, you cant make a coal bomb that will wipe out  half a country.
as such they cause massive political strife in the countrys they exist. like the congo. like the uranium rush earlier this century in america, the brave new world of the jetsons.... israel has a uranium mine. funny that......
 
there are millions of Depleted Uranium bullets lieing in areas such as the balkans and the warzones of iran and iraq,(remember gulf war syndrome?) syria etc. du is the tank buster shell, it cuts through armour theyre buried in buildings, buried in the soil. releasing radiation . that is the impact of nuclear power stations. that is what they are used for. electricity generation is just part of the reason for them.  chickens give you eggs, but their manure gives you cucumbers!!!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:03:46 am
You suggest my comparison isn't valid - just as your comparison to nuclear power in tsunami regions or in the neglected Soviet nuclear programme is not a valid comparison to to nuclear power here.





So we will have to agree to disagree. There is no such thing as any safe or indeed clean energy. Of course given how much France relies on nuclear power you would also have to convince them to give up their reliance on something you are arguing against on safety grounds, as if they had issues it would impact on the UK as if it was on our own shores.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 12:22:01 am
 the example of fukushima, with its vulnerabilities, served to examine the recklessness with which this technology is used, im sure the same perfect logic was used when placing the 5 nuclear power stations now out of action following hurricane sandy.
 
your answer does not address my main point about the legacy and byproduct.
 
hence, you cant compare uranium mining with coal mining.
 
im not prepared to 'agree to disagree', thats a cop out. my arguments are well proven and you have offered nothing in the way of offering solutions to the problems that ive demonstrated with good evidence.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:28:31 am
No - the example of fukishima serves in your opinion to highlight recklessness. In my opinion it highlights given we will not experience a tsunami that argument is not a valid one to bash nuclear power in this country. Having lived in the US and experienced Hurricanes first hand that argument against nuclear power in this country - bring up Sandy - is also a straw man argument.


I counter your Uranium argument and say why not use Thorium? You seem knowledgable.


Solutions to what problems? Waste is buried - that is an adequate solution. There is no solution to the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning which will cause more environmental damage to me than nuclear will. The solution to that is population control - but that won't be electorally palatable.


You say your arguments are well proven - again an opinion. Not a fact. Just because someone says it is so does not make it thus.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 12:40:16 am
Quote from: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:28:31 am


Solutions to what problems? Waste is buried - that is an adequate solution. There is no solution to the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning which will cause more environmental damage to me than nuclear will. The solution to that is population control - but that won't be electorally palatable.

two key points here, 'environmental damage to ME' 
 
im worried about my children's childrens' children.
 
 
''the solution to that is population control''      wow. ok.
 
 
legacy and byproduct still not answered. ummm
 
 
ive done some research on thorium, i will get back to you....
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:48:57 am
There is environmental damage from every energy production method that's my point.Hence why I mentioned Acid Rain in my very first comment. CO2 emissions from all fossil fuel burning. Legacy of burning fossil fuels? That has never been answered. You do know the life expectancy of people living near airports drops noticeably due to the emissions from airplanes - and their fossil fuels. Does that not effect your children? Fracking for shale gas? The list goes on. It isn't as simple as nuclear bad everything else OK.


The comment about population control is simply to point out that the more the population of the world grows the more energy is required and the more damage that will do.


I assume you have researched how much concrete is used to build turbines - and we all know the damage concrete production does.


Glad to hear you have done some research on thorium. I stand by my view that nuclear is needed in our energy mix. In a democracy you will be able to vote for a party that doesn't support it. I will be free to vote for one that does.


Disagreeing on an issue doesn't make either of us right. These are opinions. :)



Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 12:56:13 am
whilst concrete is not terrilbly environmentally friendly, it is recyclable.
there is so far, always an environmental issue with all energy generation. however nothing else produces waste that we dont know what to do with! and is instead used for weaponry. that is MY major argument against nuclear power.
 
you know what, sometimes, you do have to be right.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:59:14 am
Ah so you big issues is nuclear weapons? Well I support our nuclear deterrent so again we will disagree. If you are confident in being right get yourself elected and change things. I for one am turning off the power and going to bed.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 01:01:24 am
 ;D
 
i'll save it .....
 
done the thorium thing now.  :wave:
 
good night :tree:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: mab on November 01, 2012, 01:04:49 am
Quote
I counter your Uranium argument and say why not use Thorium? You seem knowledgable.

last i heard thorium was still theoretical - I've yet to hear of a working thorium cycle power station. Even if it becomes a reality, it still needs a conventional reactor to start the thorium cycle.

population control is a good solution, but tptb are not going to promote that in a hurry.

Quote
...given we will not experience a tsunami that argument is not a valid one to bash nuclear power in this country.

Umm.. where does it say we will not experience a tsunami in this country? - granted it's rare here, but they have happened in the past (severn estuary and northeastern scotland have both been hit by significant tsunamis that I know of).

(I can't keep up with you two - I'm about 3 posts behind you  ;D )
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 01:16:03 am
hes gone to bed....
 
''
So we're talking about two different risks, here: the risks associated with an innovative form of nuclear power based on a very abundant and safe material versus the risk of a three-degree-Celsius, let's say, rise in global temperatures over the next 50 years, within, you know, my son's lifetime. So, as a society, I don't think we're very good at calculating risk. And so to hone in on these pretty technical issues of, well, there might be some proliferation risk with thorium, there's no question that thorium - liquid-fueled thorium reactors can be used to consume the existing waste from conventional reactors.
It's unpressurized liquid chemistry. We are really good at that. And one thing we haven't mentioned yet is the whole issue of nuclear accidents. And so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment, as well.
FLATOW: Well, I've only got about a minute or so to go. But you brought it up, and let me get a reaction from Dr. Makhijani.
MARTIN: Of course.
MAKHIJANI: I have a favorite molten salt reactor. My reactor is free. It's in the sky, 93 million miles away. You can store its energy in molten salt. It is being done today. You can generate electricity for 24 hours a day. The - so the impermanency problem has been solved.
I don't know why - I'm still trying to understand why photovoltaics are still so expensive in this country. But you know Germany - I was at a seminar yesterday at the Heinrich Boll Foundation about the Germany decision to get out of nuclear. They're going to have a completely renewable system maybe by the time thorium reactors become commercial.
This isn't going to happen tomorrow, even if you pour money into it. It would take 10 years for the NRC to understand and write regulations for this thing. And it would take 10 years before that to build the reactors, do the experiments and produce the data so you can regulate this thing, because all of our regulation is based on light water reactors.
Six years ago, I might have agreed with Mr. Martin that maybe, you know, impermanency is a big problem. Somebody said you haven't looked. You really should do a study. So I did an honest, unbiased look, not thinking we could do renewable energy. And I found out that my hunch was wrong: We can do 100 percent renewable energy, and the Germans are actually aiming for it.
You know, they have an export surplus with China, and we have a huge export deficit. Maybe they know something we don't know.
FLATOW: Last word, Richard, quickly?
MARTIN: Sure. I think Arjun has brought up a very important point, which is that this is not going to happen in the United States because of the licensing issues he just mentioned. It is happening in China. It is happening in India. It is happening in certain countries in Western Europe. And so our choice in this country is whether we are going to be left behind on the next big energy technology, or whether we are going to take advantage of a technology that was developed right here at Oak Ridge and that has been proven out. And that's really the choice before us.
And the thorium revival is inevitable. The question is whether the United States is going to be a follower or a leader.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 01, 2012, 08:38:35 am
the question of waste management came up. As an example, Germany has been storing nuclear waste in Gorleben, and the PR machine has been busy busy trying to disprove that there are cracks and holes in the rock and salt . No geological feature can be guaranteed to be permanent in its structure for how many years exactly? Seismic shifts, earthquakes, ....Generally, there is a movie "The age of stupid", that sums it up. It covers climate change, btw. :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on November 01, 2012, 08:51:23 am
Quote
Waste is buried - that is an adequate solution. There is no solution to the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning which will cause more environmental damage to me than nuclear will

Waste being buried is not an adequate solution. It's going to be dangerous for thousands of years. Who can say what the land will be needed for by then. Would you want to live on the top of somewhere that had buried nuclear waste or eat stuff farmed there? The more waste is produced the more land we damage, for a very long time to come.

As for there being no solution to CO2, the challenge is to find good carbon capture mechanisms. We're being terrified by 'global warming' to accept something we know, now, is dangerous and produces waste we've got no hope of managing.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 01, 2012, 08:57:43 am
Has anyone read the "Zero Carbon" document produced by The Centre for Alternative Technology?
 
Interesting ..... worth looking at.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 09:25:21 am
if you are still under the illusion that nuclear power is safe. please take the time to read this linkywinky properly,
 
 
http://enenews.com/9pm-special-edition-exactly-happened-fukushima-going-njs-oyster-creek-except-reactor-refueling-gundersen-audio (http://enenews.com/9pm-special-edition-exactly-happened-fukushima-going-njs-oyster-creek-except-reactor-refueling-gundersen-audio)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 12:12:33 pm
Would I like to live next to a nuclear waste site - no.


Would I like to live next to a wind turbine - no


Would I like to live next to a coal fired power station - no


Would I like to have a secure source of electricity yes.


Of course even if we got rid of all our nuclear power (as some see them as unsafe) it would be pointless given the proximity (France) to nuclear power stations of other countries.


I wonder how many of you leaving comments on here are using electricity produce by a nuclear plant? Do you know if you are? How can you tell.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 01, 2012, 12:22:27 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 12:22:01 am
im not prepared to 'agree to disagree', thats a cop out. my arguments are well proven and you have offered nothing in the way of offering solutions to the problems that ive demonstrated with good evidence.


Is this the way the new Global Moderator model is supposed to work? 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 01:08:50 pm
would you like to raise this point in a new thread?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 01, 2012, 01:13:10 pm
No.  I'm just fine with it here.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 01:15:17 pm
ok, so please, what is your point?  are you suggesting that as a moderator im now not allowed a point of view?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 01, 2012, 01:40:49 pm
Of course you can have an opinion.  But you seem to have a problem with others having a different opinion.



But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 01:53:58 pm
I fully respect everyones right to have an opinion. the two issues i have repeatedly asked for opinions on have been legacy and the byproduct. neither of which have been offered. we all share a moral responsibility for how our energy is generated. that extends to legacy and byproduct which is for some reason ignored?     
 
its a bit like knocking on the door then running away. i never found that fun as a kid either.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 02:11:51 pm
Sorry - with respect they have been answered (if you are referring to the debate you have had with me) but you did not like the answers. I can accept the by product from nuclear just as I accept the by product from burning fossil fuels - both a necessary evil. Just as some in the green movement gloss over the massive C02 output from cement production used to hold up the 4,000 wind turbines in the UK.



You confuse (in my opinion) not answering - with not giving an answer you seen deem to be acceptable. That is fine. I will say again we disagree.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 02:21:12 pm
i do struggle to understand how anyone can 'accept' the byproduct of nuclear energy yes.
 
i also think its very sad. such a lack of compassion, or so it would seem.
 
ive definitely learnt something from this debate, ive realised why we are in this awful mess.
 
so, we leave the waste problem for our children to deal with, and just get on with it, keeping the lights on.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 02:26:23 pm
If you deal with facts - 30,000 people in this country died from pollution in 2008. Therefore are we all getting out of our cars? Not using diesel in our tractors? Never been on a plane? Not using fossil fuel for electricity production? If not then we are all to blame. If someone says yes - then give me the solution. Show me the way we get energy for heating/ lighting / travel that has zero environmental impact. There isn't one out there.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15693627 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15693627)



What that shows is that all forms of energy production has harmful by products. My argument is and always will be that yes nuclear has nasty by products. Frankly - all energy production does.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 01, 2012, 02:51:29 pm
So ...... if we had no nuclear could we supply current demands?
 
If so, how?
 
CAT's zero carbon document gives some indication of the changes that would be needed if we went along that route and they are considerable eg. impact on our diets, farming, landscape
Are they realistic?
 
I would shout "no nuclear" in a very big voice if the alternatives were found to be viable. DITW you are obviously very passionate about no nuclear. Have you researched the alternatives and whether they are realistic at this point in time. I'll gladly switch off my computer, TV etc. and live partly by candle light as would several people I know but that is not for everyone and not sure how much people are willing to sacrifice all the mod cons in order to reduce usage. So ..... where do we go?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 02:57:44 pm
ive agreed that there is no energy source that has a zero environmental impact. but some are worse than others.
 
germany is aiming for 100% renewable energy, its shutting down its nuclear plants. sweden and denmark are also doing the same. what they all share in common is they dont have nuclear weapons.
 
http://power-to-the-people.net/2012/10/100-renewable-energy-is-already-reality/ (http://power-to-the-people.net/2012/10/100-renewable-energy-is-already-reality/)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 02:58:19 pm
Quote from: in the hills on November 01, 2012, 02:51:29 pm

 
I would shout "no nuclear" in a very big voice if the alternatives were found to be viable.


Have to say I agree. If there were alternatives to fossil fuels I would also agree - as they have huge impacts too. But there is no alternative at the moment. This very day all the wind turbines across the Uk produced circa 3% of our electricity. So even if we don't discuss gas and oil used for heating, where does the other 97% come from now. That is before energy usage goes up - as populations rise irrespective of energy saving methods introduced.


To be honest contributors to this site are the MOST likely to implement environmentally friendly measures - be it water harvesting, planting wood for fuel (carbon neutral). But I would not accept blackouts in the name of being environmentally friendly.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 03:02:49 pm
we have to invest in renewables, simple.
 
 
 
nuclear provides about 20% of our eleccy. if we all used 20% less, we would not need them.
 
 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html)
 
 
we have nuclear power to provide weapons grade uranium.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 03:10:02 pm
Sorry totally disagree (we are allowed to do that) So is Finland commissioning nuclear power to build nuclear weapons?


You seriously think energy consumption will go down 20%. And you type that with no irony that you are on a computer sucking up energy as I am. And that this website is hosted on a server sucking up energy.


Its clear your dislike of nuclear is more about weapons than it as a power source and I'm afraid we disagree again.  But in a democracy you can vote for a party that will shut nuclear down and I can vote for one that will keep it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: bloomer on November 01, 2012, 03:16:04 pm
Okay all of you please keep it civil in here or it will be time for this thread to be closed!!!


You all raise valid arguments and i don't think it is possible for you to reach an agreement so may i suggest letting the thread die a natural death...
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 03:17:41 pm
in the last two years i have reduced my electricity consumption by well over 20%.
 
 
my dislike is for nuclear. both power and weapons. its too dangerous, we cant control it and we cant dispose of it. simple.
 
voting makes not one jot of difference. protest and education do.
 
im done, thank you.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 03:20:17 pm
Sorry - I didn't realise it wasn't civil - I haven't seen any personal comments?


One moderator telling another off? Ok... I will keep my opinions to myself - I've only worked for several Members of Parliament with a strong interest in energy security and stood for Parliament twice. Can't think why a thread should be shut just because two people are engaging in adult debate. Apologies if this sort of thing offends.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 03:25:31 pm
 :D
 
im happy if you are, robust argument is healthy and the basis for mutual respect,
 
mybe you might have got in if you pushed the renewable agenda?? id have voted for you...
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 01, 2012, 03:30:10 pm
I'm tempted to agree with the nuclear argument. We do need to reduce our CO2 emissions, so we can't build more gas/oil/coal fired power stations. We should've invested more money 20+ years ago into renewables when we had the, but we didn't, so we have to live the situation as we find it. Renewables, as they stand at this point in time are not enough. Money we invest now will not pay off in time, we need a stop gap measure.
Yes, leaving nuclear waste around for future generations is distasteful, but so are the consequences of climate change.
EDIT: interesting (if loooooong, I still haven't read it all) article on George Monbiots site: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 03:32:49 pm
LOl I'm happy too.. Can I just check no one is offended? I thought this was a very healthy robust debate?? Nothing personal in it at all from my side and I wasn't offended in any way by your comments.


Come from the view that to debate is good as it should make everyone question their own views. I am teh first to admit I am often wrong. Yes it's true.. but don't tell the wife.  ;)



Ha ha Im sure we agree on many things including doing what we can for the environment - hence I'm doing what I can with the place we have bought. All probably badly. But trying to be self sustaining with wood for woodberner. Now harvest 12000 litres of water for the garden etc. Doing my bit slowly.


I have always tried to remember what Dan and Rosemary have written about treat this as their house. I would probably have engaged in a debate like this over the dinner table. Enjoyed the debate to be honest. And I really think it shows two people can totally disagree but it is nothing personal.


Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 03:44:30 pm
 
ding ding round 2.
 
solutions!
 
 
if germany can do it so can we (ummm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 03:52:02 pm
My comments have already been noted  ;D
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 03:55:04 pm
 ;D
 
may i take this opportunity to commend you on your dahlias?
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: the great composto on November 01, 2012, 03:55:32 pm
Has nobody worked out how to capture Piezoelectricity yet ( the crystal that sparks to light a cigarette lighter).  - I am dumb enough to think that if you could capture it and put it somewhere like a car tyre this would produce endless amounts of energy as the car moves for example.

We could also try to capture bloomers enthusiasm for excessive moderation  :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 03:58:45 pm
Ok now you made me laugh out loud properly! Why thank you kind Sir! You are too kind. Fancy some nasturtium seeds?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 04:05:13 pm
 :D  thank you yes! i have a soft spot for nasturtiums, how did you know? :eyelashes:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 04:06:56 pm
Direct message me your name/address and consider them in the post! Look at us playing nicely.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: bloomer on November 01, 2012, 04:08:32 pm
ok go back to arguing i can't handle the nice...



Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 04:13:54 pm
Quote from: bloomer on November 01, 2012, 04:08:32 pm
ok go back to arguing i can't handle the nice...


No no... we were far too articulate to be arguing. We were debating... sparring even. LOL
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 04:17:21 pm
right back on topic.... ::) ;)
 
whatever happened to tesla?
 
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml (http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml)
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on November 01, 2012, 04:23:28 pm
He died mate .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 04:25:02 pm
after that mate.
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on November 01, 2012, 04:29:16 pm
They found ways to make leccy that made them millions , that we couldn't do ourselves .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 01, 2012, 05:44:01 pm
ditw ..... Are you saying that we won't give up nuclear because we need the uranium to produce nuclear weapons? I don't know much about this subject. I thought we stopped producing our own nuclear weapons in the 50's and bought them from America.  ???
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 06:05:02 pm
yes.
 
it is used for weaponry. look up depleted uranium.
 
its used to head rounds of ammunition, from smallfire to tankbusters. it 'sharpens' on impact so cuts through metal. i might be wrong on this but i think its the standard us ammo now. being used all over the world in vast quantities.
 
 
 
from wiki.
                World depleted uranium inventory           
CountryOrganizationEstimated DU stocks
(tonnes)		Reported
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png) United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)DOE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy)
480,000        [/t][/t] 2002
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png) Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)FAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAEA)
460,000        [/t] 1996
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/22px-Flag_of_France.svg.png) France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)Areva NC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva_NC)
190,000        [/t] 2001
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png) United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)BNFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNFL)
30,000        [/t] 2001
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png) United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/22px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png) Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png) Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands)		URENCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URENCO)
16,000        [/t] 1999
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png) Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)JNFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNFL)
10,000        [/t] 2001
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png) China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)CNNC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNNC)
2,000        [/t] 2000
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png) South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea)KAERI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAERI)
200        [/t] 2002
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Flag_of_South_Africa.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png) South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa)NECSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NECSA)
73        [/t] 2001
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Singapore.svg/22px-Flag_of_Singapore.svg.png) Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)DSO National Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DSO_National_Laboratories&action=edit&redlink=1)
60        [/t] 2007
TOTAL

 
 
 
that didnt work, hey, the total in TONNES of du in the world as 2008 was      1,188,273
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 01, 2012, 06:12:47 pm
I'm with Rusty, the end is nigh :eyelashes: :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 06:20:07 pm
'' In a three week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.''
 
 
do you think theyve gone round and picked it all up?? ;D
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 06:28:13 pm
In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[98][99] Children of British soldiers who fought in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used are at greater risk of suffering genetic diseases such as congenital malformations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_malformations), commonly called "birth defects," passed on by their fathers. In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."
 
 
sorry to post after my own post but i sort of thought everybody knows that we used du? it was in cluster bombs, landmines, evrything really!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 01, 2012, 06:43:49 pm
that wasn't the question that was asked though.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 06:47:30 pm
sorry mikem, could you explain, what have i missed?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 01, 2012, 07:31:15 pm
"ditw ..... Are you saying that we won't give up nuclear because we need the uranium to produce nuclear weapons? I don't know much about this subject. I thought we stopped producing our own nuclear weapons in the 50's and bought them from America"
 
this was the question that was asked. We know that we manufacture DU weapons, but the question that was asked was do you think that's why we won't give up nuclear generation.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 07:47:53 pm
yes.
 
the uk is a major supplier of arms.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 09:21:15 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 07:47:53 pm
yes.
 
the uk is a major supplier of arms.


Is that why Finland is embarking upon having nuclear energy?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 01, 2012, 10:32:04 pm
So back onto the renewables, National Grid's green forecast which shows some economic growth suggests 30GW of wind power generation by 2020.


That's TEN times the current output, but still less than 30% of the total.  That is an awful lot of wind turbines.  And don't forget that the generators get a guaranteed rate, so it certainly isn't going to be too cheap to meter!


We're faced with a rather unhappy set of choices.  That's why I'm open to reconsidering nuclear, though if fusion showed any signs of progress that would help.  I've visited Culham a fair few times, and success seems decades away still.

Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 10:55:26 pm
finland is a slightly different case, firstly it has its own uranium mine and secondly it has convinced itself it can store the waste adequately. very deep underground.
 
finland has signed the non proliferation treaty and has regularly voted against the use of depleted uranium use at the UN. unlike the UK
 
 
out of all the countrys with nuclear power finland at least has invested in an attempt to deal wilt its waste, and  (hopefully) doesnt contribute to its use as a weapon.
 
if a case is to be made for nuclear power then yes look to finland. the dangers still remain, but good on them for trying to work out solutions. our waste is sat on a field. all 100 000 tonnes of it.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 01, 2012, 10:58:07 pm
Quote from: Small Farmer on November 01, 2012, 10:32:04 pm
So back onto the renewables, National Grid's green forecast which shows some economic growth suggests 30GW of wind power generation by 2020.


That's TEN times the current output, but still less than 30% of the total.  That is an awful lot of wind turbines.  And don't forget that the generators get a guaranteed rate, so it certainly isn't going to be too cheap to meter!


We're faced with a rather unhappy set of choices.  That's why I'm open to reconsidering nuclear, though if fusion showed any signs of progress that would help.  I've visited Culham a fair few times, and success seems decades away still.

 
nuclear only produces 18%. its not unfeasible to replace it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 11:49:36 pm
That was a quick bit of research - it's almost as if you had no idea about Finland and its nuclear programme until I mentioned it.......  I'm sure you know all about this:- www.fennovoima.com (http://www.fennovoima.com)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 01, 2012, 11:53:32 pm
This almost feels like one upmanship here.  All I care about is our lovely world one day being blown sky high by the mess left because of nuclear waste :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 12:17:01 am
Nuclear waste does not "blow up" Nuclear reactors can. But then so can chemical factories; oil refineries; oil wells a'la the Gulf of Mexico and so on. I don't see many people saying they can live without any fossil fuels unless I am mistaken. This isn't one up-manship but highlighting everything we do has consequences.


I wouldn't want to live next to a gas storage facility or the previously mentioned oil refinery, and they will have far less safety precautions than a nuclear facility.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Berkshire Boy on November 02, 2012, 07:04:35 am
I am certainly not very knowledgable on this subject unlike some on here but then 99% of the population aren't. They want electricity on demand at a reasonable price. I have no problems with nuclear power and as I understand it we are looking at a vast new burial site for our waste.
Wind turbines will go down in history as the biggest con on the public and government alike. You can't get away from the fact that if it's not windy you have no electricity and it doesn't matter if you build 10's of thousands of turbines not one power station will shut down.
I don't understand why more isn't done with hydro electric we live on a island for gods sake. :roflanim: 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 08:42:04 am
wind turbines can be taken down and scrapped without too much damage but nuclear waste stays with us and with many many generations after us. I don't think many understand what radiation actually does. That Russian spy a few years back was killed with a minuite amount of radioactive material - imagine where that originated from?  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Berkshire Boy on November 02, 2012, 09:00:05 am
That is irrelevant,there are plenty of ways to kill someone, there will always be nuclear power somewhere and there will always be the waste.No one is going to do away with nuclear weapons and you can't deny the world is a safer place with them, world war wise that is.
I've always thought there must be better things to spend nuclear weapon money on but the other day they were discussing our new nuclear arsenal and said that you don't know who your enemies are going to be in 20, 30, 50 years time and that is true.You have to have a deterant and hope some nutter like Israel doesn't use it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Mel on November 02, 2012, 09:06:38 am
I do not see the world as being safer because we have them,I would like to see all nuclear weaponry scrapped,why should we live in fear of some bright spark whom has the authority? to press the button,I see it as big boys games,mine are bigger than yours,you nuke us,we'll nuke you.simple.

never in my time shall we see some form of world peace,there are plenty of alternatives out there for ozone friendly energy,free energy,but the Governments-again (illuminati) do not allow it  because there is no money to be made from Free energy.

Money,war,war makes more money,greed and power..yukkk.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 09:34:41 am
interesting article on a solution to nuclear waste:
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/)
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 09:40:54 am
On wind turbines - you cant scrap the C02 that went into making them - all that concrete. And isn't it more likely that the environmental effects of C02 will impact on us.


As I have said before - 2008. 30,000 people in this country died from air pollution in this country. Yet who hear is prepared to give up everything that uses are is made from fossil fuels? No oil = no plastic. No oil = no computer. No disel or oil = no car or tractor or generator.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 02, 2012, 10:02:51 am
ETTC - That to me seems to be the problem. If C02 is such a problem to us as we are led to believe then we need to move not only from nuclear but from conventional as well. Otherwise we are not planning for the future. C.A.T's zero carbon document, which was presented to Government, highlights the changes needed eg. land use change in order to grow bio-fuels, diet change. I may not have this figure correct because I don't have the document to hand but I think they estimated that the UK would need something like 38,000 turbines  :o  When we asked a rep. from C.A.T whether that was realistic in terms of time to build them let alone anything else, they seemed reluctant/unable to answer. That is a lot of swimming pool sized blocks of concrete  :o , a lot of lorries delivering to remote areas. They say wind is the best option at the moment .... I'm not convinced yet.
 
Have to be careful IMO that we don't rush headlong into replacing one wrong with another wrong. That by no means indicates that I support nuclear but we have to be realistic about current options.
 
DITW - I will read about depleted uranium. If we wanted to make weapons of any sort I suppose we would find a way with or without our country using nuclear as an energy source? Wouldn't we?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:39:59 am
Quote from: escapedtothecountry on November 01, 2012, 11:49:36 pm
That was a quick bit of research - it's almost as if you had no idea about Finland and its nuclear programme until I mentioned it.......  I'm sure you know all about this:- www.fennovoima.com (http://www.fennovoima.com/)

truth be told, i was 'aware' of finlands plans to dump 20000 tonnes of radioactive waste deep underground but had not researched it thoroughly. i hope the answer i gave was unbiased and honest.
 
please bare in mind, i am ahumble skilled manual worker, engaging in debate with an ex politician with a special interest in energy security.....  who has yet to engage with me on the uk's production, sale and use of depleted uranium weaponry??
 
 
i would also question whether you have done your research on 'shinkolobwe' ? have you?
 
it is interesting to consider the history of radioactive energy. there was never a plan to develop it for power. the plan was always to produce a bomb. it was discovered bewteen the wars. hitler annexed checkeslovakia and got access to st joachimstal. he then had his uranium mine. even hitler didnt pursue the bomb as fast as the allies/america. hence they used it first. hitler was scared of it.
 
marie and pierre curie did plentiful research on radium(the original name for uranium) they won the nobel prize in the early 1900's  they both died from radiation sickness. whehn pierre finally was well enough to accept his prize he said ''is it right to probe so deeply into nature secrets. the question must be raised here whether it will benefit mankind or whether the knowledge will be harmfull. Radium could be very dangerous in criminal hands''
 
we have now had nuclear power for around 60 years. the bomb for 70
i humbly submit that it has done nothing to benefit mankind  and it has become very dangerous in criminal hands.
 
it is easy to think that there have only been a few nuclear explosions. in fact there have been thousands please take 5.01 minutes of your life to watch this animation. 
Animation of all nuclear explosions from 1945 - 1998 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5jk9gsDgR4#)
 
 
this whole debate really rests on whether you have researched depleted uranium, please please at least read the wiki article.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium)
 
good morning everyone! my flu seems to have abated somewhat this morning, perhaps my mind will work a little more crisply....
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 10:50:54 am
I disagree, I personally don't think DU has anything to do with this. For me, this whole debate is about how we keep the lights on and combat climate change. Feel free to distract yourself with DU if you wish, but you'll have to produce some compelling arguments and evidence to sway me away from thinking nuclkear is the best option for producing the energy a developed, 1st world nation requires.
I suspect you didn't read that article I listed above about fast breeder reactors.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:55:18 am
thats like saying you support coal but ignore the co2. or turbines but ignore the concrete. they exist mutually. the byproduct of nuclear power is DU.  you cant choose to ignore it. it exists.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:57:37 am
Quote from: Berkshire Boy on November 02, 2012, 07:04:35 am

I don't understand why more isn't done with hydro electric we live on a island for gods sake. :roflanim:

i agree with you. i also agree that wind turbines arent THE answer, just part of it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:05:23 am
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:55:18 am
thats like saying you support coal but ignore the co2. or turbines but ignore the concrete. they exist mutually. the byproduct of nuclear power is DU.  you cant choose to ignore it. it exists.

again, with fast breeder reactors it doesn't. Read the article I linked to. It's also a logical fallacy, you have to produce CO2 when you burn coal, you don't have to produce DU weapons, we may choose to but we don't have to. With coal and CO2 we have no choice, it's pysics. That's why DU is a non issue in this.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:06:47 am
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 09:34:41 am
interesting article on a solution to nuclear waste:
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/)

yes ive read some of george monbiot before. he speaks rationally and that is a good example. ifr would seem to be a progresive if not perfect solution, but as he says there is no perfect solution.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:09:05 am
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:05:23 am
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:55:18 am
thats like saying you support coal but ignore the co2. or turbines but ignore the concrete. they exist mutually. the byproduct of nuclear power is DU.  you cant choose to ignore it. it exists.

again, with fast breeder reactors it doesn't. Read the article I linked to. It's also a logical fallacy, you have to produce CO2 when you burn coal, you don't have to produce DU weapons, we may choose to but we don't have to. With coal and CO2 we have no choice, it's pysics. That's why DU is a non issue in this.

 
the point is that du weapons ARE produced. and used. so it is an issue.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:11:08 am
and that's it in a nutshell, nuclear buys us some breathing space, time to put effort and money into finding a sustainable solution or solutions. If we'd pumped the money we pumped into nuclear into other avenues we wouldn't be having this discussion now. But we didn't and that's the reality we have to deal with.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:14:18 am
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:09:05 am
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:05:23 am
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 10:55:18 am
thats like saying you support coal but ignore the co2. or turbines but ignore the concrete. they exist mutually. the byproduct of nuclear power is DU.  you cant choose to ignore it. it exists.

again, with fast breeder reactors it doesn't. Read the article I linked to. It's also a logical fallacy, you have to produce CO2 when you burn coal, you don't have to produce DU weapons, we may choose to but we don't have to. With coal and CO2 we have no choice, it's pysics. That's why DU is a non issue in this.

 
the point is that du weapons ARE produced. and used. so it is an issue.
to me it's a seperate issue and not central to the main point.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:17:47 am
if there was no military use for uranium we would never have had nuclear power. no way no how.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:23:04 am
it's true that nuclear energy came out of the research into weapons use, however that doesn't mean we have to. A great many discoveries and inventions originally started as military, we are capable of moving beyond that though. And it's a simple fact, without nuclear we will not combat climate change and keep the lights on. Germany are investing heavily into renewables but also into coal. And coal kills far more when it goes right that nuclear does when it goes wrong or is misused.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:32:15 am
each power plant is a weapon. as was said earlier drop a bomb on a nuclear reactor and youve won. thats why germany and japan are moving away from it. it makes them too vulnerable.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:36:49 am
so, to sum up, you're prepared to trade a definate danger (germany expanding the use of coal and fossil fuels) for an imgained danger of some unspecified person or group being able to drop a bomb on a reactor, all the time without coming up with a viable alternative. As I've said, coal kills more people when it's used right than nuclear when it goes wrong. Those are the simple facts.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 11:53:22 am
no. i believe that the constant risk from leaked radiation from explosions, tests, bombs, damaged nuclear power plants are causing ever higher incidence of cancer leukemia deformitie and danger to our food supply than all the coal in the world.
 
on a previous thread i argued that the fallout from fukushima was responsible for the mutated virus that caused schmallenberg, incidence of leukemia in the balkans is 200% higher where du rounds were used.
ex gulf war servicemen had a 50% higher chance of having deformed children from using du rounds.
 
that is my worry. it doesnt go away and the more we make the worse it will get.
 
the fact is that we have this power that is not used reponsibly and we do not yet know what the effects will be, long term.
 
there are viable alternatives, africa alone could provide the whole world with solar energy, on its own. but instead of investing in these forms of energy we invest in nuclear because it is profitable because of the money genrated by using the waste as weapons.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 11:58:48 am
I agree, when nuclear goes wrong or is misused it's horrendous, but it's still less bad than coal when it goes right. And I've already said, IFR does not produce DU, it uses DU. That has to be a good thing.
I also agree that solar energy from Africa needs exploring and investing in, however that technology does not yet exist. We cannot yet move the energy from where it is generated to where it will be used. IFR does exist and can be built in as little as 5 years. As I've already said, this then buys us the time to invest in more sustainable solutions.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:09:34 pm
ceramic technology does exist to transport the energy, i heard recently, i believe iceland are planning to export their heat this way.
 
judging from that article ifr wont be used in this country. why? cos it uses the du we need for weapons.
 
we need a massive expansion in wave and hydro technology not another couple of nuclear reactors. even they are not going to produce the energy we need , 15 plants make 18% thats about 1% each!!!!!! even if 2 plants came onboard with the potential to produce 5% each we would need 20 new ones of them to provide our needs. its simply not a feasible option. nuclear is not the answer, it never has been. if it was, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:10:41 pm
and dont forget, uranium IS a fossil fuel.
 
 
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:16:07 pm
'' The UK government continues to deny any links between uranium weapons and ill health and in December 2008, along with the US, France and Israel, sought to block a resolution calling for World Health Organisation (WHO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to update their positions on the weapons in light of new data on the threat that they represent.6 The resolution was supported by 141 states, including many of the UK’s EU allies such as Germany, Italy and Finland. Even NATO has accepted the need to reassess the use of depleted uranium and will abide by the decision of the WHO when it publishes a fresh assessment on the latest research next year.7
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:16:53 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:09:34 pm
ceramic technology does exist to transport the energy, i heard recently, i believe iceland are planning to export their heat this way.
 
judging from that article ifr wont be used in this country. why? cos it uses the du we need for weapons.
 
we need a massive expansion in wave and hydro technology not another couple of nuclear reactors. even they are not going to produce the energy we need , 15 plants make 18% thats about 1% each!!!!!! even if 2 plants came onboard with the potential to produce 5% each we would need 20 new ones of them to provide our needs. its simply not a feasible option. nuclear is not the answer, it never has been. if it was, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now.
did not know about that ceramic technology, got a link to it?
My understanding is that the new reactors being planned are IFR ones. I don't buy your argument unless you can support it with evidence.
Wave tech is still experiemental, it is not yet the answer. Nuclear is the only feasible solution that currently exists and is deployable on a large scale in the real world, you have not provided one answer that disproves this.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:17:44 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:10:41 pm
and dont forget, uranium IS a fossil fuel.
 
 
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html)

irrelevent to the argument. It is not burnt and does not release CO2.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:18:42 pm
ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:19:39 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:16:07 pm
'' The UK government continues to deny any links between uranium weapons and ill health and in December 2008, along with the US, France and Israel, sought to block a resolution calling for World Health Organisation (WHO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to update their positions on the weapons in light of new data on the threat that they represent.6 The resolution was supported by 141 states, including many of the UK’s EU allies such as Germany, Italy and Finland. Even NATO has accepted the need to reassess the use of depleted uranium and will abide by the decision of the WHO when it publishes a fresh assessment on the latest research next year.7

irrelevent to the argument.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:21:27 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:18:42 pm
ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!

that's fair enough. My gut rection is to be anti nuclear as well (mind you, I'm also anti car, electricity and think we should all go back to horse and carts) but for me the evidence in favour of nuclear was so overwhelming as to be impossible to ignore.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:36:30 pm
here is the link to the icelandic project. i wonder if scottish independence has any relevance here.
 
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/energy/813 (http://www.wealthwire.com/news/energy/813)
 
 
what a brilliant idea.
 
the alternatives do exist but as that article states if it doesnt provide a monopoly and profit they aint interested....
 
''Nick Hodge from Energy and Capital (http://www.energyandcapital.com/) says America could be doing similar things with geothermal energy, but, he added, "but progress is slow because it's not an exploitable resource that can be monopolized". Yeah, that old problem.''
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:40:33 pm
that article says they are doing a feasability project into moving energy 700 miles. It says nothing about the technology, but it is interesting. How far can that technology move energy? The laws of physics tell us that energy is lost the further you move it. Africa is a lot further away than iceland. It is certainly a technology that needs investigating and investing in, but is it yet capable of moving energy from africa to the UK?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:46:25 pm
its geothermal not solar.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cheap-power-under-our-feet-7964245.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cheap-power-under-our-feet-7964245.html)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 12:50:17 pm
I understand that. The issue with "natural" energy isn't whether it's geo thermal or wind or wave or solar, it's that the energy cannot be easily moved from where it is generated to where it is needed. The technology exists to generate loads of energy in africa, but to my knowledge it does not exist to move it to where we need it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:59:51 pm
that doesnt stack up, i thought we imported energy from nuclear power in france? about3% or something?
 
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 01:03:48 pm
I've already said, the technology does not exist tio move energy from africa to the UK. France is a lot closer. Basic laws of physics, the further you move energy they greater the scale of entrophy. How far would we need to move the energy from africa to here? Does the technology exist to do this? Can it be deployed in the real world right now? We know nuclear can and we know it will produce energy we can use.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 01:33:21 pm
ah now there is the rub. just cos we can does not mean we should.
 
the age old issue of human maturity and responsibility. or the lack of
 
 
we move electricity across whole countries, could you offer a link to explain this as a problem to me please?
 
im sure that with the investment required it could be solved. but it wont be because of the reasons ive described. nuclear is here and probably to stay because its worth more as weapons than energy.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 01:40:52 pm
ofcourse we should, we want to keep the lights on.
and you want to me to prove that something can't be done? that's a logical fallacy. You put forwards solar from africa as a solution, you prove it works and can be done. That's the scientific method.
TBH, you're not actually making any points anymore, and it seems to me you're engaging in an exercise in point scoring. You've already conceded you don't have a solution, all we're doing now is going round in circles. If you can't bring anything new to this then I'm out.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: bloomer on November 02, 2012, 01:44:53 pm
ok power transmission i can explain


standard over head power cables or equivalent, lose approximately 10% of the power put into them for every 100 miles of cable...


i.e. moving power from mid Scotland to London 50% is lost in transmission mainly as heat (there's that global warming thing again) so imagine how much you'd have to put into move it from Africa.


the reason power comes from France to southern England is because its closer than Scotland and easier to get power from.


secondly if you have been following the issues of getting a new set of heavy duty overhead cables run from Scotland to England you'll know for every NIMBY that doesn't like either nuclear power or wind turbines there are approximately 47* that will object to power lines.


Scotland produces more power than it needs particularly if the wind is blowing  ;D ;D ;D  but at the moment we can't get enough of it out of the country to offset the shortfall of power in the south of England!!!


The obvious point from all this is we lack capacity to generate in southern England but obviously that cant be fixed because that's where all the politicians and they're buddies live...








*not a proven number but sure feels like it...
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 01:46:00 pm
i would agree that were going round in circles. i hope that my points have been made about the dangers of nuclear and i hope that some other readers will have been enlightened to what we do with the waste.
 
thanks for the debate all.
 
i am still interested as to your proof that you cant transport energy tho :-J
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 01:47:13 pm
well, read what bloomer wrote.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 02, 2012, 01:51:39 pm
Quote from: Berkshire Boy on November 02, 2012, 09:00:05 am
That is irrelevant,there are plenty of ways to kill someone, there will always be nuclear power somewhere and there will always be the waste.No one is going to do away with nuclear weapons and you can't deny the world is a safer place with them, world war wise that is.
I've always thought there must be better things to spend nuclear weapon money on but the other day they were discussing our new nuclear arsenal and said that you don't know who your enemies are going to be in 20, 30, 50 years time and that is true.You have to have a deterant and hope some nutter like Israel doesn't use it.
I don't think it is irrelevant at all.  What you are saying is that because we already have nuclear waste and that it can be burried in someone else's back yard it is Ok to have more of the lethal stuff.  I didn't intend to be so pedantic or naive to suggest that nuclear waste can blow up - I was making the observation that anything to do with nuclear anything will eventually kill the whole planet, and that the less we have of it the more chance it and we will survive.  And yes, I WAS that CND child of 50s and 60s
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 01:59:11 pm
 have now, cross posted.
 
 
just in this last few pages, we have discussed geothermal enrgy, wave energy. all are possibilities. cornwall has the hayle wave hub, the research IS being done, its just not being invested in. because it isnt as profitanble as nuclear.
 
if thats not a new point then lets leave this, otherwise im happy to keep debating.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 02:12:29 pm
yup, I have very little trust in human nature. If something can be turned into a weapon it will be done. The Russian was a small scale taster of what can be done in the civil world - not even mentioning a bomb or war. And it will be used - eventually. I also don't believe in deterrents, rather more in the escalation of violence. And as I said - mining and storing of rubbish happens mainly on other peoples' land - as did/does the testing of bombs. It's fine for us to be on the receiving end of "clean" energy. Who cares about a few lonely natives in a desert. Collateral damage so we have a few storage heaters going and feel nice and cosy - as long as the lights go out. The other thing I meant to say is that once produced it will create an ever bigger dependency on all things electrical and no incentive to reduce anything will be necessary. Consume, consume, consume.  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:12:53 pm
it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:14:55 pm
Quote from: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 02:12:29 pm
yup, I have very little trust in human nature. If something can be turned into a weapon it will be done. The Russian was a small scale taster of what can be done in the civil world - not even mentioning a bomb or war. And it will be used - eventually. I also don't believe in deterrents, rather more in the escalation of violence. And as I said - mining and storing of rubbish happens mainly on other peoples' land - as did/does the testing of bombs. It's fine for us to be on the receiving end of "clean" energy. Who cares about a few lonely natives in a desert. Collateral damage so we have a few storage heaters going and feel nice and cosy - as long as the lights go out. The other thing I meant to say is that once produced it will create an ever bigger dependency on all things electrical and no incentive to reduce anything will be necessary. Consume, consume, consume.  :&>

and what about the millions of lonely natives that will die as a result of climate change? Do you have any solutions you wish to bring to the debate? We don't actually need to mine anymore uranium, we have enough fissionable material to last us 500 years, this is all in the links I have posted.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 02:16:44 pm
how much time has passed since Tchernobyl? Time is not the issue and has never been. Money is the issue. :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:18:12 pm
sorry, can't see what point you're making.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 02:32:19 pm
My point was that there was plenty of time since Tchernobyl to develop and establish renewables. The technology is around, the support was not, as money has always been the biggest incentive for power merchants. The support is still not there (as this thread clearly shows) and we are now stuck with the combined forces of climate change and nuclear .  Offer a solution? How cynical. I live my life the best way I can with a clear conscience, I do not take holidays, travel only if I have to , grow a lot of my own food and teach my children that all the things they like they might have to live without soon enough. Power cuts and floods give them a tiny taster of what there is to come. :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:04:19 pm
mike, you seem to be suggesting that nuclear power is the solution to co2 based  climatic change?
 
if nuclear is the solution was isnt it everywhere?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:12:53 pm
it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 03:29:17 pm
I forgot to say that we export solar energy (we, that is our household). On the whole we produce as much as we need. We pay for what we use at night and in winter and get paid for what we overproduce during the day, mainly in the brighter months. Can you tell me what's wrong with that? Our neighbours do the same with a wind turbine. I would prefer the landscape to be there without it but maybe, just maybe the neighbours don't like the look of my panels? I can see the bigger picture... :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:55:50 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:12:53 pm
it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.
renewables are not the answer now. The tech is not there. This has been proven. You prove to me that renewables are able to deliever energy now, in the same timeframe that nuclear can. It may be there in the future but it isn't here now. Nuclear is here now, it is a proven technology. I have said all this before, you are not offering anything new. This has now been circular for a whole page.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:57:32 pm
Quote from: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 02:32:19 pm
My point was that there was plenty of time since Tchernobyl to develop and establish renewables. The technology is around, the support was not, as money has always been the biggest incentive for power merchants. The support is still not there (as this thread clearly shows) and we are now stuck with the combined forces of climate change and nuclear .  Offer a solution? How cynical. I live my life the best way I can with a clear conscience, I do not take holidays, travel only if I have to , grow a lot of my own food and teach my children that all the things they like they might have to live without soon enough. Power cuts and floods give them a tiny taster of what there is to come. :&>
I have already addressed these points.
You have misunderstood when I said offer a solution. Our energy demands are going to increase, we need a solution.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:58:51 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!
and what evidence can you provide to suggest this will generate enough power for the nation.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 02, 2012, 04:02:02 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:18:42 pm
ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!


Just to revisit George Monbiot  "But all of us, if we have a serious interest in doing something about nuclear waste, should make this choice. What do you want to see done with it and why? Simply shouting down other people's suggestions won't make it go away."


The very recent hike in gas prices is not just the utility companies playing games with our wallets.  The UK doesn't have long term LNG supply contracts with Qatar, and the contracts we do have allow the Qataris to play with supply schedules.  Qatar supplies one third of the world's LNG - and practically all UK imports - and Asian countries are bidding for it.  So the Qataris are playing games.  While we have pipelines from Norway there isn't enough capacity.  That's not a five year problem it's a happening right now.


Of course anything kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz just cancels all bets.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:04:40 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:58:51 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!
and what evidence can you provide to suggest this will generate enough power for the nation.

 
umm, it was a bit of fun, mike.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:06:23 pm
ah, yes, sorry. I'd actually really like to put a wind turbine up, not cos of green energy, just cos it'd really annoy the surrey suburnanites who make up this village.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:08:17 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:55:50 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:12:53 pm
it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.
renewables are not the answer now. The tech is not there. This has been proven. You prove to me that renewables are able to deliever energy now, in the same timeframe that nuclear can. It may be there in the future but it isn't here now. Nuclear is here now, it is a proven technology. I have said all this before, you are not offering anything new. This has now been circular for a whole page.

we know that our old nuclear plants are being shut down right? the new nuclear plants are to replace them right? they only produce 18% of our supply, ok?  so, obviously the solution is not nuclear.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 02, 2012, 04:10:12 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!
Yes, please - I'd have them both, but please, please do not put a nuclear reactor in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter.  I cannot understand why people cannot see the harm they produce. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 02, 2012, 04:11:54 pm
Quote from: Small Farmer on November 02, 2012, 04:02:02 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 12:18:42 pm
ok, im not here to offer the solution, ive never tried to do that. im just anti nuclear!!!!


Just to revisit George Monbiot  "But all of us, if we have a serious interest in doing something about nuclear waste, should make this choice. What do you want to see done with it and why? Simply shouting down other people's suggestions won't make it go away."


The very recent hike in gas prices is not just the utility companies playing games with our wallets.  The UK doesn't have long term LNG supply contracts with Qatar, and the contracts we do have allow the Qataris to play with supply schedules.  Qatar supplies one third of the world's LNG - and practically all UK imports - and Asian countries are bidding for it.  So the Qataris are playing games.  While we have pipelines from Norway there isn't enough capacity.  That's not a five year problem it's a happening right now.


Of course anything kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz just cancels all bets.
But Scotland has oil! and Gas!  And who takes the benefit of that? ::) :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 04:15:37 pm
I can certainly see the harm. I also see the harm burning fossil fuel creates. Yet here we are using computers inevitably made on the other side of the world. Components made from heavy metals and then of course the plastics from oil. All energy production and creates harm. It may not be palatable but more people die from the pollution from fossil fuel in this country than from nuclear. Facts not opinion I'm afraid.


I hope everyone here who is anti nuclear doesn't have their electricity provided by companies who operate in the nuclear industry.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:16:23 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:08:17 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 03:55:50 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 02:12:53 pm
it is not a new point. All those are experimental. We do not need reliable, low emission energy in 10 years time, we need it now. Climate Change is real and upon us. We have to do something now. The technology to generate energy from renewables is not sufficient to produce our requirements. It may be in the future, but it isn't now.

 
ok having thought about this last statement some more, it really doesnt make any sense.
 
climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels not nuclear, i agree. so  if renewables are not the answer (according to you) then what is? the nuclear plants mentioned will not provide the energy we need, only replace the energy from shutting down old reactors. they wont make anything new or more.
 
if we need this energy 'now' then it has to be renewables like solar and wind, cos thats where the tech is. offshore wind farms are a brilliant proposition, geothermal is a brilliant proposition. if we spent the money investing in those rather than nuclear it could provide the same energy as the 2 new nuclear power plants planned.
renewables are not the answer now. The tech is not there. This has been proven. You prove to me that renewables are able to deliever energy now, in the same timeframe that nuclear can. It may be there in the future but it isn't here now. Nuclear is here now, it is a proven technology. I have said all this before, you are not offering anything new. This has now been circular for a whole page.

we know that our old nuclear plants are being shut down right? the new nuclear plants are to replace them right? they only produce 18% of our supply, ok?  so, obviously the solution is not nuclear.
there has been a moritorium on building nuclear power plants for some 20 years now. In that time we instead build gas fired stations. A lot more low emission energy could've been generated if we built more than the 2 stations in question. However, due to the kneejerk inspireed moritorium, we now lack the skills to build them and have to tender their construction to other countries. This is the reason we are in this mess now, because of a whole slew of policy failures over the last 20 years.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:17:52 pm
Quote from: doganjo on November 02, 2012, 04:10:12 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
i propose a free roll out to every house in the country, of solar panels and roof mounted wind turbines.
 
there you go sorted!
Yes, please - I'd have them both, but please, please do not put a nuclear reactor in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter.  I cannot understand why people cannot see the harm they produce. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

and I cannot understand why people cannot see clear evidence when it's presented to them.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:18:26 pm
re the straits of hormuz, hence the rhetoric about irans nuclear program.  funny how badly we dont want them to have it if its so benign.
 
 
 
 
you cannot compare deaths by pollution to deaths by nuclear energy, we dont know how many more people have got cancer since chernobyl, or how many will die because of leukemia, or from fall out from fukushima, it takes at least 20years to show up, which is very very handy for the pr machine pushing nuclear.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:20:15 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:18:26 pm

 
you cannot compare deaths by pollution to deaths by nuclear energy, we dont know how many more people have got cancer since chernobyl, or how many will die because of leukemia, or from fall out from fukushima, it takes at least 20years to show up, which is very very handy for the pr machine pushing nuclear.

unfounded rhetoric I'm afraid.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:22:51 pm
what? are you taking the pi.ss???
 
 
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html (http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 04:24:11 pm
The number of deaths from one vs another isn't the point. The point is that all energy production has side effects which kill. So unless you are saying we should also NOT use fossil fuels, then couldn't someone say it was hypocritical? 30,000 known deaths from pollution in this country in 2008. Yet I suspect you me and most people use petrol diesel gas etc. So why aren't you saying no to such energy sources too? Are you prepared to give up has oil petrol diesel and the like? I'm not.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:25:08 pm
erm, no. Your statement was unfounded rhetoric. It had no foundations. You said we couldn't compare deaths caused my coal to those caused by nuclear, then went on to make a fuzzy statement about not know how many will die from it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 04:26:01 pm
now how about talking independence instead of climate change  :roflanim:
only joking  :&>
some of you should ask the industry to pay you a PR's salary  :roflanim: :idea: , nice try...nuclear is nuclear and it will not change for the better in our lifetime just because we might want it to. We might just ignore the effects and dangers (you are not the only one repeating yourself) . The lot of you that want it will get what they want, be happy with it. "Our" govenrment sealed the contract. I hope it will make you happy if the lights don't go out - until they do.  :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:26:54 pm
A study on Czech uranium miners shows that an increased risk of leukaemia is significantly associated with cumulated doses which mainly reflect exposures to long lived radionuclides in aerosol form and external gamma, whereas the contribution from radon to the dose is marginal. The increased mortality is mainly observed decades after exposure and is consistent with estimated internal dose to red bone marrow
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:28:07 pm
Quote from: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 04:26:01 pm
now how about talking independence instead of climate change  :roflanim:
only joking  :&>
some of you should ask the industry to pay you a PR's salary  :roflanim: :idea: , nice try...nuclear is nuclear and it will not change for the better in our lifetime just because we might want it to. We might just ignore the effects and dangers (you are not the only one repeating yourself) . The lot of you that want it will get what they want, be happy with it. "Our" govenrment sealed the contract. I hope it will make you happy if the lights don't go out - until they do.  :&>

hmmm, strawman arguments.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:28:20 pm
Quote from: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 04:26:01 pm
now how about talking independence instead of climate change  :roflanim:
only joking  :&>
some of you should ask the industry to pay you a PR's salary  :roflanim: :idea: , nice try...nuclear is nuclear and it will not change for the better in our lifetime just because we might want it to. We might just ignore the effects and dangers (you are not the only one repeating yourself) . The lot of you that want it will get what they want, be happy with it. "Our" govenrment sealed the contract. I hope it will make you happy if the lights don't go out - until they do.  :&>
 
 
you know what nfd im coming to that same conclusion, cointel.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:29:05 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:26:54 pm
A study on Czech uranium miners shows that an increased risk of leukaemia is significantly associated with cumulated doses which mainly reflect exposures to long lived radionuclides in aerosol form and external gamma, whereas the contribution from radon to the dose is marginal. The increased mortality is mainly observed decades after exposure and is consistent with estimated internal dose to red bone marrow

and? You still haven't demonstrated why you can't compare deaths caused by coal .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 04:29:50 pm
DITW, they just don't care, never will.  :wave: :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on November 02, 2012, 04:30:43 pm
Quote
April 2006 IPPNW report
According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead

And, as you know, the radiation affected Cumbria. I realise that this isn't scientific but in my school of 170 kids, we have had three dads die of leukaemia in the past couple of years and another on his way. These are men in their early 40s who work outside and were doing so when the caesium rained down on Cumbria. It just seems a lot, to all get leukaemia, not other cancers. No doubt it's 'coincidence' but it doesn't feel like that.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:32:08 pm
Quote from: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 04:29:50 pm
DITW, they just don't care, never will.  :wave: :&>

wrong. It's because I do care that I am read up on this subject. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't care. To say other wise is insulting.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 04:32:58 pm
Err - its not to do with not caring.  Thats playing the man not the ball a bit.  Its the fact.. not an opinion that burning fossil fuels kills tens of thousands on people in this country. Not abroad but in this country. Show me that 30,000 people died from, nuclear power in this country in 2008  and I will agree with you.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:33:57 pm
Quote from: jaykay on November 02, 2012, 04:30:43 pm
Quote
April 2006 IPPNW report
According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead

And, as you know, the radiation affected Cumbria. I realise that this isn't scientific but in my school of 170 kids, we have had three dads die of leukaemia in the past couple of years and another on his way. These are men in their early 40s who work outside and were doing so when the caesium rained down on Cumbria. It just seems a lot, to all get leukaemia, not other cancers. No doubt it's 'coincidence' but it doesn't feel like that.

you may want to read this about chernobyl
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/)
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:34:35 pm
so far mike, you have selected to ignore,
depleted uranium,
 the hazards of uranium mining,
the effect of uranium dust on our soldiers and their children,
 the unknown but lethal effects of nuclear fallout from chernobyl and fukushima,
 and the use of the bomb that could potentially wipe out all life from the face of this planet.
 
all to support your point that it is the only viable form of electrivity to keep the lights on. i can only assume that you are here as a cointel pro, and so i have to disengage with you.
 
get real.
 
everybody else who is reading this, do your own research. i hope some of the links ive offered are a start.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:35:59 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:34:35 pm
so far mike, you have selected to ignore,
depleted uranium,
 the hazards of uranium mining,
the effect of uranium dust on our soldiers and their children,
 the unknown but lethal effects of nuclear fallout from chernobyl and fukushima,
 and the use of the bomb that could potentially wipe out all life from the face of this planet.
 
all to support your point that it is the only viable form of electrivity to keep the lights on. i can only assume that you are here as a cointel pro, and so i have to disengage with you.
 
get real.
 
everybody else who is reading this, do your own research. i hope some of the links ive offered are a start.
I have addressed each one. Your ad hominem attacks won't change that.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 02, 2012, 04:36:44 pm
On a separate note - nice weather today  ;D
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:39:06 pm
I've tried to keep the debate rational and evidence based. It's a shame it degenertated as it did.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on November 02, 2012, 04:40:40 pm
Mmm, in my opinion, George Monbiot picks and chooses his evidence and makes unsupported assertions as much as anyone he denigrates.
He has made his 'name' amongst other things campaigning against global warming and he is anti anti-nuclear as part of that.
I therefore don't regard him as unbiased, whereas I don't see that the German physicians' group have any particular axe to grind. They may have, it's just not such an obvious one as GM.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:44:40 pm
this is the report monbiot based his article on:
6. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2011. Volume II, Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. This is the latest section of the 2008 report Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Report to the General Assembly. See Paragraph 2, page 1 and Figure VII and paragraph 63, page 14. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf)
and FWIW he used to be rabidly anti nuclear. He changed his opinion after the weight of evidence.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 04:49:12 pm
you have not adressed each one. you have neatly and cleverly sidestepped from adressing each issue.
 
1000 tonnes of radioactive uranium is lying in the ground in iraq.
 
this is killing more iraqis through cancer and leukemia than the war did. i have proven this with evidence.
 
 please show me yours that says that is not true.
 
 
returnig gw soldiers had a 50% deformity rate in their children positively linked to gene mutation from d u weapon use. i have proved this with fact.
please show me your evidence that this is not true
 
 
if nobody died from chernobyl, why were all our welsh sheep monitored and prohibited from the food chain for 25yrs. if it safe??
 
i want to see links and papers showing me that the issues ive raised are not true. you cant do that because they ARE true and proven
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 04:52:15 pm
I have addressed them. Go back and read the thread again.
I have not disputed the claims you make about weapons. They are just not relevent to a thread about electicity generation in the UK. I have already said that when nuclear goes wrong or is misused it is horrendous. However, when coal goes right it is worse. And I never said no one died from chernobyl. Stop making stuff up, I know what I said.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: jaykay on November 02, 2012, 05:00:17 pm
The link doesn't work, but I've found it and read it anyway.

Quote
The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low doses because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. However, the Committee considers that it is appropriate to continue surveillance

I read it (not just the quote above) as saying that they can't prove that cancers and genetic malformations are linked to the additional radiation. It doesn't mean that they are, or they're not. It means there is too many uncontrolled factors to show a definite causal link, so you don't claim it, which is good science.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 05:07:56 pm
and it all stacks up till one goes off.
 
well, one did, it was fukushoima, its still happening, theyre unable to do anything about it.
 5 more plants are now in trouble in anerica following sandy.
 
i dont want this in our country. i dont want this on the planet.
 
(you did never say that noone died from chernobyl, im sorry.)
 
my response to this issue, i admit is influenced by emotion as well as a limited intellect. i have seen enough evidence about the dangers of nuclear power to have convinced me that it is too dangerous to be used.
 
particularly as there are benign forms of energy available. now.
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 05:10:39 pm
Quote from: jaykay on November 02, 2012, 05:00:17 pm
The link doesn't work, but I've found it and read it anyway.

Quote
The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low doses because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. However, the Committee considers that it is appropriate to continue surveillance

I read it (not just the quote above) as saying that they can't prove that cancers and genetic malformations are linked to the additional radiation. It doesn't mean that they are, or they're not. It means there is too many uncontrolled factors to show a definite causal link, so you don't claim it, which is good science.
 
 
i couldnt get that link either.
 
the bit of history of the un that ive seen on this issue shows that as sson as a resolution is passed to investigate thouroughly the impact of radiation, the uk the us, china, and france vetoe it. hence why the evidence is limited.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 05:15:35 pm
fukoshima was an old generator with a fatal design flaw (the pumps that stopped working cos there was no power to run them). Modern fast breeder type reactors are inherantly safe. They automatically shutdown if they over heat, they operate at atmosperic pressures so can't "explode" and the coolant is held above the chamber, so that when the reactor gets too hot, valves (that are held shut by force) automatically open to cool the reactor.
The problem we face is this (and yet again I am repeating myself) we have to keep the lights on. Not only for us in the west, but also for growth in places like china, india and africa. To do that we need to generate lots of power. We can't keep burning fossil fuels to do so, as unchecked climate change will kill us more surely than a thousand nuclear incidents. Renewables, at this point in time, cannot generate enough energy to meet our current demands, let along the demand of a growing world. maybe they will in the future, with enough investment and commitment. Nuclear is the least bad option of those on the table.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 05:23:28 pm
i know weve got to keep the lights on. i know, i know  :-J
 
renewables at this time do not meet the needs.... i know. we need to invest billions of pounds quickly now!! the tech is possible its just not being put into production. lets build a massive factory churning out wave generators. we have them working, efficiently and safely here in cornwall. already here!!   
http://www.wavehub.co.uk/ (http://www.wavehub.co.uk/)
build 2 geothermic plants not  nuclear plants.  the tech has been used for years in iceland why not here?
 
lets get started , now!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 05:34:41 pm
I agree, we should be putting more investment into renewables, and we should've done that 20+ years ago. I also think we should continue to invest in nuclear fusion and super conductors. But bottom line is this, you can't form a policy based upon emotions (though goodness knows, enough govts have), you have to coldly appraise what is feasible with the existing technology and work with that.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 05:47:29 pm
mike please accept my apology for my name calling earlier. im sorry. :bouquet:
 
 
 
 
just because we 'should have done' doesnt mean we shouldnt do.  coldly appraising what is feasible is exactly what is required. the trouble is, budgets are set and money is invested not due to what is feasible , safe and longterm, but by how much financial return is invlolved in the short term. this is why you cannot detach nuclear power from its profitable weaponry department.
 
 
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 02, 2012, 05:52:43 pm
I certainly agree that you cannot disentangle energy generation from the invidious web of big business (there's a very interesting debate on monbiots site about the frankly fascist actions of EDF in the building of hinkley C) and that they will do all they can in their desperate desire to hold onto as much power (and therefore money) that they can. Sadly, I find myself in the highly compromised position of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For me, the enemy we can't ignore is climate change. Hopefully once that's "beaten" we can find a way to stab our new "friends" in the back.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 02, 2012, 05:58:38 pm
you cant 'beat' climate change. its way too late. nothing is going to stop it, unless you look to bill gates to geo engineer his way out of it.
 
that only leaves the fight with the other enemy, nuclear.
 
the issue thus becomes the insidious financial set up. thats where the battle is.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 02, 2012, 07:04:28 pm
food for thought on growth

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/20-5 (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/20-5)

and I do not worry too much about China, they'll own us all in a few years. :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 03, 2012, 12:00:27 pm
right im not dragging this thread back up again.
but
i would just like to say that i have been somewhat edumacated by this thread and have changed my opinion to a degree. i can see the case for the ifr plant. i dont think its the answer but it would be useful thing if only to get rid of the DU.
 
so thank you for your input. and thank you for letting this thread run.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 03, 2012, 06:11:31 pm
It would be good if nuclear fusion (http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/ (http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/)) was actually getting somewhere rather than being theoretical certainty that doesn't work in practice, well not for longer than fractions of a second anyway.  But the money isn't being invested here - I think the French are doing the European work.  The facility at Culham is charmingly British - it looks like a set from an early Bond film.   I just don't see this government investing the money.


That would be nice clean nuclear generation.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 03, 2012, 09:24:10 pm
If we had no way of using hydro energy
If nuclear plants were 100% safe i.e. couldn't go the same way as fukushima
If nuclear waste could be disposed off without trailing it half across the country
If Nuclear waste could be made 100% safe for as long as this world exists

Then, and ONLY then would I support it's use.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 03, 2012, 09:38:44 pm
yes annie, i know what you mean, but it also seems to make sense to use the existing waste to make more energy,and dispose of it in the process. which seems to be what this kind of reactor does, as far as i understand it.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 03, 2012, 10:47:56 pm
The immediate reaction in many countries to Fukushima was to cancel or delay nuclear power programmes.  The immediate consequence of that was to increase demand for gas.  That causes prices to rise and reduces the security of our energy  supply.  Canada is delighted, of course, because it has astonishing quantities of hydrocarbons bound up in its shale deposits.  Extracting these is a mucky, energy inefficient and environmentally destructive process.
Irrespective of anything anyone does towards building new nuclear capacity the old AGRs will be kept going because we've got an energy crunch coming up.  8GW of coal capacity legally has to close by 2016 and another 9GW by 2023 - that's of about 95GW currently.  So we're going to build another 20GM of gas-fired capacity to use all that cheap and easily available gas we've heard about. :P
There's expected to be a huge increase in off-shore wind farms because they're politically less contentious.  However their construction and operating costs are dramatically higher than the land-based equivalents.  But that's OK because there will be a guaranteed price from a government desperate not to let the lights go out.


Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 03, 2012, 10:59:53 pm
it is possible to change tho. germany are already doing it.
 
good article this one, worth a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/22/energy-nuclear-renewables?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/22/energy-nuclear-renewables?INTCMP=SRCH)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 04, 2012, 08:12:45 am
though germany are planning to increase their coal fired stations to bridge the gap:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128236.300-the-carbon-cost-of-germanys-nuclear-nein-danke.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128236.300-the-carbon-cost-of-germanys-nuclear-nein-danke.html)
 
edited cos I found a better link
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 04, 2012, 09:24:53 am
Germany has vast reserves of brown coal or lignite, rather like peat, which produces considerably more CO2 when burnt than the bituminous coal we have (but can't now recover).  It has a low energy content and is strip-mined from coal fields adjoining the power stations.


It's all about choices.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 04, 2012, 06:42:03 pm
Quote from: deepinthewoods on November 03, 2012, 09:38:44 pm
yes annie, i know what you mean, but it also seems to make sense to use the existing waste to make more energy,and dispose of it in the process. which seems to be what this kind of reactor does, as far as i understand it.
IF this is true then I MAY change my mind ::)  Anyone want to convince me?
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 04, 2012, 07:25:17 pm
I have already posted several links to articles that talk about fast breeder reactors.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 04, 2012, 07:50:56 pm
yes, they were the ones i found useful. im not able to umm 'give my blessing' however, it is a really 'trapped' sort of  decision that has been carefully politically spun to lead to that conclusion.
hmpf.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 04, 2012, 08:02:47 pm
I agree, we have been trapped by at least 20 yrs of policy failures and various govts putting off hard decisions. We now find ourselves having to choose (and we have to choose, IMO there's no sitting on the sidelines here) between which we think to be the lesser evil. And sadly we can't really afford to get it wrong.
Were I 20 or so now, I'd be looking at people like me (early 40's) and saying "this is all your fault".
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MAK on November 04, 2012, 08:12:06 pm
I have not researched the proportion of electric generated by nucleaur station here in France. However the northern coalfields in France seem pretty inactive but the miserable landscape in the north west is absolutley covered in wind turbines - mile after mile of them. Hydroelectric plants are common around here with rivers dammed as long ago as the 1920s. A key export of France is electricity but I know they use nuclear plants.
One nuclear plant near us shut down and consequentley EDF drained one of their "man made" lakes to pep up the electricity supply. The lake in question is old and is massive with large pleasure boats and many campsites. It was almost emptied but is full again.
My point is that if we are happy to embrace wind farms,flooding river valleys and changing our visial landscape so we can generate hydro-electricity, then we can reduce our need for nuclear fuels. 
I am not sure we can be sentimental about our sceneary ( for that is all it is) and block wind or hydroelectric power becuase of aesthic reasons when the alternative may have such disasterous consequence.
 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 04, 2012, 08:21:42 pm
Quote from: MAK on November 04, 2012, 08:12:06 pm
.
My point is that if we are happy to embrace wind farms,flooding river valleys and changing our visial landscape so we can generate hydro-electricity, then we can reduce our need for nuclear fuels. 
I am not sure we can be sentimental about our sceneary ( for that is all it is) and block wind or hydroelectric power becuase of aesthic reasons when the alternative may have such disasterous consequence.

absolutely bang on mak, the temporary 'blot' on the landscape v the horrendous permanant problem of radioactive waste.
 however, the waste needs dealing with, properly, without burial. and an ifr seems to be the answer for that, at least.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: MikeM on November 04, 2012, 08:40:51 pm
from memory, France generates about 60% of it's leccy with nuclear. The problem with wind is not the blot or otherwise in the landscape, it's the fact that they still need a backup power supply for those times when the wind is not blowing, blowing too stronly or whatever. In the UK, that backup is fossil fuel.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 04, 2012, 08:53:30 pm
i prefer fossil fuels to nuclear, when it comes down to it.
however, that needs to be done using proper carbon capture technology, the monbiot article showing how the coal stations can get away with avoiding their UN emmisions targets shows how corrupt this whole energy debate is, it's all-pervasive to my eyes.
 
the current plan to bury all this waste in pits in cumbria, or under the romney marsh is ridiculous.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: doganjo on November 04, 2012, 09:22:33 pm
Quote from: MikeM on November 04, 2012, 07:25:17 pm
I have already posted several links to articles that talk about fast breeder reactors.
I have neither the time nor the patience to read gobbledygook, so as I said in my last post "Anyone want to convince me?"  And I do NOT mean more useless links, I mean useful discussion.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 04, 2012, 09:39:13 pm
basically they use the old nuclear waste as the fuel to provide more energy, they can keep re-using the waste until it becomes mininal. theyre fuelled in part by depleted uranium, DU is the thing i have the most problem with.
of course this reactor will not remove the thousands of used rounds lying in the earth all around the world, but it could use up the stockpiles of unused material. in theory removing the need for burial.
 
i think the uk's government wont go for it unfortunatley, the old fashioned nuclear lobby is too powerful. (cos it makes loads of money)
 
germany has invested 40 billion (euros) in their renewables, my opinion is, were we to do this it would create so much growth and faith in the security of our energy that we would become much more investable on the world markets
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Small Farmer on November 05, 2012, 08:28:58 am

Meanwhile politicians squabbling over wind farm subsidies is endangering the needed investment in offshore capacity.  Offshore generation costs dramatically more than onshore, which is why the UK's very modest installed capacity is still vastly more than any other country has done, in fact more than the rest of the world put together.


Erecting ad maintaining a turbine on a windy hill is trivial in engineering terms. The same task ten miles offshore is a real challenge. This ain't going to be cheap energy.




This is from the FT this morning


Orders for offshore wind turbines have come to an abrupt halt in the UK, in what some industry figures say is the first clear sign of a long-feared slowdown in renewable energy investment (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3bd6a27c-149f-11e2-8cf2-00144feabdc0.html).
The three leading manufacturers of the turbines due to be made for the vast banks of wind farms planned for British seas have taken just one offshore order between them this year, the FT has learned.
MoreON THIS STORYUndercover Economist A battle for our green and pleasant land (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef0f9a3a-241a-11e2-9509-00144feabdc0.html)
ON THIS TOPIC‘The Carbon Crunch’, by Dieter Helm (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4efad1c8-2441-11e2-94d0-00144feabdc0.html)

This comes amid an “unnecessary investment freeze” triggered by the government’s troubled efforts to change the way it subsidises low-carbon energy, according to Keith MacLean of the SSE (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=uk:SSE) power company, which is developing UK offshore farms.
Paul Coffey of RWE Innogy, another offshore developer, said his company was not currently in the market to buy turbines, but if it were, delays in the government’s plans and the “ridiculous” remarks of anti-wind farm energy minister John Hayes last week “would certainly make us think twice”.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, was forced to contradict  (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4372338e-2381-11e2-bb86-00144feabdc0.html)Mr Hayes who suggested the government no longer backed the “extraordinary” number of onshore wind farms “peppered” around the country.
Offshore farms are far less politically contentious than onshore plants but any sign of government opposition to wind power spooks developers. They are also crucial to meeting European Union targets to get 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Germany’s Siemens (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=de:SIE), which built 60 per cent of the 800-odd turbines installed in UK seas so far, says it took one UK offshore order in July. Neither Denmark’s Vestas (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=dk:VWS), which made 35 per cent of UK offshore turbines, nor Repower Systems (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=de:RPW), a German subsidiary of India’s Suzlon (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=in:SUZLON) say they have had an order since October 2011.

Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: robbiegrant on November 06, 2012, 02:10:29 pm
Nuclear is not the way to go ( IMHO  :eyelashes: ) Save it for deep space exploration or summat.

As for the amount of phallanx (DU) ammunition lying about Iraq, it just makes me sad  >:(

http://rense.com/general79/hiro.htm (http://rense.com/general79/hiro.htm) What kind of legacy have we left for their bairns?! >:(

I dont like the pylons and there associated HT cables. There and zillions of them all over the country! The further away the power has to travel the bigger they get. People complain about the windmills but I rarely hear of complaint regarding pylons anymore ( maybe everyone has got used to them ) Surely locally produced power should be used locally it would reduce the need from these monstrosities!

Efficiency is a big part of the answer, but the utility companies dont want that, ohh noooo.... they want us to keep consuming. And if we consume less they will put their prices up even higher.

So better to be independent and effiecient so they cant hold us to ransom!!!

Dont get me started  GRRRRRRRRRRRR  >:(



 
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: escapedtothecountry on November 06, 2012, 03:08:13 pm
Energy efficiency is important - but even if everyone made themselves more 20% more efficient that does not equate to the country using less power. Increases in population; increases in productivity require more power. Economic growth inevitably leads to more power usage etc etc. Therefore efficiency is important - but we need ways to generate more. The amount of power used will not decrease over time.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 06, 2012, 05:33:34 pm
Robbiegrant - when the turbines were proposed for Powys, majority of people were unaware it seems of the necessary infra-structure that would come with them. There is now just as much opposition to these ..... their inefficiency, health risks and so on.


Outdated transmission system. Designed for conventional power stations but not matching new green technologies. Underground transmission and more up to date methods cost more so we are told and maybe no subsidies available for this so it seems no-one is interested.  :eyelashes:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 06, 2012, 07:24:02 pm
a slightly one sided article this. worth a read tho.
 
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/11/what-are-efforts-to-contain-fukushima-2/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/11/what-are-efforts-to-contain-fukushima-2/)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Plantoid on November 07, 2012, 01:45:26 am
Quote from: in the hills on October 30, 2012, 08:37:21 pm
So, what do people think of wind turbines?
I shudder at the very thought of nuclear but having found out quite a lot about wind power/turbines, I don't think they are without many problems themselves. Big issue here in Mid-Wales and not popular with many. A lot of very knowledgable people do not think they are the way to go.

A blind man warming his hands on a heater running of them would be happy to see them  :thinking:
 
 The best  I 've heard so far ( from a German whilst I was on holiday near Phalz  last year )  wrt on shore based turbines having had his ears bent by a welsh woman at the camp site where she was moaning  " They are a blot on the landscape why on earth did you lot put them here " ,
 His reply in good english  was  " I have no right to let my kids grow up without electricity and they will have grown  up simply accepting the turbines as a sensible source of power so what's your problem ? "
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: northfifeduckling on November 07, 2012, 08:02:45 am
I always thought that the turbines have been planned quite well in Germany, you can find them a lot near long stretches along motorways. Clever. :&>
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: robbiegrant on November 08, 2012, 12:06:19 am
I know this subject is a bit of a hot potato but in the end of the day we still don't have many new viable alternatives. If something isn't done ( by that i mean production of electricty by some means ) the lights go out. Then what?

I would rather not hand over a nuclear hot potato to my kids. 

We had thought about a PV system here but in the end decided against it, Its expensive, we would need planning ( conserved building ), it would spoil the look of the house, etc etc... Its still a good alternative tho.  ( we are still thinking on this one.... )

In the mean time we have decided to go down the efficiency route amongst other ways. Modern LED bulbs have only really become viable recently ( I have a drawer of "NOT QUIET GOOD ENOUGH MODELS" collected over the last few years   > :() 

The new ones are great   :thumbsup:  and have a lot of advantages.

They last for YEARS and YEARS
Use very little power.
Come on immediately
Decent colour balance
The don't have phosphorus in them
They are not burning hot
or die as quickly as dichroics ( sometimes they lasted a matter of weeks! )
Some of them dim ( expensive tho )

Five years ago i listed all the internal bulbs ( incandesant ) on our ground floor, adding the power they consumed. it equalled 810 watts. ( if they where all on )

We now use 72watts ! and that includes lighting a new hall, stairwell and kitchen extension.

Quote from: in the hills on November 06, 2012, 05:33:34 pm
Robbiegrant - when the turbines were proposed for Powys, majority of people were unaware it seems of the necessary infra-structure that would come with them. There is now just as much opposition to these ..... their inefficiency, health risks and so on.

Outdated transmission system. Designed for conventional power stations but not matching new green technologies. Underground transmission and more up to date methods cost more so we are told and maybe no subsidies available for this so it seems no-one is interested.  :eyelashes:


Hi There :wave:...
 I wasn't aware of the requirement for new infra-structure, surely wires are wires!? In what way do these systems not match? Is it not fed into the grid? What health risks are associated with wind turbines? excuse my ignorance... :dunce: 

There is a massive inefficiency transmitting electricity down cables for long distances. soooo much is wasted in transmission. It least by having having many power sources producing electricity locally, the electricity has the shortest distance to the appliance. The EMF radiated from power cables, cant be healthy either. ( Have you ever held a florescent tube under a HT cable slung between two pylons at night. ) It turns into a light sabre !!!!

Im sure masses could be invested in a more efficient system of transmission after all we have had the old systems for a while now. The older transmission systems do work.... my power supply hasn't gone down in a long time in UK... in India we have power cuts daily.

It a travesty that the utility companies make so much in profit and hold us to ransom everytime the gong strikes...whilst the government sit back...

ho hum
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: Plantoid on November 08, 2012, 12:26:05 am
Robbie you can get ground level stand alone units in daisy chains .  My bro inlaw has nine panels out in his paddock about ten metres from his house . He got his before the change in subsidied for £ 7800 fitter and wrking .  I'm not sure if it is still viable in the short term .
Last time we spoke in  June this year he said he had  £ 550 in just under four months as well as having his take for his  family of four .
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 08, 2012, 10:01:51 am
 :wave:  Robbiegrant - Yes, the existing lines work but are inefficient. From what I have found out about the power generated from turbines planned for Powys, it will not be used locally but transported largely into England.


The research into the risks associated with living close to high voltage cables is often conflicting and confusing. I am always wary of research ie. who commissioned it in the first place, who is interpreting it
But here goes .... the most talked about risk is cancer and leukaemia, in both adults and children but more so the latter. Some studies show connections with breast cancer, decreased libido, fatigue, depression, birth defects, reproductive problems, stress, headaches, trouble sleeping. Due to there being so many variables eg. life style, diet, genetics, household wiring configuration it is difficult to prove a definite link. A study over many years in England and Wales, showed that children living within 200m of hv cables had a 70 % inc. risk of developing leukaemia and 200-600m away had a 20% increased risk. Results were descibed as "statistically significant" but there is at present no biological mechanism to explain the risk.


I will not be directly affected by any planned developments in Powys if they do go ahead but if you asked me if I would be a NIMBY, as is the popular term, and not want my children to live under the many overhead cables that will be built, then if I am honest .... yeah I would not take the risk. But then you see, your house value falls significantly, cause there are lots out there that are also Nimbies and wouldn't want it in their yard either. So .... you are stuck. That's the position of many in Mid Wales. I don't think many of them support nuclear but do they want to risk their childrens health??? Would you??? And of couse they are aware of the legacy of nuclear.


I think it was Suffolk Council that commissioned I believe an "independent " report into the effectiveness of overhead cables when it comes to green energy (they I think were in the planning stage for off shore wind). Sorry I can't give a link to it and can't remember all the tech. details without reading it only the summary I have already given. When my husband presented that document to Scottish Power they said they had never heard anything about it but were keen to read it .... they seemed very defensive if out dated transmission was mentioned.  :innocent: 



Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 08, 2012, 11:40:16 am
double the risk of childhood leukemia in 5km radius of nuclear plants.
 
http://enenews.com/must-read-mag-on-leukemia-evidence-linking-nuclear-plants-to-ill-health-increasingly-compelling-clear-something-is-going-on-says-prof-uk-govt-blames-unidentified-virus (http://enenews.com/must-read-mag-on-leukemia-evidence-linking-nuclear-plants-to-ill-health-increasingly-compelling-clear-something-is-going-on-says-prof-uk-govt-blames-unidentified-virus)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 08, 2012, 11:44:25 am
new report about cumbria, from the national audit office no less!
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176)
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 08, 2012, 12:00:07 pm
Not disputing that DITW. I don't support nuclear, just answering a question that was asked. Nuclear has terrified me since I was a child and would I want my children to live near one .... NO.


But 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just sharing bits of information that I have gained about the wind industry and what comes with it. No easy answers and everything comes with a price.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 08, 2012, 12:04:23 pm
dont get me wrong inthehills, i agree with you too! just showing the other side...
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 08, 2012, 01:00:08 pm
Phew, that's good.  :relief:  ...... don't want to get told off for getting in a scrap.  ;D   As you say just trying to see all sides. Legacy of nuclear is I think pretty obvious but its so easy to see no wrong in the "green" technologies. Could do with a little caution, to get things right this time, me thinks.  :eyelashes: 


Rare earth metals used in many technologies, including wind turbines, I believe ....... not without problems there????  ???
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 08, 2012, 01:06:39 pm
no technology is without impact. the whole current ( ::) )energy debate is based around the amount of profit to be made versus the environmental impact.
 
the difference with nuclear is it adds legacy and weaponry into the mix.
 
it would be alot easier if we struck nuclear off the list and started to base our energy decisions on providing energy that was as green as it can be, whilst supplying the energy neccessary.
 
if the debate was based on that framework, we might get somewhere i reckon!
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: in the hills on November 08, 2012, 01:17:03 pm
 :excited:  Totally agree. That is the big problem we found when looking into wind power. So much being driven by financial gains. I don't see corruption in everything I look at but, oh dear, my eyes were opened by discussions with these big companies and their representatives. Like dealing with a bag of worms.  ::)  I like straightforward talk but they didn't seem to understand the concept. If you just smiled they were okay but you ask a searching question then you were making trouble. ::)  Even had them say .... well why are you bothering, we've looked on the map, it won't affect you. In other words  .... keep out of it. Not pleasant experiences.
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: robbiegrant on November 08, 2012, 10:43:42 pm
Quote from: Plantoid on November 08, 2012, 12:26:05 am
Robbie you can get ground level stand alone units in daisy chains .  My bro inlaw has nine panels out in his paddock about ten metres from his house . He got his before the change in subsidied for £ 7800 fitter and wrking .  I'm not sure if it is still viable in the short term .
Last time we spoke in  June this year he said he had  £ 550 in just under four months as well as having his take for his  family of four .

Greetingz Plantoid. ( Great handle by the way )
This technology is advancing almost by the month. Today I saw a new house built with PV tiles on the roof instead of roofing tiles... Would dearly like to be more independent but dont want to spend ma wodge on tech that is out dated within the year. These current PV's look too crude. I just spent the last 10 years restoring my lovely old hoose, I dont fancy fitting it with satellite wings that make it look like the International space station.  Molding a PV tile that snaps onto a roof in an array rather like a pantile ( or even better like a marley tile! ) is right around the corner...  :fc:

In the mean time i will continue to strive for greater and greater efficiency.   :thinking: :&> :farmer:  :innocent:
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: robbiegrant on November 09, 2012, 01:28:41 pm
Hi Deep In the Woods...

''normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car- that you are still paying for in order to get to the job you need, to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it.''   Ellen Goodman

I totally agree. that's why we work from home...
Title: Re: nuclear power plants.
Post by: deepinthewoods on November 09, 2012, 01:42:19 pm
 :wave:
 
me too!!! even if it isnt mine and never will be!!