[deepinthewoods]

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

i agree with you. i also agree that wind turbines arent THE answer, just part of it.

[MikeM]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

interesting article on a solution to nuclear waste:
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.

[deepinthewoods]

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.

[MikeM]

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.

[MikeM]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

if there was no military use for uranium we would never have had nuclear power. no way no how.

[MikeM]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

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.

[MikeM]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

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.
 
 

[MikeM]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

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.

[deepinthewoods]

and dont forget, uranium IS a fossil fuel.
 
 
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/274.html

[deepinthewoods]

'' 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