Today's debate - Nuclear power

[the_lone_wolf]

Yes, the one George Bush can't pronounce, the gov has just approved more nuclear power stations in the UK - Greenpeace is consulting it's lawyers to see if they can take them to court - what do you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm

[Alpinestarhero]

Greenpeace dont want any power to be made, unless its from some sort of perpetual device :rolleyes:

Anyway, that aside; I'm all for nuclear power. Its comparitivly clean, produces alot of energy, and we know where the waste has gone when we get rid of it! Unlike "fossil fuel" power stations, where the waste is just ejected into the air. I apreciate the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, but we have methods for that which are being developed all the time. Here's a wikipedia (!) page detailing some of the methods:

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

Until we get a better source of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) then I think nuclear fission is the way to go

Matt

[$tevo]

It's nucular...

[the_lone_wolf]

Greenpeace dont want any power to be made, unless its from some sort of perpetual device :rolleyes:
QFT:cool:

[neio79]

concidering that everyone is banging on about polution and niclear powerstations dont pump out greenhouse gasses i would have though they would be happy??

[gettin2dizzy]

It's only those uneducated about nuclear power that are most afraid of it, providing it's done with enough expertise I'm all for it. I'd love a country run entirely on renewable sources but it's just not tangible.

[DanDare]

I more concerned about the French building some sort of Generation 3 reactors in Northern France.

That goes critical, kiss good by to the South of England.

[gettin2dizzy]

I more concerned about the French building some sort of Generation 3 reactors in Northern France.

That goes critical, kiss good by to the South of England.
there's always hope... ;)

[Alpinestarhero]

It's only those uneducated about nuclear power that are most afraid of it, providing it's done with enough expertise I'm all for it. I'd love a country run entirely on renewable sources but it's just not tangible.

That'll be most people then...utter the words "nuclear" and "chemicals", and you got mass hysteria on your hands

Damn tree-huggers

Matt

[neio79]

what about nuclear powerd cars, buses and trains. might make people drive a bit safer??

[Alpinestarhero]

what about nuclear powerd cars, buses and trains. might make people drive a bit safer??

Mean I wont have to stop for petrol :D How much would 10 kg of uranium take me?

How much do the nuclear subs use?

Matt

[the_lone_wolf]

That goes critical...
and herein lies the problem...

you are aware that it's impossible for the material used in nuclear reactors to produce a nuclear explosion aren't you?;) - it's actually very difficult to produce an atomic bomb, the circumstances have to be just right for the reaction to occur

Wikipedia says so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction#Nuclear_fission_fuel)

That'll be most people then...utter the words "nuclear" and "chemicals", and you got mass hysteria on your hands
NMRI anyone?:rolleyes:

[Mogs]

I grew up watching "Tomorrows World" when Raymond Baxter was telling us that nuclear power would be so cheap that sending out the bills would be the biggest expense. I still waiting for those days.

That said I don't think it's the only solution we should take.

I'm fed up with the highly principled Greens - We don't want to pollute so we'll have wind turbines, but they scare the fish so don't put them out to sea, we can't have them on land as they will spoil the view. We can't barrage the Severn, where are all the birds going to live?

[Ceri JC]

My step brother died as a result of Sellafield, so naturally I'm a bit cautious about it, but I think operated properly, it's probably the most sensible/realistic solution to the supposed looming energy crisis (it's already 30 years later than predicted ;)). If battery performance improves (as I'm sure it will), battery powered small cars, with the batteries being recharged from electricity created by nuclear power seems an ideal alternative to most peoples' second cars and should help cut down the speed at which we use up petrol. Not to mention the insanely good performance of some battery powered motorbikes.

[the_lone_wolf]

Not to mention the insanely good performance of some battery powered motorbikes.
true, electric cars can't work right now because they're ultimately coal powered and battery technology is frankly, crap. hydrogen fuel is nothing of the sort, it costs you at least as much energy to produce the hydrogen as you get back when you burn it, in reality the losses would be significant. hydrogen would make a good energy storage medium though if we can overcome the dangers of keeping pressurised explosives in objects that crash into each other on a regular basis:D

[Alpinestarhero]

NMRI anyone?:rolleyes:

You know, i was just thinking about the term Magnetic Nuclear Resonance Imaging and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging aswell

Leave out the nuclear, and everyone dosnt mind it

Mogs, your right; we can do more but so many people dont want it in their vicintiy (NIMBY attitude). Personally, I wuldnt mind a few wind-turbines scattered along the coastline where I live, if it helps to reduce the engery costs and reduce the use of non-renewable sources. Its a small sacrifice, and they dont disrupt anything too much. Out to sea, they could even be a place for new marine ecosystems to grow, much like what happens on sunken ships and things

Matt

[gettin2dizzy]

what about nuclear powerd cars, buses and trains. might make people drive a bit safer??
Imagine being able to drive around the world on a 'tank' of fuel. That would make doing a 'charley and ewan' so much easier. Love the idea :)

[neio79]

How much do the nuclear subs use?

Matt


dont know , but i know the limiting factor on the length of time under water is the crew and the space to keep fres rations (water is made on ship from waste water)

[the_lone_wolf]

Leave out the nuclear, and everyone dosnt mind it
that's why it was dropped, "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" makes no sense without the Nuclear, but to anyone who didn't understand how the process works, and that it's nothing to do with radioactivity, would freak out when told they were having a nuclear scan:smt120

[Luckypants]

Mogs, your right; we can do more but so many people dont want it in their vicintiy (NIMBY attitude). Personally, I wuldnt mind a few wind-turbines scattered along the coastline where I live,

Matt

Good, you have the damn things then. I'm not against wind energy per se, nor even in my back yard. It's the amount of turbines needed to make a difference. They turn the area where you live into a massive industrial landscape - not what folks who live here want to see, hear or walk and ride around. The economics of wind power are well dodgy, as are their green credentials.

I'm all for nuclear, it is well managed in this country. The French have the right idea, went for nuclear in a big way and don't need to rely so much on fossil fuels. We need to tell the green lobby to get lost and go for it big style as well - as we should have done in the 80's and 90's.

[Alpinestarhero]

Good, you have the damn things then. I'm not against wind energy per se, nor even in my back yard. It's the amount of turbines needed to make a difference. They turn the area where you live into a massive industrial landscape - not what folks who live here want to see, hear or walk and ride around. The economics of wind power are well dodgy, as are their green credentials.

I'm all for nuclear, it is well managed in this country. The French have the right idea, went for nuclear in a big way and don't need to rely so much on fossil fuels. We need to tell the green lobby to get lost and go for it big style as well - as we should have done in the 80's and 90's.

There should be small farms dotted arund the country

What about people having small wind turbines on their roof-tops? It might only generate enough electricity to say power the lights, but thats not a bad thing.

Matt

[tomjones2]

true, electric cars can't work right now because they're ultimately coal powered and battery technology is frankly, crap.

I getting a lot better though, someone has realised a car recently that had a proper range, short charge times and reasonable performance, i reckon 15 years to proper commercially available cars.

I can only see nuclear as the way to go, we cant be reliant on the Russians/Arabs for energy. As far as I know we have no real way on generating serious amounts of renewables and the only other option is coal which is a little smoky. I wonder if green peace has come up with a solution from where all this magic electricity will come from?

The french seem to have had great success with nuclear, I belive they have mostly identical stations so they are easy to maintian.

[Luckypants]

There should be small farms dotted arund the country

What about people having small wind turbines on their roof-tops? It might only generate enough electricity to say power the lights, but thats not a bad thing.

Matt

Well I would agree with that, but the economics do not stack up without a massive subsidy in the form of the Climate Change Levy which is piled on our electric bills and used to subsidise wind energy (amongst others). Without this, it is not economically viable. So to get a return, companies build MASSIVE wind farms to gather economies of scale. Then to increase the efficiency they cut down any trees in the vicinity that interrupt the laminar wind flow. (Hardly green is it?) Around here, if all the applications for wind farms go ahead there will be about 5000 acres of forest felled to improve the wind how is that green FFS? And the trees will be left to rot, as the timber market is very depressed at the moment (cheap Russian imported timber) . This will release all the CO2 trapped in the wood back into the environment....... It's all ******** brought on by a target obsessed government. If they took a holistic approach to this then wind, hydro and tidal power could help with the country's needs. Grrrr desecration of the countryside for no gain. And don't get me started on the sites chosen for these monstrosities.......

Micro generation is a good prospect, especially micro hydro. The problem with all the micro generation schemes is cost and reliability. No wind = no power. No water in the summer = no power. You still need the 'spinning reserve' of coal / oil / gas / nuclear to make up the shortfall when nature is not playing ball.

[Alpinestarhero]

Well I would agree with that, but the economics do not stack up without a massive subsidy in the form of the Climate Change Levy which is piled on our electric bills and used to subsidise wind energy (amongst others). Without this, it is not economically viable. So to get a return, companies build MASSIVE wind farms to gather economies of scale. Then to increase the efficiency they cut down any trees in the vicinity that interrupt the laminar wind flow. (Hardly green is it?) Around here, if all the applications for wind farms go ahead there will be about 5000 acres of forest felled to improve the wind how is that green FFS? And the trees will be left to rot, as the timber market is very depressed at the moment (cheap Russian imported timber) . This will release all the CO2 trapped in the wood back into the environment....... It's all ******** brought on by a target obsessed government. If they took a holistic approach to this then wind, hydro and tidal power could help with the country's needs. Grrrr desecration of the countryside for no gain. And don't get me started on the sites chosen for these monstrosities.......

Micro generation is a good prospect, especially micro hydro. The problem with all the micro generation schemes is cost and reliability. No wind = no power. No water in the summer = no power. You still need the 'spinning reserve' of coal / oil / gas / nuclear to make up the shortfall when nature is not playing ball.

I didnt think about it like this (concentrating on other stuff...thats my excuse anyway). I do however understand that theres gotta be energy spent to make energy saved...

...how much greenhouse gas will be emmited to make all this "green" stuff?

I think there should be something done about landfills; they release alot of methane (more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and other sources of methane (cant stop the natural sources, but could do something with man-mad sources?)

Matt

[the_lone_wolf]

I getting a lot better though, someone has realised a car recently that had a proper range, short charge times and reasonable performance, i reckon 15 years to proper commercially available cars.
true, they are always getting better, but the only things that will drive people to want electric cars are either superior performance / range / price compared to petrol rivals, or a massive increase in the price of fuel, if we're lucky the two will coincide over the next few decades and the transition will be smooth

I wonder if green peace has come up with a solution from where all this magic electricity will come from?
no, environmental campaigners don't offer realistic solutions, they moan about problems and demand unrealistic solutions:rolleyes:

[Luckypants]

I didnt think about it like this (concentrating on other stuff...thats my excuse anyway). I do however understand that theres gotta be energy spent to make energy saved...

...how much greenhouse gas will be emmited to make all this "green" stuff?

I think there should be something done about landfills; they release alot of methane (more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and other sources of methane (cant stop the natural sources, but could do something with man-mad sources?)

Matt

Well I was not counting the damage to the environment building the things, the new roads needed to carry the enormous sections of towers, the invested energy in all the concrete required, the new power lines, etc as this is an infrastructure cost that has to be paid for in any new power source.

BUT WHY ARE WE LOCATING THEM IN NORTH / MID WALES, ISLE OF SKYE, NORTHERN SCOTLAND ETC WHEN THE FOLKS THAT WANT THE POWER ARE IN THE SE ENGLAND? All the infrastructure required for the power transmission needs to be built and that is an environmental overhead. These massive wind farms should be located on the essex coast... plenty of laminar wind, close the population that needs it, flat, easy access to the firms that build the turbines (German and Dutch) by sea..... but hang on, Essex has the highest density of millionaires in the UK and lots of politicians and industry leaders live there........... cynical? me?

[tomjones2]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/the-convenient-solution-20070718

Our windswept island has more than enough wind, wave and tidal power potential to meet all of our energy needs many times over. Between them, wind, wave and tidal power could deliver more than twice as much electricity than the proposed new fleet of nuclear reactors in the same timeframe - and the renewables would come online more quickly, require no fuel and won’t have the danger or cost of the nuclear waste.

Greenpeace seems to think that wind, wave and tital are the way forward. Nice idea but personaly I'm not convinced. Its going to be a lot of windmills about.

[Luckypants]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/the-convenient-solution-20070718

Our windswept island has more than enough wind, wave and tidal power potential to meet all of our energy needs many times over. Between them, wind, wave and tidal power could deliver more than twice as much electricity than the proposed new fleet of nuclear reactors in the same timeframe - and the renewables would come online more quickly, require no fuel and won’t have the danger or cost of the nuclear waste.

Greenpeace seems to think that wind, wave and tital are the way forward. Nice idea but personaly I'm not convinced. Its going to be a lot of windmills about.

What happens when the wind don't blow? No wind for the turbines and little or no wave action.... Complete rubbish.

[Alpinestarhero]

BUT WHY ARE WE LOCATING THEM IN NORTH / MID WALES, ISLE OF SKYE, NORTHERN SCOTLAND ETC WHEN THE FOLKS THAT WANT THE POWER ARE IN THE SE ENGLAND?

They'll say "because that is the best area for these windfarms to operate efficiently"

I'll say "because they dont want them in their back yard"

Its like politicians, wanting a war, but not sending their own children to fight

Matt

[blue curvy jester]

Good leave oll the oil to be converted to go juice for my bike:smt025

[tomjones2]

I reckon that offshore windfarms can make a seroius contribution, the dutch (i think) are developing some that can live right out at sea so they cant be easily seen from land. These could proably work well on the east and west coast.

[timwilky]

I more concerned about the French building some sort of Generation 3 reactors in Northern France.

That goes critical, kiss good by to the South of England.

The French (Framatome) have successfully built nuclear plant for decades. I have worked on a couple of their plants at Daya Bay. The controls in place during the design/build were far more stringent than for any of our conventional plants of the day.

I therefore have no problems with French design and build plants and would be more concerned about the old British AGR reactors being given new operating licences

[Luckypants]

I reckon that offshore windfarms can make a seroius contribution, the dutch (i think) are developing some that can live right out at sea so they cant be easily seen from land. These could proably work well on the east and west coast.

Do you have any evidence that the Dutch will deploy this technology or just export it to more gullible countries? The Dutch are moving away from wind power because it is not reliable. They have had power shortages due to a lack of wind! But are we learning the lesson from them? No, we are buying up their second hand turbines and thinking we getting a good deal.

[the_lone_wolf]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/the-convenient-solution-20070718

Our windswept island has more than enough wind, wave and tidal power potential to meet all of our energy needs many times over. Between them, wind, wave and tidal power could deliver more than twice as much electricity than the proposed new fleet of nuclear reactors in the same timeframe - and the renewables would come online more quickly, require no fuel and won’t have the danger or cost of the nuclear waste.
relevant word highlighted...

of course there's potential, if you covered every spare outdoor area in the UK with solar panels it would probably meet the requirements easily as well, but it ain't going to happen...

details of how they propose to produce all this energy are absent though, just exactly how many turbines will be required? where will they have to be situated? how much will it cost? have they factored in costs such as planning appeals / inquests? if they put forward a detailed proposal i'd be interested to read it, but all they seem to be doing is complaining about nuclear, and making vague comments about renewable sources with no evidence to back their claims. they assume, wrongly, that by discrediting nuclear power, wind/waves/tidal power suddenly become a viable option...

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I reckon that offshore windfarms can make a seroius contribution, the dutch (i think) are developing some that can live right out at sea so they cant be easily seen from land. These could proably work well on the east and west coast.

I believe that the massive increased expense, both in terms of money and energy/resources makes off shore wind farms questionable at best. And that's before you factor in the added expense/difficulty of maintaining them as they're way out to sea.

[Luckypants]

I believe that the massive increased expense, both in terms of money and energy/resources makes off shore wind farms questionable at best. And that's before you factor in the added expense/difficulty of maintaining them as they're way out to sea.
This is the reason why so many are built on land, when obviously at sea has major benefits - not least in the reliability and quality of the wind. See my previous post about them not being economically viable.

[tomjones2]

Do you have any evidence that the Dutch will deploy this technology or just export it to more gullible countries? The Dutch are moving away from wind power because it is not reliable. They have had power shortages due to a lack of wind! But are we learning the lesson from them? No, we are buying up their second hand turbines and thinking we getting a good deal.

I not an expert by any means, I just read it in the news a while ago, I think this link refers to the same project, you may know far more about power generation than me but it looks like investment to me.

http://72.3.230.157/rea/news/story;jsessionid=CB6C3F8A30DFC59843B46C18D10F1D02? id=47774

and

http://www.q7wind.nl/en/index.htm

At the end of the day wind farms are always going to be an extra but I think that they can make a valid contribution to the national grid, the issue of lack of wind is obviously a serious problem for replacing conventional alternatives

[Luckypants]

Thanks for the links. I think that shows the Dutch are going for offshore for the more reliable wind. The costs are staggering though.

I also note they state an 80% loading index (400 GWh from 60x2 Mw turbines pa) which is the standard claim of any wind farm, but has been proved by history to wildly optimistic. Land based turbines are doing well to get a 60% loading. Perhaps the improved conditions at sea will give them the extra 20%, but I doubt it.

[ASM-Forever]

The French have the right idea.

:winner:

[Biker Biggles]

Whilst it is true that the economic calculations for nuclear power do make more sense now than previously,the nuclear enthusiasts are conveniently forgetting the fundamental issue.There is not and never has been a means of disposing of the toxic waste that remains deadly for thousands of years.IMO the sheer complacency that is demonstrated by the "we can just store it"mentality shows that the movers and shakers in this area are not fit to hold office.History suggests the same.Im old enough to remember the drip drip of revelations that have emerged about leaks losses and serious accidents that plagued Windscale and the gung ho secretive mentality that surrounded it.Have our political and managerial classes changed so much in 30 years?I dont think so.They have just got better at spin and supression.
So do I trust these "experts" with the future of life on Earth?I think not.

[the_lone_wolf]

Whilst it is true that the economic calculations for nuclear power do make more sense now than previously,the nuclear enthusiasts are conveniently forgetting the fundamental issue.There is not and never has been a means of disposing of the toxic waste that remains deadly for thousands of years.
nuclear waste is something that can be managed, and if you're going to build new stations you would have to put forward plans regarding how you plan to deal with the spent fuel. of course it's something that in an ideal world wouldn't exist but even with the "leak losses" and "serious accidents," falling foul of radiation poisoning from spent fuel rods ranks exceptionally low on my list of things to worry about. why is it that people always seem to get their panties in a twist about "radiation?" it holds some mystical aura that harmful chemicals or explosives don't, yet they kill orders of magnitude more people. i've handled radioactive material in the same way i've handled dangerous chemicals, treated properly neither pose a risk to health

[Ceri JC]

why is it that people always seem to get their panties in a twist about "radiation?" it holds some mystical aura that harmful chemicals or explosives don't, yet they kill orders of magnitude more people. i've handled radioactive material in the same way i've handled dangerous chemicals, treated properly neither pose a risk to health

It's only comparatively recently we've come to understand it (compared to say, burning coal) so it's still seen as a bit 'space age', it's invisible, most of the general populace don't understand it and envisage it as witchcraft of some sort. :)

As you say, handled correctly it's not particularly dangerous.

[Dan]

I'd much rather have a nuclear power station in my back garden than two thousand 100 foot tall wind turbines within a five mile radius.

If they want somewhere to build one, they should look to the North East, between Durham and Sunderland.

There's the sea, which is handy for coolant. There's a lot of unemployed people, which is handy for labour. The transport links are reasonable. It's sufficiently out of the way of London for the BBC to like it.

Oh, and since most of the residents are ex miners, working in the comparative safety of the reactor building would be a holiday compared to years down t'pit suffering from the 'Black Lung'.

Might get me a job working there too - free sterilisation is a bonus.

[Biker Biggles]

Nuclear waste can be "managed"---True.This year ,next year and in ten years,but who will be "managing"it in a thousand years time?Dont answer that because you dont know.
Harmful chemicals and explosives are far more dagerous in the short term,but they can indeed be "managed" or made safe so our great great great great grandchildren will never be bothered by them.There is nothing "mystical" about radioactive waste,its just that its danger lasts indefinitely,therefore its order of magnitude as a threat to life on Earth is so much higher than some explosives or chemicals.Its the total failure to grasp that concept that is where the problem lies.

[northwind]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61pxIaBJtGL._AA280_.gif

Watch me sit on the fence. On the one hand, nuclear power has blotted its record a few times and there's no guarantee it won't happen again, never underestimate humanity's capacity to mismanage a potentially dangerous process. And we still don't really have a perfect solution for nuclear waste, and won't do till I get my space elevator built. But...

Renewables aren't close to a mature industry yet, we're doing exactly what we did with nuclear- jumping into largescale production when we're just not at that level of development or preparation. On the plus side, all that happens with renewables is we waste a load of money and resources and generally convince people it's a bad idea, nobody gets cancer.

And coal... Well, apart from atmospheric emissions, which we all know about, burning coal gives off more radiation per mw than nuclear plants do on average.

Nuclear's a terrible option, it just happens to be less terrible than most of the alternatives.

[tomjones2]

The french have lots of nuclear stations and never had a significant accident IIRC. Maybe we could take a leaf out of there book. I even heard rumors that we may be using there stations designs over here. I sound ridiculous but the government have got to appreciate what nuclear is and that it must be done properly, one accident is to many.

Biker biggles I agree with what your saying but what other options do we really have, coal is a nightmare, gas is bad, renewables cant provide enough power. I reckon as nothy says that nuclear is the best option out of lots of bad ones. At the end of the day we need power.

[the_lone_wolf]

Nuclear waste can be "managed"---True.This year ,next year and in ten years,but who will be "managing"it in a thousand years time?Dont answer that because you dont know.
you really think in a thousand years we'll be sitting here, with nuclear reactors still churning out waste? or perhaps we've made renewable energy a viable option by then, i mean we've only got to where we are now from the anglo-saxon period in the last 1000 years, back when raping and pillaging was all the rage... it's not like we're going to advance from here is it?:rolleyes:

i never said nuclear power was the be-all-end-all of energy production and we had to use it for evermore, you'd be stupid to think it was, the facts are; we had a good run with oil but we're running out and it's only going to get harder to obtain, viable renewable energy sources and widespread sensible alternatives to the oil driven society are at least another half century away from now, nuclear is the only sensible solution to plug the gap, once we're done and we have the technological options to use solar/wind/tides/whatever then hey, **** it, we might as well just ship the waste to the middle east, it's not like they're going to be doing much once the oil runs out:-?

[orose]

I think the main problem with Nuclear power is that people can't differentiate between the modern reactor designs which fail safe, and the older design used at Chernobyl which failed deadly.

Its a shame that people seem to be hung up on it, as the french and canadians seem to be doing pretty well on their development. It doesn't help that the current designs of reactor in this country are breeders, which can create the plutonium for bombs, which means that you get both the eco-nuts and the anti-terrorism people against you.

As you may have gathered, I'm in favour of updating the nuclear plants. We need something to hold the steady load while the wind drops, the waves are calm and the sun is in, and its the best of the fuel-using plants.

I'm hoping that the current plans will last us until ITER (research fusion reactor) and its commercial prototype successor produce something viable to replace the whole fission problem.

[ejohnh]

Whilst it is true that the economic calculations for nuclear power do make more sense now than previously,the nuclear enthusiasts are conveniently forgetting the fundamental issue.There is not and never has been a means of disposing of the toxic waste that remains deadly for thousands of years.IMO the sheer complacency that is demonstrated by the "we can just store it"mentality shows that the movers and shakers in this area are not fit to hold office.History suggests the same.Im old enough to remember the drip drip of revelations that have emerged about leaks losses and serious accidents that plagued Windscale and the gung ho secretive mentality that surrounded it.Have our political and managerial classes changed so much in 30 years?I dont think so.They have just got better at spin and supression.
So do I trust these "experts" with the future of life on Earth?I think not.

I agree totally with you. First post on this thread which makes any sense to me.. So called 'experts' scare me ****less. Almost as much as those who think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information..

[Biker Biggles]

Once again the point is spectacularly missed.
Its todays waste that will still be toxic in a thousand years,irrespective of what we produce then.Even if we stopped now,we have the waste from the last fifty years to look after for the next thousand years.The Anglo Saxon raping and pillaging is a very valid point.Who has a clue who will be about in a thousand years to look after the mess we make now?History suggests there will have been several major world upheavals by then,and our toxic dumps could be supervised by anyone or no one.
It boils down to essentially a moral issue.Is it right that we today should leave a permanent toxic legacy so we can have a bit of leccy?

[the_lone_wolf]

I agree totally with you. First post on this thread which makes any sense to me.. So called 'experts' scare me ****less. Almost as much as those who think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information..
subtle:rolleyes:

if you had any knowledge of how fission works you'd understand why, then you wouldn't have to be "scared ****less" by people who do know what they're talking about, the link was the most obvious source, being employed i don't have time to go around all day seeking out "scienceforpeoplewholacktwobraincellstorubtogether. com" or some equally obscure website, wikipedia is usually good at explaining scientific concepts to people with no scientific background. unfortunately, it seems while they can always make things more idiot-proof, the universe keeps coming up with better idiots:rolleyes:

[Biker Biggles]

Now that is just arrogant,and rather symptomatic of the managerial class who do actually know what is best for the rest of us.

[ejohnh]

subtle:rolleyes:

if you had any knowledge of how fission works you'd understand why, then you wouldn't have to be "scared ****less" by people who do know what they're talking about, the link was the most obvious source, being employed i don't have time to go around all day seeking out "scienceforpeoplewholacktwobraincellstorubtogether. com" or some equally obscure website, wikipedia is usually good at explaining scientific concepts to people with no scientific background. unfortunately, it seems while they can always make things more idiot-proof, the universe keeps coming up with better idiots:rolleyes:

Knowing how fission works and knowing how a little knowledge makes experts out of idiots is what scares me ...

[Biker Biggles]

:stupid:

A healthy dose of cynicism goes a long way to understanding the expert POV.
And however clever they may be,they are no better at pedicting the future than you or me.

[metalmonkey]

I haven't read the entire thread too much to get through, short attention span!

Well renewable power at the moment isn't much good casue the amount of engery it requires to build it, it may not return that in a life time....

Also when the wind stops, the seas are calm what do we then? Run on a big tread mill? I guess small scale system on roof of house may make difference when they produce a greater amount of power.

Those hybrid, cars aren't what everyone thinks they are casue the batteries in there cost a lot to replace, are expensive to get rid once done with ect...

Yup all these so called experts are useless, I'm sure they will soon moan of the lights went out and the taps ran dry.

Until we get fussion power up and running, this is the best one to use and we control it! Though I don't know much about the process, hydrogen fuel cells, do they provide a good source of power?

Far as I'm concered I do my bit to reduce power use, I have a 14 year car old and motorbike, recycle. Buying new cars uses more power to make them, a bike requires less power to make and less fuel to run. When I live near a tube line, I will take the tube!

[the_lone_wolf]

i did type a reply to you two, but since you seem to have solved the problem and moved on to agreeing with each other i'll just leave it until tomorrow...

why don't you vote in the poll, it would be nice to get at least one person registering support for option two

[Biker Biggles]

Go on then.
But as someone far more clever than me once said,"If democracy could ever change anything it would have been banned years ago"

[ejohnh]

i did type a reply to you two, but since you seem to have solved the problem and moved on to agreeing with each other i'll just leave it until tomorrow...

why don't you vote in the poll, it would be nice to get at least one person registering support for option two

There's the rub.. It's only with learning that I have realised how little I actually know.. I wish I knew the answer - but I don't.. Which is why I cant 'vote' ... Subjectively, I love my gas guzzlers.. Objectively, I think I am screwing the future... To be honest I don't think there is an acceptable solution in today's consumer society..

[Biker Biggles]

Very true,but you dont have to know about it in minute technical detail to form a moral opinion.My view is that we are not a mature enough species to have the responsibility for looking after toxic waste for thousands of years.
But we are going to do it anyway.

[fizzwheel]

We should wire the ORG up to the national grid, theres enough hot air gabbed on here to heat peoples homes / spin wind turbines, heat water to turn into steam to drive generators ;)

[ejohnh]

We should wire the ORG up to the national grid, theres enough hot air gabbed on here to heat peoples homes / spin wind turbines, heat water to turn into steam to drive generators ;)

Yes yes.. probably very true..

[Stingo]

dont know , but i know the limiting factor on the length of time under water is the crew and the space to keep fres rations (water is made on ship from waste water)

The water is distilled from sea water...around 2000 litres a day for a Trafalgar class submarine. Food is the main factor though as correctly stated - a boat (Hunter/killer type) will carry up to 90 days supply. Of course, the fresh runs out quickly, but bread is baked each day.

Fuel life of a submarine pwr? Around fifteen years I'd say - like most things depends how heavily it's used. If you're dashing around the oceans at full power all the time then the decay will start to produce power problems quicker than if you tootled around at half power mostly. There is a nuclear refuelling facility in Devonport dockyard - not sure where 'they' stuff the old U235 when it's removed...:smt1028-[

[northwind]

It boils down to essentially a moral issue.Is it right that we today should leave a permanent toxic legacy so we can have a bit of leccy?

You could equally ask, is it right that we burn valuable petrochemicals and consume ores just so we can ride motorbikes. Even without nuclear power we have an impact on the environment which could well last 1000 years, if you accept the global warming arguments then we already have- so the question isn't "should we leave a legacy of damage", perhaps it's "What is the least damaging option". Or, instead of leaving vitrified nuclear waste in storage, is it better to leave carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

[gettin2dizzy]

Once again the point is spectacularly missed.
Its todays waste that will still be toxic in a thousand years,irrespective of what we produce then.Even if we stopped now,we have the waste from the last fifty years to look after for the next thousand years.The Anglo Saxon raping and pillaging is a very valid point.Who has a clue who will be about in a thousand years to look after the mess we make now?History suggests there will have been several major world upheavals by then,and our toxic dumps could be supervised by anyone or no one.
It boils down to essentially a moral issue.Is it right that we today should leave a permanent toxic legacy so we can have a bit of leccy?

so what's the alternative?

[Dan]

so what's the alternative?

Damn, beat me to that one.

[the_lone_wolf]

i thought i could resist, but i'm weak, i can't let this go on any longer...

just exactly are we referring to when we say nuclear waste?

firstly, it is important to note that when we describe weights, nuclear fuel is incredibly dense, think on the order of twenty times the density of water. subsequently it only takes up one twentieth of the space, ie: the volume of the same mass of uranium as occupies one cubic metre of water is only 0.05 cubic metres, equal to a cube ~36cm in length on each side (0.05 ^ 1/3)

a typical 1000MW reactor produces on the order of 25-30 tonnes of used fuel every year, this is composed primarily of recyclable uranium fuel, about 97% of what comes out the back end of the fission process can be reused as fuel for the same reactor (after slight modification if it was designed to run only on un-reprocessed uranium) it just came out of after being chemically processed, this is already happening in france and other countries.

now this is where it gets tricky, this recycling process creates plutonium, only around 230kg per year, 1% of the total waste, and in the state it's produced it's not suitable for use in weapons, however america's paranoid stance on nuclear weapons proliferation means that they simply refuse to recycle their spent fuel creating plutonium as a by-product. in france and canada they do recycle, albeit only about a third of waste at present, creating mixed oxide fuel that can be fed back into the reactor alongside the recycled uranium. there is no reason why large scale reprocessing shouldn't be part of the nuclear energy process.

the problem with not recycling is that you are left with the entire contents of the spent fuel, and the various components have very different half lives, the long term radioactive products are the ones that are removed by recycling the waste, without removing them the waste has to be separated from the environment for upto ten thousand years or so. this is what is happening in the states, and is why they're having to find mountains to stick their waste in for thousands of years

if, however, you recycle the parts that you can recycle, and transmutate the longer lasting elements in the spent fuel using fast breeder reactors, you are left with material that needs to be stored for 100-300 years.

ok, so 97% of the waste can be re-used, what about the other 3% - you can't sugar coat it, the remaining 3% is not pleasant, highly radioactive and not the sort of thing you want anywhere near you, however there are methods for dealing with this, the waste is "boiled down" to a solid, mixed with glass and melted into steel flasks and then stored. no, it's not sustainable, no it's not a permanent solution, however it's the best that current technology allows

so, how much waste does this process produce? well, the glass blob containing the high level waste from one person's electricity use, over their entire lifetime - would be around the size of the palm of your hand:

http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/wast2.gif


there is another process for dealing with waste, something to do with creating synthetic rocks and trapping the material in the crystalline structure, just as it occurs in nature, but it's late, i'm tired. i hate it when people post "facts" without sources, so i'll see what i can do with regards to that tomorrow, if anyone wants to pick holes in the above feel free to, i've no doubt there's mistakes considering it's borne from old physics degree lectures and brief internet research, if you're interested go do some research and make up your own mind

either that or we go with fizzwheel's idea;)

[arenalife]

Once again the point is spectacularly missed.
Its todays waste that will still be toxic in a thousand years,irrespective of what we produce then.Even if we stopped now,we have the waste from the last fifty years to look after for the next thousand years.The Anglo Saxon raping and pillaging is a very valid point.Who has a clue who will be about in a thousand years to look after the mess we make now?History suggests there will have been several major world upheavals by then,and our toxic dumps could be supervised by anyone or no one.
It boils down to essentially a moral issue.Is it right that we today should leave a permanent toxic legacy so we can have a bit of leccy?


A thousand years? More like 30,000 - 100,000 years depending who you believe. An incredible legacy that can't be got rid of. Have a look at the official UK atomic energy site and read their stuff about Douneray, scary stuff. Nuclear energy is so annoyingly dangerous :( I guess the government is gambling on society always being competent and aware enough to deal with it.

[northwind]

Not neccesarily- look at the Carlsbad deep storage facility, it's been designed from the standpoint that maybe things won't go so smoothly, so it's surrounded by multilingual and visual warnings, much like an egyptian tomb. Though the precedent for that isn't great I suppose!