View Full Version : The nuclear option...
northwind
29-06-06, 08:26 PM
For some reason, this has been stuck in my head... I'm a confirmed bleeding heart liberal, with green leanings. When I was younger I was staunchly anti-nuclear, but for once I've actually been swayed to the other side. I'd love for alternative sources to be the answer, but they're not mature enough yet and throwing a fortune at implementation instead of development just seems wrongheaded.
Fossil fuels, well, coal reduces more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear, never mind the other pollutants, while oil's better used for other purposes, small power sources, lubrication and plastics.
Is it just me, or is it actually the environmentally friendly option?
I think it's about time we found another source of making power and leave the oil for the bikes :lol: Seriously though there are plans to put up wind farms around the coast near me but there is a lot of objection from a minority of people saying they'll ruin the view of the landscape and that they are an eyesore!!!!! these people would soon complain if we had another ice age!!!!
Until somebody perfects the mythological cold fusion, what alternative is there.
I work with a new age hippy, he has a house so can't call him traveller, he protested at Greenham Common in the 80's and spent time out at sea with Green Peace. Summat to do with whales he said. He's also an electrician and says that he's more than happy for them to build nuclear power stations :shock:
There's huge amounts of work to build these places the skills and labour needed will be a much needed boost to our manufacturing sector.
The waste is another consideration but supposedly the new reactors are cleaner than the old fast breeders.
just imagine the 0-60 times of a nuclear powered motorcycle :)
Spiderman
29-06-06, 08:41 PM
Is it just me, or is it actually the environmentally friendly option?
I guess it is unless something goes drasticaly wrong and we have a modern Chernobyl on our hands.
I'd love to see the day that most of our energy is derived from wind and water but i fear we may die off as a species before that really happens. :flower:
northwind
29-06-06, 08:57 PM
Dang, I broke my poll. It was supposed to have "No, I already have enough fingers" as option 3. Anyone know if I can change it?
Anyone know if I can change it?
Nope, no idea :wink: .
.
northwind
29-06-06, 09:31 PM
Seamlessly done there my man. Seamless.
21QUEST
29-06-06, 09:48 PM
Surely with all the rainfall we are having up North it's about time we think of building dams to produce the bulk of electricity needed :? :)
If there is no other viable option then every green consideration is moot really. It's Nuclear or die I guess :lol:
Cheers
Ben
Growing up in NZ we have always been anti-nuclear and are proud of our Greenpeace routes. Coming to the UK i cant see of any other clean efficient way of making fuel for such a vast population. I like the idea of Hydorgen power myself - oil has caused to many wars and pollution and wind is ugly and noisy. The longer nuclear energy continues without incident the more acceptable it will become the norm.
Well Oiled
29-06-06, 10:00 PM
Just do the sums and you'll see that all the renewable energy sources can never contribute more than a small proportion of our overall energy needs.
So it's coal, oil, gas or nuclear.
I vote nuclear every time. The French have had a high reliance on nuclear for a long time. Yes there was Chernobyl, but that was due to an incompetent and corrupt government (even more than ours).
Keith
northwind
29-06-06, 10:31 PM
Just do the sums and you'll see that all the renewable energy sources can never contribute more than a small proportion of our overall energy needs.
Well, don't say never. Even with today's technology, the stats for orbital solar, for example, are encouraging. Things move on... Hydro can provide a phenomenal amount too, look at Hoover Dam or the 3 Gorges. But despite teh fact that it's clean, it's hardly environmentally friendly :roll:
ArtyLady
29-06-06, 10:38 PM
Bring on the wind turbines - I think theyre beautiful and they dont harm the environment. Although I think they will need many of them to generate the amount of power we need but get a whole bunch of them and can stick them all in the North Sea :D
Oh and every house should be supplied with solar panels too :)
Dang, I broke my poll. It was supposed to have "No, I already have enough fingers" as option 3. Anyone know if I can change it?
ROFL!! :lol:
I'm all for wind turbines. They may be unsightly but there's a strange attraction to them there too... The one next to the A13 on my commute into London always fascinated me....
The problem with nuclear fuel is the waste... I know a load already passes through Essex on the train line but we don't have the technology to deal with it effectively...
Lightning is the key. We just need more madcap scientists to work out how to harness it. There was a programme on Sky called 'Inside the Lightning' that described lightning producing cells as rather large batteries with positive and negative poles... where there's a will there's a way...
northwind
30-06-06, 12:06 AM
I like wind turbines... But they're not especially effective just yet. I do think they look great though, a bit unworldly. But then, it's not a very reliable power source. Wave generators seem to be one of the places they're making real progress, and as long as we have a moon it'll keep on working...
philipMac
30-06-06, 04:21 AM
Ok.
This is the problem. I dont like juries.
There. I said it. The thing about Juries, is that they dont understand the law. They dont. Its that simple. You cant just round up a load of people, as Homer sagely said, "who are too stupid to get out of jury duty" and tell them a few pertinent facts, and then let them decide what the law says. Because, they dont understand the law.
My mate has an idea about Law. She studied it at Oxford, and worked in NYC for a whle, and is back in Inkland now. She has been doing it for about 12 years, is astonishingly clever, and she gets it. And she has nice boobies. What can you say.
I am less clever. And have been working with/around genetics for about the same amount of time. And, genetically engineering crops does not worry me. I, think I more or less understand the risks, and can evaluate them. And, I think the pros outwiegh the cons. In my opinion.
Now, I am also a bleeding pinko liberal nancy long haired commie bicycle riding mincer. Just like northy. We actually are the same person. Whenever Northy is feeling a bit arsey he just logs on as PhilipMac. I am akbar too. And that squirrel guy. Anyway, I would imagine if I didnt spend years learning all that crap, I would have a more jaundiced view of GM foods. (And, not want to punch greenpeacers in their naive face when they harass me around NYU.)
And not suprisingly, I have serious, serious reservations about nuclear power. The problem that I see is what to do with the used up stuff. I think giving it to those unbelievably incompetent gimps at Selafield is not really good enough. Also what happens when the poo gets embroiled in the fan at the local reactor. Because, so far, it seems to me what happens is:
everyone dies.
For years. And years. Taina, a Finish girl I knew lost her brother two years ago, who was a forest ranger caught in a rain shower in Finland just after Chernobyl. From that day till 2 years ago he fought cancer.
BUT. I dont really know what I am talking about. I dont really know how a modern reactor works compared to one 20 years ago. And, since I dont understand it, I will have to bow to people who do. If they are reasonable, respectable scientists, and they say, its a reasonable option, I suppose... I will just about go along with that. Just.
I wont be happy though.
HOWEVER... till we have an alternative. Ha. Well, we will have an alternative when we need one. Not before. There are plenty of alternatives. Plenty. We just dont want them bad enough. We want the most power, with the least hastle.
Its all very difficult to decide really.[/i]
Sid Squid
30-06-06, 08:04 AM
Wind and water power.
Hmmmm...Anybody know what the effect on the World's weather might be if we were to remove a significant amount of energy from those systems? It doesn't come for nothing and with no effect, if the wind turns a generator or the waves spin a turbine energy is removed from one system and placed, (minus losses of course), in another. Thus far our tiddling around at this hasn't removed a whole lot of energy, but any large scale use would do so, what'll happen to the weather systems? Not nothing that's for sure, but it may be an insignificant change but does anyone know? I sincerely doubt it, actually I doubt anyone wants to know.
Solar power: Lots of reflective panels the world over - temperature change anyone? We've not even got started yet.
Nuclear energy: Hardly desirable, but as things stand I can't think of a serious alternative - actually I can, but it would make me deeply unpopular.
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 08:13 AM
Nuclear energy: Hardly desirable, but as things stand I can't think of a serious alternative - actually I can, but it would make me deeply unpopular.
Tell us :lol:
Wind and water power.
Hmmmm...Anybody know what the effect on the World's weather might be if we were to remove a significant amount of energy from those systems? It doesn't come for nothing and with no effect, if the wind turns a generator or the waves spin a turbine energy is removed from one system and placed, (minus losses of course), in another. Thus far our tiddling around at this hasn't removed a whole lot of energy, but any large scale use would do so, what'll happen to the weather systems? Not nothing that's for sure, but it may be an insignificant change but does anyone know? I sincerely doubt it, actually I doubt anyone wants to know.
Solar power: Lots of reflective panels the world over - temperature change anyone? We've not even got started yet.
Nuclear energy: Hardly desirable, but as things stand I can't think of a serious alternative - actually I can, but it would make me deeply unpopular.
You know, i have never thought of that. Well done that man.
I for one am for Nuke power, why the hell not. I think that its had some pretty bad press, and what with todays systems, im sure that we would never have another Chenobyl. However, the waste, and trasportation of it is always going to be an issue, and that seriously needs sorting pronto. I reckon sell it to the irainians :shock: :lol:
The thing is though, that its not going to just take us to do it, it needs world commitment, and we all know that the good ole USofA will say its aginst thier rights to not use oil or some other ridiculous statement. I mean, they dont even use A4 paper ffs.
Just dont let Homer near it!
Sid Squid
30-06-06, 08:27 AM
I mean, they dont even use A4 paper ffs.
Exactly! How can they claim to have a civilised society when the run their affairs like that?
chazzyb
30-06-06, 08:33 AM
Nuke the *******s!
Oops, wrong poll. :oops:
I guess it is unless something goes drasticaly wrong and we have a modern Chernobyl on our hands.
A firend of mine is one of the 'boffins' that runs the nuclear plant at Trawsfynydd. According to him, if they have what they call a 'minor incident', everyone from Trawsfynydd to at least Liverpool is dead within around about 30seconds. 'Drastically wrong' isn't really the phrase.
Not to try scaring people away from nuclear power, I also know that there's a LOT of controls that go into making sure 'minor incidents' dont happen. With that in mind, I voted 'Yes until something better comes along'.
johnnyrod
30-06-06, 08:39 AM
Nuclear power, for its drawbacks and potential downsides, produces very little in terms of carbon dioxide or its equivalents - a couple of orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels, even gas turbine power stations. I'm surprised to see so few objections here, usually any mention is enough to get a lot of people hopping up and down without considering the alternatives.
Unfortunately hydrogen power (like fuel cells) isn't such a great idea - the hydrogen has to be made first as you can't just dig it up (unless someone can open a mine on the sun), so all you do is move the source of pollution back tot he power station - has its advatages but ultimately not helping. And cold fusion for some time will be a dream, it's not like anyone even got the experiment to work again.
Be interested to know what Viney has up his sleeve. Pity cars aren't really flammable, we could just shove them all in incinerators. That would sort out the yanks, they have bigger cars anyway.
chazzyb
30-06-06, 08:49 AM
I guess it is unless something goes drasticaly wrong and we have a modern Chernobyl on our hands.
A firend of mine is one of the 'boffins' that runs the nuclear plant at Trawsfynydd. According to him, if they have what they call a 'minor incident', everyone from Trawsfynydd to at least Liverpool is dead within around about 30seconds. 'Drastically wrong' isn't really the phrase.
Not to try scaring people away from nuclear power, I also know that there's a LOT of controls that go into making sure 'minor incidents' dont happen. With that in mind, I voted 'Yes until something better comes along'.
I thought Trawsfynydd was no longer generating and was in the process of being decomissioned?
Yup that's true, and Wylfa is going to be closed down in 2010.
But when a 'minor incident' (as my friend puts it) at a non-generating power station kills everyone for roughly 100miles, its sort of scary. Maybe 'runs' was the wrong terminology, apologies :)
I'd hate to do his job, but I suppose someone has to do it, he basically takes over from the staff there when any power plant (nuclear or otherwise) is being closed down, deals with ridding of the waste, and helps organise construction crews to bulldoze the parts they can safely. Obviously there's other people in the team, so it's not all just him though. :shock:
timwilky
30-06-06, 09:08 AM
OK, I work for Power Station builder with probably the worlds largest install base and have some biased opinions.
I am not a power station engineer so what I say is probably male bovine excretia.
1) technology exists to make conventional coal powered plant a lot cleaner than what we see today, Boiler technology has improved a heck of a lot, fluidized beds etc are cleaner burning. carbon sequestration etc reduce the further the eviromental impact of burning fossil fuels.
2) The dash for gas in the 80s/90s filled the gap as the first generation of nuclear and the older local power plants were brought out of service. However the justification was made on cleaner more efficient engines and the price/availability of gas. This equation has changed in recent years.
3) where coal has been used we have always been told that the UK has massive reserves but it is not economic to mine when compared against "world coal".
Fossil fuel, particularly gas is being depleted at a massive rate. Renewables at present are not capable of meeting the demand. The eviromentalists fight each other demanding more wind/tidal power, but not in my back yard.
Nuclear has moved on since the likes of sizewell. My own company provided the conventional island for the 2 daya bay nuclear plants in China and these appear to be operating quite safely even if the French provided the reactors.
So my own personal thoughts are. yes to nuclear with the decommissioning costs ring fenced as part of the overall financing package. more work to be done on renewables and probably over the horizon sea based wind farms etc as a possibile solution to the not in my back yard lobby
chazzyb
30-06-06, 09:08 AM
Strewth, I just found a list of British nuclear power stations on Wikipedia. In the next 3-4 years, half of them will have ceased generating. What's going to replace that capacity? Sure ain't going to be wind and waves!
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 09:31 AM
Strewth, I just found a list of British nuclear power stations on Wikipedia. In the next 3-4 years, half of them will have ceased generating. What's going to replace that capacity? Sure ain't going to be wind and waves!
I'm sure the government has it under control :shock:
rpwoodman
30-06-06, 09:35 AM
I think there needs to be some clarity on what you mean by nuclear energy.
Nuclear fission (a la Chernobyl) is a pretty dangerous activity I'd say, tho statistics would probably prove me wrong (not a lot of accidents which have had serious consequences). If it does go wrong, the consequences are severe.
Nuclear Fusion is a much cleaner (and efficient) form of energy, and the consequences are less should (when) something go wrong.
As we currently don't have a fusion reactor, money needs to be spent researching it. Unless we do, we won't be able to move on from fission, surely, unless we expect some new form of clean energy to drop into our laps one day?
I like the idea of wave power (and wind turbines to some degree, tho I think they polute in a different way - they make the countryside look horrible), but I would be very surprised if they could generate anything like enough power for modern needs.
Incidentally, some time ago, I heard that wind turbines are very inefficient in that over the life of a turbine, it can never generate more electricity than was used to extract the aluminium from the bauxite. Does anyone *know* if that is true?
We know fossil fuels will run out, and have big consequences on the environment. I'd argue that as of now, nuclear energy has been less polluting. If we lived our lives thinking "what if" all the time, we'd not be here (on a motorbike discussion forum).
Personally, I don't believe we have much of a choice.
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 09:43 AM
Nuclear fission (a la Chernobyl) is a pretty dangerous activity I'd say, tho statistics would probably prove me wrong (not a lot of accidents which have had serious consequences). If it does go wrong, the consequences are severe.
Nuclear Fusion is a much cleaner (and efficient) form of energy, and the consequences are less should (when) something go wrong.
As we currently don't have a fusion reactor, money needs to be spent researching it. Unless we do, we won't be able to move on from fission, surely, unless we expect some new form of clean energy to drop into our laps one day?
I dont think it's quite that simple. There are different types of fission reactor, and the only reason Chernobyl went bang was because it was an inherantly flawed design.
As for fusion reactors, well the UK used to be leading the world in researching it, until the goverment pulled the plug :evil:
chazzyb
30-06-06, 09:59 AM
I'm sure the government has it under control :shock:
I find that most reassurring. :roll:
rpwoodman
30-06-06, 10:04 AM
I dont think it's quite that simple. There are different types of fission reactor, and the only reason Chernobyl went bang was because it was an inherantly flawed design.
That's as maybe, but fission uses dangerous ingredients, whatever the design of reactor, and thus should something go wrong, the consequences are problematic.
Personally, I think in the right hands and with the right resources, fission reactors have an aceptable risk. I worry more about the less developed countries, who have less resources available and where life is cheap (consider Bhopal).
Shame the governernment pulled the funding into fusion. Kind of shooting ourselves in the foot there, wouldn't you say?
I think there needs to be some clarity on what you mean by nuclear energy.
Nuclear fission (a la Chernobyl) is a pretty dangerous activity I'd say, tho statistics would probably prove me wrong (not a lot of accidents which have had serious consequences). If it does go wrong, the consequences are severe.
There have been a lot of design advances including fail-safe style pebble bed reactors
seee here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
So its not all bad.
Dan
rpwoodman
30-06-06, 10:22 AM
There have been a lot of design advances including fail-safe style pebble bed reactors seee here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That's an interesting read Dan - thanks.
I think a lot of people have concerns because of the current world climate, where terrorists have threatened nuclear reactors.
Should a plane hit a reactor, surely however safe the reactor design, radioactivity will be spread about. Sure, nothing like as much as Chernobyl as the force of a plane hitting a reactor would be less than the explosion in Chernobyl, but pollution none the less.
What about putting hoddies onto treadmills?
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 10:24 AM
Shame the governernment pulled the funding into fusion. Kind of shooting ourselves in the foot there, wouldn't you say?
The government at the time probably managed to save a fiver by pulling the funding, I'm sure they had our best interests at heart :roll:
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 10:27 AM
There have been a lot of design advances including fail-safe style pebble bed reactors seee here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That's an interesting read Dan - thanks.
I think a lot of people have concerns because of the current world climate, where terrorists have threatened nuclear reactors.
Should a plane hit a reactor, surely however safe the reactor design, radioactivity will be spread about. Sure, nothing like as much as Chernobyl as the force of a plane hitting a reactor would be less than the explosion in Chernobyl, but pollution none the less.
What about putting hoddies onto treadmills?
Bizarely, this has been tested. Aircraft have been crashed into the kind of concrete structure reactors are built in, and it barely left a mark.
What about putting hoddies onto treadmills?
:notworthy: I'll put the first application form in for the role of keeping the the new 'hoodie' plants working :smt064
Fine.. ignore me. I'll work out how to harness lightning and will have the key to the world's power problems and I'LL MAKE YOU ALL PAY....
Muahahah... ahahahahah... AHAHAHAHAHAH...
:lol: :D
(isn't it about time someone started 'thinking outside the box'?) :P ;)
rpwoodman
30-06-06, 10:56 AM
(isn't it about time someone started 'thinking outside the box'?)
Well, I was wondering about harnessing power from crematoriums (I reckon that should my mate Dave die, he could power a smallish village for some time), but I thought the world may not be ready for that suggestion yet... :-)
(isn't it about time someone started 'thinking outside the box'?)
Well, I was wondering about harnessing power from crematoriums (I reckon that should my mate Dave die, he could power a smallish village for some time), but I thought the world may not be ready for that suggestion yet... :-)
:lol::lol::lol:
Hmm... harnessing the power of methane could also have potential...
How goes this for thinking outside the box?
Start by pumping air into the now dis-used coal mines scattered around the UK. When you want power, open a valve to let the air through. Doesn't generate much energy you say? What happens if you heat it before it passes through the turbines? Those American's do have a use it would seem (anyone who doesn't belive it's possible, click here (http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2001/025.html)).
Sid Squid
30-06-06, 11:29 AM
Interesting idea, but only storage, not production.
northwind
30-06-06, 12:06 PM
I dont think it's quite that simple. There are different types of fission reactor, and the only reason Chernobyl went bang was because it was an inherantly flawed design.
Apparently, the only reason Chernobyl didn't suffer a complete meltdown was the design of the reactor- the reactor itself was flawed, but the failure setup was supposedly far superior to the UK designs of the time. So far more likely to fail, but when it did fail less likely to be truly disasterous. I can't really remember the details, something to do with teh design of the reactor vessel. The implication was that if the same basic situation had been allowed to occur in a UK reactor- incredibly unlikely- the consequences would have been massively worse.
I dont think it's quite that simple. There are different types of fission reactor, and the only reason Chernobyl went bang was because it was an inherantly flawed design.
Apparently, the only reason Chernobyl didn't suffer a complete meltdown was the design of the reactor- the reactor itself was flawed, but the failure setup was supposedly far superior to the UK designs of the time. So far more likely to fail, but when it did fail less likely to be truly disasterous. I can't really remember the details, something to do with teh design of the reactor vessel. The implication was that if the same basic situation had been allowed to occur in a UK reactor- incredibly unlikely- the consequences would have been massively worse.
Yes, I remeber hearing something along the lines of an explosion that would take out 1/2 of europe. Which is nice.
Dan
Anonymous
30-06-06, 12:19 PM
after reading posts and posts like this i always feel a bit thick. (yes i know i am)
i dont have any strong opinions on anything like the above, dont think about it, dont dwell on it, dont really care.
i really must take more of an interest in things that are not connected to my everyday little life ie kids, work and food.
you lot always get my grey matter buzzing, not exactly working but ive got a head ache now :lol:
keep it up :)
MattTheLoony
30-06-06, 01:45 PM
I misread the poll and ticked the wrong thing. Thought it was about the stockpile of nuclear weapons we have.
On the subject of nuclear weapons I think we should get rid of them. We're not gonna use them so there's no point in having them.
On nuclear power I'm not really against it. If there's an alternative then fair enough but I don't see any reason not to use them. Should launch the nuclear waste into space though, or find some way to make it clean.
Should launch the nuclear waste into space though, or find some way to make it clean.
Surely if we did that it'd only anger those little grey men that seem to evade fighter jets effortlessly. Or maybe they use that for fuel, so they'd thank us for replenishing their deminishing stocks of waste uranium....
Outside the box...ok then, breed Giant hamsters. Plug the London eye into the mains, and let the hamster run round. Job solved, you get a tourist attraction, and a way of making leccy :D
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 02:01 PM
Outside the box...ok then, breed Giant hamsters, give them plug the London eye into the mains, and let the hamster run round. Job solved, you get a tourist attraction, and a way of making leccy :D
We've even got the nuclear waste to encorage the growth of said mutant hamsters too 8)
Spiderman
30-06-06, 03:04 PM
after reading posts and posts like this i always feel a bit thick. (yes i know i am)
i dont have any strong opinions on anything like the above, dont think about it, dont dwell on it, dont really care.
i really must take more of an interest in things that are not connected to my everyday little life ie kids, work and food.
you lot always get my grey matter buzzing, not exactly working but ive got a head ache now :lol:
keep it up :)
If you look at it from another angle, your kids and your food are greatly affected by these issues. Its the earth we are leaving for future genrations that is gonna be ruined if GM crops are not contolled properly and radiactive waste isnt disposed of properly.
Youre just like mrs spidey tho, if it dont come into her everyday life she dont consider it..... till i bring it up and she opens her sweet eyes a bit more :D
Outside the box...ok then, breed Giant hamsters, give them plug the London eye into the mains, and let the hamster run round. Job solved, you get a tourist attraction, and a way of making leccy :D
We've even got the nuclear waste to encorage the growth of said mutant hamsters too 8)
Job done.
Viney and squirrel for Energy ministers :shock:
Flamin_Squirrel
30-06-06, 03:25 PM
Outside the box...ok then, breed Giant hamsters, give them plug the London eye into the mains, and let the hamster run round. Job solved, you get a tourist attraction, and a way of making leccy :D
We've even got the nuclear waste to encorage the growth of said mutant hamsters too 8)
Job done.
Viney and squirrel for Energy ministers :shock:
:shock:
Not read this but will say the following.
Im not happy knowing where I grew up and lived for 18 years has a higher rate of Cancer than the national average. All for being 10 miles from Dungeness A & B stations.
As for the Chernobyl, if you knew about Dungeness you would know how close it is in theory to happen and why its good news about them decommissioning the plants. Both A & B stations are built on shingle which shifts. The builders were told about this before they built them in the 50s but ignored the locals. Only to have to build roads to move shingle about to stop the think falling into the sea. :?
At present, Im not sure of a realistic alternative. But what I do know is we need to find a less toxic one in terms of its waste and leakages. :?
Biker Biggles
30-06-06, 04:15 PM
Lyn--You must have grown up near where I did then :!: A few miles downwind of dungeoness.FWIW I have many reservations about generating waste that remains toxic for a thousand years.Think about this.A thousand years ago we were throwing spears at each other at the battle of Hastings,and boats that crossed the Channel were about the limit of safe sea voyages.Things change,and power bases and Empires come and go,so who knows how we can guarantee to look after this toxic waste properly?We do not have the moral right to leave that kind of jeopardy to our descendants.So we need an alternative.Sid Squid can you elaborate?I think you might have the only answer.
Caddy2000
30-06-06, 04:37 PM
Until somebody perfects the mythological cold fusion, what alternative is there.
I work with a new age hippy, he has a house so can't call him traveller, he protested at Greenham Common in the 80's and spent time out at sea with Green Peace. Summat to do with whales he said. He's also an electrician and says that he's more than happy for them to build nuclear power stations :shock:
There's huge amounts of work to build these places the skills and labour needed will be a much needed boost to our manufacturing sector.
The waste is another consideration but supposedly the new reactors are cleaner than the old fast breeders.
Fusion is a fact now! A stable reaction was achieved in a lab. Very safe as well. It's about 20 years off though which is why we need the Nuclear option.
And we need this option because none of us are prepared to tighten our belts at all, spend extra on insulation and increase the energy efficiency of our lives! I mean how many of us are on here using PC's instead of Macs? I'm guilty.
Oh, and we need to place sanctions on the US until they bow to international pressure to cut their emissions!
From a bloke who is a tree hugging hippy conservationist
philipMac
30-06-06, 06:34 PM
Wind and water power.
Hmmmm...Anybody know what the effect on the World's weather might be if we were to remove a significant amount of energy from those systems? It doesn't come for nothing and with no effect, if the wind turns a generator or the waves spin a turbine energy is removed from one system and placed, (minus losses of course), in another. Thus far our tiddling around at this hasn't removed a whole lot of energy, but any large scale use would do so, what'll happen to the weather systems? Not nothing that's for sure, but it may be an insignificant change but does anyone know? I sincerely doubt it, actually I doubt anyone wants to know.
Solar power: Lots of reflective panels the world over - temperature change anyone? We've not even got started yet.
Nuclear energy: Hardly desirable, but as things stand I can't think of a serious alternative - actually I can, but it would make me deeply unpopular.
Yeah. So, earth is a closed system in that respect.
The solar panels, easy, they are taking solar energy out of the system, and converting it to electrical power. So thats not going to do anything.
The wind turbines... again, energy out of the system. I dont think the earth is going to be running out of wind, even if you stand right next to a huge wind farm, its not like the wind is all used up. No matter how many turbines are made, there is going to be no change in the global winds at all I feel.
Wind farms can be anchored off shore too, where its more windy, out of the way, no one sees them. Running the cables a few miles under water is easily done. They can also have artificial reefs hanging off their base, so you will have lots of life there.
Very interesting.
I myself am pro-nuke power/weopons,as it is less harmfull to the planet than carbon producing energy plants.
HOWEVER as has been stated,it can be more harmfull to humans.
There was a bit of a documentary on tele a while ago,with Louis Therou's brother hosting it. He went to AND in Chernobyl,even into the reactor control room where it all started to go wrong. AMAZING.
The actual area around the power station,though has been re-claimed by nature,and so my point to all this is that the planet can cope,it seems,quite happily with radiation polution,WE are the ones that cannot.
Also,Chernobyl is still being 'made safe' they are pumping tons of concrete into the reactor,and building a massive concrete shell around it,to TRY and 'contain' it.
Incidently when Louis Therou's bro went in,he had about 5 little radiation counters given to him,each one given at different levels of radiation as he got closer to the reactor area,they all went off the scale.
And outside,he had a Geiger counter,he turned it on,it just went off the scale immediatly emitting a constant noise! :shock:
With wind turbines/wave generators/solar panels etc,you have to bear in mind A;the energy required to build them,B;what materials they are made from,ie are they themselves polutants???!!
rpwoodman
30-06-06, 07:41 PM
I myself am pro-nuke power/weopons
I've got a great book call "100 suns" which is lots of pics and documentation of nuclear explosions. It's a good read.
Villers
30-06-06, 07:48 PM
AFAIK, despite the fact chernobyl was inherently flawed the actual explosion was down to an incorrectly followed proof test. The personnel were pushed by management to complete a test even though conditions were incorrect - leading them to taking the plant past its specifications.
As far as the 'geiger counters' etc go, you can have different levels of alarms - all of which could have been set to minimum levels before they alarmed, just because there is some reading does not mean that its going to turn your insides to muck.
I personally are totally for nuclear generation. It suffers in the public eye as it is a relatively unknown subject. For the general public its a box of magic, words like 'leak' etc scare the **** out of people. The press propel this, 'Leak at N plant' when really its a steam leak from a non active line are common.
Im of the opinion that its the best chance we have of generating power, until we have some form of clean fission that emits no pollution and has no side effects but remains efficient (like not filling the entire country with wind farms) then its the way forward. We have to be clever about it though, we have the ability to reprocess fuel and we should use it to our advantage.
Biker Biggles
30-06-06, 08:29 PM
However well designed and safe the new power stations may be we are failing to address the basic point that the by product and waste is toxic and remains so well beyond the forseeable future.There is no intellectual or political will to deal with this issue,so it just gets ignored in the usual morass of short term expedience that we have come to know so well.I challenge any one who supports nuclear power to tell us who will be dealing with their legacy in five hundred years. :?:
northwind
30-06-06, 08:42 PM
We have to be clever about it though, we have the ability to reprocess fuel and we should use it to our advantage.
The thing is, reprocessing fuel creates a far higher volume of intermediate level waste... There's a strong case for safe storage of a smaller quantity of high level waste, than reprocessing and having some high level and a much larger and harder to manage quantity of still harmful intermdeiate waste...
NAPA121
30-06-06, 08:48 PM
I know nothing but you guys seem to so:-
1: Cant they harness the imense power underneath out feet? The Heated Magma in the earth that gets pumped out via volcanos? There seems to be a power source there that would keep us going for years if they found a way to harness it? Plants and animals use this source of power under the sea...
2: Why dont they spend more money on space travel? If we could come up with a cheaper/more effeicient way into space we could store waste on the moon....Crazy I know but just putting the idea out there...
3. Nuclear gets my vote as there is no alternative although all the different alternatives (Solar, Wind, Water etc..) used together would be good but probably still not enough.
Anyway..Ignore me as I talk rubbish.
Cheers
Wheelie
There's a lot of heated debate just now in the village I stay in concerning wind energy. AMEC ( a multi-national energy company) were approached by the local laird about setting up a windfarm on heathland a mile behind us. 27 units in all. The majority of villagers are pro-renewables and everyone will gain an annual proportion of profits for development in the community to spend as we see fit.
However a (failed :lol: ) Conservative local government representative just happens to live a few hundred yards from me and has set up an anti-windfarm group (SWAG) to attempt to block any development using any method he can think of. Reason: He moved here a few years ago when he retired from the City and wants to look at unspoiled countryside...blah, blah blah etc.
Some of the objections are hilarious. Risk of epileptic fits from the sun flashing on blades, pregnant women miscarrying (can't remember the supposed reason off-hand), landslides because of sub-sonic shock waves , eagles committing suicide, rare plants crushed by construction machinery, loss of tourism, house prices crashing * and loads more. Mostly unsubstantiated delaying tactics.... it's over 10 years since the proposals were first shown.
They've taken action in local, national and European courts. As usual, they're not against renewables, just NIMBY. Climate studies have shown the area to be close to perfect for wind energy and still they object. We stand to gain nothing personally in terms of wealth tho some villagers will get a small payout as they rent land from the laird.
* Incidentally, my solution to rising house prices in London, build a reactor on the Millennium Dome site and watch 'em fall. 8)
Now you might have noticed, I personally am leaning towards a pro-development stance here. :wink: Hardly surprising, we had our own wind generator running for 18 years. Not big at 40ft and 4kW, enough to heat the house and more for all that time and run basic electrics in power-cuts.
This whole issue has split the village and some seriously questionable methods have been used by both sides to get their respective ways. Is it really worth fighting over, vandalism, losing life-long friends and receiving bitter enemies in their place? No, of course not. But that is the case, sadly.
In the end, if they go ahead it's a low impact solution to some of our energy needs (enough for the whole island) and will be gone at the end of it's 25yr life cycle. All that will remain is a 20ft sq stump of concrete base which can get landscaped again. If locals no longer object the turbines can be replaced. It's not the solution to all our needs, but many small parts are better than putting all our trust in one nuclear plant.
We could build yet another nuclear station, lifecycle of 40yrs, and untouchable for a min. 250yrs, and give our grand-children a big headache (literally and metaphorically). I'm sure they'll thank us. When nuclear enery was first talked about, it was going to be so cheap there was no longer any need for a meter in your house, that happened!
Sorry, that went on a bit.
northwind
30-06-06, 09:35 PM
On the plus side, a 10 year delay will mean the turbines being fitted will be massively more efficient (I'm not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time with windfarms the improving tehnology meant that waiting a year and generating for 4 gave you more output than building one now and generating for 5 years!)
Villers
30-06-06, 09:40 PM
However well designed and safe the new power stations may be we are failing to address the basic point that the by product and waste is toxic and remains so well beyond the forseeable future
The thing is that the by product of a nuclear future is nevertheless more manageable than the byproducts of years gone by. The 'toxic' waste can be buried, contained and controlled. We know where it is, we know the effects of it. What we cant do is reclaim our atmosphere that has been damaged in the past by the burning of fossil fuels.
[quote=Biker Biggles]The 'toxic' waste can be buried, contained and controlled. We know where it is, we know the effects of it. What we cant do is reclaim our atmosphere that has been damaged in the past by the burning of fossil fuels.
True, but the industrial revolution in the UK was at a time when we didn't realise what we were doing to the planet. With nuclear, we know what we're doing but it's an 'acceptable tiny risk' and will be someone else's problem so that's ok then....
With nuclear, power is plentyful and the masses remain happy. They're not put in a difficult position of choosing the most efficient this and that around their home - and crucailly - is it really necessary for me to own all these things?. I'm as guilty as the next man, we're all taking it for granted. One day, it'll bite back.
An 'acceptable tiny risk' as in the chances are tiny, the consequences are not so. :shock:
Talking about waste, I watched a documentary a couple of years ago. Cameras were sent down to some of the waste tanks to see the original cannisters the waste had been stored in had corroded and what was there was a bubbling highly contaminated mixture. It was also followed by showing a process of electrifying the ground to contain the mix in a glass like substance.
This process has been developed and used at Hanford [vitrification if you want to know what the process is called btw] which makes for some extremely sobering reading. Just consider how much waste from the 40s through to the 70s is in such containers or subject to corrosion. :shock: :? :(
http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/faculty_staff/gusterson/op-eds/Health_and_environment_at_Los_Alamos_Lmore_Indept. html
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id=1266
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002117550_hanford13m.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/nukeww2.shtml
northwind
30-06-06, 10:27 PM
They got Suzuki to make the containers...
Villers
01-07-06, 12:24 PM
Vitrification has been a successful format AFAIK. We also have the usual seal it in concrete method here too.
I like the way someone has mentioned that we demand too much from our suppliers now, and we dont need all the items that are causing this shortage. In a truly sensible world then everyone could come to the same conclusion and we could work together to reduce this. As it stands that will never happen.
Power from cow manure?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_sc/farm_scene_cow_power
philipMac
01-07-06, 02:44 PM
Vitrification has been a successful format AFAIK. We also have the usual seal it in concrete method here too.
AFAIK, ie next to nothing, the concrete option is less desirable.
What would be the problem with getting a machine, similar to an oil rig driller, and going off to somewhere, and drilling a few miles down into the earth, as deep as is possible, and just dropping the vitrofied crap into those holes?
Surely a better option than chucking into the Irish Sea.
Power from cow manure?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_sc/farm_scene_cow_power
Sure thats not BS?
Sorry Ill get my coat... :P :lol: :lol: :lol:
philipMac
01-07-06, 02:46 PM
Power from cow manure?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_sc/farm_scene_cow_power
Sure thats not BS?
It would be a mixture I would imagine.
Vitrification has been a successful format AFAIK. We also have the usual seal it in concrete method here too.
AFAIK, ie next to nothing, the concrete option is less desirable.
What would be the problem with getting a machine, similar to an oil rig driller, and going off to somewhere, and drilling a few miles down into the earth, as deep as is possible, and just dropping the vitrofied crap into those holes?
Surely a better option than chucking into the Irish Sea.
Because vitrification is still a relatively new process. They thought at Hanford that the disposal would be safe. Well 40 years ago that was probably fine by their knowledge and thinking. We now know differently. Who's to say what future problems vitrification will raise while we happily swan around in our version of presuming its a safe disposal?
I still think we need something that creates less toxic waste [ie it will all be fine if humans are around in 10,000 years but thats an awful long time to wait for something to become safe].
Power from cow manure?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_sc/farm_scene_cow_power
Sure thats not BS?
Sorry Ill get my coat... :P :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: I knew this would happen.
Villers
02-07-06, 09:19 AM
AFAIK, ie next to nothing
True Im just an engineer in a nuclear reprocessing building :roll:
AFAIK, ie next to nothing
True Im just an engineer in a nuclear reprocessing building :roll:
Ok, perhaps you can tell me how long vitrification has been used for. I know when I saw that documentary a while back it suggested it was research that was coming through and not a used method.
But going back to my point, 40 years ago nuclear engineers thought their disposal was secure. As we now know from problems that it wasnt.
Im interested in whether anyones considered what possible problems vitrification could cause in the future?
Villers
02-07-06, 04:34 PM
Im an engineer not a physicist!! :lol:
philipMac
02-07-06, 06:12 PM
AFAIK, ie next to nothing
True Im just an engineer in a nuclear reprocessing building :roll:
Alright then. But, I mean, am I right or wrong? As a engineer give me your opinion.
I have heard vitirifcation is the better choice.
Intuitively I would think that it is. You have the grains of sand more or less bonded together with cement, and on the other they are all joined together into a single incasing crystaline structure.
Lyn is sugesting there may be issues with it though...
Lyn is sugesting there may be issues with it though...
No, just suggesting that 50 years ago they thought burying it in tanks was a good idea.
Current thinking is that vitrification is, and yes it does seem a good idea to trap it into a crystalline structure - at least you wont have to deal with an extremely toxic mix of waste thats causing problems at Hanford and Los Alamos.
But, wondering if in 50 years time, vitrification wont have been shown to have potential problems - cracking of the structure for example. I think its probably unlikely but we dont know now whats going to be the case in 50 years time. Thats all Im saying. :wink:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.