The nuclear option...

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Villers

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]

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 ) 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.

Now you might have noticed, I personally am leaning towards a pro-development stance here. 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]

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!)

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

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="Villers"]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/facu...re_Indept.html
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?f...&story_id=1266
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...anford13m.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/nukeww2.shtml

[northwind]

They got Suzuki to make the containers...

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/...cene_cow_power