Jasper
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:02 PM |
|
|
The demise of Nuclear Power.....
Is any body else rather dismayed by the knee jerk reaction of governments worldwide to the anti-nuclear lobby after the events in Japan?
Germany has now agreed to stop building new nuclear power stations, as has Switzerland and Italy.
What I don't understand is what the anti-nuclear supporters, most if not all who are green-eco types, think we are going to do for power over
the next 50 years? It's already very clear that renewables wont be able to add anything like the extra power we are going to need once the old
reactors are shut down - Germany has already announced plans for a whole load of new oil/gas and coal power stations, all adding to CO2 emissions and
global warming.
And yet the safely record of nuclear power is undeniable - look at Fukushima, 20,000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami. How many died from
the problems at the plant? Zero - not one, and nobody injured either. And how about Chernobyl? All the safety team that first went in died in 4 months
(about 20 people I believe). After that? 19,000 cases of thyroid cancer of which only about 12 people died, all the others, mostly children, made a
full recovery. The high expected death rate from the fall-out just never happened.
So now think about all the people that die in the exploration and extraction and use of fossil fuels? It is vastly more. So why do so many supposedly
'green' supporters have such a huge problem with it and would rather see the rise in the use of fossil fuels for power generation?
We are still clearly a long way off from some new, clean and totally safe form of power generation. In the meantime nuclear offers by far and away the
cleanest and safest and relatively cheap alternative and yet our governments are bending to the uninformed greens as they seem to be shouting the
loudest.
The north coast of France has a number of nuclear reactors - but we in the south don't live in fear of them blowing up one day. I just wish the
f*cking green hippies would actually look at the real world rather than thinking if it's nuclear it must be bad. They could actually end up
being the ones to tip us over the edge of no-return when it comes to climate change.
Anyway, rant over - please feel free to vent your views and opinions!!
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
|
|
bbwales
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:14 PM |
|
|
Well said, I am in total agreement with you.
Bob
|
|
|
40inches
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:16 PM |
|
|
No argument with that.
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:18 PM |
|
|
Ironically I believe Germany buys a large proportion of its energy from France....
My Build Thread
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
+1
The Japanses reactor did everything it was supposed to do given a disaster of either a Mega earthquake, or a Mega Tsunami. They just hadn't it
ALL happening at the same time. BUT even then it did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do, SHUT DOWN.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
Another supporter here - nuclear power is great - everyone should have their own personal nuclear generator 
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
The way things are going I think I will start manufacturing tallow candles --- just think pollution those would cause.
|
|
|
big-vee-twin
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately the greens are naively hoping that we will all vastly reduce our use of energy and then the wind turbines etc will suffice.
An extremly simplistic view in my opinion.
But until we do Nuclear is the way forward.
Duratec Engine is fitted, MS2 Extra V3 is assembled and tested, engine running, car now built. IVA passed 26/02/2016
http://www.triangleltd.com
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
We're getting a new one here! (They broke the old one).
Despite low energy lamps etc, we appear to be consuming even more energy.
Blame being put on electronic toys, gadgets left on standby and wireless modems that are left on 24/7.
[Edited on 3/10/11 by Confused but excited.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
As far as I am aware no one has successfully decomisioned a nuclear reactor.
They have removed the fuel, they have taken a lot of radioactive parts out but the pressure vessels remain highly radioactive for years.
The Americans store the reactor compartments of subs in the dessert, ours are bobbing about in a port down south.
No one knows what to do with the waste.
The problem grows and grows and grows.
Our children's children's children are going to inherit one big head ache.
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
Define one big headache.
I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The
current models are.
Nuclear is the best option for now. If you listen to people like mark lynas speak (who helped grow the green brigade massivly) they are starting to
allow logic to rule their heads.
|
|
|
david_hornet27
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
The problem with 'Green Groups' is that they are big organisations in their own right, raising money, marketing themselves and they are
also competing with other 'Green Groups' in the same field.
They can hardly come out and say 'nuclear power is safe' now after raising money from Joe Public to be able to protest against nuclear
power in the past. In other words they have a vested interest in pushing the misconceptions about nuclear power because if they agree it is safe they
then have nothing to protest about therefore putting themselves out of business...
'If everything seems under control you're just not going fast enough' - Mario Andretti
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:00 PM |
|
|
I'm proud of being a greenie, if that's what you want to call me. Nuclear is potentially much worse than any of the other pollutants,
which if you stop using them, stop polluting, unlike nuclear. I am glad I don't live near them, and never want to.
The problem with the new bulbs is that they don't actually light up the room. Unless we go back to living in darker environments, as they did
the olden days, they will continue to be a problem. Computers are actually a big electricity draw, I think, so we are all guilty somewhere down the
line.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:16 PM |
|
|
Death rates by type of power :
code:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
|
|
|
stevegough
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:18 PM |
|
|
Warning! Rambling waffle alert!! (don't say I didn't warn you)!
I work for the only nuclear fuel production plant in the country, - (I've been there since '79) - they have been an excellent employer for
me and thousands of others - the Chernobyl incident hit global public perception of nuclear power pretty hard (very understandably - it caused many
deaths and 'living deaths' you wouldn't wish on anybody - and still is.) The only saving grace with it was the fact that it was in
russia - sort of 'third world' and a combination of old design, a catalogue of stupid decisions and basic fear of disobeying those stupid
decisions which caused the disaster. In contrast, the reactors in Fukishima, whilst an old design, were run by arguably the most technically
advanced civilised nation on earth - and consequently, it has hit public perception across the world much harder than Chernobyl - and is definitely
having a much more serious effect.
The company I work for the business is divided into 3 main activities (or production streams) and one of the three - reclaiming highly useful
radioactive material from legacy wastes - these 'wastes' are likely to to be all completed by 2016.
The second stream is enriched powder and fuel pin production - this has steady orders well through into 2023.
The third stream is conversion of powder into the form in which it can be enriched ( known as 'HEX' ) - our biggest customer for this,
accounting for 90% of it is Cameco - a vast canadian company Cameco .We have a contract to supply them until 2016,
and for the last 18 months we have been in negotiations for an extension of a further 10 years - it was seen as virtually guaranteed. Three weeks ago
they pulled the plug - the contract will now finish in 2016 with no extension.
This is a direct knock - on from Fukishima - with Germany, Italy, the Swiss and some reduction in Japan, the world now has surplus nuclear
fuel (which was to be used in the reactors that have shut down) flooding the market - coupled with a drop in global demand.
The bottom line is that despite the planned new build of reactors at 8 sites in the UK, our site is, at best going to be a third of its size in 5
years, and the likelihood is that the fuel will now probably be made abroad and imported - a true shame. - At worst, it may possibly close.
[Edited on 3/10/11 by stevegough]
Luego Locost C20XE.
Build start: October 6th 2008.
IVA passed Jan 28th 2011.
First drive Feb 10th 2011.
First show: Stoneleigh 1st/2nd May 2011.
'Used up' first engine may 3rd 2011!
Back on the road with 2nd engine may 24th
First PASA mad drive 26/7/11
Sold to Mike in Methyr Tydvil 19/03/14
|
|
|
AdamR
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Define one big headache.
I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The
current models are.
Nuclear is the best option for now. If you listen to people like mark lynas speak (who helped grow the green brigade massivly) they are starting to
allow logic to rule their heads.
+1
It's easy to rehash the potential problems, but much harder to suggest a workable solution to the looming energy crisis. 99% of people seem to
be content to leave their heads well and truly buried in the sand and are ignoring the reality of the situation.
Ultimately we're going to have to come up with a way forward that's very likely to involve some uncomfortable compromises - e.g. accepting
the nuclear waste problem for now and hoping that advances in technology will eventually provide a solution.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
big-vee-twin
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
The low energy light bulb is an environmental disaster in its self when you consider the heavy metals used to make them.
Cant put them in the bin - have to be reprocessed properly.
How many of these things are going to end up in landfill because people cant be bothered to dispose of them correctly.
Duratec Engine is fitted, MS2 Extra V3 is assembled and tested, engine running, car now built. IVA passed 26/02/2016
http://www.triangleltd.com
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
I'm proud of being a greenie, if that's what you want to call me. Nuclear is potentially much worse than any of the other pollutants,
which if you stop using them, stop polluting, unlike nuclear. I am glad I don't live near them, and never want to.
The problem with the new bulbs is that they don't actually light up the room. Unless we go back to living in darker environments, as they did
the olden days, they will continue to be a problem. Computers are actually a big electricity draw, I think, so we are all guilty somewhere down the
line.
Nothing wrong with being green, but the problem is the greens don't get their facts straight, they've always knocked nuclear without
bothering to look at the genuine advantage, as an "infill" until we can get a proper energy strategy together nuclear would have more than
done the job & with correct safety in place is vastly safer than other fuels. "Potentially much worse" - well, possibly if terrorists
take over a nuclear plant or discharge a dirty great bomb that spreads the radiation everywhere, but otherwise, simply NO it's generally much
safer.
Don't know what you're doing with your energy efficient bulbs but I have hardly anything else lighting my house & it's as bright
as ever it was with the old tungsten ones - I would say that their "equivalency" is somewhat optimistic, I use a 15W or 18W where I would
previously use a 60W whereas they will tell you 9-11W is the equivalent of an old 60W. Edited to say I had no idea they were so bad for the
environment, as is suggested above, but then no one would bother reporting that would they?
This is the usual problem of governments being puppets of the media - a bit like the whole "frankenstein foods" saga, which could by now
be feeding the world had it not been for media hyping up any potential threat. The governments have made a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the
(immensely stupid!!! ) electorate & have caved in & stopped nuclear programmes which could have saved lives & improved lives the
world over.
This is the exact same reason we all have catalytic converters on our cars which do very little for the environment (convert CO into CO2 - hang on I
thought we were trying to get rid of CO2???) & waste massive amounts of fuel, to say nothing of precious metals which we will run out of way b4 we
run out of oil.
Did you also know there is not enough lithium (yet found) in the world to make lithium based batteries for the current no.of cars on the road - will
this stop governments legislating against petrol & diesel cars & for electric & hybrid - NO
"We are all guilty" - yes agreed, but personally I don't want to go back to the stone age just because people are too stupid or too
idle to move things in a sensible direction - something like 1/5 of Americans believe in creationism if you can believe the polls & a similar no.
of their politicians do too - these people couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag! yet they inflict their will upon the rest of the
world
[Edited on 3/10/11 by russbost]
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
dinosaurjuice
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
nuclear power (fission) is not sustainable. fact. its purealy a convenient 'make do' until more renewable options become viable.
nuclear medicine and power through fusion on the other hand, are briliant 
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 05:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dinosaurjuice
nuclear power (fission) is not sustainable. fact. its purealy a convenient 'make do' until more renewable options become viable.
nuclear medicine and power through fusion on the other hand, are briliant
+1
I agree on both counts. We should have been sorting other viable energy sources years ago but we didn't and nuclear power is neither clean or
safe! You lot might not care but I do and I really care about what is going to be left for out children to deal with!
http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x319/zephyr2000/General%20forum%20uploads/?action=view¤t=3DEngine.mp4
|
|
|
Toprivetguns
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 05:36 PM |
|
|
How about Thorium Reactors ?
Only drive as fast as your angel can fly... !
|
|
|
MautoK
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
Tidal flow generation. When the moon stops going around us there will be bigger things to worry about - and not for a week or two.
What's all this carp about 'renewable' energy? Energy exists once and ends up as heat. It's not like a
'cut-and-come-again' plant; more energy is MORE energy, more heat.
The energy extracted from the wind, which is horrendously unpredictable as we know, has come from the sun's rays over the past few days, causing
the air to stir around due to differential thermal effects coupled with Coriolis.
Coal, gas and oil are squashed dead plants and animals that captured energy from the sun some millions of years ago and now release it for our benefit
- and ends up as heat.
It's a question of timescale...
Oh yes, nuclear energy please! We have learned a lot over the past 50 years.
Thumb to kink of it, solar focussing is probably one of the better 'other' options, although location-dependent - better near the equator.
The energy is captured before it hits the ground, water-to-steam-to-electricity; use the electricity ---> heat.
John.
He's whittling on a piece of wood. I got a feeling that when he stops whittling, something's gonna happen. (OUATITW/Cheyenne)
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
Define one big headache.
I think one small headache might be better description. Also the reactors you are referring to were not designed with decommissioning in mind. The
current models are.
Very true. The one they broke here, will only take a hundred years to de-commission, at a projected cost of £(?)Billions.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 3/10/11 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
The answer is to charge more for electricity, like it's worked with alcohol, cigarettes and oil
I've been working as security for a building site (that's going to be council housing) and am somewhat appaled that the council
hasn't demanded any kind of solar roofing, or energy creation on the site. They've added water butts for the garden and fitted energy
saving bulbs but that's been it. There should be some amount of forcing in this (like x% of roofspace has to have solar heating/electric panels,
or the walls have to retain y% of heat)
For example if I was in power I'd be pushing for no vehicles made after 2020 to run (predominantly) on fossil fuels.. Car makers will change or
vanish from the country
|
|
|
