billynomates
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
How on earth is it sustainable? Ok, you might have plenty of fuel, but how many holes in the ground can we chuck the waste into before we decide it is
a bad idea!?
Fair point. I stand corrected.
It's still our most realistic option with todays resources though.
|
|
|
|
|
I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 06:12 PM |
|
|
If we did go nuclear, we could get rid of petrol and have electric cars, no need for gas just use electric heaters etc thus we could bring down co2
levels by quite a lot. The problem is which is better to die of radiation or climate change?
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 09:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scotty g
.... but in the interests of being green, doing my bit for the environment and all that Cheers.
You should have planted a tree instead.
Green (nor does any, for that matter) cheap energy does NOT come in small packages. Can you imagine if the government decided that the greenest
heating was log fired stations, everyone would decide to have their own log fire in the living rooms. Nice smoke from every home in the country as
opposed to one BIG log fire with filters and controlled pollution. A bit like what won't be happening if the current bunch of tossers
introduce bin taxes - nationwide carbon recycling, via quickest route possible. A match.
Nuclear is greenest, till the waste needs getting rid of, coal will be clean.
The green issues are solely there for tax purpose. If it's good, you can have it; if it's bad it's banned, not taxed, that's a
contradiction
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 10:04 PM |
|
|
I did plant a tree, in fact in the last 2 years i have planted 4 trees all in the back garden, 2 apple, 1 plum and horse chestnut.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
the obvious answer for spent nuclear fuel
is to dump it into the sun. All we need is a reliable way to get it there, which im sure can be done. Im not sure on the exact figure but you can get
an awful lot of energy per tonne of waste.
Why on earth cant you just link an alternator to a fan and store the excess in a few old batteries? Combine that with waterwheels in your gutter fall
pipe and jobs a good un! 
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 4/1/08 at 11:10 PM |
|
|
Can you imagine if the government decided that the greenest heating was log fired stations, everyone would decide to have their own log fire
in the living rooms. Nice smoke from every home in the country as opposed to one BIG log fire with filters and controlled pollution. A bit like
what won't be happening if the current bunch of tossers introduce bin taxes - nationwide carbon recycling, via quickest route possible. A
match.
But by burning crops/logs etc (assuming the source is renewable) the plant will have absorbed the same amount of carbon as it will give out when
burned. The use of fossil fuels is a problem because the carbon is "stored".
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 5/1/08 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
Nuclear waste although bad, isnt as awful as frequently portrayed if treated properly.
Last time i checked each station only produces about 10 tonnes of highly reactive waste per year. This waste is then vitrified and sealed in
containers before being stored in geologically stable structures. It doesnt leach into the water table or through the ground structure. Its also all
in one place unlike the particulate and chemical discharges from fossil generation sites.
I read something about Raw reactive uranium despite being in the ground for X million years doesnt move even in areas of failry porous rock.
What is a greater concern is the security threat to the waste and lower grade waste for terrorist activities.
Current "green" solutions are exceptionally poor both in terms of quantity and quality of generation. The best that can be hoped for from
these is they offset the massive grid losses slightly the times that they are operating. They can cause a large amount of remedial work to the grid
with re-cabling and switching due to them being located on the weak exterior of the grid.
To get better overall efficiency power generation needs to be carried out in bulk and this current goverment incentive to have greater micro
generation seems to be at odds to this.
Im firmly in favour of nuclear at the moment becuase its the cleanest viable option available. The world has enough reserves of uranium 237(?) for
conversion to plutonium to supply the worlds current maximum demands for the next 10,000 years.
If you want to be green at home / in the workshop fit more / better insulation to your house and help reduce your energy consumption.
IF you want a less energy demanding radio buy a trevor balis wind up one.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 6/1/08 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't go as far as to say Nuclear waste isn't bad. I've just read Alan Weisman's book (The World without Us) on what
would happen to the planet if the human race mysteriously dissappeared.
The amount of nuclear waste is truly scary - there are 411 nuclear stations on the planet actually producing 13,000 tonnes of high level nuclear
scrap
Uranium 235 has a half life of 704 million years. In the US, there is at least 1/2 million tonnes of depleted U 235 (called U 238). Half life 4.5
BILLION years.
There is a place in the States called the Waste Isolation Plant which opened in 1999 and was designed for low - medium grade nuclear material -
gloves, shoes covers, rags, machining equipment (irradiated during manufacture of nukes) including walls from bomb factories etc etc. The WIP has room
for 6.2 million cu feet of stuff and is 20% full.
Read the book, I'm not an environmentalist, but the state we're getting the planet into is rather shocking.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 6/1/08 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
the rate of technological advance is staggering though. At worst 50 years til we have developed a truly clean and free energy source, maybe another 50
to make it work on an industrial scale. And im sure that in that time we will also be able to either clean up existing waste (at least its all stored
neatly!) or safely get it into the sun.
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 7/1/08 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
I chose my words very carefully in my first sentence. Nuclear is bad its undenaible but to me its our only current option.
Even without nuclear power stations the amount of high and medium radioactive waste is considerable. It comes from everthing from
processing/manufacturing through to food and medical. This waste has less regulation but can prove to be every bit as dangerous.
I think in terms of tonnage these sources far outstrip the power stations.
I think that figure in the book must also contain material from decommisioned stations. 400 power station would be 4000 tonnes (very approximatley) of
spent fuel (something like 97% mass remains after re-processing a pellet).
No matter what its a less than ideal amount of waste.
Im sure there will be some great saviour of power source will come allong soon and save us. Stable fussion would be nice or working plasma toroids.
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 7/1/08 at 08:36 PM |
|
|
yes but can i get them in my workshop?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 7/1/08 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s595641.htm
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
