Thoughts?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXD6Gtinvbc[/video]

Maybe not in an earthquake / tsunami zone but on stable ground – it’s the only way forward.

*sits back and enjoys his paradoxical video / comment*

I prefer windmills, they’re much more attractive

Cheap, relatively efficient way of producing energy, and ‘cleaner’ than oil or coal, and arguably with less environmental impact than hydro, but if it goes wrong, it propperly goes wrong. 🙁

it’s the only way forward.

At the moment perhaps, because we’ve invested such massive amounts in nuclear and neglected everything else. The problem is, as above, when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. And there’s still no satisfactory solution for dealing with high level waste.

Great minds, Grum… 😉

Edited to make it look like I was just agreeing with you 🙂

Its not for me ta, been living down the road from one all my life and frankly I don’t like it.

Incidentally, while we’re in the general area of nukes, can anyone explain to me the logic of cutting the bollocks off our conventional forces while investing billions into a cold war deterrant?

Incidentally, while we’re in the general area of nukes, can anyone explain to me the logic of cutting the bollocks off our conventional forces while investing billions into a cold war deterrant?

Surely in the event of a cold war the bollocks would shrivel up the extent of being pretty much useless any way.

Any more logic puzzles? These are fun!

My big one is that if its such a great technology why do they never build one on the Thames? It’s always in strange out-of-the-ways-places with people with six fingers such as Ipswich? 😆

My big one is that if its such a great technology why do they never build one on the Thames?

Oooh I know!! Is it because you cannot build something on top of water? No wait, is it because no-one owns the Thames, except for that meter square bit which was sold a few years back? Is it because you cannot build one in a meter square? because it would have to be really tall and it would fall over?

Did I get it??

Could it be that they tend not to build them in the middle of large cities? Do I win a prize?

End of life Japenese powerplants survive massive earthquake, giant tsunami and loss of electricity grid with no casualties. 10,000+ killed by earthquake and tsunami.

atomkraft ja danke

No Charlie, you’ve missed the point entirely mate – its called democracy. It’s more ‘democratic’ in this country to stick such things away from large populations and thus be more popular…….

Isn’t there a big empty power station ripe for development at Battersea…….

At the moment perhaps, because we’ve invested such massive amounts in nuclear and neglected everything else. The problem is, as above, when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. And there’s still no satisfactory solution for dealing with high level waste.

Firstly – what alternatives? Renewables dont really need much development they’ll cost a fortune whichever one you pick. And fussion arguably is a reason to build more reactors to experiment with.

Secondly – The longer we argue over where to put it the more sense storing it on the surface in well documented, securely guarded enclosures seems to make. It’s pretty much policy in the USA to delay the decision, it annoys nimby people less making no decision.

No Charlie, you’ve missed the point entirely mate – its called democracy. It’s more ‘democratic’ in this country to stick such things away from large populations and thus be more popular…….

Isn’t there a big empty power station ripe for development at Battersea…
Poop! I wan’t even close. Democracy’s rubbish then innit.

I guess they must have built that power station at Battersea when Battersea was in the countryside. Why don’t they build all cities in the countryside where there is a lot more fresh air?

Battersea pre-dates the national grid when towns needed their own local power station nearby, hence its location in central london.

A local power station for local people! That’s what we need.

The newer plants closest to the epicentre at Onagawa shutdown just fine. But that will be overlooked by the nuclear-haters.

There’s a no doubt in my mind that reliance on active safety systems, however much redundancy you have, is the problem. I think designs have to have passive safety, enough to cut the plant supplies and walk away without worrying.

Renewables dont really need much development they’ll cost a fortune whichever one you pick

How so and compared to what? As I understand it the Japanese have just had to evacuate 328,000 people from their homes, lets say the cost of that currently is an average of £100pw (a tad on the conservative side I’m sure you will agree), but thats a lot of dosh racking up whatever way you look at it, like £32,800,000 per week and thats before you get anywhere near the intial investment, or state support given to these things. How much would you price Chernobyl at? So talk to me about the cost of these here renewables. when you do forget the looks nasty argument. I live near Sizewell and that is pig ugly…… in fact ot was pig ugly before the reactor got there thinking about it, its f***ing pig ugly now!

Firstly – what alternatives? Renewables dont really need much development they’ll cost a fortune whichever one you pick.

Hmm the real cost of long term storage/disposal of nuclear waste is never factored in – seeing as no-one knows what to do with it, but I’m willing to bet it’s very very very expensive.

Also who knows how efficient/effective renewables would be by now if they had had the same investment/subsidy as nuclear power over the last 50-60 years.

Quite fetching I think.

😉

nucleur power is far from cheap to develop and is not sustainable so moaning about the cost applies to both.

The newer plants closest to the epicentre at Onagawa shutdown just fine. But that will be overlooked by the nuclear-haters.

Excellent some of them worked properly that absolutely proves that they are absolutely 100% safe if you just overlook the ones that are on fire and blowing up.

I love nucleur power the sun is absolutely fantastic and stars are really pretty. That is as close as I would like them to be to me because of what happens if they do go a bit wrong.

Nuclear power plants should be underground. May I suggest the first location – under the Houses of Parliament.

Could guarantee its safety budget wouldn’t be skimped…

[/quote]Junkyard – Member

The newer plants closest to the epicentre at Onagawa shutdown just fine. But that will be overlooked by the nuclear-haters.

There was a independant nuclear consultant on R4 this a.m. who does work for Greenpeace – HTF can you be ‘independant’ AND ‘do work for Greenpeace’

Nuclear is the only way forward!!

Berm Bandit, how many people get relocated every time we build a hydro dam?

And I don’t like the term investemnt when applied to renewable energy, investment implies its likely to return a profit. If there was some magic bullet that was going to make wind farms more efficient, or hydro electric defy the laws of thermodynamics we’d have found it by now, they’re not complicated technologies.

Junkyard, the argument that we shouldnt build new ones because 60’s ones have had problems after a magnitude 8 earthquake, is like saying 60’s cars didnt have crumple zones, so we should ban all new car production. The new UK stations would neither be built in the 60’s or in an earthquake zone.

the argument that we shouldnt build new ones because 60’s ones have had problems after a magnitude 8 earthquake, is like saying 60’s cars didnt have crumple zones, so we should ban all new car production

No, it’s like saying those who built nuke power stations in the 1960s couldn’t adequately foresee and mitigate all of the potential problems even if they believed in good faith that what they were building was perfectly safe, so we ought to be careful not to take the assurances of those who build them now uncritically.

As safe as possible with current technology isn’t necessarily the same thing as as safe as needed.

The failure of the Japanese plant is a cooling issue, the plant shut down and the cooling systems should have kicked in – they did not and that is the issue. No idea how often they were tested but it appears that if they were is was not often enough or thorough enough. None of the plants suffered actual damage from the quake/tsunami.

I can see this from my house (I personally didn’t take this photo though) I love natural power, you could power a small country from the wind of my elderly volunteers most days……

Reminds me of War of the Worlds when I sit and watch them 😛

…..The wind turbines not my volunteers….

That’s a brilliant photo. Looks to have been shot from Holcombe Hill.

Having just had lunch with a pair of sausage-eaters I can say that the lack of understanding of science with Germans is downright puzzling.

One told me that he’s probably going to have to give up eating fish because of the radiation. 😯

Depends how much radiation gets dumped into the pacific?

Then again the French were there first so should be business as usual.

Wind turbines lose blades (with alarming regularity, and they can fly a longggggggg way), dams burst (there was that one over rotheram a few years back when it rained a bit), we dont live on a thin enough crust to make geothermal energy viable, and I’ve not seent he sun in almost a week but still need my PC to work.

So which risk freee renewable power source do your recomend?

Wind turbines lose blades (with alarming regularity, and they can fly a longggggggg way)

Only when UFOs crash into them.

And I don’t like the term investemnt when applied to renewable energy, investment implies its likely to return a profit. If there was some magic bullet that was going to make wind farms more efficient, or hydro electric defy the laws of thermodynamics we’d have found it by now, they’re not complicated technologies.

Before nuclear power came along people probably dismissed it as a wild fantasy.

derek_starship – Member

That’s a brilliant photo. Looks to have been shot from Holcombe Hill.

Isn’t it fab, yes I’m sure it is as I’ve something similar on my phone that was a bit rubbish and not worth posting on here

Wind turbines cause bats’ lungs to explode. It’s true!

We could probably get a couple of gigawatts out of a river Severn tidal barrage, but it would destroy a world renowned area of wildlife and probably endanger many bird species from extinction and flood or put at risk low-lying areas of Somerset for thousands of residents.

Wind turbines cause bats’ lungs to explode. It’s true!

And those of baby robins.

It could be a child’s lungs next time

I used to work as a Project Manager for the Wildlife Trust and its a mixed reception dependent on were they are I guess.

‘Climate change’ *waits for debate on if this is a real issue or not* is likely to have a significant impact on wildlife so measures to reduce it are good.

So…………. therefore we generally supported the principle of increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources in combination with measures to reduce energy demand overall if that makes sense .

There are smaller differently shaped turbines that are safer round ‘bird’ areas but you’re right about the bats DEFRA have done alot of work on migrating bat populations, again depends on where they are put