Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • Conflicting policy/message on energy use
  • TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Well said science officer.

    I will accept nukes when someone can tell me how to deal safely with the waste. this is basically the position of the scottish government

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    If nuclear is as wonderful as it's made out to be, then the obvious place for nuclear plants is in the centre of major cities, perhaps underground. That would cut down transmission losses, and we could be sure that safety would be treated as important.

    Living in Scotland, I am delighted at the prospect of global warming. It will cut down our fuel bills (environmentally friendly that!) and restore our climate to what it was about 1,200 years ago. 🙂

    Scienceofficer
    Free Member

    They need far too much water for cooling and to dilute the radiation losses to be sited near major conurbations.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    Well if you like Nuclear that's great, and assuming you have no accidents then fine.

    But what do we do after we've run out of uranium?

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    safe disposal of nuclear waste is easy, just bury it inside a granite mountain.

    Even the truly horrible stuff will be safe-ish in a few hundred thousand years, and there are mountains in the uk which haven't moved for about 400 million years, and show no signs of going anywhere soon.

    the hard parts are dismantling the power station, and then convincing people who live within a few hundred km of the containment mountain that it's a good idea.

    In the long run, it's either nuclear fusion (which doesn't work yet), or we go back to an economy based on goats and parsnips.

    the next 50 years will be VERY interesting, whichever way it goes, goat soup anyone?…

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    quote]They need far too much water for cooling and to dilute the radiation losses to be sited near major conurbations. [/quote]

    true we have no major conurbations in this country near rivers or the sea do we 😯

    In the long run, it's either nuclear fusion (which doesn't work yet), or we go back to an economy based on goats and parsnips

    Yes of course no middle ground between those options 🙄
    Clearly we have no other alternatives if only we had tides or say a sun or hydro electirc or etc

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    ahwiles – Member

    safe disposal of nuclear waste is easy, just bury it inside a granite mountain.

    If its so easy why has no one actually found an acceptable method yet?

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    we have found a safe disposal method – bury it inside a granite mountain.

    The problem is convincing the local population that it's a good idea.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Ahwiles – simply not true. It is not safe to do this. many objections. Firstly some waste is so hot that it needs to be cooled, secondly there are geological faults where the waste could seep thru. It simple is not safe enough to do this and no one worldwide has found an acceptable solution.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    don't bring me problems, – bring me solutions!

    ok, bury it inside a COLD mountain, and seal up the cracks with a bit of silicon bath sealant.

    there, the problem of disposal is now solved. once and for all…

    (anyway, did you read all of my first comment? – i don't think Nuclear fission is a long-term solution, i'm with YOU in this discussion, and you're trying to argue with me, are you having a bad day?)

    X.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    Open question – Assuming nuclear waste can't be safely stored….
    What do YOU need electricity for so much that justifies creating nuclear waste?

    woody2000
    Full Member

    Porn 🙂

    Wiredchops
    Free Member

    It's easy! Firstly, why put dangerous toxic waste in our own back yard when we can export danger, catastrophe and poverty to other countries!? We've been great at this for centuries. Build a load of parabolic sun reflection power stations in the oh so sunny middle east and deserts of the world and then fund a huge super grid to cloudy old England. Employ the locals to polish said mirrors for a pittance and work in atrocious conditions with no water/holidays/human rights whilst we get a load of delicious electricity to enable us to continue our luxurious internet based lifestyles.

    In short, yup, we're all doomed.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    You've all made me so energy concious I just switched off the second monitor on my PC
    🙂

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    Seeing as no body picked up on my point earlier I'll make it again. We should be changing our power sources for better reasons than global warming which we, as a planet, have zero chance of getting our act together and preventing (even if we have caused it). Fuel security is going to be much more of a pressing issue in a few years and unless we want to get sucked into even more wars we've got to spend money now on renewables.

    No one (apart from those underwater) will give two hoots for global warming when the lights go out and the tanks start to roll.

    Spongebob
    Free Member

    mrmo and I did stumpyjon!

    MidLifeCyclist
    Free Member

    Doomed

    It's just a question of exactly when.

    Sustainable population of Britain is somewhere between 10 and 20 million. 20 years of oil left (at the outside)and at the present time we use 9 calories of energy (oil) to produce 1 calorie of food.

    When the oil runs out so does the food. Gone are the days of knowing how to use both manpower and horse(as in the 4 legged variety)power to produce food.

    It's going to be pretty grim as it won't happen suddenly. As awareness of our impending plight grows society will breakdown. We're up S**t Creek with no chance of ever getting a paddle.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    I think humans are the last species that needs to worry about being doomed.

Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)

The topic ‘Conflicting policy/message on energy use’ is closed to new replies.