GENUINE QUESTION ALERT
Is that true even if we look at the half life etc of the waste product or just if we look at yearly outputs?
I assume it has some spin is this correct?

Nope, it’s very true. Coal contains lots of impurities at low levels, including (wait for it….) uranium – halflife exactly the same as that in reactors. Also, a very small percentage of carbon in coal is 14C i.e. radioactive C – halflife 6000 years. As a proportion of a lump of coal, the radioactive component is infinitesimally small. However, the amount of coal burnt is unquantifiably huge. Burn shit loads of something with a little bit of radiation in it (what coal-fired power stations do), and you release a quite measurable amount of radiation.

As nuclear power stations don’t emit radiation to the atmosphere in operation, it is indeed correct.

Yes, nuclear power stations obviously contain a lot more radioactivity than coal-fired power stations, but the key thing here is that the generally contain it. The waste management practices for coal fired power stations involve letting it go up the smoke stack, or landfilling the resultant (highly toxic, and mildly radioactive) ash.

So geologists amongst us…

What would be the likely result of dropping it into a tectonic plate subduction zone for it to be consumed in molten magma and a firey hell… ?

Seriously ?

How quickly do you picture subduction happens, and how ‘predictable’ do you think it is? Deep ocean trenches are so deep (up to ~ 10,000m) that we’ve only recently managed to study them.
The UK doesn’t have any – so which helpful nation do we hand it over to?

IIRC, thats a projection that approximately 3000 of the liquidators will die earlier than they otherwise would – mainly from late life cancers, out of a background mortality of 100k cancer deaths from the 500k liquidators, so about a 0.5% increase in cancer mortality,

The actual number of people that have actually died from sources attributable to radiation exposure from chernobyl is around 70 – 50 odd workers/liquidators and about fifteen children with thyroid cancer.
Wonder if that figure was revised downwards to reflect the lower life expectancy and higher death rate resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

PS: This really says all you need to know on the subject of nuclear power

The simple fact is that waste and decommissioning costs have not been reflected truthfully in the costings for energy generated in this way. Mainly because no one actually knew, or now knows what will actually be involved. This is why they are built remotely, and why you cannot get a straight answer from the industry on such subjects.

Personal view is that we, (as a nation) should not commit to things that we (the electorate) don’t have the full story on. That is not to say don’t do it, just don’t do it without being aware of the consequences.

The simple fact is that waste and decommissioning costs have not been reflected truthfully in the costings for energy generated in this way. Mainly because no one actually knew, or now knows what will actually be involved. This is why they are built remotely, and why you cannot get a straight answer from the industry on such subjects.

*cough* coal *cough*

Personal view is that we, (as a nation) should not commit to things that we (the electorate) don’t have the full story on. That is not to say don’t do it, just don’t do it without being aware of the consequences.

*cough* coal *cough*

*cough* Russian gas *cough*

*cough* fracking *cough*

Pmsl berm bandit.

The cost is escalating for a few reasons

1 it was a government place run by pseudo civil servants.
2 a large amount of waste was created years ago with no real plan.
3 see 1 repeatedly.

Current reprocessing waste has known and defined processing routes. Historic waste doesn’t in some cases. This is where the problem is with it. Going forward they have plans. Its the historic stuff that is pushing out and up the cost and schedule.

Read some of the nda outputs rather than a lazy BBC article.

Ps I know a bit about this subject.

*cough* coal *cough*
*cough* Russian gas *cough*
*cough* fracking *cough*

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*
*cough* use less energy *cough*
*cough* have a real debate including the issue of population *cough*

it was a government place run by pseudo civil servants.

……and your point is reader? Personally I couldn’t give a flying fleck if it were run by a green eyed snot gobbling puss ball, what does however bother me is a bill for £67.5 billion, and the fact that its still a seething mess even then.

Going forward they have plans

Well thats reassuring I presume it means that they had none previously, or is it just that the original plans were crap, in which case wheres the value in the statement “they have plans”.
Incidentally while on that subject what is the nda if not another bunch of pseudo civil servants??

The waste management practices for coal fired power stations involve letting it go up the smoke stack, or landfilling the resultant (highly toxic, and mildly radioactive) ash.

As an aside, the Victorians and their contemporaries caught onto this early, which is why the prestigious parts of European towns are usually to the west – the prevailing winds being west-to-east.*

*possible man down the pub urban legend bollocks here

Nope original plans were non existent. Store and sort later.

No matter on your views the past needs sorting. Future nuclear with good planning g is still a viable option.

Don’t judge the future by a poorly informed view of the past.

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*

They do. What’s the cost of damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels?

*cough* use less energy *cough*

Agreed. But unless you mean >75% less, this still requires either nukes or coal/gas. Nukes capture their pollution leaving it somewhere to be treated. Coal / gas send it into the atmosphere. Where it of course causes no harm 🙄

*cough* have a real debate including the issue of population *cough*

Yes, I believe this has gone well for most other countries trying to tackle this. And most of those that spring to mind don’t have a ‘kick your government out after a few years’ button like democracy.

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*

Gosh, that cough sounds awful. I hope you’re not one of the ~1,500,000 people who will die this year from air pollution: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/air_pollution_20110926/en/index.html

Across the world, city air is often thick with exhaust fumes, factory smoke or soot from coal burning power plants.

They do. What’s the cost of damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels?

Err well clearly they don’t, (£67.5 billion and counting for example) and as we have already established no one wants a reactor or a dump next door, which is one of those costs. On top of which, you are making my point for me. I totally concur with you regarding the point re burning fossil fuels. So if say for example the clean up cost was included in the price of a gallon of petrol, or a cubic metre of gas, or a bucket of coal, or a watt of electricity do you reckon we might just be a bit more frugal with out use of it? As opposed to doing precisely what we are doing with the nuclear issue, which is storing the problem for future generations, and blandly carrying on towards the precipice on the presumption that it’ll all work out in the end.

Here’s an interesting story for all the renewables naysayers. 🙂

http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3435-renewables-supplied-75-of-spains-electricity-on-ja

So if say for example the clean up cost was included in the price of a gallon of petrol, or a cubic metre of gas, or a bucket of coal, or a watt of electricity do you reckon we might just be a bit more frugal with out use of it?

Yes.

As opposed to doing precisely what we are doing with the nuclear issue, which is storing the problem for future generations, and blandly carrying on towards the precipice on the presumption that it’ll all work out in the end.

Not “as opposed to” at all. At least we have captured the contamination to treat it. Whereas Konabunny’s post demonstrates very well just how ineffective our controls are on even capturing the pollution from fossil fuels. So whilst far from perfect, nuclear’s light years ahead of fossil fuels in this respect.

Have to disagree with you Zokes.

Truth is nuclear is about where fossil was before they figured out about the scale of the associated problems.

**** outrage

Truth is nuclear is about where fossil was before they figured out about the scale of the associated problems.

Well, not really. It doesn’t cause this:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1979.html

What local jobs creation? Its highly specialist attracting contractors.

Local youth without any skills will do what there?

Its a fact- a wide open sparsley populated area wont have shedloads of jobs available anyway.

Why cant it be processed and stored overseas? Afterall we welcome others radioactive waste here to be ‘processed’.

The best place though really is a sparsley populated area in the UK.. there or remote Scotland.

I wonder if Fukuwotsit is going to be a really, really big mess. If it gets into the sea, it’ll affect everyone.

Sorry mate (zokes), I can’t agree, the industry is doing what every other industry does, and that is learning from its mistakes. Truth is no one really knows what impact releasing things like strontium 90 into seawater in the volumes that are happening currently will actually have over the next 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. (Incidentally, to be fair the problems around Chelyabinsk make this seem a bit like a chipped cup at tea party by comparison, but nver the less its not great is it?)

The reality is that despite constant reassurances to the contrary they are still making, and still learning from their mistakes. Ultimately whats happening at Fukushima is a civilian version of the Bikini Atoll tests , where the wisdom was it would be alright for troops to be unprotected and watch at a distance. Correct interpretation = We don’t know, but guess that it’ll be fine given what we know at the moment. Current knowledge = Doing that’ll devastate your life!! Big mistake if you happen to have been watching

Problem is that the cocks up tend to be on a global scale and with much further reaching consequences. There is strong evidence of DNA damage which is appearing generations along, a vastly increased incidence of cancers and so forth since the arrival of the nuclear age. It took us several hundred years to cock up to that extent with fossil.

The reality is that there is a cost associated with all energy consumption, but plotically we don’t like to have that debate in the open, and no one wants to tell voters things which aren’t sexy, like your kids might die a horrible death so you can have cheap energy. Thats the real deal, and in truth we all know that, just pretend not to.

Solution: Sensible population control and a shift in emphasis from an economic system based on consumption to perhaps one based on generational sustainability.

It took us several hundred years to cock up to that extent with fossil.

Yes, and we still appear to be doing nothing about it

and the problem with this:

Solution: Sensible population control and a shift in emphasis from an economic system based on consumption to perhaps one based on generational sustainability.

is that in a democracy, it doesn’t work.

So we either need an almighty war (ironically, a few nukes would probably be involved), which is probably what would happen if the global economic system as-is collapsed due to prolonged reductions in productivity due to a declining population, or a workable solution.

Yes, and we still appear to be doing nothing about it

What apart from finding an even worse alternative??? 😯

What apart from finding an even worse alternative???

Nuclear has some serious work to do to even approach the levels of death and destruction caused by fossil fuels

Think about it. Aeroplanes have been about for over 100 years now, and batteries some 220, yet Boeing can’t combine the two without them spontaeously combusting. Like I say they all do on the job learning. Problem is a nuclear accident does tend to have much further reaching consequences.

Problem is a nuclear accident does tend to have much further reaching consequences.

Yes, but nowhere near as many as burning fossil fuels.

The ideal, as you say, would be to reduce demand on the planet as a whole. But, there’s only been a few people in history who were particularly effective at that, and history doesn’t judge them too well.

Despite the fact we both know this, you’ve got kids and we’re expecting our first… so even people most acutely aware of this are still doing nothing about it

Nuclear has some serious work to do to even approach the levels of death and destruction caused by fossil fuels

Give it a 100 years, it will be in pole position by then!

the problems around Chelyabinsk make this seem a bit like a chipped cup at tea party

Chernobyl (Ukraine, power plant) or Chelyabinsk-65 (Russia, uclear and chemical weapons)?

Give it a 100 years, it will be in pole position by then!

Sorry BB, but I disagree. And unless you can find a body of evidence anywhere near as string as there is for the implications of climate change, you won’t convince me to change my mind

Despite the fact we both know this, you’ve got kids and we’re expecting our first… so even people most acutely aware of this are still doing nothing about it

Agreed, I fear the choice is either we take it on and address it or nature will. Strangely nature does have equilibrium and always finds it eventually. Take this year for example. Have you noticed a distinct lack of wasps? Bad summer last year apparently did for them. Apparently their prime food sources are glutting this year and new colonies are springing up everywhere. We had to take out two at last weeks Nationals at Hadleigh for example.

I suspect natures way will be more brutal than us doing it ourselves.

Chelyabinsk….. Chernobyl is for pussies by comaparison 😥

How many died?

Who knows….. they reckon that something like 2/3rd of a million people have been irradiated at levels somewhere between Chernobyl and Hiroshima. There is toxic radioactive waste in the lakes and rivers of which much has now either drained into the White Sea (Greenland) or is airborne as dust.

Chelyabinsk….. Chernobyl is for pussies by comaparison

Er…not exactly. Chelyabinsk (or more properly the Kyshtym Disaster) was a level 6 emergency, Chernobyl and Fukushima were both level 7, and the two highest ever recorded.

By comparison, Three Mile Island and the Calder Hall fire were only level 5.

So just to be clear, because of an incident nearly 60 years ago which has less than 10000 attributed deaths in spite of being one of the worst incidents of its kind we should be more worried than we are about the technology that has millions of attributed deaths per year?

The thing that concerns me about Nuclear isn’t that some people may die.

It’s that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

It’s that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

You’ve been to the west coast of cumbria then?

No. What are you telling me about it?

So just to be clear, because of an incident nearly 60 years ago which has less than 10000 attributed deaths in spite of being one of the worst incidents of its kind we should be more worried than we are about the technology that has millions of attributed deaths per year?

Millions of attributed deaths – somewhat over egging the pudding

The thing that concerns me about Nuclear isn’t that some people may die.

It’s that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

THIS

Nuclear is better if it doe snot go wrong and they sort out safe storage issue for the next few hundred thousand years.

The potential of nuclear to mess up is shown by the fact they never build one in say the middle of London.

It is , given AGW, inevitable it needs to be relied on more but the risks , of an error, are potentially catastrophic, for an entire area for several lifetimes.

Its worth noting, due to concrete use, that nukes are not that carbon neutral but are compared to burning fossil fuels

The potential of nuclear to mess up is shown by the fact they never build one in say the middle of London.

To be fair, not since battersea has there been a power station of any sort in London

It’s that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

Yes, climate change will, killing billions either directly through extreme weather and flooding or indirectly through disease and famine. Through over-extraction and damage of aquifers in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable drought in many regions, hundreds of thousands of square kms of agricultural land will become infertile due to rising salinity. Equally large areas will become inundated with seawater, rendering them uninhabitable.

Well, we’d better convince everybody to turn off the lights, then, hadn’t we?

To be fair though, one [significant radiation = uninhabitable] is difinately going to happen [given an appropriately bad leak], wheras the other is, quite frankly a guess.

Myself, I am of this mindset:
[list][*]Reduce the total power used[/*]
[*]Introduce larger quantities of renewable power[/*]
[*]Advanced reactors that are not derived from bomb-making tech need investigating [molten salt/pebble bed][/*]
[*]Invest in new-generation* nuclear on a small-ish scale[/*]
[/list]
I’m starting now by turning this monitor off and going back to work on the other one 🙂

*You know – the ones that reduce their output correctly when required, maybe ones with moderating methods that drop DOWN between the piles, rather than requiring them to be pushed UP by a source of power that may not be available.

Wait, what?

goslowerstripes[/u] – Dismember

Uh-oh! I have created a parallel universe!

See, kids, this is what happens when you mess with nuclear reactors and mother nature. Now if you’ll just excuse me I have a small ??? to feed.

Er…not exactly. Chelyabinsk (or more properly the Kyshtym Disaster) was a level 6 emergency,

Ever been there John? When we used to go there the company supplied us with personal monitoring kit. We had od’ed before the plane had even started its descent. You are talking about an area which has had at least 3 major nuclear disasters, and probably more. Until the early 90’s it was a closed KGB military area no one in – no one out stylee, so the truth is nobody really knows more than that. The most obvious problem is the fact that they’ve been dumping the by product of manufacturing weapons grade material into the lakes and rivers for the best part of 50 years to the extent that no one even knows whats gone in there. The people who “monitor it” have a very short life span because just approaching the area is a lethal dose. They did dam it up, but they couldn’t maintain the dam because it was so bad, and when I was last there it was a given that it was only a matter of time before the dam collapsed and the lakes discharged into the white sea. That has happened now I believe, and on top of that you now have a dust bowl where the lake was and the wind is blowing the contaminated material who knows where.

All of this was military, top secret, unreported, broadly not know about even within the region let alone outside, and still goes without much attention. Trust me, it makes all the other problems added together, multiplied several times, and then exaggerated look like an episode of Fireman Sam.