[Closed] Atomkraft Nein Danke?

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...

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.

[img] [/img]

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.

[img] [/img]

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.

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...

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

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......

[img] ?v=0[/img]

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.

[b]It could be a child's lungs next time[/b]

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

buzz-lightyear - Member

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

Just noticed your thing about having a tankard with a Bat on is this an actual interest or a I wear batman undies interest 😀

I used to be obsessed with them being in my roof at the Trust cost us a fortune till they'd finished nesting but we used to have who can spot the most poo on the outside window ledges competitions from our desks

[img] [/img]

I wouldn't want to live here. And the poor bats!

(Blacklaw wind farm, South Lanarkshire)

hahaha oh dear yeah thats a bit close......

I take it that location was chosen by some anti-wind farm lobby to sabotage further planning applications. At first I thought it must be photoshopped. Madness.

at least it probably works compared to the 'dirty green' wind turbine at Reading which is unlikely to ever achieve any payback........

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.

Which planet are you on? Suggest you lighten up on the drugs fella

tankslapper - Member
Junkyard - Member

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

I am not sure why you have used me quoting someone else tbh i did not say

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'

junkyard - Off course I get the point; but if we truly have no independent view on any aspect of life is that not a dictatorship by another name?

WTF is wrong with this country? Have we had a national stroke or something?!! Not long ago fuel hit 0.80p/litre and people protested now its £1.31p+ and nobody says anything - guess it will be the same for nuclear, working until we're 100 and bleeding our pensions dry.

The people in it are what's wrong with your country if you perceive there's anything wrong that is. You are part of the problem. Apart from posting on here just what are you doing to contribute to change for the better Tankslapper? Some people are reasonably happy with what's happening but are still prepared to do things they feel will lead to positive change.

I'd like to see £5 + per litre because I think it would lead to a better life for my son but I'll live with 1.5e if that's what the market and government dictate. I'm part of the market and I voted for the government.

hmm fuel taxation..... cruel unsophisticated approach at surpressing energy use... inflicting poverty and misery upon many whilst serving the interests of the metropolitain chatering elite...

in other words great if you live in a city.... + full of stupid side effects.... 1st thing to go on most impoverised families budgets is car maintenance.... leading to higher consumption....

Sorry not having a pop at anyone personally.

The company operating the plant has even warned of "re-criticality" - that a nuclear chain reaction could start among fuel rods in the now dry pool.

This is a big problem I am very concerned about.

As for bats... My two posts are unrelated. The tankard remark relates to The Hunters Lodge pub which is my local. All the local cavers have tankards with bats on them.

but if we truly have no independent view on any aspect of life is that not a dictatorship by another name?

Phew, clearly the japanese have got everything under control and its all safe. There was me thinking it might have been a crisis.

Get a grip people. The nuclear industry do not have the safety of nuclear reactors tied down without any liklihood of a massive fail. The evidence is clear and I really can't understand anyone arguing to the contrary.

Get a grip people. The nuclear industry do not have the safety of nuclear reactors tied down without any liklihood of a massive fail.

Do you work in the industry?

The evidence is clear and I really can't understand anyone arguing to the contrary

the evidence is clear? Do show.

the evidence is clear? Do show.

So whats going on in Japan right now after an entirely predictable natural disaster is having saftey tied down? Get Real

[img] [/img]
Let's see what we can find out about that photograph...

This is a duplicate of a Digital Negative taken on a Nikon D2X camera, with a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3EX DG HSM lens, of one of the 42 massive turbines at Blacklaw Wind FarmSouth Lanarkshire, Scotland, which rise to a height of 110 metres to the tip of the blades. [b]The picture was taken from a distance of about 4/5th of a mile from the village centre of Forth[/b] on the B7016 road looking NW.

Oh and it's from an anti-windfarm site called countryguardian.net. So, not photo-shopped, simply done with old-fashioned camera work.

How far away is the moon?
[img] [/img]

Junkyard - Member
but if we truly have no independent view on any aspect of life is that not a dictatorship by another name?

Not sure i get the link between scientists being paid and a dicatorship tbh.
The rest of the post was not really any clearer but I can tell you are cross

The link is in what is an independent and unbiased view? If we continually receive biased opinion rather than a middle ground argument is that not dictatorship?

The biggest joke, if that's what you can call it, is that the people of Japan have had an earthquake and tsunami of unprecedented scale; meanwhile back in Britain its all Ooooooh lets worry about our nuclear industry and ignore a humanitarian crisis! Seriously what are a chances of a earthquake of that magnitude here and by constantly banging on about it the anti-nuclear lobby (of the worst sort) are holding back development to make it safe!

It's either that or we accept the 'sack cloth and ashes' attitudes of the environmental nonces and stop using electricity - period!

There really is some tosh talked about on here! Fummmmmmmmmeeee!

So whats going on in Japan right now after an entirely predictable natural disaster is having saftey tied down?

you seem to be suggesting 40 year old reactor designs are comparable with new build? All the other nuclear plants in Japan are fine - there are over 50 of them just in Japan. There's a very specific sequence of circumstances which has led to the issues at these specific reactors at the moment. If someone wrote a book whereby all these events happened, you really would not believe it.

think you need to get real 😉

And as mentioned above, which appears to have been glossed over by most posters above, no one has yet been seriously affected by the nuclear plant. Over 12,000 people are confirmed dead from the Tsunami, [edit] and nearly half a million homeless [/edit]. Thoughts with the people of Japan at the moment.

[i]It's either that or we accept the 'sack cloth and ashes' attitudes of the environmental nonces and stop using electricity - period![/i]

It's not either or, there are many alternatives including reducing electricty consumption to the point demand can be met with objectively safer renewable sources. It simply requires the political will and more to the point public will. Where there is public will such as in Germany, the proportion of renewables is increasing fast and demand is stagnant (and declining in relation to GDP).

I never said either or; I'm all for alternatives but do you really want windmills from one end of the UK to the other? Nuclear must be part of the solution rather than seen as a problem surely?

Hang on! I've just read your previous post about being happy to see £5/litre!!! I was one of the people who the Government was told to 'go and find work' and now find myself working over 3 hours from home, my wife and kids!!! Seriously what planet are you on?! Do you get home at night?!!!!! Bet you do - bet you could do without a car?!!!

The last time someone was as wrong as you, was when a politician stepped off an aeroplane in 1939 waving a piece of paper in the air saying there will be no war with Germany!

The last time someone was as wrong as you, was when a politician stepped off an aeroplane in 1939 waving a piece of paper in the air saying there will be no war with Germany!

Brilliant, I was going to remind edukator of the many points on which he failed to be edukated on [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/beginners-guide-to-nuclear-power-stations/page/6 ]here[/url], but that's a much better put down 🙂

If we continually receive biased opinion rather than a middle ground argument is that not dictatorship?

No.

Didn't a dam in the Fukushima prefecture burst on the Friday and wipe out 1800 homes? Easy to ignore though if you are anti nuclear and have an axe to grind.

🙄

you seem to be suggesting 40 year old reactor designs are comparable with new build?

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. What I am suggesting is that throughout my life, (bearing in mind I was born before most were built), I've never heard anything other than how totally safe they are, regardless of their age. The simple fact is that that is complete rubbish, as is clearly being demonstrated currently. Don't give me biggest most unprecendented and so forth, which is also rubbish. The highest recorded Tsunmai is 500 metres FFS!!! Therefore the evidence that is available is very clear. Nuclear power is not a safe option, and you can't now introduce age as a caveat to make that undenaible fact feel somehow nicer.

There's a very specific sequence of circumstances which has led to the issues at these specific reactors at the moment. If someone wrote a book whereby all these events happened, you really would not believe it.

That might well be comforting to you, but its also untrue .... (totally unexpected earthquake in major earthquake zone followed by surprise Tsunami in country that gave the us the name Tsunami shocker!!)

tankslapper - Member

It's either that or we accept the 'sack cloth and ashes' attitudes of the environmental nonces and stop using electricity – period!

Posted 1 hour ago #

tankslapper - Member
I never said either or; I'm all for alternatives but do you really want windmills from one end of the UK to the other? Nuclear must be part of the solution rather than seen as a problem surely?

Posted 41 minutes ago #

😆 (sorry, but that really did make me laugh).

Planet France. I was one of those that took Norman's dad's advice and got on my bike and rode off to France when Margaret was Prime Minister. Having ridden over a 1000km to find work commuting a couple of hours a day by bike was a pleasure.

Have a look at the expats thread, broadening your horizons may allow a lifestyle that doesn't include 3h commuting by car. You seem as frustrated with your life in Britain as I was, time for a change, Tankslapper?

That might well be comforting to you, but its also untrue .... (totally unexpected earthquake in major earthquake zone followed by surprise Tsunami in country that gave the us the name Tsunami shocker!!)

er, that bit you can predict to an extent, although the size of both the earthquake and tsunami may well be greater than expected (this is the biggest earthquake Japan has ever seen don't forget). It's the detail of how all the systems, sub systems & back up/emergency systems all failed in a 40+ year old design which is the events I was referring to.

Edukator - Member

Planet France. I was one of those that took Norman's dad's advice and got on my bike and rode off to France when Margaret was Prime Minister. Having ridden over a 1000km to find work commuting a couple of hours a day by bike was a pleasure.

Have a look at the expats thread, broadening your horizons may allow a lifestyle that doesn't include 3h commuting by car. You seem as frustrated with your life in Britain as I was, time for a change, Tankslapper?

Yes, let's all move to France, it worked for you, so it will for everyone.

Lets also all burn wood as our only source of heating. Now where's all that wood going to come from.

Lets all generate our own electricity, be pious about it, but rely on renewable grid-based energy when it's cloudy / not windy. Hmmm, fine for a few, but where's all that renewable energy going to come from when everyone needs it at the same time.

As I keep trying to edukate you, your little wonderful eco-friendly bubble, whilst highly commendable, simply won't work.

(Oh, and for the record, I happen to know TS's circumstances, and a lesser person would probably have just said '**** it' and gone on the dole)

It's either that or we accept the 'sack cloth and ashes' attitudes of the environmental nonces and stop using electricity - period!

Yeah because there's really no way we could possibly be more efficient in our use of energy is there. 🙄

tankslapper - Member

The last time someone was as wrong as you, was when a politician stepped off an aeroplane in 1939 waving a piece of paper in the air saying there will be no war with Germany!

godwins law?

What would a better person do Zokes?

You are more interested in finding problems than solutions aren't you, Zokes. Even when presented with proof energy can be both saved and produced you just work on inventing problems and impossibilities that simply aren't there.

Everyone needing energy at the same time simply isn't a problem if they've all reduced what they need, adopted stategies to spread their demand and invested in a variety of compementary renewable energy sources on the scale of a continent.

godwins law?

I know you frequently bend truths to suit your arguments on here TJ, but I can't see any direct reference between Edukator and Hitler in that sentence, can you? More the opposite actually...

Anyway, I thought you'd flounced?

You are more interested in finding problems than solutions aren't you, Zokes. Even when presented with proof energy can be both saved and produced you just work on inventing problems and impossibilities that simply aren't there.

Everyone needing energy at the same time simply isn't a problem if they've all reduced what they need, adopted stategies to spread their demand and invested in a variety of compementary renewable energy sources on the scale of a continent.

Please do try to read a little. The problems are the real world - something you appear to be far removed from.

Most of your statements seem to be based around your very laudible lifestyle, which is great, good for you. However:

1) burning biomass for heat will not work on even a local level as there isn't enough biomass.

2) You've still not shown us a single documented figure for the energy repayment on your solar pannels.

3) You still haven't explained how any democratically government will persuade or enforce reductions in electricity usage, especially as gas starts to run out for heating, and petrol starts to run out for cars. Both these scenarios, whilst leading to less use, also point towards electricity bing required to fill some of the gap.

4) You forget that in the real world, most people either don't believe we need to save energy and reduce CO2, or simply don't care. These people will vote out any government that infinges too much on their lifestyle.

IIRC it was designed for an 8.2, the biggest they had ever recorded, so yes, they had predicted the eartquake being in an earthquake zone etc, but that like driving on the motorway and failing to account for a lorry hitting you from behind at 130mph+ (1 magnitued is 7x more energy IIRC? kinetic energy ~ speed squared) becasue you thought it was doing 56.

That dam burst killing 1800 yet you propose that as the solution (so far the reactor has killed no one).

In the last 10 years nuclear has killed 7 people, wind farms have killed 44, I've no idea how much more energy nuclear has produced in the meantime!

so if germany are shutting down their power staions now

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899[/url]

where will their electricity come from??

are they just loading up the coal fired ones, they must ahve a fair bit of spare capacity

[url= http://www.batienergy.fr/le-solaire-comment-ca-marche/bilan-energetique ]The first Google result gives 2- 4 years in britany and 35 years life.[/url]

The year to year and half figure for the latest panels (or more pecisely .9 to 1.6 years IIRC) came from a history of solar panel development from the 70s to date.

People don't need persuading they just need convincing. Once convinced they'll do their bit. At present they get too many mixed messages. A clear message that they can save money by saving energy is all most people will need. Some people will no doubt try to sabotage efforts in a cut of their nose to spite their face manner but most people want a happy, healthy, comfortable life..

People don't need persuading they just need convincing. Once convinced they'll do their bit. At present they get too many mixed messages. A clear message that they can save money by saving energy is all most people will need.

I really do like the sound of the bubble you live in, don't get me wrong, but that's not a view of the public of the UK or Australia that I recognise (in terms of your suggested cuts). Sure, they'll do a bit, like doing some recycling or maybe unplugging a phone charger, but 75% cuts??? (Again, you make no suggestion as to how they will source energy for heat or transport)

Seriously, just google for the drop in ratings Gillard took as soon as she mentioned the possibility of a 'Carbon Tax' over here. (And she didn't give it the tax moniker, the media helped her with that one)

Going back to the late 70s and early 80s there was a project in Germany to build a nuclear power station on the Rhine near Freiburg. The locals protested claiming they didn't need it and would commit to alternative energy and energy saving. The result was [url= http://www.solarregion.freiburg.de/solarregion/freiburg_solar_city.php ]Solar City Freiburg[/url].

I've visited the area and my own efforts were inspired by what the locals and my friends in the Neckar region were doing. Whole villages have become energy independant or produce a surplus. I'm convince the whole of Europe can do the same and that we don't need nuclear or fossil fuel electrical power.

I find this "bubble" accusation unfair. I'm the one prepared to attend a conference in Stuttgart, I'm the one that corresponds with and visits people working on alternative energy solutions in other countries. It's not a bubble, it's a lot of open minded people doing their best for a better future.

It's not a bubble, it's a lot of open minded people doing their best for a better future.

That's good providing you're open minded about nuclear as well. How big would the solar & wind farms be to power some of the larger cities in the world, plus all the transport and infrastructure behind them? Most self-sufficiency areas are just micro in comparison I expect.