MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I didn't say that, suggest it or imply it.
Sorry. I'd have checked back, but this thread is getting that long it's kind of hard to find the useful information amongst the [s]TJ arguing round in circles[/s] noise.
On that thought, I'm sure you've mentioned it, but can't remember, can you remind me what you do for power at night - do you have battery storage or use [s]nuclear[/s] grid power?
perhaps a longer ski holiday.
Skinning up I presume? 😉
Usually cross-country skiing but yes we skin up too. The really awful thing is that we sometimes drive up the hill and worse still, sometimes drive to other hills.
Like any other intermittent producer I'm reliant on EDF to pump water up the hill for me when I produce a surplus so I can turn the kettle on at night.
global warming is a global problem
Which, astoundingly, means [i]everyone[/i] could do to do something about it.
As I stated above, your myopic view is that the risk of localised pollution from nuclear plants outweighs the cost of emissions that affect the planet from fossil-based generation. You can think that all you like, but it doesn't make it correct.
We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it. Everyone is agreed on this. You simply discount the damage caused by fossil-based generation because it doesn't cause the media frenzy Fukushima has. It should do, it's a damned sight more serious than a 30 km exclusion zone. The whole of Bangladesh will become an exclusion zone if predicted sea level rises are correct...
Zokes - I do not discount damage caused by fossil fuels. you discount the damage caused by uranium cycle nuclear. The pollution is a global issue, the pollution can last for millennia.
Thre is more to pollution that globalwarming.
The pollution is a global issue, the pollution can last for millennia.
What ecologically significant damage is there as a result of radiation leaks that is remotely of the same magnitude as climate change? The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is one of the most ecologically valuable sites on earth - precisely because we're not there to **** it up. And that's quite obviously at the very extreme end of the spectrum.
[sighs]
The vast majority of the pollution from fission products is present in such low concentrations that it has precisely no effect on the ecology of the planet. Just because we can measure 1 ppt Tc in seaweed does not mean that the 1 ppt is remotely harmful to anything. What is more, whilst I agree it appears that the jury is out on the effects of VLL radiation, surely you must be able to comprehend that there are many more industrial processes producing such VLL emissions than uranium fission. I'm sure you recall the 'toxic sludge' in Hungary? Well, I hope you don't use anything made from aluminium, because that toxic, 'mildly radioactive' sludge is a by-product of its manufacture. It has also been repeatedly stated on this thread that the production of PV panels also leaves large volumes of toxic VLL radioactive waste relative to the size of the eventual product.
The most obvious is coal-fired power, but then whilst you don't like the idea of a nuclear plant producing some that mostly stays in the liquid or solid phase, you seem to have no issue with tonnes of the stuff being belched out as vapour.
That's just radiation though, which by its very nature, decays. What of the chemical pollution - highly toxic and carcinogenic bottom- and fly- ash? That doesn't decay anywhere. By using your same arguments about nuclear waste, we don't know what to do with it. We currently put most of it in landfill sites, which of course never leak anything 🙄
I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it.
On the question of whether coal or nuclear is more ecologically damaging to the ecology of its planet and its human population, you are quite simply wrong if you think for one moment from those two, nuclear is the one you should be concerned about. That's not a point for debate, it's about as clear a fact as you will ever see.
I think it was on a google tech talk I heard that there is enough usable Thorium in coal mining waste globally to provide all the worlds electricity needs for a few hundred years.
Thre is more to pollution that globalwarming.
Indeed - and nuclear power stations produce less of it than lots of other types you seem to be OK with. But hey, we all know your dislike of nuclear power stations isn't actually all that rational.
But hey, we all know your dislike of nuclear power stations isn't actually all that rational.
He says, after putting an inordinate amount of effort for several weeks arguing the point with him.
He says, after putting an inordinate amount of effort for several weeks arguing the point with him.
What's you point, caller?
Well I'm not going to give you any clues...........try to figure it out.
I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it.
Indeed we should - do you finally see sense?
you are quite simply wrong if you think for one moment from those two, nuclear is the one you should be concerned about. That's not a point for debate, it's about as clear a fact as you will ever see.
And this is where you are simply wrong
What is the half life of plutonium and the other waste products? What are you going to do with the waste? You have no answer to this. Its not a fact - it is an opinion and one you can only form if you use a very narrow definition of damaging.
to talk about the emissions from the plant as the only pollution is utterly false - the waste left over is pollution, all the "accidental" discharges are pollution.
Actually your love on nukes is irrational position..
you want to waste money on a power source that is polluting, ( an yes there is plenty of co2 release as well) and that produces waste products that are highly toxic, long lived and that we have no way of storing. Nuclear will to leave a highly toxic and radioactive residue that will last for millennia that we have no way of getting rid of.
You won't answer a string of questions about nuclear because the answers would show the irrationality of your desire to have nukes
I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it...
Agreed.
However there's nigh on seven billion of us and the number is increasing all the time. The prevailing economic model is dependent on population growth which is most of the problem.
Nuclear Power is a lovely idea, but there's fifty years of mineable Uranium left. Thorium is a much better bet, but of course it can't be used to make bombs so no-one is interested.
Our politicians meanwhile are happy to sell us out to energy companies selling wind power which is the least offensive option for the NIMBYs, regardless of the fact that there are cheaper and more efficient renewable options out there.
Thorium is also unproven - sounds good tho and needs the investment and research to prove it.
According to the pro nukes we only need 50 years of uranium as fusion power will be available then 🙄
Oh - and nukes are reserved for countries we think can be trusted with it. I don't know what the countries we don't trust have to use instead ( the pro nukes won't say). One of the hypocrisies and illogical positions of the pro nuke lobby.
You won't answer a string of questions about nuclear because the answers would show the irrationality of your desire to have nukes
No, I've just taken to only reading half your posts because I get bored after 5 minutes of your drivel. If you want to re-state the questions, I will do my best to answer them. However, I suspect you'll find answers to most of them in what I have already written. I base my views on rigorously reviewed scientific literature, whereas you seem to base yours on propaganda from the Greenpeace website.
you want to waste money on a power source that is polluting, ( an yes there is plenty of co2 release as well) and that produces waste products that are highly toxic, long lived and that we have no way of storing. Nuclear will to leave a highly toxic and radioactive residue that will last for millennia that we have no way of getting rid of.
You are correct, it will, as do most energy sources to some extent. But, what you seem to be wilfully ignorant of is the fact that many other energy sources do too. Cd, Pb, Hg, As - all in high concentrations in coal ash, all non-degradable, all currently just buried in a hole in the ground. They are all highly toxic, non-degrading, bio-concentrating pollutants that are also volatilised in the [u]normal operation[/u] of coal-fired generation. Yet, curiously, you [i]still[/i] seem to think that nuclear is the only form of electricity generation we should be worried about in terms of pollution. I know nuclear power is not C-neutral, and have never claimed as such, but it is equally clear in numerous LCAs that it comes up considerably better than any fossil-derived power.
Actually your love on nukes is irrational position..
I have no love for nuclear, I have a desire that we don't make a catastrophic step backwards in energy generation as a result of irrational views of policy-makers. It is a desire backed up by hard, scientific fact, whereas your irrational paranoia of nuclear is a well documented psychological phenomenon linked to the emotive nature of media reporting and the industry's unfortunate military connotations. It's simply a case of 'wood for the trees'.
Nuclear Power is a lovely idea, but there's fifty years of mineable Uranium left.
Actually, it's more like 85 years, but then this is what 'reprocessing' is for... In any case, I would hope that we're not still reliant on U235 in 50-85 years time, and if we are, then something has gone wrong given the recent advances with thorium. I'd like to suggest that the weapons issue is a read herring - vast stock-piles of nuclear weapons are being deactivated, and whilst the idea of none being retained is probably a political pipe-dream, I doubt there's much need to produce any more fissile material for that market in most countries.
Thorium is also unproven - sounds good tho and needs the investment and research to prove it.
Yup, such research is, surprisingly enough, carried out by nuclear scientists. Those people you seem to think shouldn't have any funding. I'll say it again, if you remove the vast majority of R&D money from an industry for 25 years, is it any wonder that the industry is still reliant on old technology?
According to the pro nukes we only need 50 years of uranium as fusion power will be available then
See my above point. What is your issue with fusion? Is it that word 'nuclear' again? Funnily enough, getting a fusion reaction from bench-scale to industrial scale is more than a little tricky, although I believe that there is fairly good evidence at the centre of the solar system that it does work on a large scale 🙄
Oh - and nukes are reserved for countries we think can be trusted with it. I don't know what the countries we don't trust have to use instead ( the pro nukes won't say). One of the hypocrisies and illogical positions of the pro nuke lobby.
Now you really are coming out with moronic statements. If the UN (which probably knows a lot more about the political stability of any region than you or I) is happy for a country to have a civilian nuclear industry, then I have no issue with this. If you are saying noone should have nukes because some countries 'aren't allowed' them, then that's a particularly childish standpoint. Pretty akin to previous comments suggesting Iceland shouldn't be allowed geothermal because we can't, actually.
I really hope that nuclear fusion becomes a reality. It's not "free" energy, but it's a massive step forward that if done properly will ensure that our grandchildren are spared the energy conflicts that we risk facing in the meantime.
Thorium energy could well help us bridge the gap...
I don't get the hysteria over nuclear power. A properly designed nuclear power station is generally safe - provided it isn't built too close to a fault line - so I don't get the anti nuclear hysteria. We learn, we do it better. Is that not how humankind approaches all problems from mathematics, aeronautics and bicycle design?
PJM1974 - MemberI really hope that nuclear fusion becomes a reality
good news! - [url= http://www.iter.org/ ]it's happening now![/url]
no doubt the word 'nuclear' will upset some people...
...I don't get the hysteria over nuclear power...
there is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to.
no doubt people will pick holes in these solutions, which is good, because it'll mean they're well-thought-out solutions.
In reality we're at the point where we'll get back roughly the same energy as we'll put in. According to an acquaintance, the limiting design factor right now isn't physics, it's containment - having to mimic conditions in the sun's atmosphere is no small task.
We managed to find enough money for Apollo in the 1960s, a fraction of that today would help ensure that we can meet our energy needs further down the line.
In reality we're at the point where we'll get back roughly the same energy as we'll put in
that's all [url= http://www.jet.efda.org/ ]JET[/url] was ever built to do - it's a brilliant success.
next step = ITER.
exciting times!
exciting times!
Exciting indeed.
JET has thrown up more headaches than it has solved if you critically read through its own upbeat reports. It's put sustainable fusion further way than it was before JET was built in that it's scaled up the machines that might just contain a sustainable plasma.
[i]I base my views on rigorously reviewed scientific literature, whereas you seem to base yours on propaganda from the Greenpeace website.[/i]
If you have a look at the record of both then Greenpeace does rather well. They haven't had to make a major change to policy following the publication of new research. Much of the power industry, oil industry, nuclear industry and chemical industry reporting on environmental issues has since been discredited though.
I was at loggerheads with the CEGB in the 80s when running Welsh Water's acid rain projects (my name was the first on a paper in the Journal of Environmental Management In 1987 and you might have seen me on the tele). The CEGB wriggled, squirmed, denied, published bad science and finally started fitting sulphur scrubbers on stacks, they're now getting around to [url= http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-06/e-on-brings-100-meter-crane-to-u-k-before-europe-s-clampdown-on-acid-rain.html ]nitrogen-oxide scrubbers[/url]. I'd had enough of weeing into the wind and emmigrated. Greenpeace has a record of being right.
Anyhow, you now have some credentials and know where I'm coming from - one of the organisations that now make up the environment agency. One of the anomalies that I discovered back then was that we were responsible for every aspect of pollution, except nuclear. Worrying eh, the nuclear people don't get policed by anyone else - except Greenpeace.
That's all very well and good, Edukator. But - does Greenpeace have a workable real-world route to less polluting energy? I'm not sure, I'm sure that they must have one, but whether it's workable - well, that's a question they will always have the luxury of never having to answer. Just as C.Legg et al. have found out, postulating whilst in opposition is a damned sight easier than actually having to make policies work in power.
I'm still puzzled as to where you get the idea that the majority of scientific research is biassed though. I've a pretty good publication record for an early-career scientist, and I have never had the slightest bit of weight put on me (or even heard a notion of it) by funding bodies or others to give the 'right' answer. If you assume this is the case for most peer reviewed science, maybe the climate doubters have a point
Zokes -
Actually, it's more like 85 years, but then this is what 'reprocessing' is for...
Creating far more very toxic waste for which we have no answer. Meaning transporting highly dangerous waste all over the world.
In any case, I would hope that we're not still reliant on U235 in 50-85 years time, and if we are, then something has gone wrong given the recent advances with thorium.
Hope 🙄 so you want to rely on hope and unproven tech
Yup, such research is, surprisingly enough, carried out by nuclear scientists. Those people you seem to think shouldn't have any funding. I'll say it again, if you remove the vast majority of R&D money from an industry for 25 years, is it any wonder that the industry is still reliant on old technology?
I have no problem with research and have said so - and nukes have had vast money thrown at them compared to renewables. If we had spent the money we have wasted on nukes on renewables how good would they be now
I am not suggesting no one should have nukes if some countries cannot be trusted with them What I am doing is pointing out a massive hypocrisy and flaw in the pro nuclear position.
there is a huge logical fallacy in your position that states we must have nukes to prevent global warming but other countries cannot have them. Its so important for us to have nukes that you are willing to overlook all the major issues but for other countries you believe that they cannot have them. Either it is so crucial to have nukes that we must overlook the very real dangers and drawbacks if so then every country must have them, or it is not that important to have nukes as some countries must not have them - so there is no imperative for us to have them. nukes
This is one of the points you have refused to answer.
Another one being What to do with the waste?
ahwiles - Memberthere is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to.
Quick - apply for your nobel prize if you have developed a solution - no one has anwhere in the world.
If we had spent the money we have wasted on nukes on renewables how good would they be now?
I don't know.
Do you?
On fusion - its been 50 years away for all of my life. 🙄
It very interesting how other countries who have invested more in renewables are further ahead and how once the political will is there ( in Scotland now) how quickly it can move to be a reality.
Teh UK has an appalling record on investment in reneewables being a tiny fraction of that invested in nuclear.
Higgo - no I don't know but again this shows up another huge flaw in the pro nuke case. The claim is that Massive investment over deacdes in nuclear power generation is not enough money spent, minuscule investment in renewables meaning not very developed plant proves they don't work. A huge logical fallacy. the issues of nukes can only be solved by pouring money into them, there is no point in putting money in renewables because of the issues.
TandemJeremy - MemberOn fusion - its been 50 years away for all of my life
we don't know how long it will take, but we have to try, we are trying, and we're making progress.
this stuff is basically the same as magic, and we're making it happen, hooray for science!
"[i]there is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to[/i]"Quick - apply for your nobel prize if you have developed a solution - no one has anwhere in the world
we've been here before Jeremy, i haven't developed anything. But reprocessing, breeder reactors, and geologic containment* will probably all play a part - even assuming we never build another reactor we've still got to deal with the stuff left behind by our grandparents.
*bury the worst stuff inside a granite mountain - a nice big one that hasn't moved for a few hundred million years.
none of this is ideal, i wish there was a 'make-the-nasty-stuff-go-away' machine that turned radioactive waste into rainbows and butterflies, but there isn't.
there is however, a world full of bigger problems, much, much bigger problems, than the unlikely prospect of a seismically dead granite mountain cracking clean open in the next few thousand years.
anyway, like i said, you've convinced me; nuclear energy is far too dangerous. but that means that coal/gas/oil/hydro are out of bounds too - for being even more dangerous, and we've still got 40GW** to find - it would be around 45GW if electric cars became popular, but cars kill loads of people, so they'll be banned too.
**we need 60GW, and i doubt this number will come down, and i don't see how we'll get more than 20GW from tidal without destroying the severn estuary and the valleys of south wales to provide hydro-storage.
So infact you don't have a solution to the waste. People keep claiming there is a solution as you did but when pressed there isn't one.
solution: reprocessing / breeder reactors / burial.
what's wrong with that?
Reprocessing - creates more waste and involves transporting the waste further. Breeders - create more waste and don't really work as intended anyway - see superphoenix. Burying it - we have to keep it safe for thousands of years, it needs to be made into a chemically stable form, its irrevocable - if it goes wrong and starts to leak into the ecosystem we cannot retreive it to do anything else with it Thousands of years remember - apparantly putting fly ash into a hole in the ground is not safe - but you want to do it with some of the most toxic stuff known to man?
No one world wide has come up with a satisfactory solution.
more or less, yes.
what else would you suggest? - remembering that this stuff is real, we already have more than enough - and it's got to go somewhere.
it seems our grandparents made it because they were scared of the russians, and ... hang on, we're going to make more ... because we're scared of the russians (turning off the gas taps).
we don't have the luxury of simply saying 'sounds nasty - no thanks' - we committed ourselves to this path 50 years ago, we have to do the best job of it that we can.
On fusion - its been 50 years away for all of my life.
When I was about fourteen or so I went on a tour of the Culham Joint European Torus project just near Abingdon, on a hot summer's day, back before anyone had even thought of global warming. Very impressive it was, especially the [b]massive[/b] flywheel energy storage things. In about fifty years time, they said, we'd have power from nuclear fusion on a commercial scale.
A year later and we were fighting a war in the South Atlantic and trying to make sense of Geoffrey Howe's monetarist ideas and learning that the lady's not for turning.
Last I heard about fusion (at least the torus approach) was that the energy of the neutrons coming out of the plasma turns the steel containment vessel into radioactive swiss cheese in a very short period of time.
Granite is highly fractured and permeable, not ideal. High grade metamorphic rocks, clays and tuffs are the [url= http://www.science20.com/tuff_guy/nuclear_waste_geologists_perspective ]rocks under consideration at present.[/url] Low level waste has already been buried - in shallow trenches. :-/
TJ there will not be a trully safe storage soloution [in the sense you mean]as you cannot make it inert or safe. Given its existence you just need to decide if the chosen method/s are acceptable or not. I suspect that no method will meet your criteria of safe [ and I agree with this up to a point] but the opposite is true no method [ well ignoring stupid ones] is inherently unsafe either. Many factors are at play though the timescale involved adds extra risks that make it hard to quantify.
So we don't have safe disposal . Given this is it really sensible to make more of the stuff? If the pro nukes have their way many many times as much of the highly dangerous high level waste than we have now.
So we have no safe way of disposing of what we have - but you want to make loads more?
Again you just keep saying no safe way - which I assume means a method with zero risk. Well this is true for almost anything. Riding a MTB is not zero risk [nor getting out of bed]but that does not mean it is unsafe either.
In the sense you mean nuclear waste is not safe [it is not inert] but nor can you prove a storage method is necessarily unsafe [something will go wrong], you can only show it has associated risks which everyone accepts.
EDIT: for the record i am not pro nuke and my view is closer to yours and edukators. Reduce consumption , fund alternative renewable methods is my preferred option.
Junkyard - there is not even any consensus for the most safe manner - and people want to make more.
I would store it on the surface in the site of the decommissioned reactor. No transport issues, easliy accesable if / when abetttermethod is found.
I agree there is no consenus and it is dangerous stuff [has risks associated with the storage] that requires monitoring whatever we do. i dont know enough to suggest an appropriate method.
My point junkyard is that to make more - much more of the waste is stupid given we have no way of dealing with it even to an acceptable level of risk
TandemJeremy - MemberSo we have no safe way of disposing of what we have - but you want to make loads more?
no, i want tidal lagoons and a national population of around 10million.
i want us to do the best we can of an unavoidable job we didn't ask for (disposal of nuclear waste).
So why make more?
i know but it hinges on what you mean by acceptable/safe etc. We do have methods you dont like them as you think any method is unsafe because we cannot reduce the risk to zero. I dont think safe storage will be solved to an acceptable level [for you]. It is an unknown that you accpet the management and controls or you do not. you dont and I can see why. Others do an I can see why but are they safe in the sense you mean NO. Again this does not mean it is inherently unsafe just that it is risky.
And people think 3W LED bulbs are too expensive. 😥
[only semi serious] I have thought of a way of disposing spent fuel. You recall underground bomb tests? Drill a really deep hole to take a mega big plutonium bomb and detonate it. It will be contained and the energy released will glassify the rocks, encapsulating the nasties. Erect a huge sign saying "Don't dig here". It's a bit radical I know.
Seriously, we do have to get real about dealing with waste.
Given there is a level of risk that cannot be controlled and that there is no consensus as to how to store the stuff why would you want to make more and thus exacerbate the issue?
Given that nukes will not make any significant difference to global warming ( only a small % of the worlds total energy consumption and cannot be expanded significantly due to its inherent dangers - we won't let some countries have them and others don't want them) Why exacerbate a problem for no significant advantage?
TandemJeremy - MemberSo why make more?
because there are 60-odd million of us? we've got a 60GW hole to fill? and some tricky choices to make?
it's a bit like asking a farmer for directions: 'well, if i were you, i wouldn't start from here'
there's a radio4 show in about 25 mins - which will discuss energy production and stuff.
it might make interesting listening...
(the world this weekend - on at 1)
there is a level of risk that cannot be controlled
well what do you mean by risk and controlled?. I realise this is symantics but I could say that about anything. We cannot eradicate risk in any situation you just think the risk is too large.
My point is no matter what the suggestion you will think it is not controlled because something could go wrong which is true for all scenarios of everything.
Yes we need a solution for sure [ and it wont be risk free]but placing TJ on the board deciding wont help us find it 😉
TJ - the constant theme throughout your posts on almost every issue on this site, is your complete and utter hysterical overreaction to anything you disagree with, leading to repeated [i]chicken little [/i]extrapolation.
Just one example:
It is quite possible that thousands will die from this - its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.
Quick, run [b]the sky is falling[/b] - unfortunately, its not only untrue, but provably untrue, and you have continued to make the claim of tens of thousands killed by Chernobyl despite the fact you've been called on it before on this site, and the claim had been refuted comprehensively with WHO reports that prove that the total death toll attributable to Chernobyl was less than a hundred
This is by far the only example of your [i]chicken little[/i] syndrome, we've seen it on almost every single issue, from Boris getting elected (London has not become a pariah of lawlessness and chaos) to the posting of photographs of attractive women - every single time, every single issue, you run around telling us the sky is falling, and are proved to be talking unmitigated codswallop - its pathetic, its lazy, and your complete and utter inability to critically analyse and reflect on your own arguments brings the level of debate on this site down to "Cameron eats meat, babies are made of meat - Cameron will eat babies if we don't stop him NOW"
The problem with your wild, repeated extrapolation of fact into fiction is that you appear to be unable to distinguish between perception and risk, even with your ridiculous standpoint on helmets, you seek to justify your inherent "TJ is right" knee jerk reaction by selective analysis of information and fact to reinforce your belief, rather than letting the evidence guide you to a conclusion!
I suggest you learn about dread and risk - as fundamentally this is what its about, and that you consider, in the cold light of day, whether your fears are built upon fact, or upon a deeper insecurity and lack of control!
[img] 
[/img]
Zulu - as usual I will ignore your rantings but this needs to be challenged. the WHO report states 4000 deaths.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
other reputable analysis gives up to 25 000 deaths, hysterical up to one million. 10 000 deaths ( not tens of thousands) seems a perfectly reasonable number to me. I thought this was fairly generally accepted. Chernobly is still not safe - indeed thte is a significant risk of further releases of highly dangerous mateial.
As for thousands[b] could die[/b] from the japanese incedent - given that we do not yet know the full extent of the releases this seem reasoanble - they may not but they could. Radiaactive polution is still escaping from the plant in significant quantities and entering the food chain
to state less than a hundred died from Chernobyl just shows how detached from reality you are - as usual
*returns to ignore mode*
Can I also point out that earlier in the thread Zulu-11 dismissed a UNSCEAR report that contradicted his view on the health risks of Radon as not being peer reviewed etc. However he appears to be more than happy to cite a non peer reviewed WHO report that supports his viewpoint on the Chernobyl death toll.
j me - it doesn't even support his view
j me - it doesn't even support his view
🙂 Well that's beside the point..... 🙂
No, [u]you're lying again TJ [/u]
The WHO report states that A total of up to 4000 people [b]could eventually die[/b] of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion - in addition it stated that as of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers.
Now, lets look at that phrase again [u]could eventually die[/u] - do you understand the importance of the words [b]could[/b] and [b] eventually[/b]
Neither word supports your specific claim of [i]at least 10 000 lives[/i]
to state less than a hundred [b]died[/b] from Chernobyl just shows how detached from reality you are
Note your use of the word died, and its past tense the WHO report specifically states that less than 50 people [b]have[/b] been killed by radiation exposure from the disaster, not my numbers, not numbers that "seem reasonable to me" proven actual real analysed figures
So, [b] you are lying[/b] and [b] the sky is not falling[/b]
Finally, your claim that [i]thousands could die[/i] Well, its true, that theoretically thousands [i]could[/i] die - but thousands, nay, millions [i]could[/i] die if a meteorite smashed into London tomorrow, the fact that there is a theoretical risk [b]does not mean that it is likely to happen[/b] and nobody loses sleep over the chance of it happening - and is exactly why you need to learn about risk analysis, threat, and dread!
FFS, it's a gorgeous day get out on your bloody bikes.
Oh, and all of you - being incorrect is NOT the same as lying. This really gets my goat on forums 🙁
So we don't have safe disposal
OK, so we don't. Now please compare and contrast the 'unsafe' disposal methods you are so het up about with our current disposal practices for:
1) Gaseous waste from fossil fuel (exc GHGs)
2) Solid waste from fossil fuel
Both those wastes contain radioactivity, but more importantly, they contain chemical toxins that do not decay, not over tens, hundreds, thousands of years, never. Currently, (1) is mostly just left to float off (what we can't see won't hurt us); and (2) is, lo-and-behold, buried in a hole, where it might remain, or after a few decades, might leach out into the environment. Who knows, but it won't be half as rigorously observed as was from the nuclear industry would be.
Then there are those GHGs - more damaging than all on a global scale. What stringent waste capture regulations are in place to deal with those? Well, precisely none.
You should look at Z11's figure up there. This is what I was talking about before - totally irrational fear of something you don't comprehend. NOT a good state of mind to be basing policies on.
I'm not even going to start answering your comments about development of fusion/thorium etc - the same argument holds just as much for renewables, and you'll draw me back into the nukes vs argument that only you appear to be adamant on having.
I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions that show how irrational your wish to have nukes is and than claim I am irrationally scared of nukes.
I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions
Which ones did he refuse to answer?
I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions that show how irrational your wish to have nukes is and than claim I am irrationally scared of nukes.
Which questions, or has your fear reached such proportions you can no longer read?
[b]Waste: [/b]We have sound, if not 'perfect' methods which involve putting it in extremely geologically stable places. As an interim, we keep it where it can be constantly monitored.
Now I'll repeat my question: What do we do with the huge quantities of waste from conventional power production?
I'll ask another: As some of it is actually pretty damned dangerous (again, I'll exclude the bleedingly-obvious GHGs here), why are these treated differently? Not forgetting of course that the main issue you have with waste from the nuclear industry is its radioactivity - a problem shared with coal ash and emissions then.
You then point to [b]'hypocrisy'[/b] that some countries can have nukes and others cannot. Well, as you appear to be playing up to the moronic tag I gave your arguments some pages ago, I'll reiterate my answer for you:
Your question makes no sense, unless you apply it to just about any other energy source. You say such comparisons are silly - I ask you why, again, you fail to answer.
Finally, just about everything you have ever typed on STW about nuclear power (or bike helmets for that matter) is based on your own irrational, subjective views. The fact that they are irrational is borne out by your failure to consider anything anyone has put to you that contradicts your won preconceived argument. If you feel it so strongly that you refuse to even consider the multitude of information raised in this thread, then I'd strongly advise that you give up now. There is no point in discussing anything if you do not wish to learn from it.
Now I'll repeat my question: What do we do with the huge quantities of waste from conventional power production?
We pump it into the atmosphere where it screws up the planet's climate.
There is no point in discussing anything if you do not wish to learn from it
He never wants to learn from these threads. He just wants you to agree with him.
totally irrational fear of something you don't comprehend. NOT a good state of mind to be basing policies on
Bit harsh he disagrees with you that does not mean he does not comprehend. Why do so many people think th eonly reason for disagreeing with them is stupidity...bit arrogant IMHO.
As for deaths from Chernobyl there is clealry a range as to how many deaths it will cause and how many deaths it has caused so far. To focus on the former and ignore the later would be cherry picking the data.
The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. It will be impossible to attribute specific deaths to Chernobyl, and many estimates indicate that the rate of excess deaths will be so small as to be statistically undetectable, even if the ultimate number of extra premature deaths is large
The range of death estimates varies from 9.000 to about 1 million. It is worth noting that the UN report covered a much smaller geographical area than other researchand focused on the worst hit area - rather than all affected areas. It is a less complete study. That said it will be difficult to prove early deaths, deformities, cancers etc are directly caused by Chernobyl or whether they are natural rates
TJ is hardly alone on this forum in being opinionated and not changing his mind - Socialist are we molgrips?- yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people.
your are kidding he puts up loads of evidence on the helmet threads to support his view , not that I agree with it, but I dont think it is paranoid, a sign of stupidty or not supported by reasearch.based on your own irrational, subjective views
Comparing the disposal of plutonium with coal ash is not helpful, Zokes. It's like comparing eating a few apple pips and a eating a spoonful of cyanide.
Comparing the disposal of plutonium with coal ash is not helpful, Zokes. It's like comparing eating a few apple pips and a eating a spoonful of cyanide.
OK, so it may be a bit extreme, when comparing their radioactivities. However, it's not when comparing their chemical toxicities. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, HLW is a very small %age of the total radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. A comparison between the larger amounts of LLW stored at Drigg vs the mountains of coal ash simply landfilled without a second thought is a perfectly good comparison to make. And that's just the stuff that doesn't float out of the chimneys....
Insisting on a perfect solution to one form of waste whilst ignoring that produced by other sources is even less helpful.
yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people.
One suspects that has a lot to do with the way he addresses people, that and the fact he almost always refuses to accept that he may not be correct, whilst ramming his often ill-considered views down others' throats. I'll qualify that by saying he has been exceptionally helpful to many on here with his industrial relations knowledge, however, that's a field he clearly knows a lot more about than developing the most sustainable energy mix going into the future. Pity, he used to learn things from these debates, now he seems to have degenerated into a contrarian with no purpose.
Why do so many people think th eonly reason for disagreeing with them is stupidity...bit arrogant IMHO.
So that would be TJ's 'bullshine' remarks at the start of this thread then would it. Best put your rose-tinted specs down... He brings it on himself - especially with remarks like that, followed by a flounce when someone fires them back at him, then a sadly predictable comeback with 'I just can't resist'. He can't, even when it might be prudent, hence why he gets the flak.
The very low level waste so far disposed of has been shallow land filled in much the same way as coal slag and ash.
I'm convinced we can live without coal or nuclear power stations. If we need one or the other because we are not prepared to shut down energy greedy industries and put another sweater on when it's a flat calm in December then I'll take the coal station.
I'm convinced we can live without coal or nuclear power stations. If we need one or the other because we are not prepared to shut down energy greedy industries and put another sweater on when it's a flat calm in December then I'll take the coal station.
I'm convinced that if the world's population lived as you do, we could probably manage without too. Sadly however, it won't, so we can't.
Please can you explain, taking into consideration all the uncontrolled releases from coal, why you came to that decision? I am quite simply perplexed by it. What is it about radiation that makes clearly intelligent people ignore the effects of the alternatives?
Both coal and nuclear produce undesirable wastes, yet noone seems to care about the massive downsides of coal as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. I suspect that this goes back to Z11's graph back up there...
OK, so it may be a bit extreme, when comparing their radioactivities. However, it's not when comparing their chemical toxicities
so it is a useless comparison then not just a bit extreme.
Insisting on a perfect solution to one form of waste whilst ignoring that produced by other sources is even less helpful
TBH you seem to be doing the opposite looks the others have watse products so why pick on radioactive waste. The two reasons being danger level [risk]and appropriate storage which are clearly issues. No one is saying other waste prosucts are ace just that radioactive ones are more dangerous and harder to store safely - a not very radical position.
I dont see any change in the views of any of the protagonists in this debate [ including you and me]Pity, he used to learn things from these debates
Best put your rose-tinted specs down
Very persuassive put down thanks 😆
They dont they just think they are bigger than the alternatives and avoidable.What is it about radiation that makes clearly intelligent people ignore the effects of the alternatives?
I suspect that this goes back to Z11's graph back up there...
the one that shows that only war and nerve gases are more dangerous than nukes that one? Seems to support the view it is dangerous.
In these debates i suspect you can all see each othere viewpoints
1. reduce use and dont have nukes it is hard to dispose of it inverst in alternative renewable sustainable solutions [ broadly my position].
2. Have nukes, it is safe [ the risks can be controlled], other generation schemes have dangerous waste products or are unreliable and the risk of energy shortage will be worse.
both are reasonable positions [ logical] and both would solve the issue of how to generate enough power.
As you all know the arguments I am not sure what any of you expect as a conclusion.
Radiation exposure is higher near coal plants then nuclear plants.
[img] 
[/img]
We also absorb far more radiation every day from other natural sources then we do from nuclear plants.
Also if you do get a huge dose of radiation, there's a chance you can turn into a superhero, which is just cool.
I do not mind the flack from erudite and informed folk such as Zokes. I am sure that its very frustrating to him to argue with someone with a different viewpoint that does not agree with him anf that challenges his shibboleths
I have actually been listening and learned stuff on this thread. One thing that is clear that anyone who does not agree that new nukes are a good idea is villified as a know nothing luddite. Numpties like Zulu can happily be ignored I have learnt.
Despite what you say above I have seen no credible answer to what to do with the waste - there is not even concensus amongst the pro nuclear lobby.
No one on this thread has provided an answer to why the UK should have them but deny them to other countries. No one is denying any other technology to other countries so that retort is nonsense - indeed a part of my reasoning is that without wasting money on nukes we will be able to spend more money on developing alternative tech which I would be happy to share with the world. I want the UK to be a world leader in renewables tech and to sell this to the world. We need massive investment to do so.
If nuclear is so good safe and efficient that its imperative the the UK has it then the same must apply to Iran and Burma. If Iran and Burma do not need to have it we don't either. By withholding the tech from some countries that ensures that nuclear is not part of any significant reduction in CO2 production worldwide. So you want to burdon the UK with a increased problem with nuclear waste and decommissioning for no significant gain and at a cost of not developing renewables because there will not be the money to develop and install renewables because of the high financial cost of nukes.
Teh pro nuclear lobby continually move the goalposts each time their position is shown to be logically flawed.
so once again - here are the questions that no one has answered in any credible way. Very predictable
1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?
2) Where is the fuel going to come from
3) what to do with the waste?
4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?
5) How are you going to fund both nukes and reneawables?
6) why discount solar ( PV and heat), wind, wave?
7{) why discount energy usage reductions?
One thing that is clear that anyone who does not agree that new nukes are a good idea is villified as a know nothing luddite. Numpties like Zulu can happily be ignored I have learnt.No one on this thread has provided an answer to why the UK should have them but deny them to other countries.
Imagine you are a logical person in a room full of strangers. Everyone has a gun, including you. You have one bullet in your gun, but no one else has any bullets. In front of you is a table full of bullets. Do you take the bullets, or give them to everyone else?
Pretty obviously really.
1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?
Having a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb factory are two very different things, don't get confused between the two.
We also absorb far more radiation every day from other natural sources then we do from nuclear plants
Well only if they work properly and they keep the waste safe. Everyone knows this but we still have exclusion zones when things go wrong and people can get their whole safe yearly dose in a few minutes. It would be a gross simplification to claim they are safe because there is background radiation. There is background cynanide in certain foods but I would not call it safe to ingest. I am not sure why you made the point tbh. It is something would expect from the Sun or clarkson and you are quite bright.
4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?
Nukes are probably the best choice of the non-renewables for bringing online at short notice to iron out fluctuations......doesn't outweigh the disadvantages though IM(ill informed)O.
i can have a stab at 2,3,6 and 7
2) a hole in the ground - there's a lot of uranium ore in north america/canada iirc, + DRoC.
3) a hole in the ground
6) they provide zero when it's not sunny/windy/wavey
7) doesn't hurt to be prepared
as for:
1) iran - they don't seem to care what we think, and why should they?
4) dunno - in a very similar way to how it's done now i suppose...
and
5) dunno - i guess energy prices will rise a lot in the near future - and that will probably help a bit with 7)
Of course, but someone said they'd rather have a coal plant then a nuclear power plant because of the radiation. Seemed a bit silly.
The likely hood of a plant going wrong I feel is quite small. People throw the word "safe" around a lot, but its a bit vague. Yes, when nuclear power plants go wrong, the consequences are quite bad. But the same is true for planes, trains, cars, bikes, buildings, and lots of other things, but we don't worry as much about those.
Awhiles - we only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades - increase usage and decrease the timespan. Thats one of the issues ignored. Fuel for uranium cycle reactors is in short suply
we only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades
Source please, as I've found several that would seem to disagree with this.
Unless by "some" you mean several hundred or thousand.
The likely hood of a plant going wrong I feel is quite small
yes i thik most agree but can you name any that have ?
They dont worry as the scale of a nuclear plant going terriblly wrong is quite massive and we know we make the worlds most powerful weapons from it.
It is not neccasirly ignorance as nuclear is dangerous by its very nature. we are trying to comtrol that reaction and if we fail it gets very messy very quickly. Anything we do we mess up eventually.
[img] 
[/img]
Realman - extractable ? 50 - 100 years is generally accepted - I took Zokes word for 85 years worth
85 years worth here
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium
TandemJeremy - Memberwe only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades
then we're knackered, and in the next couple of decades the world will descend into a grubby squabble over resources.
you aint seen nothing yet.
it'll all be very malthusian.
it may be very right on and groovy to reduce our consumption to the point where we can survive on tidal power, but that will count for nothing when our neighbours realise that we're sitting on loads of coal.
or, burn some coal, burn some gas, install a few wind and tidal turbines, do some atomic stuff, etc. and we'll be fine.
rising prices will force us to use less power, i predict this will happen gradually, we'll hardly notice, it's all going to be ok - it really is.
as for the radio4 thing earlier; basically, it'll be a miracle if we get the next generation of nuclear power stations built in time, so we'll almost certainly be forced* to fill the impending energy short-fall with quick'n'cheap gas stations.
(*there'll be riots if we don't)