[Closed] George Monbiot on nuclear

I find this hilarious. The second time this has been posted by pro nuclear folks on here who would normally decry Monbiot.

Its baloney basically with the usual glaring ommisions and huge errors.

He even refers to the pie in the sky dreams and wishes of the nuclear industry as being reasonable and plausible. Wishful thinking - no practical solutions and no answers to the questions the pro nuclear folk will not and cannot answer

with the usual glaring ommisions and huge errors.

Well it is a Monbiot article.... 😉

Dr James Lovelock has a lot to say about nuclear in The Revenge of Gaia.

In summary... nuclear good - waste not a problem (he's offered to keep it in his garden to heat his house).

Interesting book, especially if you like to worry about imminent catastrophe.

pro nuclear folks on here who would normally decry Monbiot.

Is that me or someone else? I've read his work for a while - even went to see him talk earlier this year. I tend to find the trad anti-science green movement decry him more than reasonable thinkers.

Thanks for your balanced response. I had hoped for a little more, but you'll remain steadfast despite science you don't like. I'll listen to anyone who can present a reasoned arguement, especially someone like Monbiot who has come to his current position the hard way.

1) fast breeder reactors - no one has built a stable electricity producing fast breeder reactor as far as I am aware. Super phoenix in France was a total failure
2) fast breeders create more waste - On decommissioining and medium and low level when in operation.

I will remain wedded to what is possible and proven. You know - that awkward science stuff - not pie in the sky implausible dreams.

Go on then TJ, what are the errors and omissions?

Molgrips - see my post above yours. Thats the two main ones. The pro nuclear folk do exactly what he accuse anti nuclear folk of doing. Decideing on the outcome then attempting to find evidence to reach that conclusion

We need practical and feasible solutions

We need practical and feasible solutions

Hard to think of any "practical and feasible" solution that doesn't use nuclear at least partly, though.

I'm no expert, but I imagine there are positives and negatives for every solution. Even the most environmentally friendly harnessing of energy from waves has the effect of peeing off the natives.
I suppose that as it's just sealife that's affected and not me, it's OK.

Mogrim - there is no practical and feasable nuclear solution.
1) conventional nuclear creates massive amounts of very dangerous waste to which we have no answer
2) conventional nuclear is very expensive
3) we have no answer to decommissioning
4) new nukes cannot be on line in the timescales required

fast breeders create more waste - On decommissioining and medium and low level when in operation

Let me understand your objection here. An integral fast reactor will take existing nuclear energy waste, process it, make electricity and produce waste of a lower grade than you put in it. So, you take existing nasty waste and process it into less nasty waste and a handy byproduct is quite a bit of electricity.

How is that not a good thing?

Oh lawd, here we go again.

last week GE Hitachi (GEH) told the British government that it could build a fast reactor within five years to use up the waste plutonium at Sellafield, and if it doesn't work, the UK won't have to pay.

Seems quite quick and a reasonable deal?

possible and proven

Brilliant, if the world operated like that we'd still be living in caves and hunting with stone axes.

[b]TJ Argues. [/b]

Not allowed to put that in that tags any more, so I'll just leave it here.

Too tall - its never been done - a fast breeder producing electricity in a stable manner has never been done

A new nuclear plant cannot be built in five years - even ten is very hopeful

Mogrim - there is no practical and feasable nuclear solution.
1) conventional nuclear creates massive amounts of very dangerous waste to which we have no answer
2) conventional nuclear is very expensive
3) we have no answer to decommissioning
4) new nukes cannot be on line in the timescales required

Agree with the expensive bit, not quite so sure about the rest though.

Wahts your answer to the waste then mogrim?

I'm not sure of the exact quote, but it goes something like this

People who say it can't be done, should not stand in the way of others doing it.

So, Teej, what's MORE dangerous? Nuclear power or helmets?

The problem is its betting our future energy on this. The money and effort put into this is money and effort being diverted from things that can and will work.

We cannot afford to waste all this money and effort - we need it to be used for practical and plausible solutions

@TJ

What's your view on using thorium as a nuclear fuel?

From the little I understand, thorium is very plentiful compared with uranium and is inherently much safer in that it would require an unfeasible amount of it before a runaway chain reaction event would occur.

my early* 'green' standpoint was that nuclear is environmentally dangerous, but the science of it is, that there is no other option that even comes close and so its the route i think we should persue.

im happy to hear of a better option.

*happy go lucky teenager who wanted to fight the power, maan.

Dont they deal with the waste by putting it in [s]a hole in the ground[/s] long term deep storage

but i admit the world would be better if we still used stone axes.

TJ, fair point that Monbiot's article perhaps has omissions and doesn't tell the whole story. This technology may be a long way off, but the potential is clearly great, especially if it can use the majority of energy from the fissile material. It sounds to me like it's certainly worth pursuing and worth investing our energies in!

@Sweepy

From what I understand, the nuclear industry has been upfront in admitting that the technology for dealing with waste is evolving and that they're pretty much learning on the job when it comes to decomissioning old stations.

International company offers to build reactor in 5 years at no cost to government if it doesn't work. it would use existing waste as fuel, reducing the problem of the waste. No money and effort of UK PLC wasted.

BUT they didn't consult TJ. Imagine how silly they feel now.

Wahts your answer to the waste then mogrim?

Big hole in the ground, basically.

As usual, an interesting column from George Monbiot

Monbiot is far more reasoned, balanced and pragmatic than most.

We're talking about the same reactionary, knee jerk, douche bag, momatorium on everything, George Monboit aren't we, there isnt another one is there?

I really don't get people's issue with Nuclear power and / or waste e.g. it kills far less people than say Car accidents, yet people are queuing up to buy new cars...

PJM1974

Thorium - maybe one for the future - not a part of the solution now.

I am quite happy for fast breeders and thorium to be considered as experimantal and to be researched further. the potential is there but that is all it is and may well turn out to be a dead end - which I believe it will be

However given the current state of knowledge they are not a practical and plausible solution now. Thus they cannot be a part of the solution to the coming energy crisis.

The risk is that by pursuing the nuclear option we neglect the other options. The nuclear lobby is huge and has distorted government thinking for decades.

Fast breeder / thorium / fusion are all in the future - they are not tech that can be built now. Conventional nukes have massive drawbacks which means they cannot be a part of a global solution.

Putting time . money and effort into nuclear distracts from the other options

yet people are queuing up to buy new cars...

Now you've blown it.....

[b]TJ continues to argue....[/b]

Tootall - and you believe them? ~Where is your healthy scepticism. they are wanting permission to set up their experiments here as they know other contries subject nuclear installations to far greater scrutiny

Why are they not offering to build it elsewhere and how can they build it in 5 years when its experimental and there is not even any planning permission for it. Its completely ridiculous and sould be filed along with "electricity to cheap to meter"

Correct me if I am wrong but he is not talking about typical fast breeder reactors, is he? It's an Integral Fast Reactor, which seems to be different. Only one in operation apparently.

However given the current state of knowledge they are not a practical and plausible solution now

Whilst I don't condone putting all our eggs in some unproven theoretical basket, I do think that new technology is absolutely essential and there's no point disregarding it because it doesn't currently work.

Put some money into making it work, please.

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.

We're talking about the same reactionary, knee jerk, douche bag, momatorium on everything, George Monboit aren't we, there isnt another one is there?

I take that back, he's clearly either drunk or has had a serious accident resulting in some kind of brain trauma (maybe TJ can throw soem light on whether he was wearign a helmet) as that actualy makes sense!

Tootall - and you believe them? ~Where is your healthy scepticism. they are wanting permission to set up their experiments here as they know other contries subject nuclear installations to far greater scrutiny

Why are they not offering to build it elsewhere and how can they build it in 5 years when its experimental and there is not even any planning permission for it. Its completely ridiculous and sould be filed along with "electricity to cheap to meter"

Doesn't the article say it's already been running in Russia for 30 years? Hardly experimantal.

Anti-nuclear campaigners have generated as much mumbo jumbo as creationists, anti-vaccine scaremongers, homeopaths and climate change deniers. In all cases, the scientific process has been thrown into reverse: people have begun with their conclusions, then frantically sought evidence to support them

it seems that in fact George has already had the conversation with TJ

If you think we can continue consuming electricity at the present rate, in this country [b]without[/b] using nuclear power, you're living in cloud cuckoo-land.

I just loved Angela Merkin's recent posturing with the 'Germany will be a nuclear fee country!' announcement. Cue much rejoicing from not-very-bright environmental types, who forgot to read the small print

* We'll continue to use electricity generated in nuclear power stations, of course. We'll simply be out-sourcing the whole messy business outside our borders

Anyway Uncle Jezza - I reckon this is a pesky Scottish plot! You'll scupper our nuclear power stations, then vote for independence, turn the entire of th highlands into a great big, **** off wind-farm, then sell all the power to us South of the border. MUHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

I'm right aren't I?

may well turn out to be a dead end - which I believe it will be

Hm.. you seem to know precisely naff all about the science behind it though.

Not producing electricity. Its never been done to have a fast breeder reactor that is stable and produces any meaningful amount of electricity. I personally don't believe it is feasable. ( as far as I am aware)

Doesn't the article say it's already been running in Russia for 30 years? Hardly experimantal.

You must know the rules by now, if TJ can't see, experience or taste it, it doesn't exist. And if you [s]can't see, experience or taste,[/s] disagree with his omniscience you have no right to an opinion.

FTFY 😈

Binners more or less yes. Be tidaland wave mainly tho

Molgrips - many decades of research and previous attempts to make fast breeder tech work have failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

CFH - how about something positive? any examples of this sort of tech ever working anywhere for example?

Will someone tell me where the fast breeder that is stable and produces electricity on a commercial scale is? Yo all claim its possible - lets see some links to it.

See the title of the article:

"We need to talk about nuclear"

I believe it has to be part of the solution one way or the other. I don't believe renewables can meet our needs even with the vast reduction in consumption we clearly need.

This particular reactor design may never have been done, but that seems to be because Congress shut the experiment down. The Wiki article says that the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is a favoured option:

In 2001, as part of the Generation IV roadmap, the DOE tasked a 242 person team of scientists from DOE, UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, ANL, LLNL, Toshiba, Westinghouse, Duke, EPRI, and other institutions to evaluate 19 of the best reactor designs on 27 different criteria. The IFR ranked #1 in their study which was released April 9, 2002

Again we're down to TJ versus scientists 🙂

any examples of this sort of tech ever working anywhere for example?

Eh? So the fact that it's never been done means we should never try it? Good one.

Not producing electricity. Its never been done to have a fast breeder reactor that is stable and produces any meaningful amount of electricity. I personally don't believe it is feasable. ( as far as I am aware)

This is an IFR, different. Bit like chalk and cheese both being good sources of calcuim.

So where was it built them molgrips - how much electricity has it produced?

TJ versus scientists

Good job the scientists don't give two hoots what TJ has to say.

Be tidal and wave mainly tho

You can't do that! That technology isn't sufficiently developed yet. So therefore, using your own argument, it will NEVER work 😉

Massive building programme for up-to-date Nuclear power stations, please. Quick as possible.

Then we can at least get rid of all those stupid, useless windmills cluttering up the countryside. 🙄

Thanks TJ - what's your basis for believing that thorium reactors will prove to be a dead end? The physics is proven and it's not a complex engineering task as is the case with fusion.

So an experimental tech that has never been built anywhere in the world is the future of electricity supplies in the Uk and can be built in 5 years

Riiiiiiiiiiight

PJM1974

Cost and waste

Binners - tidal and wave is in place and working right now

Not allowed to put that in that tags any more, so I'll just leave it here.

Don't be silly

Binners - tidal and wave is in place and working right now

Ah. Only it says on Wiki about Scottish Wave Power - "Various systems are under development at present aimed at harnessing the enormous potential available for wave power off Scotland's coasts."

And about Scottish tidal - "Unlike wind and wave, tidal power is an inherently predictable source. However the technology is in its infancy and numerous devices are in the prototype stages."

So,its not really is it 😛

Binners - tidal and wave is in place and working right now

Give me one example of a wave powered power station in the UK that actualy works?

not silly, Charlie, just that I got a warning from teh Modz, so I just leave it in threads instead now. To act as a warning to those who don't want to get dragged in to yet another thread like this.

Oh. Damn. I've been dragged in myself..... Oh, teh ironing! 🙂

Binners - yes it is. tidal has been used experimentally for years, the first ( of many planned and ordered) large scale generator went in of the scottish coast this summer. Wave generators have been running off the coast of Portugal for years. I am not sure if they got any installed this year off the scottish coast.

thisisnotaspoon

http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/e-on-at-emec

http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/agucadoura

[img] [/img]

here's what we're going to do - we're going to build a load of new generation 'traditional' reactors.

and we're going to bury the waste that we can't use anywhere else in a great big hole in the ground.

that IS what we're going to do, we've already started. everything will be fine.

So - still awaiting an example of this fast breeder tech ever producing stable commercial quantities of electricity.

treat it as an experiment - fine. Believe that in 5 years a plant can be built that will produce commercial quantities of electricty - be very sceptical indeed

Binners - tidal and wave is in place and working right now

TandemJeremy - Member
I personally don't believe it is feasable. ( as far as I am aware)

Based on what? Your degree in nuclear physics? Your years of experience in the industry? Is it possible that your beliefs are, errrm...wrong?

Torminalis

Lets see some evidence that this can work.

TandemJeremy - Member
thisisnotaspoon

http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/e-on-at-emec

Electricity generation peaked at over 300kW

Great, it can run the kettles in a small village during the corrie ad break. Best hope they don't do the ironing at the same time.

http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/e-on-at-emec

Capacity: 0.75 MW

http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/agucadoura
/p>

Capacity: 20 MW

WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Our energy problems are solved!!!!!! 😀

Glenh - it has never been done and the many attempts have been made to make it work over many decades have always failed.

I am still awaiting for some actual evidence that it can work?

Believe that in 5 years a plant can be built that will produce commercial quantities of electricty - be very sceptical indeed

What knowledge are you basing this on? Apart from general scepticism?

Do you know some detail about this specific design that leads you down this course?

Binners that's capacity, the first ome manages 170kw over a 30minute time period, assuming theres waves.

If only there was a low carbon, reliable, continuous source of electricity we could harness............

Electricity generating plants using proven and known tech take more than 5 years build. An experimental plant the like of which has never been built before can be built in under 5 years?

From TJ's wiki aticle of an experimental reacotr not really working;

the plant spent 63 months of normal operations, mostly at low power; 25 months of outages due to fixing technical problems of the prototype; and 66 months were spent on halt due to political and administrative issues.[2

Sounds like a ST ride? 40% of the time riding (slowly) , 20% faffing, 40% argueing with TJ.

Lets see some evidence that this can work.

If it far more fun to heckle from the sidelines that for two people who know sweet FA about nuclear reactors to start getting all heated and google warriory. There is simply no point.

[img] http://mybfolder.com/index.php?id=1043 [/img]

thisisnotaspoon -how much elcricity has been generated by this IFR tech? nore or less than by wave and tidal.

~Torminalis - so you actually have no evidence then?

I am being slagged off bigstyle here but al I see is hot air and bluster from the pro nukes -not a single realistic answer.

Typical STW argument, everyone's at cross purposes! Monbiot's original claim we'll have these power stations running our hot tubs in five years is misguided. That this technology may someday provide energy for our needs is possible and worth investing in. TJ STOP ARGUING OVER THIS POINT EVERYONE AGREES! Really, arguing for argument's sake!
It sounds like a worthy aim for nuclear research, let's go for it. Fair enough, the nuclear lobby are all naughty bad men, but from what I experience, a lot of the green lobby seem like massive cocks too...