[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 😈