[Closed] George Monbiot on nuclear

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...

[img] [/img]

Evidence for what you nutter? I have not read a single word of this, I just know that nukes + TJ = 500 posts of hectoring bullish behaviour in which a million statistics are retrofitted to the requirements of the combatants. I thought I would help by breaking up the text with silly pictures of smileys.

It is worth noting though that it seems to be TJ vs the world on this one and we have some pretty serious physicists amongst us. You and I are not amongst them however.

X

Dear Teh Modz,

Wasn't me what tagged that up there. I assume the culprit has receieved a warning, however.

Yours, etc

CFH

🙂

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

I'm all for it. For maximum efficiency they should be sited as close as possible to where most electricity is used, so preferably right in the heart of major cities. We can start with a new nuclear power station in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff and go on from there.

Wired
chops - I am quite happy for it to be considered a worthwhile experiment as I have said several times.

I personally don't believe it will ever produce worthwhile amounts of electricity and the claims about waste are mendacious,. Decades of research into this has produced very little electricity at enormous cost produced huge amounts of waste

Torminalis - it would be nice if the pro nukes could actually produce something to back up their claims.

But so far I hear nothing from the Anti nukes that is of any consequence. My fridge runs on nuclear power and no one has died? Quelle problem?

TJ, but given the worthiness of the outcome, it's worth pushing more money into it. I don't know the details of the research, the budgets and the programs which have overseen these research projects. If you do and you have close links with the teams working on it then I'll stand aside, but your manner really does provoke endless streams of needless argument on here. I for one am really interested by this technology and would be interested to hear other people's (laypersons) opinions. Your combative approach stifles discussion. Let it go.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Dear Teh Modz,

Wasn't me what tagged that up there. I assume the culprit has receieved a warning, however.

Yours, etc

CFH

What's the score?

Well, as another of the "usual combatants" on such threads, I can't really help myself. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but I would suggest that as an environmental scientist, I do have some background in reasoned scientific questioning and judgement, rather than belief.

[u]So TJ, I'll ask you this:[/u]

If no nuclear, what else is there to fill the gap that's been invented in the past couple of months since we last had this tedious argument? Coal seems a good bet, but what do we do about the waste (oh, that's right, let it go up the chimney and forget about it, which obviously isn't an issue at all 🙄 ). Then there's gas, which not unlike the above, has some serious waste issues of its own, and will also run out soon.

Anything else proven on an industrial scale?

Hydro maybe? Trouble is we've run out of places for dams.

Anything else???

Perhaps we could all use less? Perhaps, but I refer you to the rather apparent public discontent at a few hundred pounds disappearing from some peoples' pensions. Just imagine what would happen if people were told they could only watch TV on wednesdays....

Zokes, I often puzzle over the same thing. As our technology improves and energy efficiency gets better, it just means we can cancel out the energy saving by using said technology more.
Half fat cake?! I'll have twice as much! Modern society isn't geared up for a (seemingly) regressive step with regards to energy use.