[Closed] George Monbiot on nuclear

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

Well according to your wiki article 2 billion french fracs worth by that one plant which never got upto full power. Probably not a profit, but still a considerable ammount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

This one's been running at 560MW (compared to your wave generators 0.17MW) since 1980.

TandemJeremy - Member
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

Believe away, you may as well declare the world flat while your at it.

Its the same answers as before.

Look at the whole of the UKs carbon production and go for a radical energy conservation measures. CO2 output could be reduced dramatically.

Clean conventional and Reneawables to ocover the reduced demand.

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

so whats wrong with a modern fast breed reactor, built in a GE-H factory, and producing no wepons useable waste?

Look at the whole of the UKs carbon production and go for a radical energy conservation measures. CO2 output could be reduced dramatically.

"radical measures" - example?

oh, and no-one cares about CO2 anymore, didn't you get the memo?

Conventional nuclear can never be a significant part of teh solution - there is not enough fuel and no one will share the tech with large parts of theworld

"not enough fuel" - for what time scale? - long enough get the hang of breeder reators? (and then use the 'conventional' waste to get us through another couple of hundred/thousand years)

Clean conventional and Reneawables to ocover the reduced demand.

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

But what if half those people keep leaving the back door open, and their TV's on stand-by. You know what they're like?

Spend the cost of one nuclear power station on insulation you reduce energy consumption by as much as that generator produces.

Great, except nuclar plants produce elctricity, not gas which is what most people heat their homes with. And what about the rest of the energy, we'll be a lot more than 1 station short over the coming years.

Its the same answers as before.

No TJ, you didn't read. (Not unusual mind you). I think you'll find that my post was a question.

Care to answer it with a truly viable alternative? One that would be workable in a democracy where governments making unpopular decisions tend to get voted out after a while...

We need to insulate, reduce usage, become more efficent AND run some nukes, I reckon.

I struggle to see your reasoning re new nuclear tech. You are saying that because some experiments got cancelled and a full scale reactor hasn't been built, that means the entire concept is a write-off and should be discounted from the solution?

We need to work on bringing these new nuclear ideas online. That clearly doesn't mean ignoring reduction and renewables.

I don't know why you are so dismissive.

tinas

LOOK AT THE TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF THE COUNTRY AND REDUCE THAT! It matters not where it comes from - what matters is that we reduce the total amount.

energy conservation is about a lot more than reducing gas used in domestic heating

TJ,
Completely agree, we have to reduce our energy demands. Needless energy usage does my head in. It's a long road though, but it's absolutely essential. That doesn't necessarily rule out nuclear though does it. Especially one as tantalisingly awesome sounding as fast breed. At least the leaflet popped through my letterbox from AWE says it's ace.

Look, like TJ I dont really know a whole lot about this stuff, but arent we signed up to reduce our carbon emmissions by some huge number? Like 80% by 2050?

Zokes - I answered it. Its perfectly viable to reduce CO2 output without causing energy shortage. Its low tech and does not produce vast profits for the energy companies which is why its ignored. consuming less does not go down well in capitalist sytem

Molgrips - you cannot base the nations future energy supplies around an experiential and unproven tech. Treat it as an interesting experiment.

Unfortunately we do have a finite amount of money to spend - wasting it on nukes means less for other areas. Renewable research has far less money spent on it than nuclear - a tiny %.

wiredchops - it means the nuclear is not needed.

and instead rely on coal and gas?

(the only proven technology capable of meeting our demands - other than nuclear - of any kind)

LOOK AT THE TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF THE COUNTRY AND REDUCE THAT! It matters not where it comes from - what matters is that we reduce the total amount.

energy conservation is about a lot more than reducing gas used in domestic heating

No need to shout.

If I turned off the heating to my house that'd be about half my annual energy usage, so lets say insulating it beyond all practial limits halved that. You're not going to convince people never to turn on the TV, lights, and to cook only microwave meals for 1 as they're more energy efficient than cooking at home are you?

If you could produce all the countrys energy needs and more, with no drawbacks other than the costs, what's the problem? Why build 3300 of your sea snake wave generators which only work some of the time, when 1 "experimental" and ignored by you 30 year old Russian reactor can do the job? Or even better, one with 30 years more tech and producing even less waste?

Zokes - I answered it.

Really?

consuming less does not go downwell in acpitalist sytem

Ah. That's your problem then.

We can all reduce our consumption, not many will. Couple this to an increasing global population, a move to electricity to replace oil for transport and gas for space and water heating and what happens? That's right, we need more electrical energy.

The only possible tool that would make this not the case would be increasing the price of energy to the point of making it bite in the biggest users' pockets. That's not going to be popular, seeing as you'll have plunged a heck of a lot of people into energy poverty first. Don't forget, just about everything you eat or use required energy to make or get it to you, so it will all be much more expensive.

Targeted subsidies may solve energy costs for the poor in such a scenario, but I'm not sure how they'd make just about everything else which relies on energy (i.e. pretty much everything) affordable.

There are plenty of other measures as well to drive down energy usage. yes a fiscal incentive is one way and many mechanisms are possible to do this. there are other mechanisms other than fiscal as well. Subsidised insulation for all old homes for example. Outlawing commercial organisation from leaving lights on all night. reducing streetlighting.

a move to electricity to replace oil for transport

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho. reduced energy consumption = reduced CO2 output. Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

but arent we signed up to reduce our carbon emmissions by some huge number? Like 80% by 2050

Did you not notice everyone s****ing behind their hands as they signed the Kyoto agreement. The Americans didn't even sign it. They actually drew a schoolboy doodle of a spunking cock and big hairy pair of balls

Your position is just as flaky as Monbiot's, TJ. No matter how many times you repeat it as some kind of hardcore fact.

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

Nuclear needs research - let's do the research, spend the money, and build the reactors.

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho. reduced energy consumption = reduced CO2 output. Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

No, by your argument it's one or the other.

Keep the current power generation infrastructure, turn off the nukes and insulate everything and put your finger in your ears whenever anyone mentions increacing energy demands.

Or, make everything as energy efficient as practicaly possible, build some nuclear power stations as part of a mizuture of low carbon emission energy generation sources and slowly but surely switch everything over to electric power, producing minimal CO2.

We can't keep driving arround in fossil fuel powered cars, it's not sustainable, so the only alternative is electric, whther thats by storeing electricity in a battery, or storing it as hydrogen for a fuel cell makes no odds tot he fact you'll need a lot of wind farms to keep the M1 moving!

No its not TINAS

Nuclear produces a very small amount of the countries energy . reduce the total amount of energy used by more than that small % which is easily achievable then you can have no nukes and a reduced CO2 output.

I don't really like these aggressive arguments but I thought I'd chip in a point, gently.

I saw a documentary with Patagonia founder Yyvon Chouniard and he said at one point something along the lines of: “if you're going forward towards a cliff what do you do? Do you keep going forwards off the cliff, or do you turn 180degrees and keep going forward?”

I think we need to reimagine our society with less energy and see it not as going backwards but as going forwards in a different direction. I don't know enough about energy sources to say about nuclear, but I just hope I can make a difference in my personal life, and that there are scientists working objectively on what will be good for our survival and our planet. Peace, all.

Why don't we make everything wind-up like those torches? And the radio's they listen to in Africa. Then we could also reduce obesity as everyone takes it in turns running around in the house of an evening, winding everything up

And it'd solve the problem of leaving stuff on stand-by. A move which, according to environmentalists will, in itself, save every Polar Bear and about 30% of the penguins on the planet. And some Puffins. Probably

There are plenty of other measures as well to drive down energy usage. yes a fiscal incentive is one way and many mechanisms are possible to do this. there are other mechanisms other than fiscal as well. Subsidised insulation for all old homes for example. Outlawing commercial organisation from leaving lights on all night. reducing streetlighting.

Re-read what I wrote in full, then comment, eh? (Seeing as you're having trouble, here's the bit I'm referring to: "[i][u]Targeted subsidies may solve energy costs for the poor in such a scenario, but I'm not sure how they'd make just about everything else which relies on energy (i.e. pretty much everything) affordable.[/u][/i]")

[a move to electricity to replace oil for transport] is never going to happen on any significant scale without a major breakthrough in tech.

Well, oil will run out, and 'breakthoughs' in tech are coming along quite well. Hardly difficult to concieve that given the small but growing current crop of ever-improving hybrids, battery and hydrogen power, things in this field will improve greatly. But with the exception of the hybrid, they all still need electricity for power, something which petrol / diesel (i.e. fuels that will run out) powered cars do not. What about heating (which your selective quoting clearly missed out, despite it being in teh same sentence)

it requires a government committed to reducing energy consumption tho.

I refer you to the problem you've already identified:

consuming less does not go downwell in acpitalist sytem

And finally:

Nuclear only provides a very small % of out countries energy consumption and efficiency measure can easily reduce the countries energy consumption by a greater amount - thus meaning the nukes are redundant and CO2 production is down.

Great, what does the rest? Coal, or gas? You see, this argument is cyclical when you refuse to take your stubborn mind forward and realise how these forms of generation dispose of their waste.

[quote}

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

why?

Its a small % of the countries energy usage and an even smalle % of the worlds energy usagge. at current rates of usage of the fuel we only have few decades left thus we do not have the fuel for the massive worlwide expansion of nuclear that would be needed to reduce CO2 output to say nothing of the fact people don't want to share nuclear with other countries.

far better to put the effort and money into renewable an energy conservation

the whole case for nuclear is as full of holes as a sieve

Nuclear produces a very small amount of the countries energy

20% is small is it?

And what happens to our elecrickery usage when everyone's got nippy little plug in cars that charge up overnight? Are we all going to have [s]pointless token gestures[/s] small wind turbines in our gardens?

Zokes - and you will not read or listen to the answers that I have given you many times.

the whole case for nuclear is as full of holes as a sieve

You've still not addressed how as a modern, democratic, energy intensive, growing, capitalist society we're going to use less electricity. Especially given the logical supposition that transport and heating will increasingly rely on electricity for their energy demands.

far better to put the effort and money into renewable an energy conservation

So lets do this to get rid of the worst polluters such as coal.

Zokes - and you will not read or listen to the answers that I have given you many times.

I think in my last couple of posts I quoted and responded to just about every point you made. Talking to you about nuclear power and expecting a sensible, reasoned response is like talking to Osama Bin Laden about the fact that Allah might not exist.

binner - ENERGY CONSUMPTION not electricity.

TJ, do you really not have anything better to do today?

(Semi-serious post. I do think you'd do well to stop arguing so much. Would make you a happier smilier person! 🙂 )

Zokes

I have but you don't want to hear,

this

Especially given the logical supposition that transport and heating will increasingly rely on electricity for their energy demands.

Dr Lovelock has a very simple solution. Build nuclear. That'll give us the 50 years we need to develop renewable to be a viable replacement. Then turn off the nukes.

CFH - well its certainly pointless isn't it - no one wants to listen for sure so its al rather pointless.

Zokes - do you actually want to try to understand or is all you are interested in is trying to argue me down.

if you are genuinely interested then I will take the time to explain

is pure supposition. Teh tech is simply not available

I have a fan heater and an electrical immersion heater. I believe these have been around for some time.

Several cities have fleets of hydrogen-powered buses, and the city council here use electrically-powered cars.

I have but you don't want to hear,

So what is it that I don't want to hear (apart from your wilful lack of sentient thought on the topic)?

I'm pretty sure more people die falling off ladders but we don't suggest burying them in the ground for 10,000 years and then get all worked up about what if someone in the future digs up a ladder, tries to climb up it and falls off?

Nuclear kills very few people e.g. a Tsunami and Earthquake strike an ageing reactor and 4 people die from the wave impact - deaths / serious injuries from the reactor melting down = 0. Deaths from car crashes in Japan each year >>>>>> 4.

my parents have an electrically heated shower, imagine that, an ELECTRIC shower.

it gets better, they've even got an electric hob (or 4).

it's like an episode of star-trek at their house...

i'd be curious to hear how much more electricity we'd need to produce if we replaced all the gas hobs/showers with electric ones -which is something we'll have to do eventually.

CFH is right.

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

Zokes - you appear not to want to hear how energy conservation will work. are you interested in this? I can explain it to you and point you to decent studies on it. However if all you are going to o is rubbish me on the basis of what you claim I say not on what I have said then its pointless.

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

[img] [/img]

Just a bit longer 😀

So suddenly some way of making electric transport viable is going to appear?

tada!

[img] http://www.picturenation.co.uk/image/view/preview/132759/electric-train-strathclyde [/img]

no, sorry, electric trains are dangerous, they're un-proven tech, they require [s]more[/s] different maintenance, we'll just have to write them off as a bad idea.

clearly, they just don't work.

i'd be curious to hear how much more electricity we'd need to produce if we replaced all the gas hobs/showers with electric ones -which is something we'll have to do eventually.

That was my point, even if energy consumtion drops, electricity consumption is going to skyrocket. There are a few electric cars available now, and probbaly many more in the not too distant future. BIL works for Tesla and says they've finished development of the loss making but public perception changing sports cars and now concnetrating on 4 door saloons with ranges comprable to a tank of Petrol.

In an ideal world everything would be solar, win, wave, tidal powered, but that like saying we should go back to the good old days of making stuff ourselves in the shed rather than working in a factory making better more reliable and larger quantities of 'stuff'. You'd need a lot of sheds/ineficiency/wind turbines to compete with one facotry/not quite so nice power station/nuclear project.

We supply 'bits' for Nuclear power stations and looking at the tenders flying round the office in the last year there are going to be new plants built.

thankfully.

There will be more built Monkey Boy. I think that's due to the people in charge of this type of thing living in the real world. As opposed to on a magically, tidal-powered, winged dream carpet