Forum menu
Not really much worse than asbestos I suppose
Or coal.
Appart from :
Chernobyl
Kyshtym
Three Mile Island
Tokaimura
Mihama
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Severesk (Tomsk-7),
there have been hardly any embarrasing accidents.
in the shadow of TJ's absence, i shall extend my job-offer the other no-nukers...
what is the least-bad thing we can do with the waste? - the stuff we already have, and the stuff we're going to get.
just complaining about it isn't an option - we need to do something.
i suspect TJ might suggest 'controlled environment monitored storage'
(keep it somewhere safe and dry, keep an eye on it)
any other suggestions from the 'no-nukers'?
(my government will understand that burial will distress lots of people, and will be keen to reduce public anxiety)
Carry on dumping it in the Irish Sea
http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/nuclear/sellafield/33433
Technitium99 discharges from Sellafield into Irish Sea, detected in Norwegian waters, Barents Sea and Spitsbergen.
what is the least-bad thing we can do with the waste?
We need to be build a space elevator so we can safely get it into orbit and then fire it into the sun. Easy peasy. Next!
Macavity: i don't like that.
Torminalis: nice idea! - here's £5billion, go and have a look at space elevators.
i suspect TJ might suggest 'controlled environment monitored storage'
Best place for the waste IMo
I did love this
zokes - Member
The answer to the waste is quite simple. Either keep it where we can see it, or bury it in a geologically stable area.
Well Doh you aren't going to put in into space are you
Sadly lacking in detail tho. Still not actually a [i]solution[/i]
It has amused me as well watching Zokes use the same arguments against me as he uses himself - i get accused of vague platitudes when thats all he produces, I get accused of using historical data when thats what he does with conventional stations and the best is the accusations of hysteria - when its not me that is shouting " new nukes now or the lights go out" Zokes - you will end up sounding like Zulu eleven if you are not careful
There is not s single place where I have been hysterical.
I think everything useful that can be said has been said
what is the least-bad thing we can do with the waste?
Not make any more
ok, good suggestion* - but what about the stuff we've already got?
(*i'm not in love with nuclear power, but i do love the electricity that comes out of them. I'm trying to use less, but billions of other people don't seem to want to do that)
McAvity - did you not miss a few in your list of acidents?
Windscale / sellafeild several times, Dounray
ok, good suggestion* - but what about the stuff we've already got?
Yes it was a good answer if a bit smug 8)
I believe we are not certain as there is a debate between surface storage and deep burial. I am nowhere near knowledgable emnough to decide which is safest but both have inherent risks. Burial I assume will be the preferred method as out of sight out of mind
see Carbon Capture & Storage.
Ah, so buying a potentially dangerous waste deep underground?
(I have noted that you said you have/are studying this, and I'm sure it's much more complex than that... A bit like a nuclear repository in way then.)
there have been hardly any embarrasing accidents.
Chernobyl - An experiment that was expressly banned on a reactor that by western standards would never have been built
Kyshtym - Not moved on since 1957 have we?
Three Mile Island - Very little release comparatively, and again, caused by gung-ho ****wittery (several safeguards and alarms were ignored or disabled)
Tokaimura - Ignoring safety guidelines - but granted, this one is more concerning
Mihama - Had nothing to do with the nuclear part of the plant - could have happened at a coal or gas plant
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory - experimental rector back in 1961 - again, have we not moved on?
Severesk (Tomsk-7), - Again, quite alarming (even more so the lack of info on it)
Noone is saying nuclear power is perfect. Also, noone is giving any workable solutions that don't require it...
We cannot, surely, in all conscience, keep on producing dangerous waste which we simply do not know how to deal with. It is indefensible and manifestly incompatible with our ideals of being the 'superior' animal on this planet.
As I have already said on this thread, we need to reduce the amount of fuel we use. It [i]could[/i] be done, but I know it will not be done.
I ride through the 'burbs of London and into the centre for work most days. This morning I looked into the cars queuing in Dulwich Village. The vast majority contained one single person (and no large/heavy luggage that I could see). Dulwich is well served by public transport yet the roads are clogged each morning by cars containing one person.
My colleagues, upon learning that I ride to work, state "I couldn't do that". Actually, yes, they could. What they mean is they can't [i]be bothered[/i] to do it. It might mess up their hair or their makeup.
No, nuclear power or not, we are all going to hell in a handcart. The annoying thing is, I am frugal with resources, yet, when the lights do go out I will be in the dark just the same as those who have been profligate. Irritating - perhaps I should start driving/flying everywhere and bang the heating up full blast so I can walk round in the nude at home?
It has amused me as well watching Zokes use the same arguments against me as he uses himself - i get accused of vague platitudes when thats all he produces, I get accused of using historical data when thats what he does with conventional stations
I posted you very new data: 2010 figures and a 2010 article in Science. It is not my fault you choose not to read them. Anything more modern and they would be future projections - something you also seem to dislike.
There is not s single place where I have been hysterical.
Really? Take a good look...
The very basis of your argument is based upon the hysteria surrounding the word 'nuclear'. They had to change NMR to MRI for medical use to take the word out, a large number of much more researched scientists than I all agree. Yet somehow you have superior knowledge.
You've still not said what we're going to do instead.
Lots of power stations come to the ends of their lives, we rely more on electricity to replace petrol and gas. If we don't replace those stations, there won't be enough electricity to go round.
Not hysterical, simple arithmetic...
We cannot, surely, in all conscience, keep on producing dangerous waste which we simply do not know how to deal with
Correct. Best stop burning fossil fuels then...
Zokes - point to one post where I have been hysterical.
I have made reasoned debate and provided you with my reasoning
I have told you what I would do instead. You chose to rubbish it on the basis its politically impossible
What type of reactor is going to be at Hinkley Point?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/edf-has-welding-problems-at-flamanville-epr-reactor-french-watchdog-says.html
http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2010/11/04/epr-reactor-in-crisis/
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/11/03/prnewswire201011031724PR_NEWS_USPR_____DC94703.html
You chose to rubbish it on the basis its politically impossible
Given that like it or not, we're governed by politics, this seems a fairly reasonable stance to take...
Is the waste from fossil fuels worse than nuclear waste then?
Is the waste from fossil fuels worse than nuclear waste then?
Depends whether or not you believe the vast body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change... (And whether you live in a low lying country or rely on weather patterns for rains for the harvest)
Politically impossible - I do love your confidence in your political predictions - your position is only an opinion.
I don't believe it is politically impossible. It has not been tried. Public opinion is against new nukes so planning laws have had to be changed to get around the democratic process for them
Anthropogenic - had to look it up. Okay, so, man-made.
So if you live in a low lying country or depend on rain - you could move (yes, not easy, but my point is there are solutions) but if someone spilled nuclear waste on you, you would be dead - wouldn't you? It's deadly isn't it? It kills you and everything else.
Karine - its a bit like saying would you like to die of cancer or of drowning? Both you end up dead.
Nuclear waste is more toxic on a local level. greenhouse gases may well be on a worldwide level
i think public opinion of new-nukes might change when the good people of tesco-X-factor-land are faced with 2 choices.
use less leccy - the horror!
use siberian gas* - along with lots of rupert-murdoch-sponsored-jingoism.
gas is usefull stuff. you can store it in bottles and use it in vehicles and remote place. it seems almost a waste to burn it static power stations - a bit like diesel trains, we should be saving the diesel for things like tractors...
(*i don't have a problem with siberian gas)
But if the world were covered in sea (because the ice caps had melted) - and we know that this has happened before, and I think it is a little arrogant to think that just because people have come along the world will obligingly remain the same for our pleasure - it wouldn't be poisoned would it. If it were covered in nuclear waste, it would be poisoned. So it isn't quite the same thing.
Point still stands though - we need to use less.
and this is why my government will be one of compassionate fascism.
leaving people to do their own thing is fine and good, but we're often greedy and stupid, occasionally we needs telling.
So if you live in a low lying country or depend on rain - you could move (yes, not easy, but my point is there are solutions)
Some estimations of deaths likely as a result of the 'business as usual' scenario for CO2 emissions and possible positive-feedback mechanisms causing the release of a lot more natural greenhouse gases point to over 2bn dead s a result of disease, famine, flooding, loss of land suitable for agriculture. The sad thing is, most of those deaths would be caused by someone else's (i.e. ours) pollution.
Politically impossible - I do love your confidence in your political predictions - your position is only an opinion.
Depends on how you spin it, but seeing as fuel excise duty is theoretically a tax designed to reduce use and increase efficiency, I wouldn't rely too much on a political mandate. People complain and riot when petrol goes up by 2p. What do you expect them to do when they are told to reduce their energy usage by half?
As IanMunro said a few pages back - the economic question is even more perverse. To increase acceptance, income tax could be reduced in liu of energy tax (your carrot). Taxation becomes modelled around energy. People use less energy. Big black hole in your balance sheet.
Still a moot point though - in 30 years time a lot of power stations will have closed, a lot more cars and heating will be done by electricity. Something has to replace them.
What are the estimations of deaths if a significant amount of nuclear waste gets into the sea - like if there was an earthquake which broke the underground containers?
Sorry zokes, just to set the record straight on my earlier post, I accepted that I didn't have an answer to the conundrum but I don't think I was being hysterical. Your point with fossil fuels being dangerous is well made, but to say that my comment of "health problems (for those living) near nuclear power stations" is hysterical feels a little conveniently dismissive and somewhat patronising. Neither my language nor point was hysterical, I believe.
Ok just wanted to get that off my chest, let's not you and I now get into an unhelpful calling contest but rather get on with the real debate (In any case I have work to do and won't have time to post any more this afternoon).
Zokes - you keep saying this about electric cars
1) nice crystal ball Where is the tech to make this possible coming from?
2) exactly the same applies about this as energy efficiency - its politically difficult
Your point about sin taxes reducing consumption leaving a black hole is simple rubbish - as consumption drop the tax rises or you regain the tax from elsewhere
Ridiculous and stupid point.
On the cars - its at least as likely that personal transport simply is priced out of the reach of many people and is used less - all this car use has arisen in 40 years - in 30 it could easily disappear again.
Predictions you make you are 100% certain on - no one else is allowed to make predictions at all.
Onone orange - he thinks he strengthens his point calling opponents of nukes hysterical even if like you and I they are reasoned in their approach - the only hysteric on this thread is Zokes
erm calm down no one has been hysterical and you have manage dot utterly oppose each other for quite a few pages without the usual insults - well done but does either of you think you may change your mind or persuade the other? That really would be hysterical 😉
Because I'm trying to avoid debugging a program I've word search through this thread and the first accusation of being 'hysterical'. It was made by TJ and aimed at zokes.
Page 4 if you want to check
You hysterical arguing about the effects of climate change does you no favours.
So stick that in your pipe TJ and smoke it 🙂
For all of you in the south west (who will actually be using power from the new plant) might want to go to this:
[i]There are two talks being hosted by the IET at Tremough (School of Mines) this term.
The first will be next Thursday (25th November), entitled: ‘Nuclear Power – Now and the Future’, by Peter Higginson (Hinckley B). This talk will provide an insight into the current status and future of nuclear power generation, and how the UK can work towards a “rational national” energy supply mix.
The talk will start at 1900 in the Old Chapel Lecture Theatre, with tea/coffee from 1830 in the refectory. All welcome.
The second talk will be the following Thursday (2nd December), entitled: ‘Developments in Marine Power / Tidal Generation’, by Prof. Mike Belmont, details to follow nearer the time.[/i]
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part. I think the second post in summed it up... we should be working on making it safer and more reliable, not outlawing it.
Karinofnine - MemberWhat ... if there was an earthquake which broke the underground containers?
i don't think we'll be building storage facilities near fault-lines.
finland have been looking at the requirements of long-term geologic storage, they're considering such things as the weight of a 3km thick ice-sheet on the storage site. as is likely during the next ice age.
people like yourself and TJ ask really good difficult questions, which boffins have to answer, this is the peer-review process in action. it's brilliant, and that's why science works.
How many years of nuclear fuel do we have left?
Hmmm, assuming the fault lines stay where they are now (and these things do change).
Still waiting for an estimate of the death toll if a significant amount of waste got loose. Funny how there's this silence when you ask questions about cost of decommissioning and outcome of a severe accidents. The proponents of nuclear seem to have oodles of figures at their disposal to prove nuclear is the answer yet none for the awkward questions.
I know we will have nuclear, by the way - even though I am agin it - but it is very interesting to explore it in this way.
Interesting that the idea of reduction in use of resources/fuel is a complete non-starter!
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part.
We could do other things for heat and energy but they may cost more money it is not inevitable we use nuclear it is a choice.
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part.We could do other things for heat and energy but they may cost more money it is not inevitable we use nuclear it is a choice.
thats part of my point... the choice has been made, a new reactor is going in.
I am worried about the consequences should this source of power ever fail and the aftermath of long-term storage. Take historic landfills for instance: long term problems. Although, they were put in without legislation and rigorous controls, (but the deepwater horizon was meant to have those too... ! ) lets hope lesions have been learnt…
I think a reliable mix of power sources is the way forward with nuclear playing a part in that mix.
edit- oooOOooo check this out... there are a fews years left out there:
[url= http://www.nea.fr/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf ]http://www.nea.fr/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf[/url]
neilforrow - lesions are what I am worried about lol!
Going back to my "Planet will find equilibrium" theory...
We have released ancient stored carbon in to the atmosphere..
Plantlife has a halcyon period, abundance every where ( as long as the two legged troll creatures quit cutting down rain forests to keep McDees in beef) , especially marine algae, inspiring carbon, expiring oygen....
...but in a more energetic, stormy atmosphere?
We had that before, and life persevered?
In fact it has been suggested by greater minds then on here that the times of strife, especially the ice ages were the catalyst of evolution...
Bring it on!