[Closed] Lakes nuclear dump?

Not sure what you're getting at there Graham.

Simple: Its not the location of the dump that matters, its the fact we are creating the waste in the first instance. So specifically with electricity generation, the incredibly laissez faire attitude that we have to the consumption of energy and the reckless creation of inherantly dangerous and unstable systems to feed the relentless demand for it is the problem.

So port of call one = use less

Unfortunately, an out of sight hole in the ground thats not in most peoples back yard is a more politically acceptable solution than the reality and/or a sensible long term strategy.

Simple: Its not the location of the dump that matters, its the fact we are creating the waste in the first instance.

But we've already created it - stopping using electricity tomorrow wouldn't solve the need for somewhere to keep this stuff.

[url= http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/nuclear-store-process-finished-in-west-cumbria-government-1.1031408?referrerPath=home# ]News & Star[/url]

Unfortunately, an out of sight hole in the ground thats not in most peoples back yard is a more politically acceptable solution than the reality and/or a sensible long term strategy.

So telling everyone to use less would work how? What sort of incentive would you offer? And how would you ensure that future generations, or perhapse more difficultly, the next parliment cary on implimenting something that's going to be pretty unpopular, seeing as the only one I can think of is a huge rise in the price, which would require re-nationalisation of the whole system.

Alternatively dig a hole in the ground and the problems solved, especialy as others have already pointed out, this is mostly historical waste and modern reactors use far more of the fuel. Even if we didn't build any more nuclear power stations we'd still need to find somewhere for the waste.

Even the government saying it's over doesn't mean it is. These massively long-term projects have a habit of popping up again when the government changes colour.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

But we've already created it - stopping using electricity tomorrow wouldn't solve the need for somewhere to keep this stuff.

Yup. And since we need a store, with all that implies, the impact of making it big enough for future waste as well as historic is reduced.

Berm Bandit - Member

Unfortunately, an out of sight hole in the ground thats not in most peoples back yard is a more politically acceptable solution than the reality and/or a sensible long term strategy.

which is?

I find this an interesting chart:

[img] [/img]

Unfortunately, one mention of the word "nuclear" and the person in the street runs a mile. The average person simply cannot understand the risk they face. They will say "no to nuclear power" then pop inside, stick on the kettle, oven, telly, fan heater, laptop, leave 15 lights burning in the their house, enjoy a hot bath, and somehow not connect the two things. Those same people will also jump in a drive their car to work without the slightest thought as the risk involved (something like 30,000x more likely to die in a car, than as a result of nuclear power in the UK). They will drive their car past a large coal fired station, and simply not connect the hundreds of millions of tonnes of waste that produces each year.

Asked "do you support nuclear power or renewables" without even thinking they will reply "renewables" because they see those as "green". But NO power generation is Green. For example , wind turbine have such a low power density that you need 10,000 of them to even match 1 single small conventional plant. And each needs to be build (using concrete, fibre glass, metal, copper and plastics) transported, assembled, and then maintained.

Personally, i suspect we might be as little as 10years away from rolling black outs and it costing several thousand pounds a year to heat our houses. At which point, it will be too late to quickly wheel in any other option.............. (it's too late now really)

So,, imo, the government, needs to establish the best "technical" and "engineering" location for a repository, and just get on an build it.

Nimby-ism is going to be the cause of thousands of deaths and significant suffering for the average man in the street imo. A fate far worse, IMO, than the possiblity that some "radiation" MIGHT escape sometime. (the universe is already full of radiation btw)

Great opportunity now for any "imbys" to pen a letter to their council and beg them for a nuclear waste store under their house/childs school, good luck.

under their house/childs school, good luck.

I thought it was in the Ennerdale valley, wow how we have been misled. Good job your here to cut through all that bullshit and give it to us straight, you know in an objective way and that.

The beauty of modern nuke technology doesn't remove from the fact that Sellafield is an absolute mess.

Unfortunately, an out of sight hole in the ground thats not in most peoples back yard is a more politically acceptable solution than the reality and/or a sensible long term strategy.

An out of sight hole in the ground is one hell of a lot better than this:

[img] [/img]

NEWS FLASH: Cumbria votes to leave nuclear waste above ground in temporary storage as opposed to taking the opportunity to store it safely, permanently.

It is already in Cumbria, you know.

Who said there would be very little surface impact?

If you read the article it tells you how big the above ground compound will be... just in case you are confused by area measurements - it's not 100m x 100m

😉

From the BBC

"Cumbria has a unique and world-renowned landscape which needs to be cherished and protected. While Sellafield and the Lake District have co-existed side by side successfully for decades, we fear that if the area becomes known in the national conscience as the place where nuclear waste is stored underground, the Lake District's reputation may not be so resilient."

Yes, I'm sure it would 🙄

Given how close we live to the lakes it wont affect how often I go but if you have the choice [ and are travelling]between wales, the highlands and the place with the nuclear dump it may affect decisions. whilst you may view this as irrational you can hardly deny that folk are irrational over this.
TBH no one will choose to have it so they need to [ literally] dump it somehere

Cumbria County Council vetoed an advanced "stage four" search for a site for the radioactive waste facility.

The stage included detailed geological investigations and discussions over the social and economic implications.

we fear that if the area becomes known in the national conscience as the place where nuclear waste is stored underground, the Lake District's reputation may not be so resilient.

Wonder who gets it now then, cue protests as we propose moving said waste from Cumbria.

if you have the choice [ and are travelling]between wales, the highlands and the place with the shut down Windscale plant and the currently operating Sellafield plant and the temporary nuke dump it may affect decisions.

Beat me to it KB

An out of sight hole in the ground is one hell of a lot better than this:

Oh I see, didn't realise the choice was only restricted to cancer or aids 😉

Wonder who gets it now then, cue protests as we propose moving said waste from Cumbria.

On the telly box yesterday I heard mention that there are no councils in England prepared to accept the waste site.

I doubt Toad Face would accept it in Scotland.

Wales, no idea tbh.

At a guess, I would expect a local English council decision to be over ruled and forced to accept the site. Can you think of anywhere they have been looking at? 🙄

It is pathetic. Where would you rather have high level nuclear waste? Sitting at Sellafield or secure underground?

The media is mainly to blame for this allowing a totally one sided, scare mongoring, panic driven reporting that has skewed the public perception of the impact of this waste.

It is pathetic. Where would you rather have high level nuclear waste? Sitting at Sellafield or secure underground? The media is mainly to blame for this allowing a totally one sided, scare mongoring, panic driven reporting that has skewed the public perception of the impact of this waste.

Or as Cumbrian residents, maybe we took the time to weigh up the pros and cons as they were presented by both camps, and then asked the county council to make a decision based on our conclusions 😕

Two words that whip up fear and misunderstanding like no other are "nuclear" and "radiation"

We just need the Daily Mail to convince people that windmills cause radiation for the perfect NIMBY storm to engulf the countryside.

Is the waste not already there? In a huge facility at Sellafield anyway?

Two words that whip up fear and misunderstanding like no other are "Chernobyl" and "Fukushima"

FTFY

Two words that whip up fear and misunderstanding like no other are "nuclear" and "radiation"

If you genuinely believe that, may I suggest you show up at an enquiry into a forth coming nuclear power station, and ask this simple question.

"Given that the most wasteful part of electricity generation and distribution is transit from point of generation to point of use, and given that the generating platform itself is safe, why is it necessary to build it so far away from where the power is needed?"

I did so at the Sizewell B enquiry and was shown the door. Can't imagine why though.

Or as Cumbrian residents, maybe we took the time to weigh up the pros and cons as they were presented by both camps, and then asked the county council to make a decision based on our conclusions

Good choice - I can see why you prefer it stored on the surface in ageing facilities where it is much less safe.

🙄

Didn't the local council vote overwhelmingly for it, and are they now requesting to talk directly with Westminster about it? If so, basically what's happened is the people who don't live near it made a judgement to the contrary of those who do.

Given that the most wasteful part of electricity generation and distribution is transit from point of generation to point of use, and given that the generating platform itself is safe, why is it necessary to build it so far away from where the power is needed?

Simple - mitigating risk. No matter how small the risk of anything is happening, the risk of that affecting a lot of people becomes much smaller if you build it away from population centres.

Basic risk management and due diligence really.

I can't imagine it having anything to do with the manner in which you asked the question though 😉

Two words that whip up fear and misunderstanding like no other are "Chernobyl" and "Fukushima"

It's like TJ never left

Two serious nuclear incidents in how many years?

Coal mining kills 6000 people a year in China

Up to 200 people were killed in Almaty Kazakhstan in 2010 when a hydro electric dam failed.

In 2009 a turbine hall at a hydro plant in Central Russia exploded killing 75 workers

By any sensible definition nuclear power is "safe"

Didn't the local council vote overwhelmingly for it, and are they now requesting to talk directly with Westminster about it? If so, basically what's happened is the people who don't live near it made a judgement to the contrary of those who do.

The council whose members represent Cumbria as a whole, including Copeland, voted against it. At what point does local democracy become too local?

Ennerdale and Kinniside Parish Council voted against it, so they could have made exactly the same 'people who don't live near it' point if stage 4 had gone ahead.

Given that the most wasteful part of electricity generation and distribution is transit from point of generation to point of use, and given that the generating platform itself is safe, why is it necessary to build it so far away from where the power is needed?"

Because you build power plants where the land is cheap and people need the jobs

I used to live 6 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear power station.

It didn't bother me in the slightest.

t's like TJ never left

Why thank you, I am honoured

However, the point was actually. People aren't scared of the words Nuclear etc etc.

They are scared of what would happen if a reactor goes KABOOOOOM

Additionally, if you dig through my posts on this thread you will see a reference to coal dust being really rather unpleasant.

Best to not to jump to conclusions

Because you build power plants where the land is cheap and people need the jobs

Oh I see, so how come they're not building them all in sub-Saharan Africa then?

Simple - mitigating risk. No matter how small the risk of anything is happening, the risk of that affecting a lot of people becomes much smaller if you build it away from population centres

Absolutely right. the reason is two fold, one the obivous as stated and the other the also obvious, which is there are less people to vote against you when you impose it upon them.

Sadly, the truth is that the majority of people don't want a nuclear facility of any description in their back yard. Therefore as a democracy we should not be building them. The other unfortunate reality is that politicians don't have the balls to actually confront the issue, which is a set of very straightforward choices. So instead they pretend its all cushty, and just go ahead and impose it whereever they can get away with it.

By any sensible definition nuclear power is "safe"

Lets build some power stations and waste storage facilities in the home counties then.

Berm Bandit - Member

Sadly, the truth is that the majority of people don't want a nuclear facility of any description in their back yard. Therefore as a democracy we should not be building them.

ok, fine.

what do we do with the waste we've already got? - and it's not even really 'our' waste, it's our grandparents waste.

Sadly, the truth is that the majority of people don't want a [s]nuclear facility[/s] wind farm of any description in their back yard. Therefore as a democracy we should not be building them.

FTFY

Also feel free to replace the words 'nuclear facility' with prison, motorway, railway line, pig farm, bus depot, tesco, mobile phone mast, mountain bike trail, paedophile etc.

Sadly, the truth is that the majority of people don't want a [s]nuclear facility[/s] power station of any description in their back yard. Therefore as a democracy we should not be building them.

The majority of people do, however, wish to continue using electricity.

The majority of people are unable to reconcile these two points

They are scared of what would happen if a reactor goes KABOOOOOM

What would happen in this scenario?

What would happen in this scenario?

Well, by current records (Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima), far fewer people would be killed than in one year of just the Chinese mining coal.

Fukushima was a ringing endorsement of nuclear power. A very old station built in the wrong place got hit by an earthquake of a magnitude it wasn't designed to withstand, and a wave of a size it wasn't designed to withstand, and ... Nothing happened! No godzilla rising from the waves dripping green goo, absolutely no health issues attributable to radiation. (Though I recall there were health issues related to being crushed to death by a falling crane.)

Nevertheless, the media eagerly leapt on every rumour that a gieger counter somewhere might have clicked, and some mouth breathers thought the cladding blown off by a hydrogen explosion was "a nuclear explosion".

I was hoping to imply that with my question. 😀

I wonder if piemonster might be able to tell us what would happen if a petrochemical, a petrol processing plant or some methane in a coal mine went

KABOOOOOM

Good choice - I can see why you prefer it stored on the surface in ageing facilities where it is much less safe.

Perhaps we'd prefer not to have an expansion of the current facilities on our doorsteps. Basic risk management and due diligence really.

The majority of people are unable to reconcile these two points

The other unfortunate reality is that politicians don't have the balls to actually confront the issue, which is a set of very straightforward choices. So instead they pretend its all cushty, and just go ahead and impose it whereever they can get away with it.

Perhaps we'd prefer not to have an expansion of the current facilities on our doorsteps. Basic risk management and due diligence really.

Due diligence failure. Do something to mitigate risk (bury it in a deep controlled environment, whilst minimising the need to move it very far), or leave it where it is, where its far more likely to cause a problem.

As has been said, the vast majority of all there ever will be is already there. It exists, and something does need doing about it in the long term. Much of the worst of the waste is from the very early days anyway. Where was it produced? yep: cumbria. Why should anywhere else take your waste?

as an aside, Any future stations will be far more efficient, producing much less waste

Do something to mitigate risk (bury it in a deep controlled environment, whilst minimising the need to move it very far),

PS sellafield stores 20,000 cubic meteres of waste currently [2010 figures]

its is estimated there will be over 4 million cubic metres of waste which will last for 4 million years all at the new site

As for controlled environment you mean we have never done this before but we think it will be ok for the next 4 million years to just put it in a big hoile in the ground. I mean if we cannot predict the next 4 million years and what will happen then Pfftt...wish us luck as we are doing it in your back yard now stop objecting ITS SAFE

It is pointless to debate I can see why some think it is safe and some think it is unsafe