[Closed] Lakes nuclear dump?

Where was it produced? yep: cumbria. Why should anywhere else take your waste?

That's really a very, very poor argument, for obvious reasons.

Nothing happened!

Shunichi Yamashita one of the leading experts on the effects of radiation in Japan said when asked by Der Spigel; People want clear answers. Where is it safe? And where is it not?

Yamashita: We don't have those answers. When people ask me: "Are doses below 100 millisievert 100 percent safe?" Then I have to answer as a scientist: "I don't know."

The fact is that the "nothing happened" statement is fatuous, it clearly did and to what extent it happened will potentially continue to unfold for generations.

The problem with this nuclear argument is that you cannot possibly make statements such as x or y is safe, or measurement a or b is a safe limit, much less that nothing happened. Professor Yamashita, when asked made a completely sound scientific answer, which is that we don't know. The truth is much of the learning about human interaction with this recent technology is being done at the expense of the current generations. The big problem is that the risk attached to that are exponetionally greater than the risks associated with precisely the same process with earlier technologies.

So rather than pointing at nasty coal power stations and comparing nuclear risks with that, wouldn't it be more sensible to acknowledge that it took many generations for the combined wit and wisdom of mankind to appreciate the risks inherant in coal, and that quite possibly it will be the same before we fully understand what we are playing with in nuclear technology???

So rather than pointing at nasty coal power stations and comparing nuclear risks with that, wouldn't it be more sensible to acknowledge that it took many generations for the combined wit and wisdom of mankind to appreciate the risks inherant in coal, and that quite possibly it will be the same before we fully understand what we are playing with in nuclear technology???

So we should stop using nuclear because we don't understand all the risks, but yet we must make electricity from something. Or use a lot, and I mean a lot, less

So if we stop using nuclear, what will happen? Well, firstly, all the waste produced to date will still need dealing with

Secondly, we'll still need to make electricity from something else. Right now, the only two options on a similar scale to nuclear are coal and gas. And we're fast running out if gas.

So then we're back to coal again. An energy source that we do understand the risks of. Far more deaths per kwh than any form of generation by a country mile. And then some. And that's before we even start to think about the environmental damage and potential for not millions, but billions of deaths attributed to failed harvests, famine, disease, flooding and extreme weather as a result of global warming. And we do know what causes that (unless you're sponsored by shell). Burning fossil fuels.

In an ideal world there would be neither fossil nor nuclear generation. But the world is not ideal. And unless we all want the lights to go out we do need to replace some power stations rather soon. There is no rational argument weighing up the environmental and human costs of coal and nuclear that puts coal in a favourable light.

Given that it's nasty stuff, some of it, and that the whole "geology has to be suitable" argument implies that the containment is not envisaged to be adequate long term, the last place I'd want to put this stuff is underground. Out of sight, G4S screwup, would be the natural conclusion.

Find a spot that doesn't flood, lay lots of concrete, put some racking and fences up and store it where it can be watched. Put public webcams on it 24/7 so there is accountability on the watchers too. Given that there is no harm unless it leaks or I walk up very close to it, I don't care that much where it is. Most towns and cities have industrial or former industrial sites of hundreds of acres, loads of disused WW2 and cold war airfields too, pick one and get on with it.

So we should stop using nuclear because we don't understand all the risks, but yet we must make electricity from something. Or use a lot, and I mean a lot, less

Well yes actually, thats precisely what I mean. We are completely profligate with energy use currently. Why? Because we/our politicians are pawning the future of the planet so that we have access to cheap subsidised energy, (subsidised by ignoring future cost). i.e. we are not coming even close to paying the real price for it, and that is precisely the debate we should be having BEFORE we jump irrevocably into a cess pool of our own making. There are a good deal of unpalateable things that need addressing while we're at it, unrestricted population being pretty near the top of the list.

Given that the most wasteful part of electricity generation and distribution is transit from point of generation to point of use,

Total transmission losses in the UK grid are estimate at around 7.7% making it 92.3% efficient. I challenge you to find a form of electrical generation that is that efficient.

Put public webcams on it 24/7 so there is accountability on the watchers too

So if something happens it's the people that should have been watching the webcams on their laptops in their homes fault?

There is definitely an irrational fear that many people have with regard to "radiation" and "nuclear/atomic", partially caused by the media and reckless rhetoric by politicians and partially by humans fearing things that they don't understand.
Chernobyl and Fukishima are as bad as civil nuclear accidents can get, but relatively few people died (compared with coal mining/oil drilling/gas production etc.). Both of these accidents were chemical explosions causing a release of radioactive material - not nuclear explosions. It is also important to point out that Nuclear power stations cannot possibly explode in a "nuclear explosion" (e.g. Hiroshima) as it's actually very difficult to make a nuclear device happen.
In my opinion we should be working hard to develop and improve nuclear power stations and fuel/waste processing within our country and in collaboration with other countries. Instead we keep "doing the hokey-cokey" (in-out-in-out) which really is dangerous as we don't keep people with expertise in the in nuclear industry. Civil Nuclear Power is a fairly young technology and we should be able to continually improve safety and eliminate accidents like Fukishima.

Had many of the posters been around at the time of the Aberfan disaster, would you have been calling for a complete ban on coal mining?

The decision on where to store nuclear waste should be taken on purely technical grounds by Central Government. It will be much safer in a secure underground site than above ground anywhere.

All IMHU 😉

I wonder if piemonster

Yes, things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters#Energy_industry

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

To be fair Junky, the chances of it being a human concern are minimal. Gotta feel for whichever species has to deal with our mess though.

Total transmission losses in the UK grid are estimate at around 7.7% making it 92.3% efficient. I challenge you to find a form of electrical generation that is that efficient

WTF?

What I said was is that distribution is wasteful and thanks for confirming it, but no need as I already knew it.....that why I said it. The point being why build them so far way from the point of demand in that case? Trust me, any business, and I mean absolutely anyone who could improve their profitability by 7.7% by simple relocating to a point nearer the demand would do it without a second thought unless of course there was a bloody good reason not to.

Oh yeah, we've already covered that

wherever the powerstations are, there'll still be loads of people who don't live near the station, there will always be transmission losses...

I thought this was about long term waste storage rather than production. Plenty of power plants closer to population centers than Sellafield.

Chernobyl and Fukishima are as bad as civil nuclear accidents can get,

but relatively few people died

It is also important to point out that Nuclear power stations cannot possibly explode in a "nuclear explosion"

I get your point but the possible consequences of nukes going bad are far in excess of what would happen if anything else went wrong.
The issue is whether you want to live with this risk not how likely it is [ very unlikely] to occur.
Like a plane unlikely to go wrong if it does very likely to be very bad.

Berm Bandit - Member

Total transmission losses in the UK grid are estimate at around 7.7% making it 92.3% efficient. I challenge you to find a form of electrical generation that is that efficient

[img] [/img]

the debate we should be having BEFORE we jump irrevocably into a cess pool of our own making.

We are in a cess pool of our own making. 1) All that waste at Sellafield is already there. 2) I would suggest global warming knocks storage of HLW into a crocked hat in terms of problems to fix.

Really depends what you measure and whose fugure you believe. iirc the chernobyl estimate range from less than 50 to over 400,000.

The official figure is about 3000 directly attributed to Chernobyl, IIRC.

They are the worst e have had not the worst we could have

Well, one was the direct result of someone breaking soviet safety rules (such as they were) 😯 😯 😯

The other was an old station that resisted both an earthquake it was never designed for, and a tsunami much larger than one it was designed to withstand. Add to that, how many were killed by said tsunami? Makes the nuclear disaster pale into insignificance.

Just how much worse a cause could you envisage?

The official figure is about 3000 directly attributed to Chernobyl, IIRC.

IIRC, thats a projection that approximately 3000 of the liquidators will die earlier than they otherwise would - mainly from late life cancers, out of a background mortality of 100k cancer deaths from the 500k liquidators, so about a 0.5% increase in cancer mortality,

The actual number of people that have [i]actually[/i] died from sources attributable to radiation exposure from chernobyl is around 70 - 50 odd workers/liquidators and about fifteen children with thyroid cancer.

So geologists amongst us...

What would be the likely result of dropping it into a tectonic plate subduction zone for it to be consumed in molten magma and a firey hell... ?

Seriously ?

What I said was is that distribution is wasteful and thanks for confirming it, but no need as I already knew it.....that why I said it. The point being why build them so far way from the point of demand in that case? Trust me, any business, and I mean absolutely anyone who could improve their profitability by 7.7% by simple relocating to a point nearer the demand would do it without a second thought unless of course there was a bloody good reason not to.

There is, the bulk of those losses are at the low voltage, local level. Oh and if you think you can have a system that is 100% efficient you really are clueless when it comes to science and technology. 92.8% is a staggeringly high efficiency, for reference a power generation plant will be about 60% ish and a petrol car engine about 25%.

Then there's the fact that Coal Fired power stations release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than any other type of power station nuclear included.

rickmeister - Member

So geologists amongst us...

What would be the likely result of dropping it into a tectonic plate subduction zone for it to be consumed in molten magma and a firey hell... ?

Seriously ?

Bed time reading 😉
[url= http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/The-scientific-foundations-of-deep-geological-disposal-Nirex-Report-N-016-2001.pdf ]http://www.ndaThe-scientific-foundations-of-deep-geological-disposal-Nirex-Report[/url]

182 Stewart, I.S. and Hancock, P.L., Neotectonics, in Hancock, P.L. (Ed.), Continental
Deformation, Pergamon, 1994.

Hancock, PL. & North, CP. (1989). 'Geology of Reskajeage Farm quarry (NIREX research site on Cornish slate)'. vol. NSS/R184, NIREX Safety Studies Report, Harwell, UK.

BTW P.L Hancock was my father & did a fair bit of research for Nirex but was slightly uncomfortable about it, more from a political point rather than a safety standpoint

Then there's the fact that Coal Fired power stations release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than any other type of power station nuclear included.

But that's not the bad radiation, mmmkay

discussing on question time now

dellingpole (spit) managed to drag wind turbines into it, natch

Then there's the fact that Coal Fired power stations release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than any other type of power station nuclear included.

zokes - Member

The other was an old station that resisted both an earthquake it was never designed for, and a tsunami much larger than one it was designed to withstand.

But built in an area where both earthquakes and tsunami were a risk. And that's the problem in a nutshell. Nuclear power is potentially fine, but humans are kind of dicks.

GENUINE QUESTION ALERT
Is that true even if we look at the half life etc of the waste product or just if we look at yearly outputs?
I assume it has some spin is this correct?

Nope, it's very true. Coal contains lots of impurities at low levels, including (wait for it....) uranium - halflife exactly the same as that in reactors. Also, a very small percentage of carbon in coal is 14C i.e. radioactive C - halflife 6000 years. As a proportion of a lump of coal, the radioactive component is infinitesimally small. However, the amount of coal burnt is unquantifiably huge. Burn shit loads of something with a little bit of radiation in it (what coal-fired power stations do), and you release a quite measurable amount of radiation.

As nuclear power stations don't emit radiation to the atmosphere in operation, it is indeed correct.

Yes, nuclear power stations obviously contain a lot more radioactivity than coal-fired power stations, but the key thing here is that the generally contain it. The waste management practices for coal fired power stations involve letting it go up the smoke stack, or landfilling the resultant (highly toxic, and mildly radioactive) ash.

So geologists amongst us...

What would be the likely result of dropping it into a tectonic plate subduction zone for it to be consumed in molten magma and a firey hell... ?

Seriously ?

How quickly do you picture subduction happens, and how 'predictable' do you think it is? Deep ocean trenches are so deep (up to ~ 10,000m) that we've only recently managed to study them.
The UK doesn't have any - so which helpful nation do we hand it over to?

IIRC, thats a projection that approximately 3000 of the liquidators will die earlier than they otherwise would - mainly from late life cancers, out of a background mortality of 100k cancer deaths from the 500k liquidators, so about a 0.5% increase in cancer mortality,

The actual number of people that have actually died from sources attributable to radiation exposure from chernobyl is around 70 - 50 odd workers/liquidators and about fifteen children with thyroid cancer.

PS: [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117 ]This really says all you need to know on the subject of nuclear power[/url]

The simple fact is that waste and decommissioning costs have not been reflected truthfully in the costings for energy generated in this way. Mainly because no one actually knew, or now knows what will actually be involved. This is why they are built remotely, and why you cannot get a straight answer from the industry on such subjects.

Personal view is that we, (as a nation) should not commit to things that we (the electorate) don't have the full story on. That is not to say don't do it, just don't do it without being aware of the consequences.

The simple fact is that waste and decommissioning costs have not been reflected truthfully in the costings for energy generated in this way. Mainly because no one actually knew, or now knows what will actually be involved. This is why they are built remotely, and why you cannot get a straight answer from the industry on such subjects.

*cough* coal *cough*

Personal view is that we, (as a nation) should not commit to things that we (the electorate) don't have the full story on. That is not to say don't do it, just don't do it without being aware of the consequences.

*cough* coal *cough*

*cough* Russian gas *cough*

*cough* fracking *cough*

Pmsl berm bandit.

The cost is escalating for a few reasons

1 it was a government place run by pseudo civil servants.
2 a large amount of waste was created years ago with no real plan.
3 see 1 repeatedly.

Current reprocessing waste has known and defined processing routes. Historic waste doesn't in some cases. This is where the problem is with it. Going forward they have plans. Its the historic stuff that is pushing out and up the cost and schedule.

Read some of the nda outputs rather than a lazy BBC article.

Ps I know a bit about this subject.

*cough* coal *cough*
*cough* Russian gas *cough*
*cough* fracking *cough*

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*
*cough* use less energy *cough*
*cough* have a real debate including the issue of population *cough*

it was a government place run by pseudo civil servants.

Going forward they have plans

The waste management practices for coal fired power stations involve letting it go up the smoke stack, or landfilling the resultant (highly toxic, and mildly radioactive) ash.

[i]*possible man down the pub urban legend bollocks here[/i]

Nope original plans were non existent. Store and sort later.

No matter on your views the past needs sorting. Future nuclear with good planning g is still a viable option.

Don't judge the future by a poorly informed view of the past.

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*

They do. What's the cost of damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels?

*cough* use less energy *cough*

Agreed. But unless you mean >75% less, this still requires either nukes or coal/gas. Nukes capture their pollution leaving it somewhere to be treated. Coal / gas send it into the atmosphere. Where it of course causes no harm 🙄

*cough* have a real debate including the issue of population *cough*

Yes, I believe this has gone well for most other countries trying to tackle this. And most of those that spring to mind don't have a 'kick your government out after a few years' button like democracy.

*cough* the public need to understand the real costs *cough*

Across the world, city air is often thick with exhaust fumes, factory smoke or soot from coal burning power plants.

They do. What's the cost of damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels?

Err well clearly they don't, (£67.5 billion and counting for example) and as we have already established no one wants a reactor or a dump next door, which is one of those costs. On top of which, you are making my point for me. I totally concur with you regarding the point re burning fossil fuels. So if say for example the clean up cost was included in the price of a gallon of petrol, or a cubic metre of gas, or a bucket of coal, or a watt of electricity do you reckon we might just be a bit more frugal with out use of it? As opposed to doing precisely what we are doing with the nuclear issue, which is storing the problem for future generations, and blandly carrying on towards the precipice on the presumption that it'll all work out in the end.

Here's an interesting story for all the renewables naysayers. 🙂

http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3435-renewables-supplied-75-of-spains-electricity-on-ja

So if say for example the clean up cost was included in the price of a gallon of petrol, or a cubic metre of gas, or a bucket of coal, or a watt of electricity do you reckon we might just be a bit more frugal with out use of it?

Yes.

As opposed to doing precisely what we are doing with the nuclear issue, which is storing the problem for future generations, and blandly carrying on towards the precipice on the presumption that it'll all work out in the end.

Not "as opposed to" at all. At least we have captured the contamination to treat it. Whereas Konabunny's post demonstrates very well just how ineffective our controls are on even capturing the pollution from fossil fuels. So whilst far from perfect, nuclear's light years ahead of fossil fuels in this respect.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561 ]Have to disagree with you Zokes.[/url]

Truth is nuclear is about where fossil was before they figured out about the scale of the associated problems.

****ing outrage

Truth is nuclear is about where fossil was before they figured out about the scale of the associated problems.

Well, not really. It doesn't cause this:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1979.html

What local jobs creation? Its highly specialist attracting contractors.

Local youth without any skills will do what there?

Its a fact- a wide open sparsley populated area wont have shedloads of jobs available anyway.

Why cant it be processed and stored overseas? Afterall we welcome others radioactive waste here to be 'processed'.

The best place though really is a sparsley populated area in the UK.. there or remote Scotland.

I wonder if Fukuwotsit is going to be a really, really big mess. If it gets into the sea, it'll affect everyone.

Sorry mate (zokes), I can't agree, the industry is doing what every other industry does, and that is learning from its mistakes. Truth is no one really knows what impact releasing things like strontium 90 into seawater in the volumes that are happening currently will actually have over the next 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. (Incidentally, to be fair the problems around Chelyabinsk make this seem a bit like a chipped cup at tea party by comparison, but nver the less its not great is it?)

The reality is that despite constant reassurances to the contrary they are still making, and still learning from their mistakes. Ultimately whats happening at Fukushima is a civilian version of the Bikini Atoll tests , where the wisdom was it would be alright for troops to be unprotected and watch at a distance. Correct interpretation = We don't know, but guess that it'll be fine given what we know at the moment. Current knowledge = Doing that'll devastate your life!! Big mistake if you happen to have been watching

Problem is that the cocks up tend to be on a global scale and with much further reaching consequences. There is strong evidence of DNA damage which is appearing generations along, a vastly increased incidence of cancers and so forth since the arrival of the nuclear age. It took us several hundred years to cock up to that extent with fossil.

The reality is that there is a cost associated with all energy consumption, but plotically we don't like to have that debate in the open, and no one wants to tell voters things which aren't sexy, like your kids might die a horrible death so you can have cheap energy. Thats the real deal, and in truth we all know that, just pretend not to.

Solution: Sensible population control and a shift in emphasis from an economic system based on consumption to perhaps one based on generational sustainability.

It took us several hundred years to cock up to that extent with fossil.

Yes, and we still appear to be doing nothing about it

and the problem with this:

Solution: Sensible population control and a shift in emphasis from an economic system based on consumption to perhaps one based on generational sustainability.

is that in a democracy, it doesn't work.

So we either need an almighty war (ironically, a few nukes would probably be involved), which is probably what would happen if the global economic system as-is collapsed due to prolonged reductions in productivity due to a declining population, or a workable solution.