Forum menu
Mat - I agree it's not a reasoned argument - but it's Sunday night and if this thread isn't regarded as a troll, then it should be. I'm merely making more fuel available.
Junkyard - Half-life is a term that is normally associated with radioactive decay, but you can use it for anything that will diminish (assuming you don't create more) over time. I agree CO2 has no half-life in the sense of radioactive decay. However overtime it will be absorbed by plants and removed from the atmosphere. Therefore you can ascribe a length of time before half of it has been removed from the atmosphere (a half-life). Unfortunately (or fortunately to some extent - life without CO2 at all would not last long) at the same time we are pumping it out - probably (OK definitely) faster than it is absorbed so the levels rise. Apologies if that's a little patronising - it did seem that way when I read it back - but you get the idea that you can ascribe something equivalent to a half-life to CO2.
IIRC the amount of extractable uranium left in the ground wouldn't meet our current energy needs, let alone the projected growth.
I'm all for nuclear power but it's best viewed as an interim solution until fusion becomes viable.
Nuclear power in partnership with solar/wind/tidal and renewable biofuels seems to be the only option for us in the medium term. The opportunity to take the long term view on this is fast passing us by, given that the price of oil is realistically only ever going to increase and some creditable sources suggest OPECs declared oil reserves are wildly overstated.
I think you will find that is 15% of the world's electricity NOT 15% of the world's energy
Indeed. IIRC the ratio in the UK is 2:1. Hence why to reduce our carbon based energy use by 20% we have to reduce our carbon based electricity use by 40% (assuming no reduction in carbon in general energy use eg transportation).
It's also why interest in electric vehicles is so high.
Someone mentioned using hydrogen for energy storage - I wish you luck. That stuff is ridiculously difficult to contain. Doing it on a mass scale, even more so.
I'm all for nuclear power but it's best viewed as an interim solution until fusion becomes viable.
Fusion is also nuclear. I think you mean you're all for fission until fusion is available.
....but nuclear contribution to world energy is much lower than 15%
Yes I suspect it is. Which makes the claim that there is only "500 years or so at current usage levels" even more worrying.
If we are going to do nuclear, then we should do it properly and really get rid of all of the gas powered stations and just keep a few (converted to clean) coal stations and renewables. No point in doing half a job...
I'd like one of those power packs they had in Ghostbusters.
"Don't cross the streams!"
In this example C02 will be altered but we will still have the same amount of Carbon and oxygen as before just in different places. Carbon or oxygen cycle for example. With a half-life we genuinely have less of it half in fact it has changed at a molecular/atomic level via the release of atoms and some other complicated stuff I dont fully comprehend. I have never heard it meant in the sense you have used it. C02 sat on the side in a jar will do nothing will it. It has no half life.However overtime it will be absorbed by plants and removed from the atmosphere
I see what you are getting at but it is not accurate to describe that process as a half life - it more like how fast the carbon cycle works which is not the same thing.
Someone mentioned using hydrogen for energy storage - I wish you luck. That stuff is ridiculously difficult to contain. Doing it on a mass scale, even more so.
Me - absolutely. However I believe its a good thing to look at and possible to find technological solutions.
One of the Scottish islands has a small wind generator / hydrogen extractor / generator set up. So the wind turbine generates electricty which is used on the idland. Any surplus is used to electrolyse water to get hydrogen. When there is no wind hydrogen is burnt to generate electricity.
I don't know how successful it has been and its very small scale but its one way round the problem of intermittent generation that bedevils wind power normally.
Hydrogen for cars and so on is a whole 'nother level of complexity with storage and delivery but not insoluble I bet.
Totally. Beats wasting money on windmills & other eco nonsense.
Latest idea is to reuse the Thorium reactor idea from the 60's, waste products very much cleaner than Uranium, no plutonium. The technology was dropped because no weapons grade fissile material was produced. Unfortunately India has most of the supply but it is much more abundant than Uranium
[img] 
[/img]
Don't see any other viable option at the moment. As usual David Mackay has some sensible stuff to say on the issue backed up by some numbers and facts that are a lot more plausible than some of the ones being quoted on here - [url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml ]link[/url]. Those who think it's too dangerous may want to look at the death per GWy figures (we're very poor at assessing the risks of something we don't know much about).
Unless you don't mind all the lights, computers, heating, medical equipment going off, then yes.
Never understood why not Thorium as its 4x as common as Uranium. Anyone know?
Oooh have you seen the design of the pebble bed reactor - it's a load of balls.
Oh its to do will making weapon grade intermediates..
Actually I thought that fast breeder reactors would allow us to extract vastly more energy from the original fuel.
"terrorist threat - imagine flying a plane into one of them"
Oh they do, and missiles and all sort of stuff. That big concrete block on the outside does the job.
There's been some good results recently with fusion reactors. I'd like to see those succeed.
To me it seems like the obvious answer, in the short-medium term. Renewables aren't ready, biofuels are fundamentally flawed... I'm not saying it's a good option but it seems to be the best of the ones we have.
Good link Rio
Yay for me
Rusty Spanner - MemberJohn, if you're dyslexic, then I apologise wholeheartedly.
If not, then I rest my case.
yes im i am dyslexic
CO2 doesnt matter btw....what we make doesnt really make much difference...so if we buy uranium...it doesnt cost us much CO2...it costs other countries CO2 and that doesnt really matter because compared to china india and america we dont make any CO2...
and think of the costs of digging up coal and transporting that if u think uranium is the only expensive thing to mine...
In that case I reiterate my apology.
It was a crass and stupid way to attempt to illustrate a point regarding human fallibility.
Partner's daughter is dyslexic - she's explained to me recently that pedantic idiots discourage her from posting on forums.
My new years resolution was to stop being such a pedant.
I've failed, but on the bright side this resolution lasted longer than any others I've made over the years.
making weapon grade intermediates..
You say that like it's a bad thing!
The nuclear deterrent - the longest period of peace in European history
Aye right, If it wasn't for Britains nukes, you would all be speakin' Russian now, just like the Norwegians, Andorrans and Portugese.
the longest period of peace in European history
So when was the former Yugoslavia moved out of Europe then ?
Never mind about Turkey and Greece being at war over Cyprus, despite both being members of nuclear armed NATO.
Norwegians, and Portugese
NATO members, reliant on the NATO deterrent! Andorra has its own defence pledge agreements with France and Spain
- Civil disturbance, within national borders.Yugoslavia
- nope, legally mandated intervention in a civil disturbance under the 1960 treaty of guarantee!being at war over Cyprus
Falklands? Invasion of Kuwait?
Oh, they're in Europe now are they?
None of the limited conflicts within Europe since 1945 have threatened to spread to other countries or descend into widespread regional war - compare and contrast that with the first half of the century, or the century before, or the one before that, oh, or the one before that, and the one before that repeatedly...
Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe - entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!
Civil disturbance
LOL ! The wars in former Yugoslavia such as Bosnian War, weren't wars ..... but "civil disturbances" !
And the attack and invasion of Cyprus by 30,000 Turkish troops was also just a "civil disturbance" ! 😀
.
most peaceful period in the history of Europe - entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!
So presumably you would support Iran if it wished to acquire nuclear weapons ? In fact, you would want to encourage all Middle Eastern countries to have nuclear weapons - and finally bring peace to that troubled region.
Actually the "most peaceful period in the history of Europe" is down two things. Firstly the horrors of global war is still on living people's memories, and secondly, that institution which your guru Dan Hannan despises so much - the EEC/EU.
France and Germany knew that they must never go to war again, and they realised that the best way to ensure this was through an interdependency, this was the thinking when they agreed to the Coal and Steel Community,.
Back on track Yes for Nuclear Power.
We need to remember to separate several things here
Claims of pollution in the Irish Sea are aimed at Sellafield - A Nuclear Fuel RECYCLING Plant with historic NON Power generating assets. Yes there were 5 civil power generating reactors on site but these could not have contributed to this. I have read the reports and looked at the numbers and still quite happily swam in the Irish sea.
We do have a long term waste storage strategy
Civil Nuclear power has operated safely without indecent in the UK for over 50 years.
Bring it on
Z11 said:
Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe - entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!
I notice you demand a different level of proof in some arguments than in others.
Yugoslavia- Civil disturbance, within national borders.
Ah, yes. So that'll be why that nice Mr Blair and that equally nice Mr Clinton resorted to carpet bombing the 'civil disturbance'. Zulu Eleven? Zulu second eleven more like.
We do have a long term waste storage strategy
Do you know what that actually entails though?
I have also spoken to someone who works at Sellafield and some of the stories of safety blunders are scary.
Tbh, I'd follow the Germans - who tend to be better at building things than us (yeah, gross generalisation, i know) - are phasing out their reactors due to the incidence of cancer clusters round power stations. (some details here: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/nuclear+cancer+risk+doubled/1300847 )
[img] 
[/img]
Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe - entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!
Or possibly European countries having a particular common interest which is not being invaded by the Russians and as a result formed the EEC and now the EU? You know invasion does have a galvanising effect on Countries.
Tbh, I'd follow the Germans - who tend to be better at building things than us (yeah, gross generalisation, i know) - are phasing out their reactors due to the incidence of cancer clusters round power stations.
But they are increasingly dependant on Russia for energy. Not very bright when it comes to energy security.
But they are increasingly dependant on Russia for energy. Not very bright when it comes to energy security.
As I said, they're very good at building things. Long term strategies (especially involving Russia) - not so good.
Yes to Nuclear Power.
Safe
Nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source
Abundant, relatively inexpensive raw material from stable sources
Most concentrated energy source
Yes there are some negatives but at the moment until they get fusion working there is no alternative.
mikewsmith - Premier MemberWe do have a long term waste storage strategy
Interesting. What is it? As far as I am aware this is unresolved so I would like to know what this secret solution to the storage of the waste is as no one else seems to know.
The day a satisfactory solution to the issues around waste storage is found is the day I will consider support for nuclear.
I love the idea of a huge fusion reactor telling us that Nuclear power is bad.Exactly. The only huge fusion reactor which should be supplying us with energy, should be kept 90 million miles away.
Not next to a city.
Epic FAIL.
Even wikipedia can reliably tell you the difference between fission and fusion, ernie...
As for current technology, uranium fission has been managed very safely in the UK for the past 50 years. Energy efficiencies are great, but in the real world, will they happen? I fear not...
Add to this the bizarre idea that we should be focussing transport on electrical-based energy (H2 or batteries), and we'll need more stable baseline generation. The only viable forms of this energy in the UK are tidal and hydro - both finite in quantity as there aren't that many valleys left to flood, and not so many Severn estuaries to barrage.
Put simply, these are the facts:
1) Energy demand WILL increase
2) Greater strain will be placed on the electricity network due to decrease in use of oil for cars, and gas for heating as they become increasingly expensive, and the government 'makes' H2 / electric cars cheaper
3) Existing nukes due to be retired shortly - we need 25% more generation to replace them
4) Existing coal power due to be phased out - what will replace that?
5) Making the huge assumption that the several thousand-strong offshore windfarms announced shortly produce a significant amount of reliable energy, this will still be a fraction of that needed
6) Wave power and tidal lagoons are great, but untested in the sizes we require. This certainly needs more research, but can't possibly fill the gaping hole left by existing nukes, coal, and gas when it runs out
7) Increased interest in nuclear power will increase knowledge and research into better nuclear options. I see the [url= http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ ]thorium cycle has generated some posts above[/url].
8) Finally, someone may crack fusion. If they don't, the lights will eventually go out, no matter what.
9) It could be postulated that the risk of a very unlikely nuclear accident are worthwhile, given the dubious morals of not wishing a nuclear reaction near us, but blissful ignorance of the effects of burning more fossil fuels and slowly sinking 1 bn people who live in coastal regions throughout the world...
Zokes - there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.
There have been many serious accidents and discharges of radioactivity in the UK and these are still going on now.
The history of nuclear is full of accidents unreliability ane very expensive electricity. I have no faith that this will change and I would like to see the money being spent on nukes spent on energy conservation and research into alternatives.
Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.
what will you do with the waste?
Zokes - there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.
Really, do you see most of the 60m people on our rock listening to being told we can't drive, or watch TV? It's a fact that no political decision in a democracy can change
Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.
Correct, however I refer you to my final point above. How do you propose to tell the Bangladeshis et al who will lose most of their country if even the most conservative climate change predictions prove to be correct?
what will you do with the waste?
This is indeed the unanswered question, however, see my point about [url=what will you do with the waste? ]the thorium cycle[/url] above. In any case, morally what's worse for future generations? A comparatively small amount of highly dangerous waste, or the widespread loss of coastal areas, and high levels of draught and famine due to the changing climate. Your call...
Zokes - their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.
If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????
The waste question is critical.
I simply have no faith that nukes will be reliable enough to solve the issue and they do not reduce carbon release by a significant amount
It's to late, the building starts very soon. You can argue all you like but we will be getting lots of new nuc stations. All built by other countries over here.
Zokes - their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Most people in this country have no clue where their energy comes from, the implications of its use, or anything else. They are lazy. When oil prices go up they blame the government, when gas rises, they blame the supplier etc. Most simply do not care, and this is a fact that WILL NOT change. The only way it could would be by forced increases in prices through taxation. Just how quickly will any government forcing appreciable increases on energy prices last in government when every year we hear of impoverished elderly people dying because they can't afford to heat their homes?
If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????
And how 'safe' is forcing the CO2 back undergound? What would happen if it leaked out again? As for H2, how do you get it? Oh yes, by using lots of electricity to electrolyse water - do you see the flaw yet?
The waste question is critical.
I agree, although selfish national priorities versus taking a big step towards further cutting emissions that may reduce sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns that would affect billions. Your call...
TJ, whats wrong with out current nuclear waste storage statergy?
In the US they've been having the same debate, it's gone on so long that 'doing nothing' has become the prefered option. Leave the material in concreet flasks on the surface, in well secured, well inventoried sites.
We should have built Kingsnorth.................