Forum menu
what we need is a reduction in usage of power,and more recycling and natural energy,from the wind sun and waves, along with hydro.
So, are you going to help by turning off all unnecessary items such as your laptop? The amount of electricity that needs to be saved to avoid needing to build new nuclear (or worse, coal*) power stations is far in excess of what can be saved by non-invasive energy efficiency measures
Perhaps switching off all motorway lights after 10.00pm, not installing any more, switching off all non essential floodlighting, provideing more money for energy efficency,lots of huge users of electric have now ceased trading, 3 large aluminium smelters,numerous steelworks, and other large users of electric, soit must just be consumers and office desk wallers using all the power.
Even the newer trains use regenerative braking to feed power back, when braking and save power.
Surely tidal power is the way forward - tides are consistent unlike solar or wide, or even waves.
this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed.
you can see how weak the pro nuclear argument is by teh fact they all have to insult the inteligence of theose who understand how dangerous adn unessasry nukes are.
its nothing to do with irrational fear, its to do with understanding the history and the drawbacks of nuclear.
The questions the pro nukes cannot answer
1) what are you going to do with the waste? ( be lots of waffle and pie in the sky about using it as fuel etc)
2) where are you going to get the fuel from? if nuclear is going to make any impact on global wring there needs to be a massive expansion of nukes and there simply is not enough fuel
3) are you going to share the tech with everyone? Iran Iraq, Korea? if not then it will not help in a global sense.
The simple fact is that nuclear is to expensive, unreliable and dangerous and can never be more than a small % of the worlds energy needs
Its people wedded to a technofetishistic mindset who cannot and do not want to understand that its a waste of time and effort going down this technological dead end and that it is completely unessasary.
you can see how weak the pro nuclear argument is by teh fact they all have to insult the inteligence of theose who understand
Ahem...
Its people wedded to a technofetishistic mindset who cannot and do not want to understand
🙄
it is not slack everywhere at the same time...
Macavity, do you ever care to articulate your clear need for involvement in these threads by actually typing something yourself?
Nowthen, dearest TJ:
The questions the pro nukes cannot answer
1) what are you going to do with the waste? ( be lots of waffle and pie in the sky about using it as fuel etc)
2) where are you going to get the fuel from? if nuclear is going to make any impact on global wring there needs to be a massive expansion of nukes and there simply is not enough fuel
3) are you going to share the tech with everyone? Iran Iraq, Korea? if not then it will not help in a global sense.
1) We will bury it in the ground for a time longer than you will need to know about it. You can argue about the merits of this, but it's unequivocally better to just emitting it through smoke stacks as coal and gas do
2) We'll dig it up from where I currently live: A relatively stable, westernised democracy i.e. Australia. The whole reason for nuclear over coal is its vastly superior energy output per tonne of stuff dug up. Compared to burning a fossil fuel, its emissions are minuscule, and that is cradle --> grave. Again, you know this, you chose to ignore it.
3) The current tech is old. Thorium reactors are actually being led by the Indians at present. And if the Iranians could be trusted not to use nuclear fission to make bombs, of course we'd share existing tech. We do: Their existing facilities are based upon Russian designs.
Now having played your straw man, care to answer the questions put to you over what proof you have that nuclear is this world-destrying evil power?
The rational argument is what I posted before:
1) Without totalitarian rule, the necessary economies in energy demand cannot be met.
2) without said economies, there simply isn't enough renewable energy
3) Coal and oil are far more damaging and have already contributed to far more deaths than nuclear has, even ignoring the most important point of global warming
4) when will you understand that fear of the word 'nuclear' is a well known phenomenon, and the fact that you have said irrational fear doesn't make your argument insulting or stupid, it merely makes it inaccurate to the point of not being relevant.
The simple fact is that nuclear is to expensive, unreliable and dangerous and can never be more than a small % of the worlds energy needs
I could easily do a cheap FIFY to this about renewables. You are flat wrong. There is no means of negotiation on this, and as with all nuclear threads, you give up moaning saying that we're all addicted to technology.
In fact, we (you included) are all addicted to far too much fossil-fuel derived energy. Only for some unfathomable reason, you are incapable of at least acknowledging that there are other methods of generating relatively fossil-free energy. We both know the deaths per TWh, we both know the energy pay-back time of each electricity generation method, so quit it with the hyperbole, and answer the question you know you cannot answer. I.e. why are you so against nuclear when the only viable alternative in a modern western democracy is coal?
Don't waste your next two posts discussing something we've already covered, or something totally irrelevant that could only happen in TJ-land, just answer the question, then we might all finally accept that you were right all along.
No answers to the questions tho Zokes - and no suprise.
1) what are you going to do with the waste? just dig a big hole chuck it in and hope it goes way - its no answer
2) Where are you going to get the fuel from - there is 40 years supply at current consumption rates where are you going to get the massive more amounts of fuel needed to expand nuclear powder to the point it will actually make any difference?
3) are you going to share the tech? If not it will make no difference as nuclear will only be a bit part player
this is not a straw man argument - these are the questions you need to find answers to
Why am I so against nuclear - its expensive, its polluting, its dangerous and it can never be anything but a very small part of the worlds energy production.
All sensible analysis shows that it is simply not needed and until there is an answer that stands up to those three questions then there is no logical case for it at all.
All your bluster about deaths per bit of electricity simply shows the opposite of what you claim. the deaths from coal are not in western countries with good safety records - they are in third world countries and you want these countries with poor safety records to have nukes?
Now - do you have any actual answers?
Now how about some actual answers? Until yo actually answer those questions then there is no further debate
Problem is that nuclear may be the least worst option. Certainly the remainng fossil fuels are not going to be extracted without cost. Take a look here
[url=
Incredible.
No answers to the questions tho Zokes - and no suprise.
Erm, I'm afraid he [b]has[/b] already answered those questions TJ - somewhere just up there, in the bit where he, erm, answers those questions
Now, hows about you answer his?
However, if I can just take one of your points to comment on:
[i]what are you going to do with the waste? just dig a big hole chuck it in and hope it goes way - its no answer[/i]
Erm, where do we [i]get[/i] radioactive isotopes from? oh, yes, a hole in the ground... where it seems to have been fairly stable for the past few hundreds of millions of years 😉
its nothing to do with irrational fear, its to do with understanding the history and the drawbacks of nuclear.
You have allowed history to blind you. You seem to have some mental block to progress and a complete disbelief that the technology cannot become safer and the waste reduced. Science seems to disagree with you. I assume you have shunned all other modern technology because it was 'a bit shonky' in earlier years?
I agree with TJ's assertion that nuclear power can't be a complete solution to our energy needs. Correct, there isn't enough uranium to meet demand, much less a capacity to build enough plants in the medium term.
The argument about waste is also valid, however modern plants use a fraction of the fuel of older designs - we've seen some massive leaps forward in technology here. The waste needs to be disposed of properly and there needs to be a proper international deep storage facility somewhere very geologically stable. Yes, waste can be recycled but only up to a point.
It remains to be seen whether Thorium plants will be viable and again I'm very interested to learn TJ's reasoning as to why he thinks the idea is bunk.
We do need a much better provision for alternative sources of renewable power though, that much is beyond doubt. But to dismiss nuclear power as hokum because it involves dangerous radioactive things and physics beyond the understanding of most of us is naive...don't forget that we're all here because we like to ride expensive bicycles made of exotic and sometimes toxic materials using technology beyond most of our understanding...
Ah, TJ's myopia is coming through again.
Those questions you asked, I answered, just where I, erm, answered the questions in numerical order. The fact you disagree with the answers is what you should be talking about, rather than pretending that I didn't answer them. Perhaps I'll do so again, a bit at a time seeing as you're currently very clearly being hard of thinking / reading.
No answers to the questions tho Zokes - and no suprise.1) what are you going to do with the waste? just dig a big hole chuck it in and hope it goes way - its no answer
It is an answer. It's not an ideal answer I agree, but I definitely answered the question 🙄
Now then, I've laid out my point enough times about us needing more coal or more nuclear (you can have as many windmills / wave generators as you like but it'll still get unexpectedly dark and cold without coal or nuclear). The reason your argument is such a straw man is because you totally and utterly fail to see just how damaging the only alternative to nuclear is.
2) Where are you going to get the fuel from - there is 40 years supply at current consumption rates where are you going to get the massive more amounts of fuel needed to expand nuclear powder to the point it will actually make any difference?
Most nuclear power stations operate for about 40 years. I'd call that fortuitous if there's conveniently enough uranium left for one last go at current technology. It might focus the mind a little on making those thorium reactors I keep mentioning (and you keep wilfully ignoring) work at the full commercial scale.
The same could also be said for gas, but you can bet that's what will be built instead of nuclear until it runs out, and then guess what, we'll be back on coal again.
3) are you going to share the tech? If not it will make no difference as nuclear will only be a bit part player
Many of the countries you list already have operating civil nuclear plants. Technologies such as thorium make it much harder to get something bomb-like at the end of the process, so it's safe to assume that these will be pushed very hard in places like Iran.
this is not a straw man argument
It is, because what I actually asked you was to answer our questions about this miraculous source you had that said - [i]"plenty of proof of many ten of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl at a bare minimum"[/i]
Why am I so against nuclear - its expensive, its polluting, its dangerous and it can never be anything but a very small part of the worlds energy production.
All renewables are expensive, and also unfortunately likely to be only a small part in global electricity generation. By this measure then, I guess we should stop using them.
Fossil fuel-based electricity is discounted against the environment. The big chimneys you see at places like Drax - that's their waste management strategy right there - let it out to the atmosphere and hope it doesn't do any harm. The top and bottom ash is actually radioactive - guess where that gets put: "a big hole in the ground".
All sensible analysis shows that it is simply not needed and until there is an answer that stands up to those three questions then there is no logical case for it at all.
I have now answered the questions, twice. If asked a third time I'll just copy and paste them until you read them. I would say that I'm qualified a lot more than you are as a nurse to make a logical sensible analysis about the environmental pros and cons of electricity generation. What you have read over the past two pages from me is an objective, "sensible" analysis. All I ever hear from you on this subject is that we can do without nuclear, but you never quite seem to identify a workable alternative.
All your bluster about deaths per bit of electricity simply shows the opposite of what you claim. the deaths from coal are not in western countries with good safety records - they are in third world countries and you want these countries with poor safety records to have nukes?
No, actually most are in the mines digging the coal. Again, none of these stats cover those lives lost through the effects of climate change, which is caused primarily by burning fossil fuels. Even in the UK, where precious little coal is mined any more, four people tragically lost their lives last year in South Wales. That's four-more than were killed by radiation from Fukushima.
Now how about some actual answers? Until yo actually answer those questions then there is no further debate
Seeing as you're having trouble reading, the answers are up there. I appreciate you may disagree with them, but they [i]are[/i] answers.
As for further debate, until you lose your wilful myopia on this subject, you never contribute to the debate anyway.
[b]OR[/b]: Instead of trotting out the same tired inaccuracies, how about showing us how you would provide future electricity generation without nuclear, or faith-based arguments based upon an unrealistic level of reduction in energy usage. This is especially pertinent given the forecast increased requirement for heating and transport to be powered by electricity as gas and oil run out. I think you'll find it a very difficult question.
3) are you going to share the tech with everyone? Iran Iraq, Korea? if not then it will not help in a global sense.
I'm going to leave the others, as they've already been adequately answered, but I have to pick you up on that one, as I answer it the same way every time - no we're not going to share the tech, with them. The supplementary is some questions to you:
Do you plan to set up large scale solar power in every country in the world? Norway, Iceland, Scotland? If not then it will not help in a global sense and shouldn't be used by anybody.
Do you plan to set up tidal power in every country? Switzerland, Italy, Iraq? If not then it will not help in a global sense and shouldn't be used by anybody.
I suppose everywhere has some wind, so maybe that's OK, but I reckon geothermal is also struggling, and there are probably a few countries who will struggle with hydro (Holland?) so that also blows that one away. Which kind of leaves us stuck with the old-fashioned forms of energy you can transport.
this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed.
Fux ache...
As the thread is veering towards an(other) argument about sustainable energy I'll leave [url= http://www.withouthotair.com/ ]this[/url] here.
It seems balanced and realistic to me, but I'm only an engineer.
Edit to add: the bottom line is [url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml ]this[/url].
If a mega tsunami hits the western coast of the UK, which do you think should be the biggest cause for concern:
What tyres for a tsunami?
Maxxis Wet Screams, obviously 😆
Blimey you guys have been busy!
Looks like some new "Big Hitter" plaques are going to need cast and sent out!
No, not if you feel confident enough to totally dismiss any possible risk of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma causing a mega-tsunami which batters southern England.
You forget that southern England has a very good and sturdy defence against this sort of thing - It's called FRANCE! 😛
Zokes - you still have not answered any of the questions in any meaningfull way.
Do you actually have any answers?
For nuclear to make any significant difference to global warming there needs to be a massive expansion of nuclear power plants.
Given that there is only fuel for 40 years at current consumption where are you going to get the fuel from for this massive expansion?
TJ- have you provided that evidence you mentioned earlier?
Zokes - you still have not answered any of the questions in any meaningfull way.
he has - but as he points out, there is a difference between 'not answering' and 'giving answers you don't like'.
TJ you do need to learn to differentiate between someone answering with things you disagree with and not answering or answering meaningfully as you now wish to term it
how many of these debates have you two had?
Nothing changes and certainly not your opinions
Where is the answer to "where is the fuel coming from ?"
so we've got enough for 40 years*, that's ok, that'll give us enough time to build breeder reactors**.
that'll give us a few hundred years.
that'll give us enough time to get fusion going.
(*according to Jeremy)
(**which as we all learned the last time we did this, have been merrily doing their thing in Russia for donkeys years)
So no expansion of nuclear generation so no impact on global warming then?
if your '40 years at current rate of use' is correct, then probably not.
but if your '40 years at current rate of use' is correct there won't be much more waste than we already have to deal with following the arms race, and the last 50 years of nuclear power...
so if your '40 years at current rate of use' is correct, i don't think you can use the 'what do we do with the waste' argument against new power stations.
Right - so you now accept that nuclear power generation will have no effect on global warming as it will remain only a small part of the worlds power generation mix.
So thats the main argument for having new nukes demolished.
nah, the main reason to build new power stations is that we need new power stations.
I think you missed this part
[b]if[/b] your '40 years at current rate of use' is correct
known amounts recoverable
5,404,000
of which
1,673,000 is in Australia
The world’s power reactors, with combined capacity of some 375 GWe, require about 68,000 tonnes of uranium from mines or elsewhere each year
I get this to be about 80 years FWIW
the point still remains junkyard.
The nuclear apologists like zokes claim nuclear is the only answer to global warming. In order for nuclear to have any significant impact there needs to be a massive expansion of nuclear power generation.
There is not enough fuel available to fuel this massive expansion thus nuclear cannot actually ever be a significant part of preventing global warming
In order for [s]nuclear[/s] wind-power to have any significant impact there needs to be a massive expansion of [s]nuclear power[/s] wind generation.There is not enough [s]fuel[/s] neodymium available to [s]fuel[/s] facilitate this massive expansion thus [s]nuclear[/s] wind power cannot actually ever be a significant part of preventing global warming
we'll run out of neodymium long before we run out of uranium.
therefore wind power cannot be part of the effort either.
the point still remains junkyard.
Sort of all depends this paper argues we have thousands of years left for example
The nuclear apologists like zokes claim nuclear is the only answer to global warming.
Why the need for the language like that? I dont think it is even true
Perhaps, and I am aware that off-shore wind farms have the potential to generate huge amounts of electricity, but to replace a modern nuclear or coal-fired power station that puts out 2 GWe, you'd need a wind farm of about 1000 turbines all outputting their maximum power. The oft-discussed 'perfect storm' that makes such a shift problematic is the typical still, cold winter's day, where there is no wind but it's cold and dark, so everyone needs heat and light. But nonetheless, I would never advocate not building renewables, I simply state, as ever, that unless we cut our energy usage drastically, and by that I mean to a point that would seriously impact on our current lifestyles, we need more power than can be generated by renewables alone. And that's before we start having to use electricity for a greater proportion of our transport and heating requirements as gas and oil become more scarce.I honestly think that solar power has a surprisingly large part to play in the UK, and may well generate more than most people imagine. I have a friend in Sheffield who has fitted solar panels to his house and has seen a huge reduction in his bills. But not many are far-sighted enough to wait 10-15 years for that reduction to become a profit.
Wave power is the one that TJ and others throw about the most, along with tidal turbines. Both do look promising, and I agree that in 10 years time they may well have a big part to play. But they are not ready yet, and may not be ready by then.
this seems pretty reasonable to me and not just pro nuke fanaticism
In order for nuclear to have any significant impact there needs to be a massive expansion of nuclear power generation.There is not enough fuel available to fuel this massive expansion thus nuclear cannot actually ever be a significant part of preventing global warming
depends what you mean by significant and massive expansion tbh
he is offering a view that is not the same as your but you cannot just call him a nuclear apologist...he has view you should respect it and defeat it with the power of your argument, facts, figures, studies rather than just invective
Personally I wish we did not need nukes but the reality is threefold
More nukes in the short run - nothing lese will meet energy demands reliably currently.
Huge investment in renewables for the long term
Massive energy reduction by us all.
Massive energy reduction by us all
Good point, and everyone can make small, simple contributions towards energy conservation, can't they... like insulating and double glazing their flats 😉
Devils advocate
So, assume that nice fluffy wind, wave and solar is our saviour, IF we install thousands upon thousands of these devices, and do it quickly.
Couple of questions;
1) are there enough raw materials to build these things?
2) where does the power come from initially to build them?
Also, I believe that the costs to the environment are quite high for some of these technologies, so how long does it take to offset the 'damage' caused by their manufacture?
Finally, as these are not always converting energy to electricity, then surely any excess needs to be stored. I think that electrical storage equipment is very, very damaging to the planet as it involve some very nasty elements, not to mention the pollutants fom manufacture
I take a lot of your points TJ, but there are a few where you seem to struggle to draw a clear distinction between your own personal opinion and established fact - I quote your assertion that thorium fuelled power stations are a non-starter, when there is a lot of money being spent in research in this direction. Do you know something that the rest of us don't?
The other facts are clear - we need to reduce our energy consumption, which is going to be difficult in the face of rising populations and increased demand from newly industrialised countries. We need to reduce our dependence on oil, it's a finite resource which may well have already peaked. We need to look at a range of options to generate power, nuclear energy is not a complete solution and even if it were, the resources of fuel available are also finite.
Thorium - its not that it is a non starter - its that is unproven and experimental and not ready to produce energy yet. Who knows if it ever will be be. They are not the answer now.
Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.
We do not have the fuel to fuel the amount of reactors that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.
TandemJeremy - Member
Thorium - its not that it is a non starter - its that is unproven and experimental and not ready to produce energy yet. Who knows if it ever will be be. They are not the answer now.
POSTED 37 SECONDS AGO #
Much the same as tidal power then!
Who knows how the equipment they are trialling will deal with environment.
How will the infrastructure cope?
Can they cope with slack water?
Energy saving, [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8006668.stm ]windfarms[/url], solar and pump storage. We have the solutions, are you prepared to pay for them? I've only invested what many spend on their SUV to eliminate my part of the 30% or so of energy demand that comes from domestic use.
and I have shown by simple logic that the position that [s]nuclear[/s] wind power is the answer to global warming is nonsense.
We do not have the [s]fuel[/s] resources (land, time, neodymium, etc.) to [s]fuel[/s] build the amount of [s]reactors[/s] wind turbines that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.
(they're nice an all, but really, we'd need millions of the things)