[Closed] The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

I'm not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?

I think you may have missed the point of that post.

No - I think you missed the point of mine (I even included the typo).

I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: "this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed."

i.e. I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.

There is no point in arguing with someone who bases their argument on faith. I just hope that the majority of politicians are rational empiricists, otherwise we are all screwed.

Judging by the emphasis on faith, I reckon TJ is probably putting his faith in god to sort it all out. Now, where did I put that bucket of sand . . .

oh. sorry.

I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: "this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed."

i.e. I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.

Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn't made in seven days. For that reason, I'll leave it to you guys.

Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world, wind power isn't the answer, eh Zokes (using current magnet types, there are generators that don't need powerful permanent magnets).

We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I'd like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.

Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world

that might have been me...

i know very little about turbine design, but i have a friend who designs electrical motors/generators for volvo trucks, he says neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of - and the situation is quickly getting worse.

i'm going to guess that neodymium isn't used because it sounds cool, but because the alternative is heavier / inefficient electrical machines...

pretend that we have enough of the stuff to make enough turbines to make a difference to climate change, that'll make it so valuable that wind farms will need to be guarded.

neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of - and the situation is quickly getting worse.

I'm not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?

Yes, 'cos that's what my moniker on here was (and kind of still is in my profile on here) before teh hack incident.

I want it back as my posting name though!

Anyway, isn't there a lot of arguing on here!

there's also a lot of interesting stuff.

Edukators posts particularly - i do like a nice graph.

A bit like Saudi/OPEC limiting oil supply then. Except that China doesn't need to consider keeping its military protectors happy.

So wind turbines might be a little less efficient without super powerful permanent magnets, still plenty efficient enough though. Just as electronic management systems have resulted in much more efficient internal combustion engines so the management of wind turbines and generators is improving. I'm convinced that if there are no rare earths to play with then engineers will optimise other technologies and arrive at much the same result.

I always thought the simple issue with turbines was economics. Power made by wind turbines is simply very expensive, and doesn't provide base load (so can't be the full solution).

He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else

Arguing we are ignoring you whilst not even bothering to answer about wind turbines and magnets is franklyt shameful and , even for you , an absurd level of unawareness.

As for your question AGAIN the link I gave you disputes your 40 years [ did I miss the reference for your claim?] and argues we have enough for thousands of years. Others have posted up links that refute your claim as well. Please feel free to ignore these links , the questions posed to you or indeed the answers given to your questions whilst “engaging in this debate”.

Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn't made in seven days. For that reason, I'll leave it to you guys.

Wise words dully noted yes TJ wins by attrition again and just repeating his view ad infinitum till other just give up "debating" with him

Edukator - my point re wind generator is that TJ applies double standards to his argument. ie we are running out of nuclear fuel [ which is debatable] but iognoring the fact we are running out of magnets - yes we may get more efficiency[ must do I assume] but remember that is not allowed in huis argument fo rnukes being more efficient so i assume we apply the same rule her too.

We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I'd like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.

You might be trying to debate, but that's a tricky proposition against a protagonist who has an faith based, axiomatic position.

Bit like trying to argue that TJ doesn't exist.

Just as a last attempt to make an argument based on TJ's faith in other greeny lefty types, I'll link to here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/

"Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power. "

From the same bloke, here's a link to an article that thoroughly debunks the casualty figures for Chernobyl that TJ is so fond of spouting http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/.

Junkyard - your own link I followed only gave 80 years of known nuclear fuel at current consumption rates. YOUR LINk!

This remains the question [b]you will not face or answer[/b] - no one has yet on this thread. [b]If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors - where is the fuel coming from?[/b]

Not from any known source according to the sources you provided.

As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.

[url= http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article285956.ece ]Chinese wind turbines without rare earths.[/url]

A quick click on the tag "TJ Argues" shows that my posts above have already been done.

Glancing at that exchange seems to confirm that TJ has a dogma based approach. The only purpose in arguing with him is to publically rebut his faith based waffle, and I think that's been done adequately.

dj - can you answer that question? Or are you going to pretend this major flaw in the pro nuke argument does not exist?

Its not faith based waffle - this is a well founded logical position that no one has rebutted.

For those that are interested in sustainable power, this is fantastic resource IMHO:

It answers, in detail, several of the questions that have been discussed on this thread. The answers are not simple, and it's big on numbers, which might put off the non-techy types (but obviously they are pretty essential to the arguments).

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.

So if questioning the case for sustainable energy technology is irrelevant to the nuclear debate, what exactly is it you're planning on replacing nuclear with?

This is a fascinating website by the daughter of a Chernobyl technician, who used to ride her motorbike inside the dead zone:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors - where is the fuel coming from?

we don't need nuclear power stations to combat climate change, we need them because we need new power stations.

Edukator - Member

Chinese wind turbines without rare earths.

great, they don't need rare-earths, they just need even more copper.

(interesting read though - ta)

Ok - so nuclear power stations will not have any appreciable effect on AGW then awwhiles - so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?

they're [s]cleaner and safer[/s] way cooler than coal power.

here's a question:

...[s]nuclear power stations[/s] wind turbines will not have any appreciable effect on AGW - so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?

the answer is (i think), that we can use a bit less coal/gas when it's windy.

but relying on coal and gas doesn't strike me as a great idea when i think about who supplies us with the fuel.

coal, gas, nuclear, wind, wave, tidal, efficiency measures, etc. it'll all add up, and we'll be fine.

He's just answered that, TJ - because we need new power stations.

Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?

I would suggest you find out what conventional power stations do with their waste. I think it involves chimneys and it being emitted to the atmosphere.

Much as I strive to support an arguement against the faith healer TJ, that isn't exactly true. The European Regulations are pretty strict and the scrubbing in the chimneys is pretty damn good and very little does come out of the top. The waste is dealt with in other ways (gypsum, pulverised fuel ash in construction etc).

Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?

ok, instead of 15 new power stations, we now need 14.

To scrap nuclear as well, the Germans would need 72,142 2 MW wind turbines

2MW turbines are soooo 20th century.

These thread are hilarious, like a group of misinformed daily mail readers squabbling over tea and scones.

This is a fascinating website by the daughter of a Chernobyl technician, who used to ride her motorbike inside the dead zone:

As nice as that story is, I'm pretty sure that is was debunked in some way. I'll look for a link/try to remember.

globalti - thanks for that link, interesting site.

As nice as that story is, I'm pretty sure that is was debunked in some way. I'll look for a link/try to remember.

Found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_stalking#Chernobyl_stalking

Make of it what you will. Photos are still interesting, even if the narrative is suspect.

aren't worried about a increased risk of cancer

From what I've read, the precautions generally associated with radiation contamination appear to err on the side of paranoia, rather than a balance of cost and risks.

I think you're underestimating the impact of properly insulating domestic and commercial property, ahwiles. How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls? How many are heated by nothing more sophisticated than plugging in an electrical resistance?

Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?

As awhiles said, but if you were looking for an answer from me, good idea - I'm all in favour of that. One less new nuclear power station.

How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls? How many are heated by nothing more sophisticated than plugging in an electrical resistance?

Double glazed sash windows are prohibitively expensive, and there is not much point putting them in with solid (non-cavity) brick walls. Haven't got around to taking up all the floorboards and insulating underneath, and I'm not particularly keen to do so (or to lose 4 inches from every room by slapping insulating panels inside). The extension is (with modern insulation) is lovely and toasty compared to the rest of the house funnily enough. But it's nothing that some more wood on the stove doesn't cure. Keeping the door closed on the sitting room also means it's relatively efficient, since the rest of the house can stay cold.

How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls?

Aparrently, if you live in a flat in Edinburgh you're not even allowed to do [b]any[/b] of those things 😉

Can anyone tell me whats wrong with sticking radioactive waste in a hole in the ground? I mean, after all, thats where we found it isn't it? 😉

Junkyard - your own link I followed only gave 80 years of known nuclear fuel at current consumption rates. YOUR LINk!

Are you lying or just that misguided that you actually believe that? There is a bit of a clue in what they think and I have quoted it to you numerous times [ including emboldening the bit where they disagree with you –
[b]Sufficient nuclear fuel resources exist to meet the energy demands of this and future generations well into the future at current and increased demand levels.[/b]

It is not in anyway shape or form credible to argue that paper supports your view. It is disingenuous or belligerently false [ and frankly rather daft] to argue otherwise
Here is a nice chart about what they think – it is someway away form we a have 40 years left 🙄
You cannot paste charts so this is amended and based on 1999 levels
Current fuel cycle (LWR, once-through) 8 350 years
Recycling fuel cycle (Pu only, one recycle) 9 410 years
Light water and fast reactor mixed with recycling 12 500 years
Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with recycling 250 000 years
Advanced thorium/uranium fuel cycle with recycling 35 500 years
At no point do they say we only have 40 years left do they – QUOTE THEM to support this BS claim

This remains the question you will not face or answer - no one has yet on this thread. If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors - where is the fuel coming from?
Not from any known source according to the sources you provided.

Now you may wish to disagree with it but to claim it supports your 40 year view is a lie.

As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.

Can anyone tell me whats wrong with sticking radioactive waste in a hole in the ground? I mean, after all, thats where we found it isn't it?

djcombes Insulate and render over on the outside would be more efficient. (No gaps where internal walls abut the external ones to lose heat through).

Trouble with the external render approach is that it would ruin a very nice Victorian semi.

If aesthetics were not an issue, that might be a sensible solution.

I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: "this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed."

1. It's very expensive, so it competes with renewables and eficiency technology rather than fossil fuels.
2. It takes too long to build a new plant to contribute to carbon reductions any time soon. Which is too late.
3. France, which has 80% of its electricity from nuclear, has carbon emissions (IIRC) around 25% lower than ours. We need to be making an 80-90% cut.
4. If, as some suggest, we move to electricity for heating and transport (as gas and oil become scarcer) then it's highly unlikely we could build enough capacity to satisfy the increased demand.

As I say, it's all about efficiency and reduction.

Haven't got around to taking up all the floorboards and insulating underneath, and I'm not particularly keen to do so (or to lose 4 inches from every room by slapping insulating panels inside).

I recommend that you do. We had celotex fitted and wood flooring over the top - our downstairs is noticeably more comfortable and warms up quicker. Of course, it's very disruptive - we did it as part of other building work and redecorating.

I recommend that you do

I do wish that I'd insulating the big flat external wall while we were renovating - had all the plaster off and ceilings down, but didn't think of insulating as well as re-plastering at the time. Oh well.