Home Forums Chat Forum Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

  • This topic has 1,149 replies, 106 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by j_me.
Viewing 40 posts - 761 through 800 (of 1,150 total)
  • Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?
  • ahwiles
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member

    So we have no safe way of disposing of what we have – but you want to make loads more?

    no, i want tidal lagoons and a national population of around 10million.

    i want us to do the best we can of an unavoidable job we didn’t ask for (disposal of nuclear waste).

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    So why make more?

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    i know but it hinges on what you mean by acceptable/safe etc. We do have methods you dont like them as you think any method is unsafe because we cannot reduce the risk to zero. I dont think safe storage will be solved to an acceptable level [for you]. It is an unknown that you accpet the management and controls or you do not. you dont and I can see why. Others do an I can see why but are they safe in the sense you mean NO. Again this does not mean it is inherently unsafe just that it is risky.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    And people think 3W LED bulbs are too expensive. 😥

    buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    [only semi serious] I have thought of a way of disposing spent fuel. You recall underground bomb tests? Drill a really deep hole to take a mega big plutonium bomb and detonate it. It will be contained and the energy released will glassify the rocks, encapsulating the nasties. Erect a huge sign saying “Don’t dig here”. It’s a bit radical I know.

    Seriously, we do have to get real about dealing with waste.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Given there is a level of risk that cannot be controlled and that there is no consensus as to how to store the stuff why would you want to make more and thus exacerbate the issue?

    Given that nukes will not make any significant difference to global warming ( only a small % of the worlds total energy consumption and cannot be expanded significantly due to its inherent dangers – we won’t let some countries have them and others don’t want them) Why exacerbate a problem for no significant advantage?

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member

    So why make more?

    because there are 60-odd million of us? we’ve got a 60GW hole to fill? and some tricky choices to make?

    it’s a bit like asking a farmer for directions: ‘well, if i were you, i wouldn’t start from here’

    there’s a radio4 show in about 25 mins – which will discuss energy production and stuff.

    it might make interesting listening…

    (the world this weekend – on at 1)

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    there is a level of risk that cannot be controlled

    well what do you mean by risk and controlled?. I realise this is symantics but I could say that about anything. We cannot eradicate risk in any situation you just think the risk is too large.
    My point is no matter what the suggestion you will think it is not controlled because something could go wrong which is true for all scenarios of everything.
    Yes we need a solution for sure [ and it wont be risk free]but placing TJ on the board deciding wont help us find it 😉

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    TJ – the constant theme throughout your posts on almost every issue on this site, is your complete and utter hysterical overreaction to anything you disagree with, leading to repeated chicken little extrapolation.

    Just one example:

    It is quite possible that thousands will die from this – its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.

    Quick, run the sky is falling – unfortunately, its not only untrue, but provably untrue, and you have continued to make the claim of tens of thousands killed by Chernobyl despite the fact you’ve been called on it before on this site, and the claim had been refuted comprehensively with WHO reports that prove that the total death toll attributable to Chernobyl was less than a hundred

    This is by far the only example of your chicken little syndrome, we’ve seen it on almost every single issue, from Boris getting elected (London has not become a pariah of lawlessness and chaos) to the posting of photographs of attractive women – every single time, every single issue, you run around telling us the sky is falling, and are proved to be talking unmitigated codswallop – its pathetic, its lazy, and your complete and utter inability to critically analyse and reflect on your own arguments brings the level of debate on this site down to “Cameron eats meat, babies are made of meat – Cameron will eat babies if we don’t stop him NOW”

    The problem with your wild, repeated extrapolation of fact into fiction is that you appear to be unable to distinguish between perception and risk, even with your ridiculous standpoint on helmets, you seek to justify your inherent “TJ is right” knee jerk reaction by selective analysis of information and fact to reinforce your belief, rather than letting the evidence guide you to a conclusion!

    I suggest you learn about dread and risk – as fundamentally this is what its about, and that you consider, in the cold light of day, whether your fears are built upon fact, or upon a deeper insecurity and lack of control!

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Zulu – as usual I will ignore your rantings but this needs to be challenged. the WHO report states 4000 deaths.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

    other reputable analysis gives up to 25 000 deaths, hysterical up to one million. 10 000 deaths ( not tens of thousands) seems a perfectly reasonable number to me. I thought this was fairly generally accepted. Chernobly is still not safe – indeed thte is a significant risk of further releases of highly dangerous mateial.

    As for thousands could die from the japanese incedent – given that we do not yet know the full extent of the releases this seem reasoanble – they may not but they could. Radiaactive polution is still escaping from the plant in significant quantities and entering the food chain

    to state less than a hundred died from Chernobyl just shows how detached from reality you are – as usual

    *returns to ignore mode*

    j_me
    Free Member

    Can I also point out that earlier in the thread Zulu-11 dismissed a UNSCEAR report that contradicted his view on the health risks of Radon as not being peer reviewed etc. However he appears to be more than happy to cite a non peer reviewed WHO report that supports his viewpoint on the Chernobyl death toll.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    j me – it doesn’t even support his view

    j_me
    Free Member

    j me – it doesn’t even support his view

    🙂 Well that’s beside the point….. 🙂

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    No, you’re lying again TJ

    The WHO report states that A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion – in addition it stated that as of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers.

    Now, lets look at that phrase again could eventually die – do you understand the importance of the words could and eventually

    Neither word supports your specific claim of at least 10 000 lives

    to state less than a hundred died from Chernobyl just shows how detached from reality you are

    Note your use of the word died, and its past tense the WHO report specifically states that less than 50 people have been killed by radiation exposure from the disaster, not my numbers, not numbers that “seem reasonable to me” proven actual real analysed figures

    So, you are lying and the sky is not falling

    Finally, your claim that thousands could die Well, its true, that theoretically thousands could die – but thousands, nay, millions could die if a meteorite smashed into London tomorrow, the fact that there is a theoretical risk does not mean that it is likely to happen and nobody loses sleep over the chance of it happening – and is exactly why you need to learn about risk analysis, threat, and dread!

    molgrips
    Free Member

    FFS, it’s a gorgeous day get out on your bloody bikes.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Oh, and all of you – being incorrect is NOT the same as lying. This really gets my goat on forums 🙁

    zokes
    Free Member

    So we don’t have safe disposal

    OK, so we don’t. Now please compare and contrast the ‘unsafe’ disposal methods you are so het up about with our current disposal practices for:

    1) Gaseous waste from fossil fuel (exc GHGs)
    2) Solid waste from fossil fuel

    Both those wastes contain radioactivity, but more importantly, they contain chemical toxins that do not decay, not over tens, hundreds, thousands of years, never. Currently, (1) is mostly just left to float off (what we can’t see won’t hurt us); and (2) is, lo-and-behold, buried in a hole, where it might remain, or after a few decades, might leach out into the environment. Who knows, but it won’t be half as rigorously observed as was from the nuclear industry would be.

    Then there are those GHGs – more damaging than all on a global scale. What stringent waste capture regulations are in place to deal with those? Well, precisely none.

    You should look at Z11’s figure up there. This is what I was talking about before – totally irrational fear of something you don’t comprehend. NOT a good state of mind to be basing policies on.

    I’m not even going to start answering your comments about development of fusion/thorium etc – the same argument holds just as much for renewables, and you’ll draw me back into the nukes vs argument that only you appear to be adamant on having.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions that show how irrational your wish to have nukes is and than claim I am irrationally scared of nukes.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions

    Which ones did he refuse to answer?

    zokes
    Free Member

    I do so love the way you continually refuse to answer any questions that show how irrational your wish to have nukes is and than claim I am irrationally scared of nukes.

    Which questions, or has your fear reached such proportions you can no longer read?

    Waste: We have sound, if not ‘perfect’ methods which involve putting it in extremely geologically stable places. As an interim, we keep it where it can be constantly monitored.

    Now I’ll repeat my question: What do we do with the huge quantities of waste from conventional power production?

    I’ll ask another: As some of it is actually pretty damned dangerous (again, I’ll exclude the bleedingly-obvious GHGs here), why are these treated differently? Not forgetting of course that the main issue you have with waste from the nuclear industry is its radioactivity – a problem shared with coal ash and emissions then.

    You then point to ‘hypocrisy’ that some countries can have nukes and others cannot. Well, as you appear to be playing up to the moronic tag I gave your arguments some pages ago, I’ll reiterate my answer for you:

    Your question makes no sense, unless you apply it to just about any other energy source. You say such comparisons are silly – I ask you why, again, you fail to answer.

    Finally, just about everything you have ever typed on STW about nuclear power (or bike helmets for that matter) is based on your own irrational, subjective views. The fact that they are irrational is borne out by your failure to consider anything anyone has put to you that contradicts your won preconceived argument. If you feel it so strongly that you refuse to even consider the multitude of information raised in this thread, then I’d strongly advise that you give up now. There is no point in discussing anything if you do not wish to learn from it.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Now I’ll repeat my question: What do we do with the huge quantities of waste from conventional power production?

    We pump it into the atmosphere where it screws up the planet’s climate.

    There is no point in discussing anything if you do not wish to learn from it

    He never wants to learn from these threads. He just wants you to agree with him.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    totally irrational fear of something you don’t comprehend. NOT a good state of mind to be basing policies on

    Bit harsh he disagrees with you that does not mean he does not comprehend. Why do so many people think th eonly reason for disagreeing with them is stupidity…bit arrogant IMHO.
    As for deaths from Chernobyl there is clealry a range as to how many deaths it will cause and how many deaths it has caused so far. To focus on the former and ignore the later would be cherry picking the data.

    The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. It will be impossible to attribute specific deaths to Chernobyl, and many estimates indicate that the rate of excess deaths will be so small as to be statistically undetectable, even if the ultimate number of extra premature deaths is large

    The range of death estimates varies from 9.000 to about 1 million. It is worth noting that the UN report covered a much smaller geographical area than other researchand focused on the worst hit area – rather than all affected areas. It is a less complete study. That said it will be difficult to prove early deaths, deformities, cancers etc are directly caused by Chernobyl or whether they are natural rates
    TJ is hardly alone on this forum in being opinionated and not changing his mind – Socialist are we molgrips?- yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people.

    based on your own irrational, subjective views

    your are kidding he puts up loads of evidence on the helmet threads to support his view , not that I agree with it, but I dont think it is paranoid, a sign of stupidty or not supported by reasearch.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    Comparing the disposal of plutonium with coal ash is not helpful, Zokes. It’s like comparing eating a few apple pips and a eating a spoonful of cyanide.

    zokes
    Free Member

    Comparing the disposal of plutonium with coal ash is not helpful, Zokes. It’s like comparing eating a few apple pips and a eating a spoonful of cyanide.

    OK, so it may be a bit extreme, when comparing their radioactivities. However, it’s not when comparing their chemical toxicities. Also, as I’m sure you’re aware, HLW is a very small %age of the total radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. A comparison between the larger amounts of LLW stored at Drigg vs the mountains of coal ash simply landfilled without a second thought is a perfectly good comparison to make. And that’s just the stuff that doesn’t float out of the chimneys….

    Insisting on a perfect solution to one form of waste whilst ignoring that produced by other sources is even less helpful.

    yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people.

    One suspects that has a lot to do with the way he addresses people, that and the fact he almost always refuses to accept that he may not be correct, whilst ramming his often ill-considered views down others’ throats. I’ll qualify that by saying he has been exceptionally helpful to many on here with his industrial relations knowledge, however, that’s a field he clearly knows a lot more about than developing the most sustainable energy mix going into the future. Pity, he used to learn things from these debates, now he seems to have degenerated into a contrarian with no purpose.

    Why do so many people think th eonly reason for disagreeing with them is stupidity…bit arrogant IMHO.

    So that would be TJ’s ‘bullshine’ remarks at the start of this thread then would it. Best put your rose-tinted specs down… He brings it on himself – especially with remarks like that, followed by a flounce when someone fires them back at him, then a sadly predictable comeback with ‘I just can’t resist’. He can’t, even when it might be prudent, hence why he gets the flak.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    The very low level waste so far disposed of has been shallow land filled in much the same way as coal slag and ash.

    I’m convinced we can live without coal or nuclear power stations. If we need one or the other because we are not prepared to shut down energy greedy industries and put another sweater on when it’s a flat calm in December then I’ll take the coal station.

    zokes
    Free Member

    I’m convinced we can live without coal or nuclear power stations. If we need one or the other because we are not prepared to shut down energy greedy industries and put another sweater on when it’s a flat calm in December then I’ll take the coal station.

    I’m convinced that if the world’s population lived as you do, we could probably manage without too. Sadly however, it won’t, so we can’t.

    Please can you explain, taking into consideration all the uncontrolled releases from coal, why you came to that decision? I am quite simply perplexed by it. What is it about radiation that makes clearly intelligent people ignore the effects of the alternatives?

    Both coal and nuclear produce undesirable wastes, yet noone seems to care about the massive downsides of coal as soon as the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned. I suspect that this goes back to Z11’s graph back up there…

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    OK, so it may be a bit extreme, when comparing their radioactivities. However, it’s not when comparing their chemical toxicities

    so it is a useless comparison then not just a bit extreme.

    Insisting on a perfect solution to one form of waste whilst ignoring that produced by other sources is even less helpful

    TBH you seem to be doing the opposite looks the others have watse products so why pick on radioactive waste. The two reasons being danger level [risk]and appropriate storage which are clearly issues. No one is saying other waste prosucts are ace just that radioactive ones are more dangerous and harder to store safely – a not very radical position.

    Pity, he used to learn things from these debates

    I dont see any change in the views of any of the protagonists in this debate [ including you and me]

    Best put your rose-tinted specs down

    Very persuassive put down thanks 😆

    What is it about radiation that makes clearly intelligent people ignore the effects of the alternatives?

    They dont they just think they are bigger than the alternatives and avoidable.

    I suspect that this goes back to Z11’s graph back up there…

    the one that shows that only war and nerve gases are more dangerous than nukes that one? Seems to support the view it is dangerous.
    In these debates i suspect you can all see each othere viewpoints

    1. reduce use and dont have nukes it is hard to dispose of it inverst in alternative renewable sustainable solutions [ broadly my position].
    2. Have nukes, it is safe [ the risks can be controlled], other generation schemes have dangerous waste products or are unreliable and the risk of energy shortage will be worse.

    both are reasonable positions [ logical] and both would solve the issue of how to generate enough power.
    As you all know the arguments I am not sure what any of you expect as a conclusion.

    RealMan
    Free Member

    Radiation exposure is higher near coal plants then nuclear plants.

    We also absorb far more radiation every day from other natural sources then we do from nuclear plants.

    Also if you do get a huge dose of radiation, there’s a chance you can turn into a superhero, which is just cool.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    I do not mind the flack from erudite and informed folk such as Zokes. I am sure that its very frustrating to him to argue with someone with a different viewpoint that does not agree with him anf that challenges his shibboleths

    I have actually been listening and learned stuff on this thread. One thing that is clear that anyone who does not agree that new nukes are a good idea is villified as a know nothing luddite. Numpties like Zulu can happily be ignored I have learnt.

    Despite what you say above I have seen no credible answer to what to do with the waste – there is not even concensus amongst the pro nuclear lobby.

    No one on this thread has provided an answer to why the UK should have them but deny them to other countries. No one is denying any other technology to other countries so that retort is nonsense – indeed a part of my reasoning is that without wasting money on nukes we will be able to spend more money on developing alternative tech which I would be happy to share with the world. I want the UK to be a world leader in renewables tech and to sell this to the world. We need massive investment to do so.

    If nuclear is so good safe and efficient that its imperative the the UK has it then the same must apply to Iran and Burma. If Iran and Burma do not need to have it we don’t either. By withholding the tech from some countries that ensures that nuclear is not part of any significant reduction in CO2 production worldwide. So you want to burdon the UK with a increased problem with nuclear waste and decommissioning for no significant gain and at a cost of not developing renewables because there will not be the money to develop and install renewables because of the high financial cost of nukes.

    Teh pro nuclear lobby continually move the goalposts each time their position is shown to be logically flawed.

    so once again – here are the questions that no one has answered in any credible way. Very predictable

    1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?

    2) Where is the fuel going to come from

    3) what to do with the waste?

    4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?

    5) How are you going to fund both nukes and reneawables?

    6) why discount solar ( PV and heat), wind, wave?

    7{) why discount energy usage reductions?

    RealMan
    Free Member

    One thing that is clear that anyone who does not agree that new nukes are a good idea is villified as a know nothing luddite. Numpties like Zulu can happily be ignored I have learnt.

    No one on this thread has provided an answer to why the UK should have them but deny them to other countries.

    Imagine you are a logical person in a room full of strangers. Everyone has a gun, including you. You have one bullet in your gun, but no one else has any bullets. In front of you is a table full of bullets. Do you take the bullets, or give them to everyone else?

    Pretty obviously really.

    1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?

    Having a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb factory are two very different things, don’t get confused between the two.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    We also absorb far more radiation every day from other natural sources then we do from nuclear plants

    Well only if they work properly and they keep the waste safe. Everyone knows this but we still have exclusion zones when things go wrong and people can get their whole safe yearly dose in a few minutes. It would be a gross simplification to claim they are safe because there is background radiation. There is background cynanide in certain foods but I would not call it safe to ingest. I am not sure why you made the point tbh. It is something would expect from the Sun or clarkson and you are quite bright.

    j_me
    Free Member

    4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?

    Nukes are probably the best choice of the non-renewables for bringing online at short notice to iron out fluctuations……doesn’t outweigh the disadvantages though IM(ill informed)O.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    i can have a stab at 2,3,6 and 7

    2) a hole in the ground – there’s a lot of uranium ore in north america/canada iirc, + DRoC.

    3) a hole in the ground

    6) they provide zero when it’s not sunny/windy/wavey

    7) doesn’t hurt to be prepared

    as for:

    1) iran – they don’t seem to care what we think, and why should they?

    4) dunno – in a very similar way to how it’s done now i suppose…

    and

    5) dunno – i guess energy prices will rise a lot in the near future – and that will probably help a bit with 7)

    RealMan
    Free Member

    Of course, but someone said they’d rather have a coal plant then a nuclear power plant because of the radiation. Seemed a bit silly.

    The likely hood of a plant going wrong I feel is quite small. People throw the word “safe” around a lot, but its a bit vague. Yes, when nuclear power plants go wrong, the consequences are quite bad. But the same is true for planes, trains, cars, bikes, buildings, and lots of other things, but we don’t worry as much about those.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Awhiles – we only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades – increase usage and decrease the timespan. Thats one of the issues ignored. Fuel for uranium cycle reactors is in short suply

    RealMan
    Free Member

    we only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades

    Source please, as I’ve found several that would seem to disagree with this.

    Unless by “some” you mean several hundred or thousand.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    The likely hood of a plant going wrong I feel is quite small

    yes i thik most agree but can you name any that have ?
    They dont worry as the scale of a nuclear plant going terriblly wrong is quite massive and we know we make the worlds most powerful weapons from it.
    It is not neccasirly ignorance as nuclear is dangerous by its very nature. we are trying to comtrol that reaction and if we fail it gets very messy very quickly. Anything we do we mess up eventually.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Realman – extractable ? 50 – 100 years is generally accepted – I took Zokes word for 85 years worth

    85 years worth here
    http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member

    we only have enough uranuim available at current rates of usage for some decades

    then we’re knackered, and in the next couple of decades the world will descend into a grubby squabble over resources.

    you aint seen nothing yet.

    it’ll all be very malthusian.

    it may be very right on and groovy to reduce our consumption to the point where we can survive on tidal power, but that will count for nothing when our neighbours realise that we’re sitting on loads of coal.

    or, burn some coal, burn some gas, install a few wind and tidal turbines, do some atomic stuff, etc. and we’ll be fine.

    rising prices will force us to use less power, i predict this will happen gradually, we’ll hardly notice, it’s all going to be ok – it really is.

    as for the radio4 thing earlier; basically, it’ll be a miracle if we get the next generation of nuclear power stations built in time, so we’ll almost certainly be forced* to fill the impending energy short-fall with quick’n’cheap gas stations.

    (*there’ll be riots if we don’t)

Viewing 40 posts - 761 through 800 (of 1,150 total)

The topic ‘Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?’ is closed to new replies.