Nuclear Power, yay or nay

Oh, that's all right then.

And leaving 1bn plus people to be flooded out of their homes, and having their crops ruined isn't? Clearly wrongplacewrongtime….

I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change…

Zokes, it's all about human fallibility:
We make mistakes, it's a simple built in design flaw.
No matter what we do, what safeguards we put in place, this will still inevitably happen.

When it's something trivial, like forgetting to feed the cat, you just get a hungry cat.

When it comes to something more serious, like mixing up imperial and metric measurements, you get a ruined space program or the closure of an innovative and inspirational motorcycle company.

Do you really think that mixing inevitability of the human capacity for cock-ups with a technology that has the potential to ruin our planet for ever is a seriously good idea?

Oh, and every single nuclear scientist I have ever heard defend his chosen profession will claim that design has moved on, these mistakes can never happen again, designs are much improved now etc etc.
It's what the designers of Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl all said, and of course, they were wrong.

I don't advocate taking no action on climate change. But neither do I see a simple either/or proposition.

I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change

Breathtaking.

I do not dismiss nukes out of hand. I have read the evidence and looked a the record and have concluded that they have no part in the solution.

And that's an understandable opinion to have. It is one I also share to some extent of uranium fission. In my opinion however, it's the best option we have, preferring to balance the small risk of nuclear accidents and the waste issue for those of us using the energy against the certainty of catastrophic destruction as the effects of climate change become more severe. To counter us running out of oil and gas and becoming nuclear-free, we'll need more renewables than will be physically feasible, and burn a lot more coal than we currently do.

Thorium on the other hand? The Indians appear to be getting somewhere with that, and it's a lot cleaner and more efficient than uranium-based technologies, and apparently promises greater reserves of easily extractable fuel.

The final answer has to be nuclear fusion however, but thanks to lack of long-term funding that's still at least 50 years away, as it was 50 years ago…

Sadly I suspect the final answer will be the human race destroying itself as we fight over the ever-decreasing oil reserves, but that's another debate entirely.

I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change

Breathtaking.

Quite.

You clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world. At least if one of our nuclear plants were to go TU, for the most part it would be a western problem, which would be considerably fairer than them facing the consequences of our continued use of coal and oil…

Zokes,

Just gone back over a few of your recent essays and found this gem:

Tide – space limitations, tides go in / out at fixed times, not necessarily when needed.

You've really looked into this haven't you?

"Space limitations" – What are you on about?

"fixed times" – Well looking at today's tides I see first high water in Ullapool was at 1.53 a.m whilst in Portsmouth it was at 5.55 a.m. That's a 4 hour spread. Given that tides are strongest about 3 hours after they are slack (a 3 hour spread), that would lead me to believe that if you built tidal power generation around the coastline then you could have a pretty constant supply of electricity from them. Follow that?

Zokes, Seems you're getting a little bit rabid about this, but thanks for your critique of renewables. Clearly I haven't listed all the possible options and those I did were examples. I do note that you completely fail to list the downsides of nuclear or the, frankly, incredible capital spend required.

Hopefully you'll realise that they were to highlight the fact that there is plenty more that could be being done to contribute to the energy mix of the UK and thus reduce dependency on nuclear.

Ultimately, I agree that fusion power is the final step.

On the energy efficiency thing you miss the point. If manufacturers are made to produce efficient devices, the public will not see any impact.

On climate change – most people can't appreciate how much of an effect it will have on them, let alone developing nations. I'd not bother preaching TBH. You'll just get upset up about it.

You clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world.

I think I do actually. OTOH you seem remarkably chipper about the potential consequences of nuclear accidents.

Its an issue of scale.

Nuclear accidents are really quite small scale though, even if they are nasty.

I don't doubt the capacity for them to seriously affect hundreds of thousands of people, however, global climate change is liable to affect millions, if not billions. Have you ever stopped to actually think about what a billion, or even a million actually is? Its a staggering number. Been to a packed out Wembly for a gig? That feels like the whole of London is there, but its only 72,000.

A dead person is still a dead person, whether by radiation, starvation, drought, or the wars that will happen over life giving resources.

I think some people are still thinking that "nuclear accident" = "nuclear explosion", and that makes it impossible for them to think clearly.

Which was the worse industrial accident, Chernobyl or Bhopal?

Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?

The point is, no-one claims that Bhopal means we shouldn't have a chemicals industry.

To paraphrase, are you saying "sh1t happens, get over it"?

Chernobyl, by some margin.

You've really looked into this haven't you?

"Space limitations" – What are you on about?

"fixed times" – Well looking at today's tides I see first high water in Ullapool was at 1.53 a.m whilst in Portsmouth it was at 5.55 a.m. That's a 4 hour spread. Given that tides are strongest about 3 hours after they are slack (a 3 hour spread), that would lead me to believe that if you built tidal power generation around the coastline then you could have a pretty constant supply of electricity from them. Follow that?

Yes, I have actually.

With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides, and certainly not on a balanced approach. Have a look at the shape of the country. For comparison, the Severn is estimated to be able to generate a massive 7GW at peak as the tide goes out. One of the few other places seriously considered is the Mersey, but that would offer a paltry 300MW. I'm sure there are a few more, but to generate useful amounts of electricity, there really aren't any more. Don't think these are totally green either – there are massive ecological implications for the estuaries affected, and quite possibly appreciable methane gas fluxes as a result of the altered 'tides'.

Zokes, Seems you're getting a little bit rabid about this, but thanks for your critique of renewables. Clearly I haven't listed all the possible options and those I did were examples. I do note that you completely fail to list the downsides of nuclear or the, frankly, incredible capital spend required.

It all comes back to money then? Stuff the third world because it's too expensive?

On the energy efficiency thing you miss the point. If manufacturers are made to produce efficient devices, the public will not see any impact.

Other than increase in price to them? One would assume that the companies would pass the blame for those price increases to the government's door for the electorate to digest and selfishly act upon? New plasma TV suddenly twice the price of old plasma TV? – I'm fairly sure they'd want to know why…

rightplacerighttime – Member

You clearly have no concept of just how much of an effect sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns will have on the developing world.

I think I do actually. OTOH you seem remarkably chipper about the potential consequences of nuclear accidents.

Clearly you don't. Short of nuking a lot of major cities (and it's already been noted that power stations are rarely built close to large centres of population), I can't imagine a death toll of greater than one 6th of the world's population resulting from what is an extremely unlikely event that several nuclear power stations fail as catastrophically as Chernobyl.

However coastal flooding and changes in rainfall as a result of global warming will almost certainly cause that number of deaths. Oh, and to make it even cheerier, the amount of methane likely to be released from melting permafrost and the oceans if we continue will make our contributions seem quite minor by comparison…

On climate change – most people can't appreciate how much of an effect it will have on them, let alone developing nations. I'd not bother preaching TBH. You'll just get upset up about it.

Not really, although it's quite useful to demonstrate why asking or forcing people to be efficient simply won't work

With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides

Utter crap

Next time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.

rightplacerighttime – Member

Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?

rightplacerighttime – Member

To paraphrase, are you saying "sh1t happens, get over it"?

Looks like it. As you clearly don't care about global warming, why should you care about whether we use nuclear electricity to power your computer. I'm alright Jack…

José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind.

"We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020," he told El País newspaper.

Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country's nuclear plants.

Experts estimate that by the end of the year, Spain will have provided a quarter of its energy needs with renewables, with wind leading the way, followed by hydroelectric power and solar energy.

There's got to be some hope for wind power – I'd quite happily see a large portion of East Anglia covered in Turbines and it is in my back yard.

Utter crap

Next time you look into it, you might want to look beyond tidal barrages.

Ah, those underwater 'wind' turbines? Or maybe tidal pools? Yes 🙄

Any idea of the area of the Severn estuary? To give us 7GW all the time, how many tidal pools would have to be built around the coast? Is there enough relatively shallow sea in which to do this?

As for the sea-current turbines, they're a great idea, but limited by areas in which they can be deployed, and somewhat lacking in energy output. They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.

zokes,

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?

You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.

The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.

They'd make the proposed huge offshore windfarms look small by comparison for the same generation capacity.

And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?

rightplacerighttime – Member

zokes,

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my opinion is on climate change?

You've told me what my opinion is, and now you're telling me I'm wrong. But I haven't said anything about it on this thread.

The only thing I have said on this thread is that I'm anti-nuclear.

Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people. If you wish, we can work out just how many times Chernobyl would have to explode to kill the same number…

Whether you have a view that it's happening or not, you seem to have failed to grasp the effect it will have on over a billion people.

When have I said anything about the effect it will have?

When have I said anything about the effect it will have?

You haven't. I'm simply trying to draw your attention to the scale of numbers. Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000. Just how many multiples of that number are there in 1bn?

You're also assuming that a catastrophic accident (which as I said earlier was the direct result of staff disobeying orders and disabling all the safety backups before carrying out an experiment on a reactor that would never have been allowed to run in the west, even then) will happen in a modern, much better designed and managed reactor?

And how do they compare with the proposed investment in nuclear?

The UK government is proposing 12.5 GW at this stage new nuclear build.

However, we've gone back to arguing about current technologies. The tides are fixed, it's unlikely we're going to get more usable wind. There are physical boundaries to where renewable generation can be built.

The future of nuclear is very different. Go back through the thread again, and look for my mentions of thorium….

With the exception of the Severn Barrage, there aren't many places in the UK of note that could produce an appreciable amount of energy from tides

Several place in scotland. pentland firth and the falls of lorn are the most obvious but the forth and the clyde could be as well as well as one or two others. One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.

One of them ( I can't remember which) could produce 25% of all scotlands needs. all together is 100% and more to export.

Which is good, but you only have 5m people to supply. There simply isn't enough for the UK as a whole. I personally think tidal barrages are one of the more promising renewable options, but in their own way, locally they are very destructive. I agree this is nothing compared to the effects climate change would have, but in terms of local decimation of wildlife, a 2GW nuke in normal operation wouldn't be much worse.

Tidal power is ace… Until of course you get to slack water and all the lights go out

Dont worry though, because we've got wind turbines to cover for then haven't we 🙄

Ratty- Z-11

However coastal flooding and changes in rainfall as a result of global warming will almost certainly cause that number of deaths.

Is that the same global warming that you are arguing is not occurring on this thread?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming
dont read it we argued a bit on there
Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes
Z-11 what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to decieve… I file you under trolling BS ratty.

Nice line BTW RPRT

Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?

Zulu – wrong. Have a look at how they work – tides are different in different parts of the country and different designs take the power in different ways. With all renewables you need some power storage – hydrogen is my fave but pump storage is possible as welland there are various schemes for getting power storge domestically / locally as well

Do try harder. If you want to rubbish something get your facts right.

Zokes – you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here – enough to make a difference UK wide – maybe 10 – 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal – but it does have an environmental cost of its own.

I'm pleased Z11 has moved across from the climate change thread to add his critical thinking to this subject!

Who was the cuddliest dictator, Hitler or Stalin?

Curiously, Hitler, on death-toll alone….

Where RPRT is arguing it is occurring BTW Zokes

Good for him. I haven't looked at that thread. Seeing as it looks to be about 10 pages long, I'm not going to start.

Was there a point to your post, Junkyard?

only for the intelligent reader Zokes – I learnt from that thread the art of trading pointless insults with random starngers – not a great debating technique IMHO
Only that RTRP is not denying climate change and he has not done so in this thread – I thought it was a fairly clear point now made explicit for you.
That and ratty just argues for the sake of it.

Zokes – you said the only tidal worth doing is the Severn. I just point out that there are plenty more up here – enough to make a difference UK wide – maybe 10 – 20 % of the entire UK needs could be met with tidal – but it does have an environmental cost of its own.

I chose that as the most obvious example, mainly because it's also the one that got closest to being built.

I am certainly not 100% for current nuclear, I see it as part of a mixture of advances for future generation, and hope we can move away from messy uranium as quickly as possible. However I do take exception to those who dismiss nuclear out of hand without offering a viable low-carbon solution.

When full LCAs are carried out on most 'low-carbon' technology, you'll realise it's not just nuclear that's dubious in its claims of being 'low carbon'

The bottom line is as we're most unlikely to appreciably cut our energy demands, we'll all find nuclear risks and even global warming a bit of a small problem compared to the chaos that will ensure when oil truly starts to run out, and people try to enforce their claims to what's left…

Junkyard – Premier Member

only for the intelligent reader Zokes

You must have missed it then

tides are different in different parts of the country and different design

So TJ – you need to build just how many levels of redundancy into your system?

If you need a national draw of, say, 10 GW – you need to build power generation capacity for what? 20 maybe 30 GW to account for the problems and lack of continuity?

there wouldn't be an inch of coastline or unblemished hillside left in the country!

nice retort BTW – still a bit pointless though

nice retort BTW – still a bit pointless though

Well, put your handbag away and contribute to the debate, rather than the poor attempt at trolling you're currently pedalling.

Zokes said:

Greenpeace has deaths as a direct result of Chernobyl likely to be between 100,000 and 300,000.

Zokes also said:

I think you'll find several nuclear accidents would be small fry compared to the consequences of climate change…

Actually Zokes, I agree with you that the carrying capacity of the earth may well fall by 1 bn because of global warming (and other things, like peak-oil) – how that will play out is a matter for debate – depends how we manage things.

But what I take exception to is your your self-righteous assertion that a few hundred thousand killed in nuclear accidents is "small fry"

No zulu. You don't understand at all. As on the climate change debate you have so little idea of what is actually happening. Not good considering you are supposed to be a scientist.

One tidal barrage at the falls of lorn, another at the dornoch firth ( for example) each one will fluctuate but the two together will produce a smooth stream of power as they are out of phase.

Local power storage ( there are many proposed ideas – using domestic hot wate heating for example) also smooths it out.

YOu are supposed to be a scientist. try learning a bit about what yu spout on about. Try not to show your ignorance and stupidity.