Government and Nuclear Power...

Etheco_2

kittiwoz wrote:

I'm all in favour of investment in renewable energy. But I don't believe we can support our economy through renewables alone. This is not a matter of faith or personal politics for me, it is based on knowledge. I have recently completed a degree in mechanical engineering which included a module on renewable energy resources. There are a number of issues relating to different forms of renewable energy and the explanation I gave was a very brief and basic boiling down of a lot of these. I am very much in favour of off-shore wind turbines but there are a number of limits on possible sitings so as far as potential turbine sites go, no there is not plenty of sea out there. Solar pV is unfortunately inefficient and expensive and so not currently really suitable for UK domestic use. It is currently most suited to large scale arrays in areas such as the Nevada desert. Technological advances could start to make solar power a viable option in the UK in the next 50 years although being a damp little island I don't see it ever being at the forefront of power generation here. Bio fuels such as rape seed oil, corn ethanol and coppiced awillow or hazel require large amounts of land which we don't have. I think it would be nice to have a bit of coppicing but that's more sentiment than science. Our geography makes hydro in Scotland and off-shore wind turbines good options because Scotland has lots of waterfalls and the UK has a lot of coast for its size. Wave power is something which doesn't really work at the moment but is worth investment because it would make our island status a real asset from a energy generation POV. Waste composting and incineration is something we really should do. We have a problem with creating energy, we have a problem with disposing of our waste. We should close the cycle. Unfortunately waste incineration plants are hard to sell to local communities although there is no evidence that they present any danger to health.

Nice as the idea of making the UK energy independent through renewable resources is it isn't something there is any realistic prospect of in the foreseeable future. Given that we have to make up the shortfall somehow. I completely accept that people are entitled to their different opinions and I can understand why people are opposed to nuclear fission. I count myself a reluctant supporter. However if people are opposed to nuclear power they must accept that for the foreseeable future at least that means accepting fossil fuel fired power stations as the alternative. Not to do so is dishonest.

Nice post. I should tell you that I have a BSc in Environmental Management and 7 years experience as an Environmental consultant so I'm not exactly speaking from a position of ignorance.

All of what you say is true but it's only true at todays levels of investment, knowledge and interest. If we got serious about this, i.e. if someone stood to make enough money out of it or our very survival depended on it, it would happen.

You need to think laterally, it's not a case of supplying todays exact energy needs. We need to become more efficient in our energy use and many existing technologies that use electricity can be replaced by energy efficient alternatives therebye reducing the demand.

Bio fuels are a classic example of 'in the box thinking'. The ecological footprint of ethanol makes it a dubious choice for replacing oil plus all we're doing is sustaining an existing technology instead of trying to replace it with something more efficient.

We need to stop throwing good money after bad and reduce our power needs whilst developing our renewable technologies. We haven't even mentioned hydrothermal and heat exchange methods.

moonrakerz

Volcano wrote:

"According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl",

Considering the massive amount of human suffering from this accident, your attempts to play this down is frankly disgusting.

I think the vituperative response from Volcano says far more about some of the anti-nuclear lobby than I ever could and just reinforces my comments about some of this lobby. Because I try to point out, in a reasoned way, the weaknesses in his argument he resorts to personal insults ! What a sad way to try and discuss a serious topic.

The report he quotes above is not exactly from an impartial source, is it ? It is rather like asking the League Against Cruel Sports to wrote an impartial document on the rights and wrongs of fox hunting.

I stand by what I said originally - much of the case put against nuclear power is simply untrue or gross exaggeration. When this is pointed out the only response is verbal violence.

Volcano

Spare us your "but I was only trying to help and you viciously attack me/I'm an innocent victim" platitudes.

Your post consisted of:

There is no increase in genetic defects in wildlife around Chernobyl:

Great! But I feel that this discussion is on the safety of nuclear power in a human context and the dangers to the human population.

It wasn't a nuclear accident, it was mainly steam.:

Irrelevant how or what was emitted, more relevant is its effects afterwards. 20 years later the radiation still persists in UK soils at dangerous levels, some quite nasty steam then?

Deaths from Chernobyl are in the low hundreds:

As people are still dying and will continue to die from the effects of radiation from Chernobyl, any figure is not final though you have chosen the lowest estimates.

If you want to have a rational discussion based on facts and figures from credible sources then I'm quite happy to, but I'm not so interested in unsubstantiated belittling of the most serious radiological accident to date.

af20001

I would suggest the following articles be read regarding Nuclear power, and then see if you still think Nuclear Power is a long term viable option:

Uranium Mining & Milling:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=627

Conversion & Enrichment:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=628

A Nuclear Future:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=634

Decommissioning:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=632

Nuclear Waste:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=631

Building A Nuclear Power Station:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=601

Operation & Maintenance:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=629

Licenced Emissions and Controlled Releases:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=630

As one of the articles states, there is enough identified uranium to last about 45 years at current usage levels. If Nuclear nations double capacity (which the UK is talking about), uranium ore could well run it in 20 years.

Doesn't seem a viable long term alternative to me...

kittiwoz

Etheco wrote:

We need to stop throwing good money after bad and reduce our power needs whilst developing our renewable technologies. We haven't even mentioned hydrothermal and heat exchange methods.

I absolutely and geniunely agree. I really do want to see investment in both renewable and energy efficient technologies. That is one concern I have over nuclear power, as I said before, there's a risk it could induce complacency and be seen as a long term solution which it is not. However at the present moment in time the technology we have is not capable of supplying our energy needs. I don't think it is likely to be in the near future. I think considering the current state of play it is necessary to accept that renewables are not going to become out primary energy source any time soon. What percentage do we get from renewables ATM? 3%?

I'm sorry if I sounded patronising in my post btw. It's just that I know a lot of people on these boards don't have any technical knowledge and your "plenty of sea" conjured images of somehow floating turbines anywhere in the ocean and transferring the electricity back to the mainland via fax or something! Read the posts on domestic wind turbines and see what I mean. Someone suggested a turbine that fitted into the roof like a Velux window. I think most people can see that's not sensible but the majority seem to think that it would be sensible for turbines to be maxed out before they ever experience high winds and that if you multiply the power produced by a turbine at average wind speed by the number of hours in a year you will get the energy output for the year in kWh. I can see how someone who doesn't understand the relationship between velocity, energy, and power could assume that last one but I'd have thought they might take the trouble to find out before they offer such half-baked ideas up to people in the form of advice. I get a bit fed up with trying to correct that notion in fact. It is such a simple concept it seems hard to dislodge although it is completely wrong. I get a bit frustrated tbh. Maybe next time someone comes out with that one you will be able to explain better than I have done. I've taken to pointing people to the guided tour on the Danish Wind Industry Association website (good guide though it sounds like it would tell you nothing you didn't know already) but I don't suppose many actually take the bother to read it.

Considering your knowledge and experience of the subject I'd be interested to know what developments you think are likely in the area of renewable energy reaources. I'm expecting a massive growth in the number of wind turbines in the next few years and over the decade. In a way though I think the wrong turbine has taken off. The Swift one seems a better machine but the Windsave is at the right price point and that's why it is in B&Q. Do you think if the Windsave sells it will be jumped on as an emergent market and a lot of new and improved turbines will be brought out to compete with it or do you think it's wider distribution network will allow it to squash the Swift turbine. It's a bit of a catch 22 really since they need to sell a lot of unit to achieve mass production which would lower the price but they can't sell the units without pricing more competitively. The fact that the lower spec machine is winning out on price makes me wonder if in fact the market isn't yet ready for this technology in which case the false start launch could kill it.

I'm thinking that if roof mounted turbines become popular and people get the right grid connections installed that could pave the way for an increase in the use of solar panels a few of decades down the line. I think building regs will be an important driver as well as new technology because if they become compulsory on new builds it will push the prices down beacuse of scale factors. (Rule of thumb doubling production of stuff reduces per item cost by 80%.) I've heard there have been recent advances in creating multi-junction cells to attack the band-gap problem. I've heard suggestions these could push efficiencies up to 35%. It sounds like these cells would be very expensive though. I'm thinking these are leaning more towards the single crystal cells as used by NASA end of the market and are likely to be used for big desert arrays. I've also heard there have been advances in nanocrystalline thin film cells which are more to your pocket-calculator end of the market. I know the amorphous cells like the ones in calculators don't stand up well to heat and deteriorate over time and I gather this has also been a problem with the nanocrystalline cells but that this is being overcome and that these cells can have efficiencies in excess of 10%. I think if these can dramatically reduce the price of solar they could make an impact. Their lightness could slash associated installation costs too. I think the nature of the material is appealing as an architectural feature which I think could be a big bonus over traditional cells. If it is cheap enough it might increase the range of positions in which it is considered suitable to site pV cells. I did a little research into domestic power generation for an engineering futures project and found it interesting stuff. I don't see UK homes operating independently of the grid though. I think there needs to be national investment in large scale projects too. Wind turbines are what look like the big winner in the near future. I don't expect the UK to ever seriously pursue ethanol/ bio diesel though I think the US will go for it a big way. I think there will be new rubbish incineration plants built too despite Nimby protests. What do you think the future will look like? Is domestic power generation going to be something significant or just a red herring? Where do you think we will be getting our power from in the future? Reading that back it sound a bit like a challenge. That's not how it is intended so please don't take it that way. I'm just interested to hear informed opinions on the subject.

Re. Waste incineration:

Volcano wrote:

There is also no evidence that they do not present a danger to human health!

It is notoriously hard to prove a negative. In an example like this I don't see how it is ever possible. If waste incinerators posed a danger to human health one would expect there to be statistically significant grouping of relevant illness in the areas surrounding them. Given that there isn't that's about the best proof you are going to get they are not harmful.

moonrakerz

Volcano wrote:

Spare us your "but I was only trying to help and you viciously attack me/I'm an innocent victim" platitudes.



If you want to have a rational discussion based on facts and figures from credible sources then I'm quite happy to, but I'm not so interested in unsubstantiated belittling of the most serious radiological accident to date.

Again, Volcano's response is a personal attack on me. I have made some rational points from very credible sources, however because my point of view does not align with his, Volcano can only resort to insults.
He accuses me of "unsubstantiated belittling" of Chernoble. NOT TRUE: the points I made that the impact of the radiation was grossly over estimated have been backed up by "credible" organisations such as The World Health Organisation,The International Agency for Research In Cancer and many others who have carried objective research into this subject. Read it !
Recently there was an "Horizon" programme on "credible" BBC television on this very subject.

The various links posted by af2001 all come from the same organisation with a very strong anti nuclear pedigree.

Regrettably, much of the boring, accurate research around this subject is swamped by sensationalist reporting in the media giving much of the populace a false impression, which is then "fed" upon by the anti-nuclear lobby.
An example of this appeared a couple of years ago in a tabloid newspaper.
Headline: "A-bomb convoy in motorway fire drama".

Actual story: a convoy carrying "products" (which may not have been actual weapons) from the nearby Atomic Weapons Establishment passed a car with an engine fire on the motorway hard shoulder. One of the two fire engines with the convoy stopped to render assistance.
Hardly a drama !

Please Volcano, broaden your outlook, don't believe everything you read on the Greenpeace/CND/ecologist websites.

af20001

moonrakerz wrote:

The various links posted by af2001 all come from the same organisation with a very strong anti nuclear pedigree.

Regrettably, much of the boring, accurate research around this subject is swamped by sensationalist reporting in the media giving much of the populace a false impression, which is then "fed" upon by the anti-nuclear lobby.


Please Volcano, broaden your outlook, don't believe everything you read on the Greenpeace/CND/ecologist websites.

Should we disbelieve everything you quote then, as you are pro nuclear? The Ecologist articles are well researched and quote the sources of the facts they convey in the articles, and they are hardly sensationalist - you obviously haven't read them or you would have noticed this.

Volcano

For kittiwoz:

From Elliott P, Shaddick G, Kleinschmidt I et al. Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. Br J Cancer 1996; 73:702-10. "..... demonstrated a statistically significant excess of cancers within 3.0 km and within 7.5 km of 72 municipal solidwaste incinerators in England, Wales and Scotland in the period 1974-1987. This was based upon approximately 348 000 cancer registrations at all ages, inside 7.5 km.

This was a study of areas around 72 incinerators. Whilst I agree this is not conclusive (as other factors have to be considered) pumping known carcinogens and toxins into a residential area can't be considered a good thing. Current epidemiological studies are ongoing as the toxicity of many incinerator released compounds are only just being realised. Residents in the vicinity of these places are effectively long term guinea pigs.


moonrakerz:

the points I made that the impact of the radiation was grossly over estimated have been backed up by "credible" organisations

Who cares whether initial estimations were accurate or not? We are talking about the current, ongoing effects of Chernobyl, not previous, inaccurate conjecture from 20 years ago!

I was expecting more from somebody who "....worked in VERY close proximity to various things nuclear....", maybe the industries' stance? perhaps the PR that is fed to the workers? Even the pro-nuclear websites don't deny that Chernobyl is a serious problem even today.

The BBC is government owned and as such cannot be regarded as having an independent viewpoint. However I'm sure it's more fun than "boring, accurate research around this subject" eh?

tr3mor

Volcano wrote:

The BBC is government owned and as such cannot be regarded as having an independent viewpoint.

Absolute tripe!

moonrakerz

My original post made the point that the effects of radiation from the Chernobyl accident were greatly exaggerated. For my pains I was called “Frankly disgusting” and accused of “unsubstantiated belittling” by Volcano. I would also like to say, at this point, that I have never worked in the nuclear industry in my life – however I have worked very close to it (which Volcano seems to sneer at) and that has enabled to me to gain a good understanding of the pros and cons of the nuclear debate, unlike him. His last post follows on from the previous ones:- “who cares”, “BBC is Government owned” “PR that is fed to the workers” “it's more fun than "boring, accurate research around this subject". Comments like that hardly do much to support his case - we can all see where he is are coming from !
No I wouldn’t want a nuclear power station at the end of my garden any more than a wind farm !!! but for the same reason, I’m a NIMBY !
It is obvious that we are not going to agree on this subject: I say that his sources of info are biased – he says the same about mine.

To end this discussion could I quote from a report produced by the former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski. I would have thought that most people would accept this gentleman was a fairly impartial, unbiased figure. Whether Volcano thinks so ………..we shall see.

When the Chernobyl accident occurred there were many governments running around like headless chickens, all saying “we must do something”. They all did something – most of it completely useless: some examples below:-

“Sweden allowed 30 times more radioactivity in imported vegetables than in domestic ones
Israel allowed less radioactivity in food from Eastern Europe than from Western Europe
The limit of cesium-137 concentration in vegetables imposed in the Philippines was 8,600 times lower than in the UK.
Norway authorities introduced a limit for cesium-137 in reindeer meat and game that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose in some regions of Norway.
336,000 people were evacuated from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below the natural level and was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central Station in New York.
"Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level of radioactive cesium-137 in the ground ten times lower than the level of natural radioactive matter in the soil.”

Many of these idiotic restrictions are still in place – that’s why the Welsh hills are of full of “inedible” sheep !

Lets have a look at cancers now:-

In 2000 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and in 2006 also the UN Chernobyl Forum, stated that, except for thyroid cancers, in the highly contaminated areas no increase in the incidence of solid cancers and leukaemia was observed.
“As for the thyroid cancers, the increased discovery is due to a screening effect. In normal populations there is a very high incidence of "occult" thyroid cancers (with no clinical symptoms), which is naturally up to 28% in Japan and 35% in Finland, which is a hundred to a thousand times higher than the incidence of "Chernobyl" cancers. After the accident more than 90% of children in contaminated areas started to be tested for thyroid cancers every year. It is now obvious that such vast screening resulted in finding the normally undetected occult cancers.
The number of cancer deaths predicted as a consequence of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been revised downward, from tens or hundreds of thousands to 4,000. The actual mortality for the accident has now reached 56, according to a United Nations report.
The 4,000 future cancer cases are just a theoretical construction, based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) theory for estimating radiation damage. In fact, it is quite likely that the Russian population will actually experience a cancer deficit as a result of Chernobyl. The liquidators—firemen and emergency workers—around Chernobyl have so far the same cancer incidence as the average Russian population (the rate is somewhat lower, but the difference is not statistically significant).”

One final quote from the report:-
“Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds”

I hope that many readers of this thread will have found it informative, in more ways than one !