Government and Nuclear Power...

Etheco_2

It could be argued that this whole argument just highlights the reason why nuclear power isn't the best option

We wouldn't have to be worrying about radiated this and radioactive that and mutants, and inedible sheep, and whether chernobyl was a radiated steam plume or an explosion or whether chappaquidick is now uninhabitable because of the accident or whatever! etc etc if we developed safe clean power sources.

tr3mor

Etheco wrote:

if we developed safe clean power sources.

There's no such thing that could power the UK's needs.

We can't generate all of our electricity from renewables. What happens on a windless cloudy day? The country would have to be turned into one huge battery to store the energy we would need and that's hardly environmentally friendly

talksalot81

I got fed up with alot of the drivel so Im posting in simple arguement with the nuclear doomsdayers.

Most of these people rely on the media and do not know the science. It is as straightforward as that. Anyone who understands will realise that terrorism is not a problem. Even to a simple mind without the science, dont you think it would have been done if it could!? It isn't as if these power stations are Fort Knox! The reason it hasnt been done is because it would be almost impossible to cause widespread damage. Even if someone got to messing with the core, they would be lucky to destroy the station at the very best, hardly worthwhile. Even mad fanatical terrorists can work that out.

Chernobyl you say... there are 3 types of reports, nuclear positive, media negative and scientific middle. But then again, why trust science when you can trust the sun newspaper since it supports your fear. At the end of it, even if you do believe the very worst (as a scientist I can tell you that alot of reports are rubbish), would you care to compare to other fuels? How about hydroelectric - nice safe renewable fuel. But it isnt. More people are KNOWN to have died as a result of disasters here than the very worst implications made about chernobyl. Further, you want a fuel open to terrorism, did it occur that blowing up a dam has been proven feasible throughout modern history and the results have again been shown devastating.

Modern fears for nuclear? Problems? Yes, one of importance, waste. If you think there are more problems, best get back to your gcse science books because you have a lot of work before you are qualified to continue the discussion. Anyhow - waste. Did you realise that the problem of nuclear waste is already with us? Modern designs and techniques do not add significantly. If we only invented fission today and had our current technological understanding, waste would not be a problem.

Whilst on waste, coal is of course one of the worst. As noted it releases tonnes of radioactive material into the atmosphere. It releases enormous quantities of carcinogens (and im afraid that they are never ever good), adds to greenhouse gases... so im sorry, if you want a target, coal (fossil fuels) is much better from a waste point of view.

I could write about this for many pages but it boils down to one fact - fear through ignorance. These will be the same people who have led us down the road of a burglar having more rights in our homes than we the owners.

So if you dont really understand, listen to a good scientific view. Inspite of outside opinion, published scientific material is exceptionally well moderated and heavily biased views will rarely get through. Almost every media source will be biased and cannot be believed. If that is where you get your information, and as rude as it sounds, please shut up because your views are simply wasting time.

Volcano

When the Chernobyl accident occurred there were many governments running around like headless chickens....

This is still information from 20 years ago. Even our government, given 2 decades to reassess radiation levels, are likely to have got their sums right in that time and so restrictions remain in force.

Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski: Has a history of flying in the face of other scientific opinion, HOWEVER, you were correct to include quotes from his report here as much of it has basis in fact and he is respected by many in his scientific field.

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.

Without a doubt, something I CAN agree with!

gromituk

talksalot81 wrote:

More people are KNOWN to have died as a result of [hydroelectric] disasters here than the very worst implications made about chernobyl.

Hmm - from someone purporting to be above the rest due to their scientific standpoint, this really doesn't support you in your lofty position:

1) You are comparing one incident involving one source of power with every incident involving another.

2) Your own emphasis betrays the fact that you are also skewing the statistics by concentrating on "known deaths". After all, it's usually pretty difficult to argue against a verdict of death in a hydroelectric accident, and yet you can argue until the cows come home about a death caused by something which may be radiation-related. That doesn't mean it wasn't caused by something radiation-related, though.

gromituk

tr3mor wrote:

Did anyone see countryfile on sunday? They're planning to build the UK's biggest windfarm (200 or more 140m turbines) on Lewis, an island which has 60 pairs of golden eagles. It's an absolute disgrace!

It might be, if one doesn't question your implication that the wind farms will slaughter these birds. Where's your evidence?

Add to this all the huge roads they would have to build to get machinery to the sites in the first place.

Huge roads? I've never seen anything more major than a single vehicle width access to a wind turbine. The machines they use to chop down forests are pretty huge, but they don't seem to need superhighways to be laid to operate.

I agree that wind turbines have their place, but surely they need to site them more sensitively!

Where, for instance? Would you like one in your back garden? I'm sure it's of little environmental importance.

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

It might be, if one doesn't question your implication that the wind farms will slaughter these birds. Where's your evidence?

Wind farm 'hits eagle numbers'

gromituk wrote:

Huge roads? I've never seen anything more major than a single vehicle width access to a wind turbine. The machines they use to chop down forests are pretty huge, but they don't seem to need superhighways to be laid to operate.

I think you should go have a look at the plans for Lewis. These don't seem to be your average wind turbines. They're 140m high for a start with a 100m diameter rotor, for comparison the London Eye is 135m high.

They're laying 104miles of roads, the stone for which will come from 5 new quarries on the Island. Each wind turbine will have a 22m square concrete base, concrete isn't exactly the most environmentally sensitive product!

Bear in mind that much of the area where these turbines will be built is a protected peat bog - a fantastic store of carbon which will be excavated and cannot be replaced.

Another view on the site - Lewis Wind Farm - RSPB

gromituk wrote:

Where, for instance? Would you like one in your back garden? I'm sure it's of little environmental importance.

When I get a garden I fully intend on putting some form of wind turbine and/or solar heating etc. Might be a bit big to fit on the balcony in the flat I live in at the moment.

gromituk

tr3mor wrote:

Wind farm 'hits eagle numbers'

Thank you - looks convincing. I wonder if there is a some sort of potential solution to this involving scaring the birds away, or something?

I think you should go have a look at the plans for Lewis. These don't seem to be your average wind turbines. They're 140m high for a start with a 100m diameter rotor, for comparison the London Eye is 135m high.

They have to be, or they do not harvest enough energy to make it worthwhile. The larger they are, the more environmentally friendly they are in terms of energy produced per unit area of ground and for unit of energy embodied in construction.

They're laying 104miles of roads, the stone for which will come from 5 new quarries on the Island. Each wind turbine will have a 22m square concrete base, concrete isn't exactly the most environmentally sensitive product!

Sounds rather small in the scale of things - plenty of concrete is required to build nuclear power stations, and plenty of quarrying for the fuel.

Bear in mind that much of the area where these turbines will be built is a protected peat bog - a fantastic store of carbon which will be excavated and cannot be replaced.

The carbon release will be minimal; the loss of wildlife habitat may be a bit more significant.

When I get a garden I fully intend on putting some form of wind turbine and/or solar heating etc. Might be a bit big to fit on the balcony in the flat I live in at the moment.

Unfortunately, as I and other have said before, domestic wind turbines and water heating systems are unlikely to be environmentally or financially viable, at least in the short term. What we need to do is consume less.

Cardew

How refreshing to see some informed comment in defence of nuclear energy on this forum.

The argument to ban nuclear power stations and replace them with renewable energy has about as much credibility as the argument of those who claimed banning nuclear weapons would end all wars.

I rather think the same people spout this nonsense.

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

Thank you - looks convincing. I wonder if there is a some sort of potential solution to this involving scaring the birds away, or something?

You can't just scare Golden Eagles away!

This is a fairly untouched corner of Scotland, would it not be better if we left it alone? Have we not ruined enough of the countryside already?!

gromituk wrote:

Unfortunately, as I and other have said before, domestic wind turbines and water heating systems are unlikely to be environmentally or financially viable, at least in the short term. What we need to do is consume less.

It was you that suggested I was a NIMBY by asking me if I wanted a wind turbine in my garden in the first place!