Government and Nuclear Power...

tomstickland

I've not read this thread apart from OP and one post above.

I'm all for nuclear energy. What the hell else can we do once we !!!! away all of the non renewable sources?

I'm also pro "alternative energy". Wind, solar, tidal etc, all need working on.

We'd ideally move towards a lower consumption lifestyle once energy becomes really expensive. People will look back at the 21st century and wonder at the manner with which energy was wasted as if it would last forever.

LizEstelle

Part of the problem with small scale renewables is that they need a kick start.

I've said this before but it's about time the Government started acting as if it was one and began insisting that all public buildings and new private developments should have solar/wind technology installed and better insulation fitted.

THAT should give a boost to the entire sector and make the current dubious economics of going turbine shopping at B&Q a whole lot rosier.

Just watch the case for plutonium boiling the nation's kettle suddenly start looking ever so slightly dodgy...

Moggles_2

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, identifies transport as the most vulnerable area of nuclear security. Here in the UK, spent nuclear fuel is routinely transported by train from nine nuclear power stations around the country to the Sellafield storage & re-processing facility in Cumbria. Typically these journeys take place once a week from each reactor, at the same time and on the same lines as regular passenger and freight trains. Many of the nuclear train routes travel through long tunnels close to densely populated urban areas. It doesn't take much imagination to realise the danger posed by these consignments if there were a serious accident. Additional power stations would produce even more radioactive waste than the current nine. IMO, nuclear power should be phased out as quickly as possible. It's simply not worth the risk.

There's an urgent need for energy conservation and increased electricity generation from renewable sources, yet for almost five decades research and development has been inhibited by the presence of heavily-subsidised nuclear power. I appreciate how far developments in renewable energy and hydrogen-powered fuel cells have to go and the time it will take to switch from fossil fuels but, given the colossal problems associated with the legacy of nuclear wastes and the decommissioning of power stations, the role of nuclear power in meeting future energy needs is bound to be limited. The nuclear power industry gets nearly two million pounds of our money in subsidies every day. We need to stop throwing good money after bad and reduce our power needs whilst developing our renewable technologies. We have energy sources of immense promise if we are prepared to support them through wise policies rather than clinging to a failed nuclear dream.

talksalot81

gromituk wrote:

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.

You didnt google to check what I said. There have been several major incidents with hydroelectricity which resulted in serious loss of life. I am not summing to compare this to nuclear. There were 2 incidents in the late 70's in India resulting in several thousand directly related deaths.

As for the comparison, how can you make this point?! You can say the same about anything! Build a dam, displace individuals leading to a subsequent death which will be indirectly (and thus not linked) to hydroelectric power. Tidal power... disrupt fishing patterns, livelyhoods lost, people die due to inability to look after themselves. You cannot argue indirect effects. I appreciate your thoughts wrt radiation induced deaths, but there is as much evidence in both directions. As I believe I saw mentioned, there is growing evidence that low level radiation can lead to protective effects. Those indirect effects as well and you cannot discount the possibility that the radiation actually has led to lives being 'saved'.

At high radiation doses, we well understand what happens and it is relatively easily diagnosed (contrary to your suggestion). You are then talking about the grey area below where those lacking background ASSUME the radiation is dangerous. But that is what it is - an assumption, with very limited support and even less of statistical significance. To actually link lower doses to deaths really is no better than the other indirect relations I made. People dont understand this which is yet another reason why there is so much nonsense from those without specialist knowledge. On your second point I could argue until the cows came home that a death was caused by a cosmic ray. It is perfectly feasible and whilst I cant prove it, you sure as hell cant disprove it.

To further the discussions I bring up the issue of nuclear fusion. Now I introduce it by saying that, basically, nuclear fusion is much more energetic than nuclear fission (which is the sort of nuclear to which you refer). For example, a fusion bomb is enormously more destructive than a fission bomb. So... when I tell you that nuclear fusion power is becoming a reality, are you more or less scared than fission?

talksalot81

Moggles wrote:

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, identifies transport as the most vulnerable area of nuclear security. Here in the UK, spent nuclear fuel is routinely transported by train from nine nuclear power stations around the country to the Sellafield storage & re-processing facility in Cumbria. Typically these journeys take place once a week from each reactor, at the same time and on the same lines as regular passenger and freight trains. Many of the nuclear train routes travel through long tunnels close to densely populated urban areas. It doesn't take much imagination to realise the danger posed by these consignments if there were a serious accident. Additional power stations would produce even more radioactive waste than the current nine. IMO, nuclear power should be phased out as quickly as possible. It's simply not worth the risk.

There's an urgent need for energy conservation and increased electricity generation from renewable sources, yet for almost five decades research and development has been inhibited by the presence of heavily-subsidised nuclear power. I appreciate how far developments in renewable energy and hydrogen-powered fuel cells have to go and the time it will take to switch from fossil fuels but, given the colossal problems associated with the legacy of nuclear wastes and the decommissioning of power stations, the role of nuclear power in meeting future energy needs is bound to be limited. The nuclear power industry gets nearly two million pounds of our money in subsidies every day. We need to stop throwing good money after bad and reduce our power needs whilst developing our renewable technologies. We have energy sources of immense promise if we are prepared to support them through wise policies rather than clinging to a failed nuclear dream.

Care to quote the risk and damage estimates for a 'transport' accident? It is not as if large amounts of material are transported in one go, there are specific regulations and rules making sure that this is not the case. Furthermore, were something awful to happen and a train be derailed or blown up, what do you expect to happen? The quantity of material will be so incredibly low it will not explode in a million years. The probability is right up there with running through a brick wall and coming out the other side with the wall intact! Contamination of a surrounding area? Perhaps a risk but we are not talking about batches of fine powder which will blow for hundreds of miles on the wind. It would need to be blown up directly and even still there is a strong possibility that most of the dangerous material would remain contained (i.e. would not be vaporised and spread).

Related to comments about the golden eagles. Comments suggesting we 'scare them away' astound me. You are talking about a scarce (endangered?) species and suggesting that you remove them from their known habitat and ecosystem. This very act alone may endanger them further and this has been shown countless times in recorded history. My view on wind power is that it is all well and good, but you are just swapping one form of 'pollution' for another.

gromituk

tr3mor wrote:

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!

That's because I was talking baout a 100m high one, not a domestic one.

gromituk

talksalot: your description of the uncertainties involved in all this only serves to reinforce my point that you can't make comparisons like the one to which I objected. I'm not sure why you are wandering off into the realms of nuclear fission - that is irrelevant to the point in question.

talksalot81

gromituk wrote:

talksalot: your description of the uncertainties involved in all this only serves to reinforce my point that you can't make comparisons like the one to which I objected. I'm not sure why you are wandering off into the realms of nuclear fission - that is irrelevant to the point in question.

Yeah but my point is that those objecting to nuclear rely SOLELY upon believing the uncertain projections about nuclear and then comparing to known quantities in other sources. You have to compare like for like.

The KNOWN DIRECT death rates per TWh for nuclear are better than for alot of other power sources, including some of those which are given as safe renewable sources. It is only when you start implying indirect deaths from nuclear that it can seem scary and even that is because you are comparing nuclear(direct+indirect) with alternative(direct). It is not fair comparison.

I am not wandering into the realms of fission... the last 3 pages have been discussing it. Nuclear fusion is a very important sideline since it is basically a renewable, clean and safe source of power... the fact that it hasnt been mentioned previously is a concern. For those who dont know that nuclear is not just nuclear... have a read of http://www.iter.org/

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

That's because I was talking baout a 100m high one, not a domestic one.

Well, a 100m high one would be fine providing it didn't keep me awake at night and providing my garden wasn't in some form of conservation area.

gromituk

Good for you