Nuclear power

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Especially when it may eventually it may be possible to put spent nuclear fuel to productive use.

Dirty bombs on the Saudis?

A._Badger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

All quiet on the Badger front then.

I wonder if he has come to realise the comments & statements coming from the IAEA were somewhat biased yet?

Badger has been out earning a living. You might want to give it a try.

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Kiss my asssssssssssssssssss Badger.

Off course. I'll kick your 'assssssss' any day you like (American spelling and all).

A quick check on the reliable scientifically credible sites since I got back home (ie not the BBC or the Guardian) shows that, yes, the damage is bad and may be getting worse.

However, unless you have better sources of information (and, no, Ninky doesn't count) there has been no life-threatening release of radiation into the local area, or beyond. Some reactor workers may have received harmful doses of radiation - but that isn't clear.

Here are a couple of questions to help you sleep. How many people do you think are known to have died as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident?

And how many died in road accidents in the UK last year?

Do try to get a sense of proportion.

A._Badger

macaque wrote: »

There are alternative solutions to nuclear power but they involve a radical change in thinking such as population control, higher investment in safer fuels and a drastically lower consumption of energy. At the heart of people's support for nuclear fuel is selfishness and a criminal disregard for the needs of future generations.

Scratch a 'Green' reveal a control-freak.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Do you believe in global climate change? If anything like the "worst case scenario" is accurate, surely mitigation of greater carbon emissions is worth the cost of producing and safeguarding spent nuclear fuel. Especially when it may eventually it may be possible to put spent nuclear fuel to productive use.

We'll be using nuclear power in the future, even if no new nuclear power stations are built. Once it is no longer economic to run the world's merchant fleet on bunker fuel (oil), nuclear propulsion as already used in some large military vessels is the only viable option.

not that the majority of it is manmade, no. there are environmentally polluting factors from carbon such as acidification of seas etc that i think are probably more significant in terms of mans impact on the environment. the biggest factor however is that there simply are too many of us. whatever we do (even biofuels or wind farms) is going to be massively significant / detrimental to the planet in terms of biodiversity etc etc.

we probably could create a world that could go on supporting high numbers (we're already sort of doing it) but it's not one that i think most of us would like to live in.

ninky_2

it will be really interesting as the debate on nuclear intensifies to see how many previous climate skeptics in the pro camp suddenly start throwing climate change around as their weapon of mass destruction to all criticism.

macaque_2

A._Badger wrote: »

Scratch a 'Green' reveal a control-freak.

A few days ago, in defense of your position, you posted this

For an informed analysis of what is happening in Japan (as opposed to hysterical overreaction) the following is pretty good

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...iima_analysis/

The title of the article was:

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!

In the light of subsequent events, your contribution looks somewhat foolish. Rather than engage in debate with those who hold a different position to you, your posts are now peppered with insults and constant use of the word 'hysterical'.

The current use of fossil fuels is clearly unacceptable because power generation companies and consumers do not pay the full life cycle costs for the use of coal, oil and natural gas. The idea that the global reserves of hydrocarbons are converted to carbon dioxide presents future generations with unknown and potentially catastrophic consequences. You do not have to be a paid up member of the Green Party to see the hazards and short sightedness of such activities.

My arguement is that this should not be a debate about the lesser of two evils. It should be about making power companies and consumers pay the full life cycle costs (including risk mitigation) for energy generation. This will help balance the playing field for less dangerous and destructive methods of energy generation.

thescouselander

macaque wrote: »

My arguement is that this should not be a debate about the lesser of two evils. It should be about making power companies and consumers pay the full life cycle costs (including risk mitigation) for energy generation. This will help balance the playing field for less dangerous and destructive methods of energy generation.

AFAIK that is exactly the governments plan for any new nuclear in the UK - they must be built entirely on the power companies money (with no government subsidy) and they will be responsible for all maintenance and decommissioning.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

not that the majority of it is manmade, no

Is there any reason why you think you are right and the established consensus of climatologists is wrong?

ninky wrote: »

we probably could create a world that could go on supporting high numbers (we're already sort of doing it) but it's not one that i think most of us would like to live in.

There isn't any way to reduce the world's population except in the very long term. As I said before, China's population continues to grow despite the one child policy (est. 1979). Perhaps you're proposing a mass culling?

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Is there any reason why you think you are right and the established consensus of climatologists is wrong?

.

afaik the majority of climatologists do not see manmade climate change as the most significant factor for climate change. the only consensus is that manmade activity can impact on climate and probably is (the extent is not agreed upon).

this doesn't mean i think fossil fuels are fantastic. nor is the methane produced by farming, however fewer people would equal fewer emissions and more checks (forested land) to balance them back.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

afaik the majority of climatologists do not see manmade climate change as the most significant factor for climate change.

That's nonsense.

There are results of plenty of surveys of climate scientists on the relevant wikipedia page, here is one recent survey:

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization.

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.

A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes