Nuclear power

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

fewer people would equal fewer emissions and more checks (forested land) to balance them back.

It's not simply fewer people, it's fewer people that have a carbon intensive standard of living, i.e. us in the West.

Again, how do you expect "fewer people" to be achieved"?

irok20002

This is not a debate on climate change

Even if fossil fuels are not causing climate change (I believe they are), fossil fuel power plants pump out massive amounts of carcinogen's and fumes estimated to kills hundreds of thousands of people a year and reduce the quality of life for many more.

Thats surely enough to say that alternatives are better, renewables or nuclear, both of which have killed a tiny amount of people in comparison.

kittypimms

Hello chaps. Crikey, I go away for a day and we start debating Climate change... not my specialist subject I'm afraid. Too subjective

thescouselander wrote: »

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.

Picked up on this - absolutley correct. New build costings have to include decomms.

Also, someone mentioned the waste legacy. See my previous posts on reprocessing of waste - new fuel (potentially used in the EPR) created from current waste, producing fuel which will decay in 100's of years, not 1,000,000's. Nuke phyz moves fast - I wouldn't be suprised to see these figures improve with the Gen 4's.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's not simply fewer people, it's fewer people that have a carbon intensive standard of living, i.e. us in the West.

Again, how do you expect "fewer people" to be achieved"?

it's not just the west that should (or indeed does) have a carbon intensive standard of living. everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of a carbon intensive standard of living. nature provides a means of countering this (plant life) but only if we have fewer people.

an energy intensive standard of living is going to have a massive impact at current population levels even if you take carbon out of the equation. if we all still rode around on horses it would be even more unsustainable (methane production, land required for feed and equine care). the same goes for nuclear. even if you take the risk of accidents out to the mix you have the issues of mining uranium and spent fuel disposal on a massive scale unless we reduce population.

you ask how do we meet energy requirements. well probably we can't in any really acceptable fashion. we're probably going to have to go to some sort of rationing whether that's through pricing consumption beyond the reach or through per capita allowances (which i personally think is a better option but completely beyond the thought patterns of current government).

ninky_2

irok20002 wrote: »

This is not a debate on climate change

Even if fossil fuels are not causing climate change (I believe they are), fossil fuel power plants pump out massive amounts of carcinogen's and fumes estimated to kills hundreds of thousands of people a year and reduce the quality of life for many more.

Thats surely enough to say that alternatives are better, renewables or nuclear, both of which have killed a tiny amount of people in comparison.

you aren't comparing like with like. fossil fuels have been massively relied on for a long time from heating our homes to transport. if we start to replace that with nuclear you will see more problems. the reason nuclear hasn't had as much devastating impact (yet) is it hasn't been relied on on the grand scale that fossil fuels have.

when are people going to start to see that it is the level of demand that is the issue not the method that is used to supply that demand?

the only way to realistically reduce demand is to reduce numbers of human lives on the planet. either we make moves to do that by reducing reproduction or we face increasing crises and conflicts over resources.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

only if we have fewer people....unless we reduce population.

Well ninky, when the fossil fuels that provide us with our carbon intensive standard of living (and carbon intensive food production and distribution system) start to become scarce, you might very well get your wish of fewer people. Unless we can substitute our fossil fuel derived energy, Malthusian forces will be back.

Particularly in the Middle East/North Africa, which lack fresh water to grow more than a small proportion of their food requirements. No oil to export=no hard currency=no imported food.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well ninky, when the fossil fuels that provide us with our carbon intensive standard of living (and carbon intensive food production and distribution system) start to become scarce, you might very well get your wish of fewer people. Unless we can substitute our fossil fuel derived energy, Malthusian forces will be back.

.

those are not malthusian forces they are the forces of scarce resource forced on those who have failed to self-check population levels with sustainability. nuclear might buy a little time but will just encourage further population growth and new solutions that have to be found to meet increased need (food, housing etc).

afaik malthus suggested reproductive restraint in order to prevent pressure on resources.

kittypimms

ninky wrote: »

you aren't comparing like with like. fossil fuels have been massively relied on for a long time from heating our homes to transport. if we start to replace that with nuclear you will see more problems. the reason nuclear hasn't had as much devastating impact (yet) is it hasn't been relied on on the grand scale that fossil fuels have.
.

Disagree slightly; this is subjective.

As of 2005 (only figures I have to hand at present) France's Nuclear production accounted for 78.5% of all domestically generated electricity. Comparatively 30% for EU and 15% for world.

I also have some exciting figures on comparative carbon production of electricity sources, but these are for a different day!

This does not take into account other uses for Nuclear - Medical (XRays, treatments etc), radionuclide tagging (used in conservation), food processing, carbon dating etc etc etc. The Applications for nuclear are at least as (if not more) varied than those for fossil; it's just we take these for granted, and awareness is not high.

ninky_2

kittypimms wrote: »

As of 2005 (only figures I have to hand at present) France's Nuclear production accounted for 78.5% of all domestically generated electricity. Comparatively 30% for EU and 15% for world.

.

we're not just talking domestically produced electricity though. we are talking transport and industry etc etc. domestically produced electricity is a smallish percentage of total energy requirements. and that's only as of 2005. if you only counted the amount of fossil fuels needed for domestic energy production the damage caused by them would be significantly reduced.

additionally oil is not only relied on for energy just about every product we use these days contains oil. at current population levels that is not sustainable.

ninky_2

when the oil runs out what are we going to make everything we rely on for modern life from? we have to reduce numbers of people or our lifestyles will change. no doubt about it.