| So what's people's thoughts on this? 15:58 - Jul 7 with 5125 views | StokieBlue |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48828820
I understand their points but in the end if we want to slow climate change nuclear is absolutely essential. This is pretty much a majority viewpoint amongst experts now.
In the end nimbiness about the view and the traffic and worries about birds are going to have to make way for global scale worries. It's an unfortunate situation but that's the realism of it.
SB [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 17:15]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:00 - Jul 7 with 3393 views | footers |
Controversial, but nuclear is needed as the cheapest, relatively cleanest, most effective stop-gap we have between now and viable alternatives. In a country like the UK it certainly makes sense. |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:06 - Jul 7 with 3370 views | J2BLUE |
How safe is it? How much energy does each one produce? How much more efficient is it than wind? |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:15 - Jul 7 with 3354 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
If you decide to live in the shadow of a huge industrial facility, don't be surprised if they want to expand it.
It's pretty simple. |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:56 - Jul 7 with 3313 views | WeWereZombies |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:00 - Jul 7 by footers |
Controversial, but nuclear is needed as the cheapest, relatively cleanest, most effective stop-gap we have between now and viable alternatives. In a country like the UK it certainly makes sense. |
The issue of nuclear waste always seems to get conveniently forgotten. There is nothing very clean about it and it is not cheap or quick to dispose of. The only sensible answer is to learn to use less energy, push for technology that gets by on less and to learn to harness all the kinetic energy that is untapped and goes unused. |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:58 - Jul 7 with 3311 views | WeWereZombies |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:15 - Jul 7 by Marshalls_Mullet |
If you decide to live in the shadow of a huge industrial facility, don't be surprised if they want to expand it.
It's pretty simple. |
Wasn't she living there before the plant was even built in the first place? | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:08 - Jul 7 with 3293 views | Oldsmoker |
Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, Uranium-238 4.5 billion years.
This stuff needs to be handled with extreme care. There is no container that will outlive the uranium so it will have to be re-contained repeatedly.
Fusion is the leap forward mankind needs but the genius who cracks it probably hasn't been born yet. [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 17:25]
|  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:17 - Jul 7 with 3273 views | StokieBlue |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:56 - Jul 7 by WeWereZombies |
The issue of nuclear waste always seems to get conveniently forgotten. There is nothing very clean about it and it is not cheap or quick to dispose of. The only sensible answer is to learn to use less energy, push for technology that gets by on less and to learn to harness all the kinetic energy that is untapped and goes unused. |
This isn't true anymore.
Modern reactors can burn more of the fuel and the reactors they are now starting to build can use even the old waste to create energy. There is still waste produced but nowhere on the scale of what it used to be.
There is no viable alternative to nuclear at the moment for carbon-free baseline energy generation. All the things you list are certainly needed but they don't change that reality.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:43 - Jul 7 with 3244 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:58 - Jul 7 by WeWereZombies |
Wasn't she living there before the plant was even built in the first place? |
No.
She moved to Leiston just as Sizewell B was being built in the 1980's. She moved there in the knowledge of what she was getting into. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:47 - Jul 7 with 3237 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding
Also imho we need to look more at less business as usual, less stuff and generally using a whole shed load less energy all around. As a species that seems incapable of thinking more than anout 5 minutes into the future nuclear seems to depend on a fair wind and the sticking of multiple heads in sand. |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:58 - Jul 7 with 3220 views | StokieBlue |
"nuclear seems to depend on a fair wind and the sticking of multiple heads in sand"
You're going to have to justify that, because I think it's total bobbins as do most scientists.
SB [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 17:59]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 18:06 - Jul 7 with 3204 views | StokieBlue |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:06 - Jul 7 by J2BLUE |
How safe is it? How much energy does each one produce? How much more efficient is it than wind? |
Nuclear is very safe, the only big accidents have been the Russians not being able to do a drill properly and a huge tsunami. Neither are likely in the UK.
As for energy produced, that is entirely dependent on reactor size and turbine size. With regards to efficiency it's far more efficient. Nuclear is on-demand power, wind turbines are intermittent power.
The discussion here isn't wind turbines or nuclear, it's coal or nuclear and in that discussion nuclear should win hands down given it's CO2 footprint.
We need a joined up energy policy than includes intermittent and baseline power - that's nuclear and wind/solar/tidal.
It's old now but if anyone is interested in the actual calculations then this is a great read, you can buy the book or read by chapter here:
https://www.withouthotair.com/
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 18:11 - Jul 7 with 3196 views | StokieBlue |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:08 - Jul 7 by Oldsmoker |
Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, Uranium-238 4.5 billion years.
This stuff needs to be handled with extreme care. There is no container that will outlive the uranium so it will have to be re-contained repeatedly.
Fusion is the leap forward mankind needs but the genius who cracks it probably hasn't been born yet. [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 17:25]
|
Fourth generation reactors can burn the fuel 250 times more than previous reactors.
There are also thorium and molten salt reactors in development which can't meltdown. You are right that either way waste needs to be handled but in reality you get more exposure to radiation from coal ash living near a coal power station than you do living near a nuclear power station.
You are right about fusion, we aren't that close yet though, just over break-even.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:03 - Jul 7 with 3156 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 17:58 - Jul 7 by StokieBlue |
"nuclear seems to depend on a fair wind and the sticking of multiple heads in sand"
You're going to have to justify that, because I think it's total bobbins as do most scientists.
SB [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 17:59]
|
Well it's good that you see a fully stable politica/social future for the foreseeable...have you read about the vodka swilling unpaid operatives that were keeping the Russian ones ticking over during the soviet collapse? Do the scientists have some data on this that I have missed?
Anything on rising sea levels? [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 19:06]
| |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:08 - Jul 7 with 3139 views | StokieBlue |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:03 - Jul 7 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Well it's good that you see a fully stable politica/social future for the foreseeable...have you read about the vodka swilling unpaid operatives that were keeping the Russian ones ticking over during the soviet collapse? Do the scientists have some data on this that I have missed?
Anything on rising sea levels? [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 19:06]
|
That's not an answer.
What do vodka drinking technicians in 1980's Russia have anything to do with it?
"Do the scientists have some data on this that I have missed?"
Data on what?
Come on Bankster - you need to provide actual evidence, not just outdated sound-bytes.
If you are worried about rising sea levels you should be even more focused on nuclear given it's zero carbon.
SB [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 19:10]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:09 - Jul 7 with 3136 views | captainfantastic |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 16:56 - Jul 7 by WeWereZombies |
The issue of nuclear waste always seems to get conveniently forgotten. There is nothing very clean about it and it is not cheap or quick to dispose of. The only sensible answer is to learn to use less energy, push for technology that gets by on less and to learn to harness all the kinetic energy that is untapped and goes unused. |
It's not really an issue. All of the nuclear waste in the whole of the USA is stored in the Nevada desert in an area the size of a football pitch |  |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:13 - Jul 7 with 3125 views | captainfantastic |
I would like to recommend a great documentary on Nuclear power called Pandora's Promise - it's on Youtube.
A few interesting facts related to the power industry
- more people have died as a result of Solar energy production, than Nuclear.
- Solar energy is actually incredibly bad for the environment
- 3 million people per year die as a result of burning coal
- Nuclear reactors have been built which are renewable, can withstand Tsunami conditions such as Fukushima, and the conditions at Chernobyl | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:16 - Jul 7 with 3120 views | StokieBlue |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:13 - Jul 7 by captainfantastic |
I would like to recommend a great documentary on Nuclear power called Pandora's Promise - it's on Youtube.
A few interesting facts related to the power industry
- more people have died as a result of Solar energy production, than Nuclear.
- Solar energy is actually incredibly bad for the environment
- 3 million people per year die as a result of burning coal
- Nuclear reactors have been built which are renewable, can withstand Tsunami conditions such as Fukushima, and the conditions at Chernobyl |
Whilst I am a nuclear power advocate I'd like to see some evidence for this assertion:
"Solar energy is actually incredibly bad for the environment"
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:27 - Jul 7 with 3101 views | captainfantastic |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:16 - Jul 7 by StokieBlue |
Whilst I am a nuclear power advocate I'd like to see some evidence for this assertion:
"Solar energy is actually incredibly bad for the environment"
SB |
There are plenty of downsides of Solar which never get picked up on.
Namely, Land use/habitat loss, water use, and use of hazardous materials in production.
Also what happens when there's a storm and all of the toxic chemicals are released into the environment?!
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manuf | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:08 - Jul 7 with 3023 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:08 - Jul 7 by StokieBlue |
That's not an answer.
What do vodka drinking technicians in 1980's Russia have anything to do with it?
"Do the scientists have some data on this that I have missed?"
Data on what?
Come on Bankster - you need to provide actual evidence, not just outdated sound-bytes.
If you are worried about rising sea levels you should be even more focused on nuclear given it's zero carbon.
SB [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 19:10]
|
You seem so invested in the present that you literally cannot envisage anything but more of the same in a stable socio economic future.
Me
"As a species that seems incapable of thinking more than anout 5 minutes into the future nuclear seems to depend on a fair wind and the sticking of multiple heads in sand."
You
"You're going to have to justify that, because I think it's total bobbins as do most scientists"
....so what is the data on our species' ability to look more than 5 minutes into the future?
Should I take it that when you asked for peoples "thoughts" that you just wanted people to agree with you or be told that those thoughts are "bobbins!"
Edit...oh and I will stick to planting trees thanks which some genius scientists have just worked out is the best strategy.....who would have thought! [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 21:12]
| |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:10 - Jul 7 with 3017 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 19:13 - Jul 7 by captainfantastic |
I would like to recommend a great documentary on Nuclear power called Pandora's Promise - it's on Youtube.
A few interesting facts related to the power industry
- more people have died as a result of Solar energy production, than Nuclear.
- Solar energy is actually incredibly bad for the environment
- 3 million people per year die as a result of burning coal
- Nuclear reactors have been built which are renewable, can withstand Tsunami conditions such as Fukushima, and the conditions at Chernobyl |
Seeing as how the death count from Chernobyl is a complete unknown that would be a made up fact! | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:34 - Jul 7 with 2999 views | captainfantastic |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:10 - Jul 7 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Seeing as how the death count from Chernobyl is a complete unknown that would be a made up fact! |
The UN's official tally stands at 54. I would think they are more credible than conspirators.
The levels of radiation in nearby Pripyat are actually very low. Ranging from 0.2 uSv/hour to 22 uSv/hour. For context, Guarapari beach north of Rio in Brazil has 131 uSv/hour!! | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:43 - Jul 7 with 2989 views | J2BLUE |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:08 - Jul 7 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You seem so invested in the present that you literally cannot envisage anything but more of the same in a stable socio economic future.
Me
"As a species that seems incapable of thinking more than anout 5 minutes into the future nuclear seems to depend on a fair wind and the sticking of multiple heads in sand."
You
"You're going to have to justify that, because I think it's total bobbins as do most scientists"
....so what is the data on our species' ability to look more than 5 minutes into the future?
Should I take it that when you asked for peoples "thoughts" that you just wanted people to agree with you or be told that those thoughts are "bobbins!"
Edit...oh and I will stick to planting trees thanks which some genius scientists have just worked out is the best strategy.....who would have thought! [Post edited 7 Jul 2019 21:12]
|
Come on mate, that's not an answer. You know he meant the fair wind and sticking heads in the sands bit. | |
| |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:47 - Jul 7 with 2979 views | Clapham_Junction |
I am supportive of nuclear as a stop gap technology, but there seems to be a serious issue with how long and how much it costs to build nuclear power stations at the moment.
If there is a big breakthrough in battery technology in the next few years, then we can pretty quickly transition to a fully renewables & storage system. |  | | |
| So what's people's thoughts on this? on 21:57 - Jul 7 with 2956 views | StokieBlue |
Indeed, although I am not sure what your point is? There have been accidents but it's still less long-term issues than pumping endless CO2 into the atmosphere. They are all also over 40 years ago and 2 of them are nearly 60 years ago in Russia where they really weren't careful.
They aren't equatable to modern designs or reactors that can't melt down like molten salt or thorium.
It's not perfect but it's the best we have and we are running out of time with limited options.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
