adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The only thing that could go wrong with nuclear power in the UK is manual error, and even then the chance of it is remote. More nuclear power stations please. the only intelligent conclusion you can reach without severe emotional problems tbh. parky's craic worse than a crack in the core reactor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 What's the alternative? http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 Only a 200 year storage cycle against the massively long half lives of uranium or plutonium. Smaller amounts of fissile material needed 100 times more efficent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) The only thing that could go wrong with nuclear power in the UK is manual error, and even then the chance of it is remote. More nuclear power stations please. Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration. Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days. It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer? Come on then Parky, what's the alternative? China and India are 10-20 years away according to this article. Thorium http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 "The advantage of using thorium over uranium-only-fuelled light water reactors (LWRs) is that the raw material is found in quantity around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests that it is between three and four times more abundant than uranium and also much more efficient in the fuel cycle, too – potentially between 100 and 300 times more fuel efficient than a standard light-water reactor, for example, in terms of material usage. It also generates less waste as a result of this efficiency. In addition, once started, the reactors work at low pressure, minimising the risk of catastrophic accidents – such as Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Most of the waste will have a much shorter half-life, requiring storage for just a couple of hundred years instead of the thousands of years that standard nuclear waste needs to be stored for. This fact alone could drastically slash the costs associated with nuclear power." I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling... Edited March 21, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 China and India are 10-20 years away so count us at 40-50 at least at which point our fossil reserves will be long gone! Not a viable alternative nor a cheap option. And as for talking about (lack of) efficiency with nuclear, are you taking the piss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) China and India are 10-20 years away so count us at 40-50 at least at which point our fossil reserves will be long gone! Not a viable alternative nor a cheap option. And as for talking about (lack of) efficiency with nuclear, are you taking the piss? Here little doggie...From the experts apparently they even wear shirts and ties... Nuclear Power without the Radioactive Waste?!? In his recent letter to Barack Obama, James Hansen (of NASA's Goddard Space Centre Fame) encouraged the President to develop a new form of nuclear power. It would generate little waste, would be 99% efficient, use existing waste as fuel and reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. Is this a pipe dream or soon to be reality? A Letter on Climate Change James Hansen is a world-renowned expert on Climate Change and one of the most publicly vocal figures on the urgency to solve the problem. He has recently written open letters to the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the need to prevent all new coal fired power stations from being built (in reference to the planned Kingsnorth Power Station planned for Southern England). His letter to Mr. Obama was a prescription, of sorts. Energy efficiency, renewable energy and smart grids were all listed as being crucial to reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. However, nuclear power is not something usually promoted by an environmentalist. Current Nuclear Power In its current form, nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, unreliable and promotes the development of nuclear weapons. However, Hansen's suggestion was not to pour money into the construction of new nuclear power stations in their current form, but to develop new technology which removes many of the problems currently hampering the nuclear industry. This new technology is known as 4th Generation Nuclear Power. There are many current plans to build 'a new generation of nuclear power plants', in various parts of the world. These plans are for what is known as 3rd Generation Nuclear Power. 1st Generation Nuclear Power Plants were the prototype plants built for research purposes after the 2nd World War, with the 2nd generation plants being the commercial power plants currently coming to the end of their life. However, 3rd generation plants only offer a slight improvement in efficiency and safety over their 2nd generation counterparts. They still produce highly dangerous nuclear waste that will need to be stored in sealed, indestructible containers for the next 5000 years. They also waste most of the energy they produce and rely on rare nuclear fuels which require a lot of energy to enrich. Finally, any country that wants to build them will have the ability to make weapons grade plutonium. 4th Generation Nuclear Power Fourth Generation Nuclear Power is different. It uses Thorium, rather than Uranium, as its primary fuel. Thorium is currently found in vast quantities in various places, such as the waste heaps produced by coal-fired power stations as well as on hundreds of miles of Thorium-sand beaches in India and, most interestingly, in nuclear waste. Thus, 4th Generation Nuclear Power has the potential to burn harmful waste products from the nuclear and coal industries, as well as being commonly and cheaply found in areas easily accessible to Asia's new Superpowers: India and China. With the obvious need to encourage both India and China to reduce their emissions, this makes 4th Generation Nuclear Power an excellent long-term choice for electricity generation. Read English? Fucking tedious in here sometimes... Edited March 21, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling... it takes someone like you to not see the hypocrisy of talking about the hysterical masses when you're being taken in by equally hysterical nonsense. the goths of the political spectrum tbh there's a reason people don't give you the time of day in a real debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling... it takes someone like you to not see the hypocrisy of talking about the hysterical masses when you're being taken in by equally hysterical nonsense. the goths of the political spectrum tbh there's a reason people don't give you the time of day in a real debate Oh dear. I bow to your common sense and net neutrality. Edited March 21, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You are one arrogant cunt at times Parky, you're unreal And you can dig out all the propaganda you like, it hasn't actually covered the points I made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 You are one arrogant cunt at times Parky, you're unreal And you can dig out all the propaganda you like, it hasn't actually covered the points I made I've had a bad day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Did you know coal power stations release more radioactivity than nuclear? How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You are one arrogant cunt at times Parky, you're unreal And you can dig out all the propaganda you like, it hasn't actually covered the points I made I've had a bad day. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Richard Kimble 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm prepared to believe that nuclear can be made to work in some safer format - just not the current one, or one that has been designed yet. Why do the pro-nuclear crowd believe what they're told? The same people and methods projecting energy needs, are the same people and methods used who thought the economy was great in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Until cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells come along, this will have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Until cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells come along, this will have to do. Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm prepared to believe that nuclear can be made to work in some safer format - just not the current one, or one that has been designed yet. Why do the pro-nuclear crowd believe what they're told? The same people and methods projecting energy needs, are the same people and methods used who thought the economy was great in 2007. Because despite Parky's propaganda there is no viable alternative at present and won't be to be in place for significant time before fossil fuels run dry. Dr Ken's follow up is correct IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm prepared to believe that nuclear can be made to work in some safer format - just not the current one, or one that has been designed yet. Why do the pro-nuclear crowd believe what they're told? The same people and methods projecting energy needs, are the same people and methods used who thought the economy was great in 2007. why is it assumed that when the nuclear crowd weigh up the pros and cons they "believe what they're told," but when the anti-nuclear crowd do the same, it is in their considered opinion? considering that the nuclear option has long been the controversial one? I'm interested in your opinion of the cross over of opinion with the economy in 2007, because it seems like you must be looking at a very small cross section of opinion to reach that conclusion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 my scientific analysyis actually reveals completely the opposite! people who believed the scaremongering about nuclear energy in 2007: dickheads people who thought the fucktastic bubble of 2007 was stable and sustainable: dickheads someone do me up a pretty venn diagram please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Until cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells come along, this will have to do. Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars. I see the Nissan Leaf went on sale here today. 10 hours charging for 100 miles driving, the range goes down by 10% if its cold, 25% if you put the heater on and 45% if you put the A/C on. Would take over a week to get from London to Edinburgh. Marvellous. And they were calling it 'zero emissions' on the news. What? If you plug it into a socket fed by a fossil-fuel power station it actually produces more co2 per mile than a 1.6 diesel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) my scientific analysyis actually reveals completely the opposite! people who believed the scaremongering about nuclear energy in 2007: dickheads people who thought the fucktastic bubble of 2007 was stable and sustainable: dickheads someone do me up a pretty venn diagram please I can see you haven't the first clue how much the nuke industry spend on pr and spin. Do you? Course you don't. Edited March 21, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 my scientific analysyis actually reveals completely the opposite! people who believed the scaremongering about nuclear energy in 2007: dickheads people who thought the fucktastic bubble of 2007 was stable and sustainable: dickheads someone do me up a pretty venn diagram please I can see you haven't the first clue how much the nuke industry spend on pr and spin. Do you? Course you don't. as opposed to...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Until cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells come along, this will have to do. Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars. I see the Nissan Leaf went on sale here today. 10 hours charging for 100 miles driving, the range goes down by 10% if its cold, 25% if you put the heater on and 45% if you put the A/C on. Would take over a week to get from London to Edinburgh. Marvellous. And they were calling it 'zero emissions' on the news. What? If you plug it into a socket fed by a fossil-fuel power station it actually produces more co2 per mile than a 1.6 diesel. Early days and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 my scientific analysyis actually reveals completely the opposite! people who believed the scaremongering about nuclear energy in 2007: dickheads people who thought the fucktastic bubble of 2007 was stable and sustainable: dickheads someone do me up a pretty venn diagram please I can see you haven't the first clue how much the nuke industry spend on pr and spin. Do you? Course you don't. as opposed to...? Your attempts to chat up the girl in Tecos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 look, that was ONE girl, ONE time with a harassment suit, it does not reflect how much the rest of them love it, and she was just playing hard to get anyway. still, hope I wasn't being to obtuse with that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 look, that was ONE girl, ONE time with a harassment suit, it does not reflect how much the rest of them love it, and she was just playing hard to get anyway. still, hope I wasn't being to obtuse with that point It was still a lot of shopping you didn't need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The only thing that could go wrong with nuclear power in the UK is manual error, and even then the chance of it is remote. More nuclear power stations please. Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration. Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days. It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer? Come on then Parky, what's the alternative? China and India are 10-20 years away according to this article. Thorium http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968 "The advantage of using thorium over uranium-only-fuelled light water reactors (LWRs) is that the raw material is found in quantity around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests that it is between three and four times more abundant than uranium and also much more efficient in the fuel cycle, too – potentially between 100 and 300 times more fuel efficient than a standard light-water reactor, for example, in terms of material usage. It also generates less waste as a result of this efficiency. In addition, once started, the reactors work at low pressure, minimising the risk of catastrophic accidents – such as Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Most of the waste will have a much shorter half-life, requiring storage for just a couple of hundred years instead of the thousands of years that standard nuclear waste needs to be stored for. This fact alone could drastically slash the costs associated with nuclear power." I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling... Yes James you totally destroyed the 'what's the alternative to nuclear fuel?' argument by replying 'cheaper, cleaner nuclear fuel'. This is not an anti-nuclear thread, just a nuanced debate about improving the efficiency of nuclear fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now