|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
hairykrishna said: turbobloke said: hairykrishna said: JMGS4 said: So why are the various governments dragging their heels building them. We need them now, otherwise we'll be "browning out" very shortly!! To answer my own question is that they've bought in to this (AGW) lie and see an unending fiscal bonus to be paid by the gullible taxpayer... Because the public hate nuclear power. They think it's dangerous; the facts are irrelevant. Just out of interest, who or what do you think has relentlessly fed the public this line that nuclear power is dangerous? Was it the government, the nuclear industry, green pressure groups, a.n.other? Could this be something to do with it? Greenpeace Press Release sent out by mistake a bit too prematurely said: Nuclear power is a volatile and dangerous source of energy. . . In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]." For the record, my view as shared by others I've read is that anti-nuclear arguments misrepresent facts, and violate the rules of logic. Not unlike other green propaganda in fact  Green pressure groups - I think fueled largely by CND style anti bomb types who were in both groups. Civil nuclear, in the UK particularly, was strongly linked with the weapons program in the early days. The industry never really did itself any favours in the PR department but they’re a lot more savvy these days. Agreed.
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
NoNeed said: I have often wondered what the driving force is behind this, as we in our little country would have little effect, even as a continent as large as europe the effect would be minimal. I don't believe it to be taxation nor do I believe it to be a world domination thing. My conclusion (well the best I have come up with so far) is that it is to reverse "globalisation" by making prices reflect the carbon footprint of the product, thereby making cheap imports from China, India and the USA an impossibility. This would mean it is far more attractive to business to produce locally and consumers to buy local. But surely the only difference in 'carbon footprint' would be transportation and even that could be clouded by the 'carbon footprint' cost variations related to raw materials transport. Moreover the cost of energy for production is often significant - more significant than transportation costs. So if you have high manufacturing costs importing stuff is still going to be cheaper if you buy off the carbon deals. On the other hand if you make the 'carbon rights' expensive enough there is potential for certain types of speculator to amass huge amounts from no 'manufacturing' or any sort of economic activity (except admin) at all without even having to resort to blatant fraud.
|
|
|
Guam
15,417 posts
137 months
|
The Excession said:  Just saying hello and letting everyone know this thread will be falling under my other watchful eye too.  You and Max Mosely should get along great he's another well known Masochist
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
JMGS4 said: hairykrishna said: The waste problem's not a show stopper for fission; the volume of waste we're dealing with isn't that large. Agreed not large but damn dangerous over the long time it'll be with us, we'll have to solve that problem soon... and they're having problems removing Dounreay and it's waste, as they will especially have when they try to clean up Chernobyl, as it's degrading fast according to all reports. No not a doom monger or a pinko, just realistic! From what I have been hearing the issues of waste from future technologies are challenging due to how 'hot' it can be but the volumes are very small by comparison with older nuclear technology. Drawing on similar experiences of over intensity in other areas of chemistry - pharmaceuticals for example - seems to offer a way of resolving those problems. Perhaps it is a shame that that the nuclear industry has been all but closed down in mush of the world for the last 3 decades or so. So much lost development opportunity. On the other hand I suppose one could argue that the deferal may lead to improved new thinking and leaps forward rather than evolution from a poorer technoogical starting point. I doubt that I will be around to be able to make a judgement call on that one.
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
turbobloke said: JagLover said: LongQ said: As it says. Politics.
Please try to avoid science.
The budget required for the current proposals in most of the industrialised world seems to suggest massive taxation to force things along as well as loose price controll on energy companies (to start with - other later?) to give them seed investment.
Does it make sense?
Is it affordable?
What are the risks?
What are the alternatives.
The green flag lap starts now. You say it requires massive taxation but actually so far the greatest burden seems to have been bourne by the consumers of electricity. Measures such as the renewables obligation and 'feed in' tarrifs (which are widespread in europe), raise the cost of energy without the government having to dip into their pockets. Agreed and that's the domestic view, but look at the risible Climate Change Levy as extorted from corporations. Sometimes a government calls a tax a tax and sometimes they call it something else, as TB has pointed out. I have little doubt that sometimes they simply calculate how much extra they will raise form existing taxes by letting prices rise and then compare that to how much 'damage' such increases will cause within the economy. If it's not too excessive they will accept any trade-offs since the increases can be blamed on 'world markets' or, a bit less acceptably, 'infrastructure redevelopment costs to counteract the effects of world market pricing/energy supply security/risk of the month'. If something fiscal is directly or almost directly influenced by government 'policy' I see no reason to think of it as anything other than a tax.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Guam
15,417 posts
137 months
|
LongQ said: From what I have been hearing the issues of waste from future technologies are challenging due to how 'hot' it can be but the volumes are very small by comparison with older nuclear technology. Drawing on similar experiences of over intensity in other areas of chemistry - pharmaceuticals for example - seems to offer a way of resolving those problems.
Perhaps it is a shame that that the nuclear industry has been all but closed down in mush of the world for the last 3 decades or so. So much lost development opportunity. On the other hand I suppose one could argue that the deferal may lead to improved new thinking and leaps forward rather than evolution from a poorer technoogical starting point. I doubt that I will be around to be able to make a judgement call on that one. Blue Sky question here, with all the redundant ICBM's as a result of various treaties, could we not just use those to fire the waste into the sun or to the surface of the Moon where it will be of little relevance in the cosmic scheme of things. I recognise as a concept it is a little "out there" (in every sense of the word) but could that not work? As Hairy indicated, on this thread I reckon we are all singing from the same Hymn Sheet and that will make a pleasant change
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,604 posts
73 months
|
Guam said: Blue Sky question here, with all the redundant ICBM's as a result of various treaties, could we not just use those to fire the waste into the sun or to the surface of the Moon where it will be of little relevance in the cosmic scheme of things. I recognise as a concept it is a little "out there" (in every sense of the word) but could that not work? As Hairy indicated, on this thread I reckon we are all singing from the same Hymn Sheet and that will make a pleasant change A nice idea but the whole firing stuff into space isn't quite reliable We a rocket full of americans blows up you just get americans raining down over a few thousand square miles Now replace americans with really quite nasty radioactive stuff and you can see the issue
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
chris watton said: JMGS4 said: I am NOT saying that every greenie is automatically a commie, just that they have been subjected to marxist ideology, although often unknowingly, and; what I am saying is that the old guard of the marxists have a very strong influence in politicalised groupings especially where they try to subvert the "western way of doing things", to put it more neatly. People like this; http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Fiona_Foxarticle said: "Fiona Fox is the director of the Science Media Centre (SMC). She was a student at Warwick University and was previously a leading member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and of its front group the Irish Freedom Movement. She was for a period (circa 1992) the editor of its bulletin titled Irish Freedom.
Fiona Fox listed as 'Fiona Foster' in a picture from the journal she edited at the time: Irish Freedom the bulletin of the Irish Freedom Movement, Issue 18 Summer 1992.Despite having no previous background in science or science communication, Fox has been afforded, since her appointment in December 2001, the status of expert. She has, for example, been included in a working party on peer review set up by Sense About Science, and in a steering group on improving communication over science policy and risk set up by the Office of Science and Technology. In 2003 Fox delivered a lecture at Green College, Oxford, on the challenge of adapting science to the mass media." So much of the 'Green' message is about the message rather than 'facts' that it makes complete sense to them to engage specialists (their opinion). If others then misinterpret those people's knowledge and abilities to the outside world, well, that's someone elses problem ..... However in the interest of balance one might point out that a number of other people from a similar background (RCP, Living Marxism, etc.) seem to hold a very duifferent view about AGW if we are to accept what they write at, e.g., 'Sp!ked' for example. More worrying would be full-on government appointees. Note a generic common denominator here - a degree in English Literature. Language and communication you see - it's all important. (Nothing to do with science.) Also the obligatory NGO connection in past history - this time 'Friends of the Earth'. Maybe it is time for the House of Lords to be abolished. Afaik there is no way, other than their deaths or resignations, that these 'Lords' can be separated from direct access to the corridors of political intrigue once appointed. Marshall McLuhan said: "Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication. " Back in the day one of his other quotes was in more common use. "The medium is the message." I seem to recall that some wag changed this to "The medium is the massage." That may be much closer to the reality than was generally accepted at the time. It seems he may have been more right than we realised.
|
|
|
Guam
15,417 posts
137 months
|
thinfourth2 said: A nice idea but the whole firing stuff into space isn't quite reliable
We a rocket full of americans blows up you just get americans raining down over a few thousand square miles
Now replace americans with really quite nasty radioactive stuff and you can see the issue That was one of the first criticisms I considered, but pardon me if I have this wrong (it is actually rocket science), but arent the warhead enclosures designed to be re entry proof and also remain intact in the event of a detonation (missile inadvertent launch etc)? I thought they had some form of Self destruct mechanism built in or is that a Hollywood invention. If they do, then surely the Warhead enclosures would be able to survive a catastrophic launch event? We need "Eric the Brain" on this thread
|
|
|
F i F
18,406 posts
120 months
|
Wasn't it the Marxist philosophy to destroy a society and then rebuild it the way they wanted.
Yes Yes we all know Marxists are only capable of destruction.
... just getting that one in before the wags fire up.
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,976 posts
72 months
|
Guam said: That was one of the first criticisms I considered, but pardon me if I have this wrong (it is actually rocket science), but arent the warhead enclosures designed to be re entry proof and also remain intact in the event of a detonation (missile inadvertent launch etc)? I thought they had some form of Self destruct mechanism built in or is that a Hollywood invention. If they do, then surely the Warhead enclosures would be able to survive a catastrophic launch event? We need "Eric the Brain" on this thread I don't think so - I believe that the safety criteria is that they don't go critical in the event of any reasonably foreseeable accident. Unfortunately scattering the warhead materials over a large area would fulfil this nicely!
|
|
|
Guam
15,417 posts
137 months
|
hairykrishna said: I don't think so - I believe that the safety criteria is that they don't go critical in the event of any reasonably foreseeable accident. Unfortunately scattering the warhead materials over a large area would fulfil this nicely! I did wonder at that the only thing that got me thinking was that in previous "Broken Arrow" incidents warheads (freefall in fairness) have ended up at the bottom of the Ocean to be recovered some time later (years in the Med incident IIRC) without leakage (or any having been disclosed which may of course have been classified). You are our Nuke Expert (not warheads I concede) Hairy would it be feasible to construct such an enclosure do you think? Cheers
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
W/R to my last post the link to the Sandbag web site may have greater interest than I first imagined. Sandbag seems to be centred on Carbon Trading activities. Here are a couple of links to recent articles. I would broadly agrew with the gist of the articles ... but come to an opposite conclusion. Italy's wasted Kyoto billions ...Arcelor Mittal bags a windfall...Interesting stuff. May I also offer this definition of Sandbag (the verb).
|
|
|
Le TVR
2,236 posts
120 months
|
Guam said: That was one of the first criticisms I considered, but pardon me if I have this wrong (it is actually rocket science), but arent the warhead enclosures designed to be re entry proof and also remain intact in the event of a detonation (missile inadvertent launch etc)? I thought they had some form of Self destruct mechanism built in or is that a Hollywood invention. If they do, then surely the Warhead enclosures would be able to survive a catastrophic launch event? We need "Eric the Brain" on this thread There have been several ICBM accidents where the nuclear warhead was 'lost'. ISTR they were the old Thor missiles in the 60s. I dont think there were ever any containment issues.
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
By remarkable coincidence the subject of Nuclear power is current at Wattsupwiththat as well. An interesting article from an AGW proponent seems to have been the catalyst for the Watts item and the first few comments (12 as I discovered the post just now) are interesting.
|
|
|
DieselGriff
5,160 posts
128 months
|
LongQ said: By remarkable coincidence the subject of Nuclear power is current at Wattsupwiththat as well. An interesting article from an AGW proponent seems to have been the catalyst for the Watts item and the first few comments (12 as I discovered the post just now) are interesting. I came here to post this a link to the full article to see what the thoughts on Thorium reactors are.
|
|
|
Spiritual_Beggar
4,538 posts
63 months
|
DieselGriff said: I came here to post this a link to the full article to see what the thoughts on Thorium reactors are. From the article; "Should things get too intense in that sort of "liquid fluorine thorium reactor" (LFTR, pronounced "lifter")....  Thanks for that...I couldn't wrap my tongue around that one for a moment there  Heck...if these Thorium reactors get me closer to my 'Atomic' powered car, ala Fallout style, then I'm all for it  There has to be a catch along the lines though. My father always told me...if it sounds too good to be true...it usually is.
|
|
|
BJWoods
4,249 posts
153 months
|
LongQ said: W/R to my last post the link to the Sandbag web site may have greater interest than I first imagined. Sandbag seems to be centred on Carbon Trading activities. Here are a couple of links to recent articles. I would broadly agrew with the gist of the articles ... but come to an opposite conclusion. Italy's wasted Kyoto billions ...Arcelor Mittal bags a windfall...Interesting stuff. May I also offer this definition of Sandbag (the verb). You do know the founder of Sandbag, was instrumental in writing the UK's Climate Change act, worked for FoE, and is a board member of the 10:10 ''No Pressure' campiagn... as is now BARONESS Worthington, because Ed Milliband elevated her to the house of lords because of her work on climate change act.. http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/climate-con...(Bryony Worthington studied English, by the way  ) Another director of Sandbag - is the co-founder of Futerra. Ed Gillespie (guardian as well) (Rules of the Game, Sell the Sizzle, Branding Biodiversity, Words That Sell, New Rules, New Game)) and another is the MD of JP MORGAN climate care, who will sell you a carbon offset....... (was in the debate with Moncton at the Oxford union, mike mason) ... just thought I'd mention all that !
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,976 posts
72 months
|
Guam said: I did wonder at that the only thing that got me thinking was that in previous "Broken Arrow" incidents warheads (freefall in fairness) have ended up at the bottom of the Ocean to be recovered some time later (years in the Med incident IIRC) without leakage (or any having been disclosed which may of course have been classified).
You are our Nuke Expert (not warheads I concede) Hairy would it be feasible to construct such an enclosure do you think?
Cheers Out of my area a bit - it's more mechanical engineering than nuclear. I'm certain that such a structure could be built but I'm not sure how much it'd weigh which is obviously a concern if you're sticking it on top of a ICBM. The structures got to survive a fairly hefty explosion if it expodes near launch. There've been quite a few accidents where all of the fissile stuff has been contained but there've also been a couple where it's been released - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nucl...
|
|
|
LongQ
Original Poster
8,838 posts
102 months
|
BJWoods said: You do know one of the people involved in Sandbag, was instrumental in writing the Climate Change act, is a board member of the 10:10 ''No Pressure' campiagn...
as is now BARONESS worthingto, because Ed Milliband elevated her to the house of lords because of her work on climate change.. Yep. That was what the 'last post' I referred to was about .... However I suspect that if one was stick a pin randomly (so to speak) in any of the 'independent' NGO type organisations and peer ( ) inside the impression would be much the same. No doubt theyworkforyou.com will have the full listing soon. Maybe along with howmuchtheyarepaidbyyou.com .
|
|
