Tide turning for nuclear power?
Discussion
Heard last night on Meriden news(thats the south east of England for those north of Watford)that the Dungerness B power station has got a 10 year extension to continue producing power.It was agreeded that it was a bloody good idea as its very effient(sp?)and clean,fancy that.Any greenies wish to comment bet they're happy(not!!)
What are the choices?
Fossil fueled generators? No thanks
Greener sources of energy? We all know this is a good idea but can not give the capacity required.
Neuclear? Relativly clean, very few accidents in this country and can meet demand.
or live in the 18th century and use a lot of candles.
Fossil fueled generators? No thanks
Greener sources of energy? We all know this is a good idea but can not give the capacity required.
Neuclear? Relativly clean, very few accidents in this country and can meet demand.
or live in the 18th century and use a lot of candles.
Most of France's power is nuclear generated and the power stations are nearer to the centres of UK population than most of the British plants. If nutters of any hue attack them, we're fried and we won't have had the benefit of the electriity from them. In essence, we may as well get the benefit and marginally increase the risks as just sit next to France's power plants whilst reading "Green Weekly" by candle light. Wind power is a great idea, it's just not reliable enough on its own.
Fission powered reactors have one massive problem - the storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is a problem we bequeath to our children and future generations - for which they will not thank us.
Now, nuclear fusion on the other hand.............
Now, nuclear fusion on the other hand.............
Eric Mc said:
Fission powered reactors have one massive problem - the storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is a problem we bequeath to our children and future generations - for which they will not thank us.
Now, nuclear fusion on the other hand.............
It does produce waste, but if they just put it on a rocket anf fired it at the Sun, problem solved....would cost a few quid mind, but when compared to the cost of cleaning that waste....probably not so expensive.
The Sun is one big nuclear reactor, perfect place to put nuclear waste imo
Eric Mc said:
Fission powered reactors have one massive problem - the storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is a problem we bequeath to our children and future generations - for which they will not thank us.
Now, nuclear fusion on the other hand.............
........ doesnt exist in a currently usable format without 50 years of R&D.
I dont think our kids will thank us for the use of fossil fuels to the extent we are using them.
^^^^^^ I challange thee to a race
Before they be taxing the use of water in the new fangled boiler. Nuclear power works. It may be envoiromentally damaging but it will last an eternaty. Also 'cos the powers to be have imposed thier own green house emissions rules they need "clean" power to fit their targets and it is less damaging to the ozone layer. So we may see banners saying 'nuclear power yes please'
sorry for crap spelling
>> Edited by scared but happy on Friday 16th September 09:58
gooby said:
Fission powered reactors have one massive problem - the storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is a problem we bequeath to our children and future generations - for which they will not thank us.
Now, nuclear fusion on the other hand.............
........ doesnt exist in a currently usable format without 50 years of R&D.
I dont think our kids will thank us for the use of fossil fuels to the extent we are using them.
So we need to go balls out on fusion research, get by in the meantime on fission (thorium breeders look good), and build a space elevator to sling the waste into the Sun. Sorted.
If you look at nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuel burning stations because they produce less CO2 then on the face of it they are great. If you take into account building the station, maintaining it, decommissioning it, all the other extra costs involved in nuclear, then the CO2 emissions are pretty similar for the same amount of power... Uranium isn't renewable anyway.
this post does not endorse or accept or really discuss at all whether increasing CO2 emissions are a good/bad thing at all etc. (standard turbobloke disclaimer).
this post does not endorse or accept or really discuss at all whether increasing CO2 emissions are a good/bad thing at all etc. (standard turbobloke disclaimer).
Firing nuclear waste into space is a risable suggestion. Are you aware of the failure rate of rockets? It's around 10%. The citizens living under the ascent path of such rockets would be less than happy to have a ton or more of depleted uranium or plutonium dumped on their heads from an exploding rocket.
The problem is that there are NO perfect forms of energy production. All forms have environmental consequences. Even fusion, which in theory seems the "perfect" clean energy, would dump tons of heat into the atmosphere.
The problem is that there are NO perfect forms of energy production. All forms have environmental consequences. Even fusion, which in theory seems the "perfect" clean energy, would dump tons of heat into the atmosphere.
yertis said:
or live in the 18th century and use a lot of candles.
That has it's upsides though. Corsets, courtesans, wigs, duels at dawn, highwaymen... no chance of getting an SP30 on a horse.
Hmmm... but watching that kettle boil has given me an idea...
And war with France.... I can't see a downside.
D_Mike said:
If you look at nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuel burning stations because they produce less CO2 then on the face of it they are great. If you take into account building the station, maintaining it, decommissioning it, all the other extra costs involved in nuclear, then the CO2 emissions are pretty similar for the same amount of power... .
No they are not, see yesterday's thread for the CO2 emmissions of different forms of power generation.
Here's a more serious suggestion I once heard mooted, and that was to deposit the waste in the deep ocean trenches, at subduction zones, where one plate of the earths surface is slowly pushed under another. Over time the waste would get subsumed back into the the earth's fiery mantle, from whence it came, a bit like the One Ring.
D_Mike said:
If you look at nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuel burning stations because they produce less CO2 then on the face of it they are great. If you take into account building the station, maintaining it, decommissioning it, all the other extra costs involved in nuclear, then the CO2 emissions are pretty similar for the same amount of power... Uranium isn't renewable anyway.
We've seen some great figures for planning/building nuclear - anyone got anything realistic for decomissioning? Everyone seems to get a bit shy about whole life prices.
>> Edited by planetdave on Friday 16th September 11:01
France is hosting one of the first experiments in fusion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm
Nice to see that group of governments all getting along. Probably an order of magnitude safer than fission reactors. Should be a decent alternative until more esoteric options can be researched (anti-matter anihilation, etc).
ErnestM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm
Nice to see that group of governments all getting along. Probably an order of magnitude safer than fission reactors. Should be a decent alternative until more esoteric options can be researched (anti-matter anihilation, etc).
ErnestM
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff