Green U Turn on Nuclear.
John Rumm wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the mistakes and cover-ups of the industry in the past, however they are not necessarily failings of the technology. Great swathes of the industry today around the world has demonstrated that it can be done right, with far fewer casualties that experienced in fossil fuel based power generation. Mistakes and cover-ups are endemic in the British nuclear industry, whether military or civil, because of the secrecy behind which the nuclear industry routinely operates. Military secrecy has to some extent given way to secrecy based on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, because nuclear installations are prime terrorist targets. Secrecy leads to complacency, because no-one ever gets exposed. Complacency leads to incompetence, as anyone from outside the industry who has worked at Sellafield will tell you. Incompetence leads to mistakes, mistakes lead to accidents, and accidents lead to cover-ups, because secrecy is all important. Then secrecy leads to more complacency ... and so it goes on. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Andy Champ wrote:
If past governments had funded fusion properly we might have had that now, and it's the long term solution. But past governments *did* fund fusion properly. Perhaps our government wasn't one of them, for some of the time. But tens of billions of dollars and euros have been spent, all to no avail. We are no nearer a commercial fusion power station than we were 20 years ago, when the scientists told us it was 20 years away. It is still 20 years away. And 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away. But lots of highly paid scientists have been kept employed doing nothing of any practical use for 20+ years, so that's fine. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life? By having something extremely dense? How long have you been extremely radioactive? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"John Rumm" wrote in message et... The Medway Handyman wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html At last some sense. Shame we have lost 30 years of development while waiting... Tidal lagoons are being looked into. If they come about then forget gas and oil and all will be, hopefully cheap electricity. How Lagoons Work There are a number of them at various states of water levels. There will always be power generated. Think of one large dam wall in a circle in a shallow sea, split it into three sections. The centre section could be 30 foot below the outer two and the high tide level, and fill up via the other two or the high tide. It is a matter of having the lagoons filling and emptying at different times to ensure full power production 24/7. A test lagoon is being suggested at Swansea in South Wales. This is different to tidal only at La Rance, France. La Rance is just one power station. It only generates when the tide is running one-way. It is quite old now - 1966. Pioneering it is. Political Spite Makes Matters Worse Hard nosed cost/benefit eliminated the British coal industry (or more political spite by Thatcher hating miners). Middle Eastern oil was buttons to buy and the North Sea was full of cheap gas. Mrs Thatcher was told to reserve the gas for primarily domestic use and not use it to generate electricity - use the masses of coal we have under the country to only generate electricity. She never. The coal industry disappeared with amazing stocks still under our feet. The North Sea is running out of oil and gas. Fuel Poverty is a major Problem Domestic gas prices went through the roof because of world market conditions - the Uks gas is mainly imported. Fuel poverty is now a major problem. Long Term Political View is Important We are now are semi-dependent on Russian gas as we used a lot of our own reserves needlessly. Russia refused to supply gas to the Ukraine a few years ago, so alarm bells rang. We need stable fuel supplies. We get oil and gas from the politically unstable Middle East and Russia - which is a political concern over cost/benefit. They have to look at the long term and stability, not short term gains of utility companies. Then there is the important eco angle too. Tidal lagoons are both the long-term practical answer and politically acceptable. 25 Year Project It will take 25 years. However benefits will come quicker than expected. * The electricity will be introduced in phases, * Knock-on effect fresh water reservoirs from rock excavations to combat water shortages, bridges, etc, by rock excavations. * Increased insulation levels in buildings at the same would reduce oil, coal and gas dependency rather quicker than expected. * Coal, gas and nuclear stations can be decommissioned and any planned costs in introducing nuclear stations will off-set the lagoons building costs. * Such a scheme would bring zero unemployment, saving on public social benefits over 25 years. * There is the comfort of not being under the reliance of foreign countries for energy, and being over-friendly with countries you would rather not be. * Savings on military as the world will be a more peaceful place - oil has created wars. The UK over 25 years can easily construct and afford such a scheme. Advances in rock cutting & transporting machines and methods would ensue. The technology and design and build can be exported elsewhere for others too. Unprecedented Project To meet 100% of Britain and Ireland's need for energy, this is clearly possible and mostly involves hauling rock from mountains and valleys to the sea on an unprecedented scale. * The British Isles geography is the best in the world for such an undertaking with its high tidal rises and falls. * It involves moving about 2,500 million tons of rock to the Irish Sea * Tidal lagoons created out of about 20% of the Irish Sea * 100% of Britain and Ireland's electricity needs met. The numbers are staggering but possible: * A heavy train can move perhaps 500 plus tons of rock * About 4 or 5 million train loads are needed * The UKs waste can be dumped into the lagoon walls while under construction, saving on landfill and re-cycling costs. * It would take maybe 30 railways to haul rock from say 30 large quarries over 25 years There Are Many Knock-On Benefits * The insides of hills and mountains can be cut out for the rock and lakes constructed top and bottom to make provision for instant use peak time hydro stations for half time energy peaks in major football games on TV. * New valleys can be created * New lakes * Fresh water reservoirs * Rail and road tunnels through mountains * Rail and road bridges across the Irish Sea * Deep water ship canals can be cut inland, reducing rail and road transport of goods - good result for quarried rock. * Some lagoons can be supertanker harbour/terminals, keeping these massive pollution risk vessels away from the shore. * The lagoon walls built can also be bridges * The lagoons can also be anti tidal surge barriers. Empty the lagoons at low tide when a surge is expected and allow the lagoons to fill taking excess water - London will go under if nothing is done. * Fish can be farmed inside the lagoons preventing foreign trawlers overfishing and all fish goes to the UK. Fuel Poverty & Pollution Eliminated Fuel poverty and pollution will be a thing of the past. Cheap Fast Transport The EU has a transport dept that looks at transport for the EU 20, 30, 40 years hence. The aim is super fast intercity trains between all major cities/centres. One idea is a tunnel between Liverpool and Dublin. As Holyhead is the halfway point between the two cities that appears a dumb suggestion and a loooooong expensive tunnel. But a tunnel from Ireland to North Wales at the shortest point and then a fast link to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London is feasible. However, damming in the Irish Sea to make lagoons to produce all the power for the UK and Ireland would create maybe two land links anyhow and maybe one to the Isle of Man. This gives high speed transport bridges. Super fast Maglev trains between major centres and to Ireland become feasible as running cost are low. All cars can be electric, and the auto industry is currently moving that way. Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... "Tony Juniper is a former director of Friends of the Earth. He is the Green Party general election candidate for Cambridge." Friends of the Earth are a front for large land owners in the UK, to enable them to hold onto their lucrative acres. They are cranks. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Bruce wrote: extremely radioactive isotopes with very long half-lives. Extremely radioactive isotopes are ones which decay fast, isotopes with very long half-lives are ones which decay slowly. You can't have it both ways. wont stop him trying though. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
John Rumm wrote: Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the mistakes and cover-ups of the industry in the past, however they are not necessarily failings of the technology. Great swathes of the industry today around the world has demonstrated that it can be done right, with far fewer casualties that experienced in fossil fuel based power generation. Mistakes and cover-ups are endemic in the British nuclear industry, whether military or civil, because of the secrecy behind which the nuclear industry routinely operates. Military secrecy has to some extent given way to secrecy based on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, because nuclear installations are prime terrorist targets. Why? They are very secure, very remote and very hard targets. there is nothing in them a terrorist wants. There is certainly nothing to make a bomb out of. Secrecy leads to complacency, because no-one ever gets exposed. Complacency leads to incompetence, as anyone from outside the industry who has worked at Sellafield will tell you. Incompetence leads to mistakes, mistakes lead to accidents, and accidents lead to cover-ups, because secrecy is all important. Then secrecy leads to more complacency ... and so it goes on. Not at all. Most ofg the nucleasr induistry away from teh miltary is very open. It has to be. Its inspected regularly and has to keepop public accounts. Of course the real reason for what disinclination to talk that there is, is that any minor slip leads to a media witchunt inspired by people like you. Today 8 people died in a plane at Schipol. It rated a 5 minute slot. No one suggested banning aviation. Yet the release of not only sub lethal, but sub detectable at 100 yards, of radiation shut Germany's pebble bed reactor down and caused the loss of several billions of euros.. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
Andy Champ wrote: If past governments had funded fusion properly we might have had that now, and it's the long term solution. But past governments *did* fund fusion properly. Perhaps our government wasn't one of them, for some of the time. But tens of billions of dollars and euros have been spent, all to no avail. And how much do we spend on Social security? Hospitals? resuing crock banks? Fer chrissakes, they are spending 3/4 million to rehouse 30 gypsies here.. We are no nearer a commercial fusion power station than we were 20 years ago, when the scientists told us it was 20 years away. It is still 20 years away. And 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away. WEell I simply dont know what to say, we have gone from -90% efficiency to about 2% efficiency and increased burn times from millsieconds to seconds. So we have only imprioved by a factor of *100* or so. But lots of highly paid scientists have been kept employed doing nothing of any practical use for 20+ years, so that's fine. Well lots MORE highly paid civil servants have been kept employed doing nothing for a lot longer than that, so I guess you will be voting conservative. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Bruce wrote: Bruce wrote: 70 years since splitting the atom, and 50 years since the opening of the world's first nuclear power station* nothing has changed. I forgot the footnote. *In 1956, Her Majesty The Queen opened Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station at Windscale, in part of the site now called Sellafield. In her speech she hailed it as "the world's first peaceful use of nuclear power". It was nothing of the sort. The reactor was designed to produce weapons grade plutonium for Britain's nuclear weapons programme. It generated some power as a by-product. That power was used within the Windscale site. However, as Windscale/Sellafield have always been massive net importers of power from the National Grid, not one kWh of Calder Hall's output was ever used outside Windscale/Sellafield. In January 1987, in accordance with the traditional "30 year rule", sensitive official government papers from 1956 were released to the media. Apparently, when the untruth of the Queen's speech at Calder Hall became clear, Her Majesty was not best pleased. Which is why it was effing expensive, to build, run and decommission. Yet you hold it out as an example of what new nuclear srations would be like. Cherry picking to prove a point, Not facing facts. I use it not as an example of what new nuclear stations would be like, but as an example of the lies the nuclear industry told, continues to tell and will always tell. So we can infer from that the the lies you have already told, make you a born liar with no hope of redemption? |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:15:19 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:- We have a huge waste problem. It cannot be reprocessed in a reasonable time at reasonable cost so it is being stored indefinitely, and quantities are building up every day. So build the reprocessing capability Generalising about a complex subject, it has been built. - this sounds like a problem of political will rather than anything else. No, it is a problem of engineering. The worst of this crap is highly radioactive nitric acid. It is stored in tanks, which need to be constantly cooled or they will boil and/or explode, spreading contamination far and wide [1] [2]. The tanks are vulnerable to a number of forms of attack, which is why the regulators are trying to get the volumes reduced (something they have been trying to do for years with little if any progress). They have been lucky in recent years due to the THORP leak, the crap hasn't been produced. The crap is supposed to be turned into glass blocks. They built two lines, but they didn't work at anything like the designed capacity (the intense radiation is not good for machinery). They added a third line, but the three lines are still not working as they should and production of glass blocks is slow. I think the glass block idea is the way of dealing with the crap we already have. It can't be disappeared at the snap of the fingers. That is not saying that the problem is now solved and we can build new generating stations based on this. It would also be madness to do any more "reprocessing" until the crap lake is dealt with. The party politicians would love this not to be the case. [1] an explosion of a waste tank at what was then called Tomsk-7 is not known about by the general public, but shows what would happen. Fortunately Siberia is not highly populated. [2] the tanks at Windscale are in relatively good condition compared to those at Hanford, where a contractor is trying to decant the crap out of the tanks which are leaking the most. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:- I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer; You have electric heating? Fission is the best short term solution to a coming energy gap; It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy conservation can be done in time though. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed. "Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-) It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc.. In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message om... dennis@home wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life? By having something extremely dense? How long have you been extremely radioactive? About a half life. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:21:45 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:- http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-bnp-1631292.html "Nuclear power is not the answer "We write to express concern over the unqualified portrayal of nuclear new build as a sustainable solution to climate change ("Nuclear power? Yes, please", 23 February). Significant issues remain to be addressed, let alone resolved. These include uncertainty about nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and proliferation, radioactive waste management, radiation risk and health effects, reactor safety and decommissioning "Even if financing new nuclear build were competitive in these cash-strapped times, it is not possible to build enough nuclear power stations to make a significant impact on the amount of coal that will be burnt world-wide. China, with the most ambitious nuclear programme, would achieve at most 6 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. If Britain embarked on a full-scale nuclear rebuild programme, the Government's own figures conclude that this would mitigate only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is an expensive, inflexible option, soaking up money and slowing development of more sustainable solutions to climate change. "Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels all offer radically different secondary energy carriers for mobility, heat or mechanical power. Each of these options can be harnessed in various forms and permutations. "The concerns that nuclear is expected to meet are real. But nuclear power does not offer the best means to deal with them. If the UK were to pursue new nuclear power now, it would load extra costs on to the British people and continue to divert attention and resources away from more effective measures. At this turning point in the evolution of our energy systems, this is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. "Professor Andy Blowers, Open University "Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges "Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick "Professor David Elliott, Open University "Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex "Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich "Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"Bruce" wrote in message ... "Doctor Drivel" wrote: Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed. "Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-) Cambridge uni must make you laugh then. Only idiots laugh at thing they know little about. In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. As you know sweet FA about it how would you know? |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The message
from David Hansen contains these words: "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" A grandiose title for a self selected pressure group with its roots in CND. -- Roger Chapman |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message om... dennis@home wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life? By having something extremely dense? How long have you been extremely radioactive? About a half life. Its the latter half obviously. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:15:19 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:- We have a huge waste problem. It cannot be reprocessed in a reasonable time at reasonable cost so it is being stored indefinitely, and quantities are building up every day. So build the reprocessing capability Generalising about a complex subject, it has been built. - this sounds like a problem of political will rather than anything else. No, it is a problem of engineering. Which you know nothing about. The worst of this crap is highly radioactive nitric acid. so react it with a metal and make a salt. There are plenty of solutions. Its a political problem in getting them past bozos. You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ wrote this:- I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer; You have electric heating? Fission is the best short term solution to a coming energy gap; It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy conservation can be done in time though. No they cant. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote: Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed. "Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-) It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc.. In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Hmm. Pots and kettles. Its you and dynamo dave that have swallowed the ecobollox, and may you choke on it. Drivel is merely insane. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:21:45 GMT someone who may be "The Medway Handyman" wrote this:- http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1629327.html http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-bnp-1631292.html "Nuclear power is not the answer "We write to express concern over the unqualified portrayal of nuclear new build as a sustainable solution to climate change ("Nuclear power? Yes, please", 23 February). Significant issues remain to be addressed, let alone resolved. These include uncertainty about nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and proliferation, radioactive waste management, radiation risk and health effects, reactor safety and decommissioning "Even if financing new nuclear build were competitive in these cash-strapped times, it is not possible to build enough nuclear power stations to make a significant impact on the amount of coal that will be burnt world-wide. China, with the most ambitious nuclear programme, would achieve at most 6 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. If Britain embarked on a full-scale nuclear rebuild programme, the Government's own figures conclude that this would mitigate only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is an expensive, inflexible option, soaking up money and slowing development of more sustainable solutions to climate change. "Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels all offer radically different secondary energy carriers for mobility, heat or mechanical power. Each of these options can be harnessed in various forms and permutations. "The concerns that nuclear is expected to meet are real. But nuclear power does not offer the best means to deal with them. If the UK were to pursue new nuclear power now, it would load extra costs on to the British people and continue to divert attention and resources away from more effective measures. At this turning point in the evolution of our energy systems, this is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. "Professor Andy Blowers, Open University "Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges "Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick "Professor David Elliott, Open University "Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex "Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich "Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting.. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Roger wrote:
The message from David Hansen contains these words: "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" A grandiose title for a self selected pressure group with its roots in CND. I suppose if I were to declare myself the national nuclear authority' no one could stop me. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:56:54 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
"Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. "Potential" innocuous little word but rather important. Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels Hydrogen? Where do you get that from? Split water? Er, where do you get the energy required to do that? -- Cheers Dave. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Bruce wrote: "Doctor Drivel" wrote: Overall the lagoon project is well worth looking much deeper into, and clearly looks highly feasible when all points are viewed. "Clearly" eh? You make me laugh! ;-) It's about as clear as Severn Estuary mud, unless of course you are daft enough to swallow the PR material that gets churned out by protagonists for the various schemes, construction companies, turbine makers etc.. In your case, you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Hmm. Pots and kettles. Its you and dynamo dave that have swallowed the ecobollox, and may you choke on it. Drivel is merely insane. This snotty uni pillock advocates nuclear all around. He is an agent of Satan himself. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy conservation can be done in time though. The alternatives can't be done in time. The payback time is decades for all the current alternatives. All you are going to do is release the carbon now and then claim to have reduced production later. A typical *scam* of the government which allows them to meet the target but is actually worse. Building nuclear actually reduces the carbon emitted quicker and by more. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:56:54 +0000, David Hansen wrote: "Offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. "Potential" innocuous little word but rather important. Electricity, hydrogen or fluid biofuels Hydrogen? Where do you get that from? Split water? Er, where do you get the energy required to do that? A green witch waves a green wand,and the sky is blue, children are happy, bno sign of a windmill or electricity pylon in sight, and FOE and Green **** can go to heaven. Or build 100 nuclear power sttaions. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... "Professor Andy Blowers, Open University "Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges "Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick "Professor David Elliott, Open University "Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex "Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich "Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting.. Of course, because not one id from a snotty uni. You are pathetic. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
This could be done in Mersey and Severn estuaries and others around the
coast. Fresh water from up stream merging with salt water from the sea to generate power. And it works..... http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ers-mouth.html |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... David Hansen wrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:51:13 +0000 someone who may be Andy Champ wrote this:- I *don't* want to give up my heating, lights and computer; You have electric heating? Fission is the best short term solution to a coming energy gap; It is no solution at all. Even if the discussion is limited to electricity rather than energy, nuclear generation cannot be built quickly enough to affect the gap. The alternatives and energy conservation can be done in time though. No they cant. They can. Making the building regs to have superinsulation, air-tight and passive solar is easy and all buildings built conform. How many buildings in the next 20 years that will use next to no energy? Millions!! And that is by just changing the building regs. Then there is better town planning to avoid excessive transport use, etc, etc. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life? By having something extremely dense? that just reduces the space it occupies... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. .... except in the food chain. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: David Hansen wrote: "Professor Andy Blowers, Open University Retired Professor of Social Sciences. Chairman of BANGG (Blackwater against new nuclear group). Speaker for "Communities against nuclear expansion" an organisation opposed to the building of new nuclear power stations. "Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges Professional environmentalist, formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth "Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick Senior Research Fellow at the NHS Centre for Involvement, (Whatever that may be). Co-author of the exciting paper "A conceptual model of the role of complex science in local authority consultations about air quality management." Considered to be somewhat extreme even by Greenpeace and FoE. Apparently he is particularly interested in "the role of sub-political (bottom-up) involvement in environmental risk decision-making". He advises, and is a member of, a number of environmental NGOs. Member of Green Audit, an anti nuclear, anti GMO organisation and supporter of the Low Level Radiation Campaign. Member of the Stop Hinkley campaign. Very coy about his qualifications presenting himself as an expert on being an expert so I assume he was originally a Sociologist. "Professor David Elliott, Open University Professor of Technology Policy. Main research interests relate to the development of sustainable energy technologies, and in particular renewable energy based systems "Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex Masters in Archaeology and Social Anthropology, Disarmament activist and ex anti-nuclear co-ordinator of energy campaigns for Greenpeace International. "Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich Professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, author of a number of anti-nuclear reports for Greenpeace. "Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University Professor in the Department of Geography. Supervisor on a PhD project involving "empirical studies of popular leisure pursuits (gardening, walking), and of instances in which people switch to lower carbon routines (for example cycling)." "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" A group set up by, and whose web name is owned by, Dorfman. No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting.. Not quite, but not too far off :-). |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. ... except in the food chain. WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: David Hansen wrote: "Professor Andy Blowers, Open University Retired Professor of Social Sciences. Chairman of BANGG (Blackwater against new nuclear group). Speaker for "Communities against nuclear expansion" an organisation opposed to the building of new nuclear power stations. "Professor Tom Burke, Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges Professional environmentalist, formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth "Dr Paul Dorfman, University of Warwick Senior Research Fellow at the NHS Centre for Involvement, (Whatever that may be). Co-author of the exciting paper "A conceptual model of the role of complex science in local authority consultations about air quality management." Considered to be somewhat extreme even by Greenpeace and FoE. Apparently he is particularly interested in "the role of sub-political (bottom-up) involvement in environmental risk decision-making". He advises, and is a member of, a number of environmental NGOs. Member of Green Audit, an anti nuclear, anti GMO organisation and supporter of the Low Level Radiation Campaign. Member of the Stop Hinkley campaign. Very coy about his qualifications presenting himself as an expert on being an expert so I assume he was originally a Sociologist. "Professor David Elliott, Open University Professor of Technology Policy. Main research interests relate to the development of sustainable energy technologies, and in particular renewable energy based systems "Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex Masters in Archaeology and Social Anthropology, Disarmament activist and ex anti-nuclear co-ordinator of energy campaigns for Greenpeace International. "Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich Professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, author of a number of anti-nuclear reports for Greenpeace. "Professor Gordon Walker, Lancaster University Professor in the Department of Geography. Supervisor on a PhD project involving "empirical studies of popular leisure pursuits (gardening, walking), and of instances in which people switch to lower carbon routines (for example cycling)." "On behalf of the Nuclear Consultation Group" A group set up by, and whose web name is owned by, Dorfman. No doubt they are all professors of media studies, theoology, and knitting.. Not quite, but not too far off :-). Nice job Peter, well done that man. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bruce wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. ... except in the food chain. WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish. Was that a deliberate pun or a typo? SteveW |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Steve Walker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Bruce wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. ... except in the food chain. WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish. Was that a deliberate pun or a typo? Are "puns" and "typos" species of fish too? I note that the Unnatural Philosopher has casually ignored the toxicity of the waste, quite apart from its radioactivity. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
"John Rumm" wrote in message et... dennis@home wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message ... That does not really make any sense. How do you get something that is extremely radioactive, and have a very long half life? By having something extremely dense? that just reduces the space it occupies... So the same sized piece will have more nuclei to decay. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Steve Walker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Bruce wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. ... except in the food chain. WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish. Was that a deliberate pun or a typo? Blimey. I didn't spot it for some time staring at it. Complete typo steve. SteveW |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
Bruce wrote:
Steve Walker wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:33:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Bruce wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: You could just dump the lot at the bottom of the sea. It wouldn't increase background radiation significantly.. ... except in the food chain. WE dont regularly trawl the Mariana tench for angler fish. Was that a deliberate pun or a typo? Are "puns" and "typos" species of fish too? I note that the Unnatural Philosopher has casually ignored the toxicity of the waste, quite apart from its radioactivity. Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur. We live in a world made of toxic things. By and large we are adapted to it. Its only when we concentrate them too much in our living spaces that we get ill effects. So dliutwe them. |
Green U Turn on Nuclear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Not really. It came from the ground. Lots of things that come from the ground are toxic, like mercury, lead, sulphur. So it's OK to dump them in the sea, too? Why not throw in a few dioxins, cyanides, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls too? They can't do much harm - they are all made from things that came out of the ground, after all. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter