Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Sellafield, or Windscale as it was known had a very bad reputation for safety years ago and I seriously doubt much has changed.
When I went there in 1975 my Personal Radiation Monitor "beeped" faster from the car park and, by a main footpath, there was an exposed pipe right the way along.
My monitor went much faster there yet this was a public area.
Later, I got out our Geigur-Muller meter and found the radiation level there was just above the minimum safe limit for Authorised workers - with TLDs and Monitors etc. but twice the rate for the public.
They didn't like it when I told them either!!
Needless to say, we never got called on again to go there but I've met others that did work there and their Dose Records were well over the excepted levels, which is why, like me, they went overseas to work - I wasn't allowed to work in UK Ionising Radiation Environments due to an overdose in 1975.
My whole point originally in this thread was that, whether we like it or not, until research into renewable energy sources, including far more research into solar energy is ranked-up, we're stuck with nuclear. stevmk2

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Yes, I know it's possible, that's why I said "or a smaller area of moving panels with all the complication that involves"

But I still say that tracking the sun involves considerable extra initial cost and all the ongoing maintenance issues which reduce the cost effectiveness.

Likewise I also agree with you that it's not just the sun, any daylight will work but that implies that you don't have much (or any) cloud cover, from what I recall the UK is almost always covered in cloud

As you've said twice, more research could bring a breakthrough but likewise my mention of the Pilkington site was made to show that even with a massive investment the benefits don't seem to have inspired to many people to go for solar energy,..........not yet anyway.

Let me be clear, I am not against solar power, as I said it would be ideal for the future of mankind if all energy was solar, and even if only a small part was it is still worth it, but there are so few areas where it is really cost effective and right now I don't think many people have the surplus funds to go for it.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Lets not get lost in this discussion, Nuclear is here to stay at present but the future is renewables but which one is for the money people to decide.

A brief veiw of renewables.

Oil/coal power:-
Limited reserves, coal, detremental to the environment due to mine safety and collapse, gas, open to human errors. Safety, plenty od history to explain the dangers. Efficiency around 30%.

Nuclear:-
Resource limits unknown at the momnent but appears to be plentyful. Environmental problems in abundance and that is with known leaks of radiation. Expensive to install around £1700/kg and maintain (500years ) even after the fuel runs out.
Safety, very dangerous as is any energy that you can not see, you dont know how dangerous until your infected and then it is to late. Environmentally friendly!!not in a million years. Efficiency is difficult to explain in laymans terms but roughly,
Efficiency of mining and processing 50%
Efficiency of uranium useage 20 %
Efficiency of enriched fuel useage 5%
Efficiency of heat useage 30%

In total therefore about 50% X 20% X 5% x 30% = 0.15% of the original energy available in the uranium in the ground is turned into useful energy.

Wind power:-
With todays technology the resources vary and depend on Mother nature to a large degree although the turbines can run with very little wind.Safety, as safe as can be made possible with the human element being what it is. Cheap to install and maintain. Efficiency around 30%.

Bio Fuels:-
Resources, depends on how it is produced but could be there for the long term. Safety depends on how it is used and by who. As a fuel for vehicles it is very good and clean for the environment but as for use in producing electricity, there is not enough evidence to say how efficient it would be.

Tidal power:- Permanent source for creating power, environmental problems!! maybe initially when installing but the creatures of mother nature soon find ways of adapting. safe and clean, expensive to install cheap to run and maintain. Efficiency around at present around 80%.

Geothermal:-
Resources are unlimited as long as the planet continues to live. Safety, just like any heat source as safe as we make it. Cheapish to install and maintain as heating for homes and buildings. Safe as we make it allowing for human behaviour. Efficiency is around for converting to electricity is around 30% at present but as heating for homes it is around 90%.

Hydro:-
One of the oldest forms of energy, resources are there as long as the rives etc run. Expensive to install, cheap to run and maintiain. Safe and environmental it is a friendly as tidal power. Efficiency is around 95% and is the best return of all renewable energy's.

Before you all go debating the validity of these brief outlooks at energy's they are not exact and up to date but are from my studies up to 2004

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

As if we would.....

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Please, do not start me. until recently from the east coast of the Isle of Man. Full of Cancer tumor's.

Do I and a number of others in other effected area's trust Sellafield, Winscale, Seascale and other names for the same place trust anything that BNFL say?

Why not build the next nuclear fuel plant on the old London Power station site. A bit to close to Westminster.

Lets have wave and wind power, please.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

No way, my head started hurting when I posted that bit about solar panels

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

For those who are advocating an expansion of our nuclear power, have you thought what you would do with and where you would store the nuclear waste??? - Sellafield is full up and if you will recall, many years ago the Government wanted to sink huge bore holes around the country in which to store the excess nuclear waste. Because of severe objections from each and every community and local authority affected by these potential sink holes, the Government were forced to abandon the idea entirely.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Nuclear industry spokespeople rate down the list after politicians, journalists and lawyers as people you could trust to be telling you the truth.
I hate the way that they claim only 56 people have died due to nuclear power. They rely on the sort of arguments used by the tobacco industry. You can not prove that any one cancer was the result of smoking or radiation, especially a few years down the line. You therefore can not blame one single cancer death on radiation. The Greenpeace estimate after Chernobyl was of 100,000 fatal cancers based on increases in numbers with cancer. It was 250,000 with a cancer. But the industry still plods on insisting there are only 56 deaths so it is safer than coal.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Hmmmmm - the Asbestos industry also use similar tactics, simply because Asbestosis and mesothelioma take many years to develop.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Alternative energy sources – wind, sun, tidal, corn (for ethanol), and whatever else can be thought of, are good for domestic and light industrial use, but they will never power major industrial manufacturing plants – the places where steel car bodies, shells for solar power, copper wire, silicon chips, toasters, fridges, cathodes & anodes for battery storage, and even wind turbine blades are made. And alternative energy sources, even collected with high efficiency, offer many problems. When you remove large amounts of energy from solar radiation, tides and winds – as you must do to make it worthwhile – you disrupt normal energy flows from those sources. Solar panels have improved greatly in past decades, but everywhere there is a solar panel, no light hits the earth or the things living underneath it. I do agree that alternative energy sources are excellent for domestic use – homes and light industry – and their development should be continued in earnest, but nothing will supply the future power requirements for the huge manufacturing facilities other than nuclear sources. Have you seen the size and the power requirements in even a medium-sized steel or aluminum plant ?? Oil and gas-fired plants have already outlived their usefulness. And with the exponentially-increasing power requirements of the 21st Century, nuclear power development becomes even more critical. Remember, when you plug in your new electric car, that the power to charge it must come from somewhere.

I agree that nuclear plants pose many risks – I worked for many years as a nuclear R&D technologist – and I learned about nuclear plants from the inside out. But there are ways to make the plants safe. And yes, I know about the Japanese Fukushima disaster – I continue to follow events there in great detail – but with proper engineering design, that accident should never have happened. It did, and many do not know just how close the central third of Japan and much of the adjoining mainland coast came to being totally wiped out. But hopefully, as intelligent human beings, the mistakes made there will be realized and eliminated, thereby improving the design of nuclear plants worldwide. But yes, there will always be inherent danger in splitting atoms in a closed environment. Reactors are made of mechanical components and mechanical components can fail. But the bottom line is that we need the power. We live in an age that has huge energy demands and it increases with every computer or toaster oven put on a store shelf. And we better get good a building safe, reliable nuclear reactors. It’s not beyond reason that this can be done. We are an adaptive and ingenious species.

And finally, I want to correct the common misconception about nuclear wastes. Nuclear wastes are not destined to be with us for a hundred gazillion years. There is proven technology now called ‘transmutation’ that will feed nuclear wastes back into ‘transmuting reactors’ and further break down the radioactive waste into eventual inert, non-radioactive substances. This technology has been around for decades, but the reason why there are no transmuting reactors running now is purely economic. The revenue generated by the power made by breaking down the radioactive isotopes is less than the money spent to operate the plant. And no person, government or company (at this time) is willing to build a large nuclear plant that loses money. But when we need it, the technology is there to dispose of nuclear wastes.

cdn guy