Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

I don't have the answers Joe, but every form of power generation has it's problems. My point, more that any, was that wind generators cannot be the future of renewables. Until we find other, totally reliable forms of renewable energy sources then we need to use what's proven to work and readily available. The loss of power would be the end of society as we know it, we have to keep the power flowing and find ways to do so without delay...

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

"we need to use what's proven to work.


errrrmmmm Plantman - Hasn't Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Japan convinced you of the inherent dangers of nuclear generation??? and as I pointed out what do you do with the nuclear waste???

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Nuclear bombs are so pretty-like big mushrooms growing in the sky.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Oil/tar sands, for consideration.
Also a resource surrounded by controversey, but there are huge reserves of oil/tar sands in Canada, America and Venezuala. Extraction is riddled with environmental problems and financial costs, but in Alberta tar sands have been commercially worked since the late sixties, but it is very "dirty".

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Three examples from millions of hours of safe operation? A tiger by the tail maybe, but the realistic alternative is what?

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

The fallout from Chernobyl was predicted to cause tens of thousands of deaths. A recent UN report found that about 2000 people contracted thyroid cancer from drinking contaminated milk and approximately 40 of those people unfortunately died. There is no evidence of any other deaths (from fallout). The uninhabited Chernobyl site has recovered to the point where the wildlife is healthy and thriving in greater numbers than it ever was.
Twenty five years on from the Three Mile Island accident a study shows that there has been no perceptable increase in deaths from cancer in the immediate area around the site.


The problem with Nuclear power is that it has been demonised over the last few decades by the Green lobby using emotion rather than facts and reason. The case against Nuclear is irrational. Of course Nuclear is not without risk. What is? It is about risk.
Whole body CT scans will cause several cases of cancer per year but the risk is accepted as the benefits outweigh the dangers.
Looked at rationally, given the modern reactors and safety systems the risk of Nuclear is acceptable. It is also Carbon neutral and the cost advantage per gigawatt compared to Windpower is incontestable.
We must not let the emotions of the mung bean munchers detract us from the rational decision.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

All those supporters of nuclear power have failed to address the point I made earlier, what about the nuclear waste??? - How does one dispose of it safely??? without storing it in places close to or above habitation???

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

I haven't got any answers Joe, I'm not a scientist. Hopefully someone cleverer than I will come up with a solution to that little problem...

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Uncle Joe, if you look at this site it gives some insight as to how radioactive waste is handled.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm

It is quite reassuring and based on sound science. Of course one can never completely remove the "Human error" factor, so there is risk as there is with anything.

We have to weigh up the risk of managing the waste effectively against the inevitable power shortages in the short to medium term if we do not build new Nuclear power plants.

To me and many people the risk is acceptable to others it will not be.
I am not sure how we can resolve that.

Re: The Nuclear Deterrent, keep it or ditch it?

Alright 'GOG, let's put in a context a little closer to home. Northumberland was atone time full of coal mines. Since the implication of your latest 'posting' would seem to support the building of nuclear power stations, what if BNFL as a means of disposing of large amounts of nuclear waste, advocated burying them in the now disused coal mines. Would you want a nuclear waste dump at the bottom of your garden???