How can a warmist object to nuclear power

[alchresearch 215]

Personally I'm all for Hydro power, and I can't for the life of me figure out why our country doesn't produce more of it???

 

I don't think there's been a route of delivering the energy to the national grid until now:

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wirral-high-voltage-cable-work-begin-3010966

[onewheeldave 22]

 

Can you honestly see people being happy with covering the landscape with massive spinning propellors if they didn't have a green stamp on them? Have you seen what happened when the blades sheer off?

 

 

No, I've not- what happens?

[unbeliever 10]

No, I've not- what happens?

 

3 enormous scythes set off across the landscape destroying everything in their path.

[onewheeldave 22]

3 enormous scythes set off across the landscape destroying everything in their path.

 

Does it? are there any videos showing this that you can link to?

[Cyclone 10]

There was talk of putting an edison (or archamedes) screw generator in the Don a little while back.

It would give power to a couple of hundred homes, so only small.

 

but we've got plenty of similar rivers covering England, Scotland and Wales, why can't they have these systems installed??

 

The Government up until recently have loved the idea of sticking up wind turbines, despite their obvious drawbacks - but Hydro generation has gone no-where.

 

It's smaller scale, you can't build massive water driven turbines in the same way you can with wind.

 

On a micro generation scale, it's great. If you lived next to even a moderate flow of water you could generate power for yourself.

It does affect the water flow though, try to scale it too much and we'll probably end up damaging the river ecosystem badly.

[murgatt 10]

There are some days I think the sooner we get on with it and leave the planet for the animals whose populations are kept under control by other animals in an equilibrium the better.

 

I for one welcome our Lizard Overlords.

[unbeliever 10]

Does it? are there any videos showing this that you can link to?

 

 

One would have to be rather lucky to catch such an incident on video. There are plenty more confirmed reports:

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Pay particular attention to the section on "Blade failure":

Pieces of blade are documented as travelling up to one mile. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings.

 

This only accounts for incidents that made it into the press and were then confirmed. There may be many more that did not come to the attention of the press and were not reported.

Edited June 20, 2014 by unbeliever

[andyofborg 11]

Nuclear is technically finite, but it's so vast that it's profoundly unlikely we'll run low before the technology becomes obsolete and we've moved on to something we haven't even thought of yet.

 

Not sure what you are talking about here. I seem to recall that back in the 80s when nuclear was in fashion there were serious concerns about the amount and availability of fuel suitable for nuclear reactors.

 

Modern developments like thorium based reactors might help and there are probably other alternative radionucleotides which could be used.

 

But the supply of uranium is very limited and the 80s alternative was fast breeder technologies to produce plutonium but that raised all sorts of issues about it being directed to military uses. Not something we really want.

 

If we can get fusion going then that would be better and it seems to be cleaner.

 

The other point about nuclear power is that while the generation of the power is low carbon, building the plant, doing something with the waste and at some point decomissioning it certainly isnt.

 

Rather than just concentrating on supply, we should look at consumption as well. Leaving things on standby wastes power (and money). We can reduce consumption without it really affecting our quality of life, in fact it might make it better

[Cyclone 10]

Current estimates for Uranium are something like a 10 thousand year supply.

 

Leaving things on standby is a trivial energy use. And in colder months it just reduces the amount of heating you use!

[unbeliever 10]

Not sure what you are talking about here. I seem to recall that back in the 80s when nuclear was in fashion there were serious concerns about the amount and availability of fuel suitable for nuclear reactors.

 

Modern developments like thorium based reactors might help and there are probably other alternative radionucleotides which could be used.

 

But the supply of uranium is very limited and the 80s alternative was fast breeder technologies to produce plutonium but that raised all sorts of issues about it being directed to military uses. Not something we really want.

 

If we can get fusion going then that would be better and it seems to be cleaner.

 

The other point about nuclear power is that while the generation of the power is low carbon, building the plant, doing something with the waste and at some point decomissioning it certainly isnt.

 

Rather than just concentrating on supply, we should look at consumption as well. Leaving things on standby wastes power (and money). We can reduce consumption without it really affecting our quality of life, in fact it might make it better

 

How on earth are we to reduce consumption without reducing our quality of life?

The wastes your referring to are negligible. It's like those daft energy saving light bulbs; pure tokenism.

 

There's uranium everywhere. It's in the sea if it comes to that.

There's a misconception that the cost of nuclear fuel is a major factor in the cost of nuclear power. This is true of fossil fuels but not nuclear as the fuel energy density is so much higher and the consumption rate so low. The dominant costs are in constructing and running the reactors.

 

There's no way we could run out of Uranium. I have, as you suggest, been assuming that we would be seriously considering reactor designs where the plutonium is bred from natural uranium, rather than depending on enriched uranium. But it does not depend on this.

 

When I was at school I was told the same thing. That we would run out of natural gas in 30 years, and coal in 100, and uranium somewhere in between. It's all nonsense. They look at proven reserves in existing extraction sites, and pretend that's all there is for political purposes. Pure fantasy.

 

The carbon dioxide production from construction and decommission applies to wind, solar and all the alternatives to an even greater extent as the physical installations are much larger.

 

Thorium and later fusion will likely be superior technologies, but they're not ready. Traditional fission is available now and this is supposed to be an urgent matter. Either it's not urgent and we can with for genuine alternatives are ready, or it is urgent and we should choose the only available practical means to generate our electricity.

[erebus 10]

The temperature of the sea is rising, and glaciers have significantly melted over the last few decades, the North West Passage was used last year for the first time, all indicating things are warming up.

 

Well nothing new there, as we are technically in an interglacial period, and let us not forget Sheffield was under 2 miles of ice a few thousand years ago, thus much has changed sine the warming started.

 

The biggest change was sea levels eventually rose 350 feet, thus Australia lost a landmass the size of India, and the Uk became an island as it was once just part of Europe.

 

Strangely the sea level is still rising although slowly 2-3 millimeters a year, which for the plebs is nothing, but for the plebs offspring in 50 years who can say as the rate of sea level rising is gradually increasing, thus predicting 4 or so inches could be somewhat of a washout. The main place to watch is of course Antarctica, where the biggest land mass of ice resides, and its ice on land that when melts causes sea level rise. But you knew that!

 

So its NOT a problem for us at all, who cares, I don't. But then again its for future generations to sort out innit, and with the global population rising, it will contribute to mass extermination for many, who cannot afford the rents on higher ground, or the price of food with a shrunk land mass. Something to tell the grandchildren about, getting them ready for human sacrifices that must be made for the superior / rich ones that enjoy human suffering on TV for instance. Its so entertaining to watch other people suffer, seeing genuine tears is a breath of fresh air for some.

[unbeliever 10]

The temperature of the sea is rising, and glaciers have significantly melted over the last few decades, the North West Passage was used last year for the first time, all indicating things are warming up.

 

Well nothing new there, as we are technically in an interglacial period, and let us not forget Sheffield was under 2 miles of ice a few thousand years ago, thus much has changed sine the warming started.

 

The biggest change was sea levels eventually rose 350 feet, thus Australia lost a landmass the size of India, and the Uk became an island as it was once just part of Europe.

 

Strangely the sea level is still rising although slowly 2-3 millimeters a year, which for the plebs is nothing, but for the plebs offspring in 50 years who can say as the rate of sea level rising is gradually increasing, thus predicting 4 or so inches could be somewhat of a washout. The main place to watch is of course Antarctica, where the biggest land mass of ice resides, and its ice on land that when melts causes sea level rise. But you knew that!

 

So its NOT a problem for us at all, who cares, I don't. But then again its for future generations to sort out innit, and with the global population rising, it will contribute to mass extermination for many, who cannot afford the rents on higher ground, or the price of food with a shrunk land mass. Something to tell the grandchildren about, getting them ready for human sacrifices that must be made for the superior / rich ones that enjoy human suffering on TV for instance. Its so entertaining to watch other people suffer, seeing genuine tears is a breath of fresh air for some.

 

Sounds like a serious problem.

Shall we fanny around with "alternative energy" that doesn't really work and prices the poor out of electricity usage.

Or shall we change our electricity generation over to a system which all but eliminates greenhouse gas production in a short timespan and is proven categorically to work (albeit largely by the French).

Or shall we admit it's all nonsense and just burn the methane.

 

I don't mind. Nuclear for the warmists or admit its all made up and use methane. Either is fine with me.