 Poster: A snowHead
|
The promoters of nuclear power, of which Prime Minister Tony Blair is one, believe that this method of electricity generation can relieve us of CO2 emissions and therefore address the global warming of gas, oil or coal power stations.
Environmentalists believe that nuclear power is expensive, to the extent that it may divert capital investment from windfarms, solar power and other methods of generating electricity from 'renewable sources', which also emit no CO2.
The Prime Minister's speech on future energy policy, which was heavily disrupted by Greenpeace demonstrators, is reported by the BBC here. The same page has links to analysis of the future energy debate.
What's the best solution for the future of snow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I was always told by my science teacher at school, that nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of power available. Problems only come when things go wrong.
The fuels we currently use are going to run out in the medium term, that's a fact. Do solar power and wind farms etc genuinely have the capacity to produce enough power for a world that is using more and more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
A discrepancy that I do not understand is that one side argue vehemently that alternative means (tidal, solar, wind, biomass etc) can meet our energy needs, the other side state that they cannot and that nuclear is the only alternative.
Someone is not telling the truth and all is does is confuse the poor punter like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Ray Zorro, in the UK we could probably get away with a combination of tidal + wind generation, but only because we have a large coastline, most other countries will need additional powerplants, particularly the US, China and Russia. of the alternatives Nuclear is the most enviromentaly friendly if nothing goes wrong, if it does then it becomes the most enviromentally damaging as evidenced by the disasters at 3 mile island and Chernobyl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
This is obviously a really complicated area. On the one hand we have the blindingly obvious, i.e. self-sufficient energy usage (wind/solar/water). On the other hand we have the fact we are an inter-dependent country who rely on the national grid and imported energy sources (no, we are no longer awash with gas, what kind of phrase is that in the 1st place?).
Unless there is a Green revolution or we get annihilated (by a Nuke power station?) we are too late to reverse carbon effects unless we go nuclear. This idea is reprehensible to me and leaves us open to attack and human error.
Even the scientist who led to Gaia theory, James Lovelock, pronounced on the front page of the UK 'Independent' newspaper that nuclear was the only way to go. Check out: http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
D G Orf, thanks, I hear what you say, but this topic has been on the radio all day and other experts have stated the complete opposite view, that alternative forms wouldn't suffice and that nuclear is the only alternative.
Yours confused (still). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of course the constant referances you get to chernobyl when ever nucular power is mentioned, As far as i remember it went wrong in part due to being a rubbish design, but mostly due to some idiot russian pushing the reactor past safe limits.
We were covering the power generation issues in Enviormental Engineering lectures earlyer this semester, and the other problems accioated with 'green' meens of electricity generation (such as the fact they are very inefficient (meaning you need hundreds of the things to make a small amount of power), tidal also has huge effects on the enviorment that its placed in (slows up rivers meaning they silt up, compleatly screws up the eco system.)
Nucular power has huge outputs out of minimal inputs and (radioactive waste aside) has very little emmisions. On the other hand it is very expensive (but then is turning the countryside into one massive great windfarm...)
As for greenpeace, they use even more dodgy statistics and spin than labour. Anyone remember that oil rig a while back that shell wanted to sink? Greenpeace kicked up a fuss saying that it was full of some toxin or other, and in the end forced shell to break it up on land.
Afterwards they found much less in it than Greenpeace said, but the damage to the enviorment through breaking the thing up turned out a lot worse than if they had just carryed out the origonal plan and sunk the thing. Have been told of a number of similar cases to this (where greenpeace have put massive spin on stats, or have blantently made them up to suit their arguements) both from examples mentioned in lectures, and teachers back from when i was at school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think DGO summarises it perfectly. From my perspective the risk of catastrophe, or the lesser risk (inevitability?) of problems with the nuclear waste storage, make nuclear power stations unacceptable.
Of course, we have to address the hideous waste of energy use in this country, too. If we slim back our demands on the power stations by using electricity more sparingly then we don't need to generate so much.
Many houses can become micro power stations. There was a man on the telly the other day who sells back 20% of his solar electricity generation to the National Grid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
It is a very big and complicated debate, and as such most people, even experts, have difficulty with all the options. Ray Zorro, some of them dont tell the truth.
Basically :
Nuclear was always tied up with weapons and you aren't going to seperate this image (I think some people even think that a nuclear power station is a 'contained' bomb that will explode (or is exploding) - this is just not possible, although steam, etc can 'explode' with devastating results as in Chernobyl). This was why the fantsticly safe Nuclear Magnetic resonance Imaging 'NMRI' system for medical imaging was re-branded as 'MRI' to avoid the stigma.
Renewables are viewed as clear and obvious - wind blows, blades go round, electricity comes out. Anyone can understand the basics. But the systems to achieve this are very costly and complicated Remember that to work in the average wind speeds for optimum availability, the system must also be designed to survive storm conditions - a system that will not break in a storm may be too heavy to even move in normal winds/waves etc. (simplification!) . The most easily accessable resource - wind - is highly variable. Wave and tidal is more reliable, but a significant engineering challange. Hydro-electric is v.reliable and proven, but limited by terrain.
Coal and gas produce CO2 and suff the environment.
Fusion isnt here yet but holds massive promice at massive expence (www.iter.org).
There are a lot of problems with nuclear, not least selecting a standardised design (In the past, no two stations were the same because improvements were always being made and new weapons requirements to refine fuel etc) but pure commercial reactor designs are emerging. There is still the problem of what to do with the waste.
I believe that we will be forced to build nuclear as a 50 year stopgap until fusion is possible, but who would pay for all that investment with an uncertain finite payback ?
In the mean time - insulate or learn to be cold  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear power generation is pretty safe. No more than 60 people died in the Chernobyl incident and no more than 4,000 (probably a lot less) have died / will die from diseases likely to have been induced by the radiation (figures from a UN report). So far this year, 3,000 coal miners have died in China, including 150-odd this week. The thing about nuclear power is that it's reliable, unlike wind, sun and waves. An anti-cyclone parked over the British Isles in winter would be pretty bad news if we went totally renewable: no wind, no sun (freezing fog), and becalmed seas - the lights would go out. No thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
the_fatadder, yes, Greenpeace stats were incorrect on the Brent Spar, but does this mean we throw the 'precautionary principle' out with the bath water? We only have to look at the mountains that we all hold so dear and the changing climates. Remember, businesses are concerned with profits, they all have a responsibility to shareholders to maintain revenue. Environmentalist issues are an 'externality' for them, i.e. a secondary concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Nuclear power generation is pretty safe. No more than 60 people died in the Chernobyl incident |
How many suffered chronic illness and cancer from the drift of radioactivity? How many premature deaths have been caused?
There are charities in this country which care for the children of Chernobyl and do their best to make their lives a bit more tolerable.
The scale of that catastrophe should not be understated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
As a direct response to the thread title - No.
The world is a changing place with or without Humans, on long and short timescales, on a scale form local to global. What we must learn to do is follow the snow or develop aspestos lava surfing kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| The scale of that catastrophe should not be understated. |
I agree. It shouldn't be overstated either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
it becomes the most enviromentally damaging as evidenced by the disasters at 3 mile island and Chernobyl
|
Why do people quote three mile island as a disaster - it wasn't (a near miss yes). The accident was fully contained within the site and has caused no problems - other than to the reputation of nuclear power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Dave Horsley, it was a disaster for the Nuclear industry and by all accounts it came incredibly close to being a full scale enviromental disaster
The most effective method in the UK would be tidal power, anyone who thinks this unrealistic should have a look at the early tidal mills dating from the 11th Century
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
D G Orf, any idea why the French haven't built any more since the Rance barrage in the 60s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
laundryman, 60 vs "The official number of people affected by the disaster is put at about seven million" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1763762.stm )
seems like a massive understatement! I don't think it is dieing in the explosion that worries people about nuclear anything, it is the long term health risks from both accidental releases of radioactive stuff, and the waste produced in the normal course of running, also de-commissioning the plant once its life is over leaves a huge mess.
I am not sure where I stand, I like the cheap energy we enjoy at the moment, and I don't make every effort I could to minimise my personal impact on the environment. However I remain unconvinced that using a technology that produces waste that stays dangerous for thousands of years is sensible!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
build them.. we are a major industrialised nation.. we need a reliable power source..
despite the best efforts of people to save energy the energy demands of this country will almost certainly be going up over the next few decades.. new technologys may get the levels down later this century.. i think it is best to produce the required power with as little carbon burning as poss.. yes the waste is infinetly more dangerous but it is small in size and can be buried deep underground or under the sea bed.. i believe the norwegans are looking at this..
low emisson electric cars for example dont save fuel , they merely move the burning bit back to the power station that makes the electricity..
the downside of good old electricity is that it is difficult to store so you have to have the ability to make lots of it when you need it..
not an idela solution but a necessary one to secure our energy needs up to the middle of this century..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
If Teflon Tony & Greenpeace both shut there big mouths that alone should cut down on CO2 emissions & give everyones ears a rest at the same time 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
| new technologys may get the levels down later this century.. . |
Is this not what they call the bury it in the sand syndrome?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia has a lot of gas at a price (probably linked to oil prices).
Oil is running out.
Coal is costing more and more to mine.
Green alternatives are there but as a generation capacity they are not as stable as current methods.
If the public would just acccept a system that charges much more for the electricity but only delivers while the sun is shinning, it's been raining but not pouring down (for hydro power) and the wind is blowing the problem would be solved.
I don't like nuclear either but what viable alternatives are there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
fragglerock, the BBC's "official" total is unattributed in the report, as far as I can tell. My figure comes from a recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times:
| Quote: |
| The death toll attributed to radiation could reach 4,000, said the report, compiled for the Chernobyl Forum, a group that includes the IAEA, other U.N. agencies and the governments of Ukraine -- where Chernobyl is located -- Belarus and Russia. |
That sounds pretty official to me. The article goes on to quote the chairman of the forum in saying that previously reported death tolls were inflated, perhaps to attract sympathy.
So perhaps it is the figures you quote that are a massive overstatement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
| build them.. |
You will need to build fast-breeders as Uranium supplied will run out around the same time as Oil - 2050 (according to a friend who works in the industry). Maybe someone can tell us more about the risks of this type of reactor? I know France shut down their only fast breeder due to safety concerns.
To answer DG's original question, you need a base load so I don't think our society, even with big energy savings, can function on wind/wave power alone. We should probably maintain 20% nuclear at present but it is an expensive way to generate electricity.
What amazes me about NL is that on one side TB is saying we need to build more power plants and on the other side Prescott is relaxing energy efficiency requirements for new homes. Smacks of incompetence again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I hate to shout, BUT THE REASON WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS IS BECAUSE OF SELF-SERVING CORPORATIONS. Although difficult to visualise, Green alternatives are real. I don't doubt for a second how it difficult it is to turn such a large 'tanker' around, but what are the alternatives. Broadly, all scientists are agreed that industrialisation has caused recent effects, what option do we have except dramatic thinking?
Surely no-one can argue that Green is not safe, and employed on a localised basis, viable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
saxabar, the reason that we have environmental issues is due to the world's growing population, with an unprecedented proportion of that population enjoying lifestyles of undreamt of luxury to previous generations. We could reverse industrialisation and banish corporations, but please don't expect the world to be a happier place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| saxabar wrote: |
| Broadly, all scientists are agreed that industrialisation has caused recent effects |
that's not my understanding of what "all scientists" are saying... it seems more along the lines of man-made CO2 and Methane emissions contribute to global warming and even then there are a lot of scientists in the US who don't even go that far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
laundryman, I have e-mailed the beeb to ask them to send me their sources!
How do people feel about some kind of personal carbon allowance along the lines of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4479226.stm I think it would be great! but mainly because I am pretty sure I have a low impact and could sell my spare carbon to some car driving sucker!
It is hard to say what is good... I like cheap flights (£20 for my Geneva flight from Newcastle!) But i think it a travesty that airlines don't pay tax on the go juice...
I like the idea of wind farms, but they look horrendous, so I don't want them in any of the national parks/ wild places where they would work well... Solar powering each individual house seems like a good idea, but the chemicals used in them are pretty nasty and I am not sure that they generate more power in their useful lives than they take to manufacture.
All in all it is a hard question of which I am not sure that there is a correct answer! Burdening our offspring with nuclear waste that is dangerous for thousands of years seems rude, but if it means they have a livable atmosphere to be irritated in then that is a good thing!
all in all sign me up for "i don't know" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
laundryman, No, the equivalence between population growth and environmental damage is a false equation. You only have to look at the have-and-have-nots in China and India to see that. The problem lies with the luxury oriented 10%, i.e. large proportions of North America and Europe. Regionalised energy solutions are the only final answer. Happiness does not come from an iPod Nano!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| davidof wrote: |
| saxabar wrote: |
| Broadly, all scientists are agreed that industrialisation has caused recent effects |
that's not my understanding of what "all scientists" are saying... it seems more along the lines of man-made CO2 and Methane emissions contribute to global warming and even then there are a lot of scientists in the US who don't even go that far. |
What's the difference between recent man [sic] -made and industrialisation/late modernity?
I'm not even going to go into sponsored US research!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
saxabar, so there are no environmental problems in India and China?
I've seen an awful lot of conspicuous consumption in the Far East, and it has grown massively in a generation.
iPods aren't really the point though; industrialisation has led to unprecedented numbers of people of being decently fed, clothed and housed. Turn it off and you will get misery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
What's the best solution for the future of snow? |
Perhaps we could build artificial mountains in high latitudes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
laundryman, yes, of course, but how many of the indiginous populations are better fed and clothed in proportion to wealth generated for the few at the top and the burgeoning cities? We earned our wealth the hard way, through colonialism. Others have to do it through environmental exploitation. Now if we could share some of our gains back......sorry, impossible idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
As many have said so far, none of the current energy solutions are viable in the long run (including nuclear). If we all want to maintain our living standards over the next fifty years, I believe that a gamble should be taken on fusion, and that Fusion researchers should effectively be given a blank cheque. Unfortunately, Politicians would probably not do this, because they all have their re-election prospects on their minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mamcoz wrote: |
| I believe that a gamble should be taken on fusion, and that Fusion researchers should effectively be given a blank cheque. |
What do you mean by gamble, and why should Fusion researchers be given a free cheque of our money?
Apologies to all for tone of voice.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 29-11-05 18:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Mamcoz, let me be the first to welcome you to Snowheads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
| The most effective method in the UK would be tidal power, anyone who thinks this unrealistic should have a look at the early tidal mills dating from the 11th Century |
Yes tidal power does have a lot of potential in terms of power output, but it really does have drastic effects on the enviorment. For example, take the Seven Estery (applogies for the spelling). (A project that one of my lecturers is working on, hence gets brought up far to oftern in fluids lecturs) Basicly it involves sticking a line of underwater turbines on the seabed I think in a line from Cardiff to Western (something like that anyway)
As the water pases the turbine the velocity reduces, changing the tidal pattern of the river (biggest effect is the river silting up (which in turn causes no end of problems).
Of course the real issue with power generation is not with Europe and America, but with the developing world, in particular India and China. Where no one gives a monkeys about emmisions and green house gases etc, and will carry on building huge coal fired power stations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Blair says we have got little choice beyond 2020. That's only 14 years away. How long does it take to build a Nuclear power station from scratch?
Now tell me about this Governments energy policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
