A costly and expensive way to boil water
To remove any mystique about nuclear power, it is an unnatural, highly dangerous and highly expensive way of boiling vast amounts of water. It utilises the ultimate non-renewable (grade-A uranium), of which the world had very limited reserves of around 20 years at best estimates. With China and India, in particular, and other countries intending to commission up to 100 new nuclear power stations in the near future, these reserves will
shrink at an increasing rate and we will then be in an era of extracting uranium from low-grade ore at increasing cost and then move on
to other, even more technically challenging and expensive, ways of preparing other materials for the nuclear process.
In the interim, we will be producing more and more toxic nuclear waste which we still have no idea how to deal with except bury in "safe" pits. There are, of course, no safe ways of burying nuclear waste, unless we can guarantee no earthquakes or other natural occurrences over which we have no control. Perhaps we could shoot it into space.
For much of my lifetime, all this has been perfectly understood by the Labour Party, particularly in Scotland. However, the umbilical ties that connect Labour in Scotland to Labour in London for funding and thinking are forcing it into an unwilling somersault that would be funny were it not so sad.
Generating electricity by nuclear power is the ultimate political quick fix. Future generations will pick up the bill for cheap and wrong decisions taken today. While there is
an impending power crisis in the south of England owing to long-term incompetence by successive governments which militates towards the nuclear quick fix, no such imperative faces Scotland.
Whenever I read apparently informed correspondents using the obvious limitations of wind power to promote nuclear power, I know I am involved in a dishonest conversation. No serious person is suggesting that wind power could provide anything other than useful and fairly modest supplementation in percentage to other methods of generating power
- but significant nevertheless in an array of other green methods of supplying us with constant and reliable power. The proposed Severn barrage would provide as much generation as several nuclear power stations. The potential of the Pentland Firth dwarfs this.
We have clean coal technology, tidal power and wave generation in its infancy, biomass, solar power and hydro power, and increasingly sophisticated means of storing the products of all of these and others. There is a hydro-electric station near me which isn't in use much of the time as we are already exporting surplus power to England, so no disaster awaits us if we steadily reduce our need for nuclear generation.
We should be looking at ways of encouraging localised generation by any of the above methods which produces power close to its source of consumption and sends surpluses to a national grid and which removes the need for hundreds of miles of leaking transmission.
Government subsidy to encourage this would be a far better bet than the monumental sums poured as subsidy into the nuclear industry. The SNP government is absolutely right energetically to follow this route.
David McEwan Hill,
1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart,
Sandbank, Argyll.
Professor Roger Crofts, a leading authority on energy supply, has described Alex Salmond's arguments in the nuclear power debate as being "disingenuous". For the non-expert, this translates roughly as "absurd".
What is more disturbing, though, is that Mr Salmond and the SNP are quite prepared to continue their blindfolded, dogmatic approach to the problem by dismissing before starting what is, in effect, the only answer. Dogma should not be on the agenda of any government.
Of course, the only people to suffer should the SNP's plans go ahead would be the people of Scotland. And Mr Salmond and his cronies are well aware that the certain energy shortage that would occur, should his party's policies be implemented, would be covered by power generated in other parts of this island.
It is time the needs of present and future generations were put before dogma. The energy needs of the people of this country are infinitely more important than attempting to gain a cheap vote.
Alexander McKay,
8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: noclear argument on 3:40am Mon 14 Jan 08
Mmmmm......
David - good information, structured argument
Alexander - vague scary stuff, wild insults
...mmm, who to believe?
Is Alexander the first example of "nuclear rage"?
And what about Professor Roger Croft - are you sure he is the right man to have on your side? Does he really have the experience and gravitas in this policy area? Especially when he is rent-a-quote for the Hootsmon? (and aren't there some lacunae in Croft's employment history?)
http://news.scotsman
.com/alternativeener
gysources/Confusion-
reigns-over-SNPs-ene
rgy.3287992.jp
Mmmmm......
David - good information, structured argument
Alexander - vague scary stuff, wild insults
...mmm, who to believe?
Is Alexander the first example of "nuclear rage"?
And what about Professor Roger Croft - are you sure he is the right man to have on your side? Does he really have the experience and gravitas in this policy area? Especially when he is rent-a-quote for the Hootsmon? (and aren't there some lacunae in Croft's employment history?)
http://news.scotsman
.com/alternativeener
gysources/Confusion-
reigns-over-SNPs-ene
rgy.3287992.jp
Posted by: Boabby, Vancouver Island on 5:49am Mon 14 Jan 08
Excellent letter, David. I would put forward some mild dissent in the matter of "clean coal", however. The efficiency of combustion of any fossil or carbonaceous fuel is usually measured by the maximisation of carbon dioxide in the combustion products. Unless this most damaging greenhouse gas can be sequestered in some way, there can never be a truly "clean" fossil fuel.
Excellent letter, David. I would put forward some mild dissent in the matter of "clean coal", however. The efficiency of combustion of any fossil or carbonaceous fuel is usually measured by the maximisation of carbon dioxide in the combustion products. Unless this most damaging greenhouse gas can be sequestered in some way, there can never be a truly "clean" fossil fuel.
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 9:23am Mon 14 Jan 08
Uranium is the perfect fuel. Its mining causes massive environment disruption, pollution and health damage, as well as permanent blight o the landscape. However, the beauty of this fuel is that its mining happens in distant, poor third world countries powerless to protest against it. The ultimate fuel for an imperialist capitalist system. It's not so many years since the UK government wanted to mine uranium in Orkney. This would have meant the unique environment, rich in nature and archaeology, of the Orkney mainland being destroyed - the whole island being torn up and converted to a massive open cast site to produce a little uranium to fuel English power stations. All farming on the island would have been permanently destroyed, and incoming workers would have ensured there was no local employment benefit. Fortunately with a Scottish government this will not now happen.
Uranium is the perfect fuel. Its mining causes massive environment disruption, pollution and health damage, as well as permanent blight o the landscape. However, the beauty of this fuel is that its mining happens in distant, poor third world countries powerless to protest against it. The ultimate fuel for an imperialist capitalist system. It's not so many years since the UK government wanted to mine uranium in Orkney. This would have meant the unique environment, rich in nature and archaeology, of the Orkney mainland being destroyed - the whole island being torn up and converted to a massive open cast site to produce a little uranium to fuel English power stations. All farming on the island would have been permanently destroyed, and incoming workers would have ensured there was no local employment benefit. Fortunately with a Scottish government this will not now happen.
Posted by: David Hansen, Edinburgh on 10:36am Mon 14 Jan 08
Roger Crofts is not "a leading authority on energy supply".
http://www.sac.ac.uk
/aboutsac/sacboard/r
ogercrofts/ lists his history briefly.
Roger Crofts is not "a leading authority on energy supply".
http://www.sac.ac.uk
/aboutsac/sacboard/r
ogercrofts/ lists his history briefly.
Posted by: toom on 11:23am Mon 14 Jan 08
The bulk of the nuclear waste is low-emission or can be shielded so that it is environmentally low emission. What about the emerging evidence that low levels are not harmful - and may indeed activate the body's responses to protect you from the effects of radiation. There are natural hotspots of radiation on the planet where there is no measurable evidence of harm to humans, fauna or flora. There are areas some distance from Chernobyl where, though levels are low, they are considered unsafe for humans - the flora and fauna are flourishing with no observable radiation effects.
As with many substances, the fact that it is poisonous above certain thresholds doesn't necessarily interpolate to low doses, and they can even be beneficial. The evidence for low level radiation needs some more examination.
The bulk of the nuclear waste is low-emission or can be shielded so that it is environmentally low emission. What about the emerging evidence that low levels are not harmful - and may indeed activate the body's responses to protect you from the effects of radiation. There are natural hotspots of radiation on the planet where there is no measurable evidence of harm to humans, fauna or flora. There are areas some distance from Chernobyl where, though levels are low, they are considered unsafe for humans - the flora and fauna are flourishing with no observable radiation effects.
As with many substances, the fact that it is poisonous above certain thresholds doesn't necessarily interpolate to low doses, and they can even be beneficial. The evidence for low level radiation needs some more examination.
Posted by: Thomas Weyer, Germany on 1:02pm Mon 14 Jan 08
As far as I understand, this is a "philosophical question. A lot of scientist think that lower radiation is proportionally more harmful. In any case, the "natural hot spots" of radiation in Germany seem to coincide with higher rates of leukemia.
As far as I understand, this is a "philosophical question. A lot of scientist think that lower radiation is proportionally more harmful. In any case, the "natural hot spots" of radiation in Germany seem to coincide with higher rates of leukemia.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 1:58pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Neil:
I have to declare that I am NOT an expert in either nuclear physics or the cost of producing electricity. I trust that has established my credentials as an honest contributor to this thread. That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste.
Secondly, I would hazard a guess that a major cost in the production of nuclear power is to be found in the disposal of the waste. Thus India and China may be using this as a means of means of generating power cheaply, but may not have given sufficient thought to said disposal, with potentially disastrous consequences. I am right? I am open to correction by experts in the field. Do you have expertise in this area?
Thirdly, and related to this, is the issue of safety of the plant. What happens if there is an accident? You need only look at what happened at Chernobyl a mere 22 years ago to learn the lessons of what can go disastrously wrong if an accident does happen. Worse, what happens if something more sinister happens, say a bomb attack? It doesn't bear thinking about.
Finally, I find your use of the term "eco-fascists" rather tiresome. You have used it not only on threads to do with this subject, but also on matters regarding the proposed Trump development. Such terms are normally used by those who wish to dismiss all those who present a view other than their own as "weirdos", and in fact reveals a fundamental lack of confidence on your part in your own argument.
Neil:
I have to declare that I am NOT an expert in either nuclear physics or the cost of producing electricity. I trust that has established my credentials as an honest contributor to this thread. That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste.
Secondly, I would hazard a guess that a major cost in the production of nuclear power is to be found in the disposal of the waste. Thus India and China may be using this as a means of means of generating power cheaply, but may not have given sufficient thought to said disposal, with potentially disastrous consequences. I am right? I am open to correction by experts in the field. Do you have expertise in this area?
Thirdly, and related to this, is the issue of safety of the plant. What happens if there is an accident? You need only look at what happened at Chernobyl a mere 22 years ago to learn the lessons of what can go disastrously wrong if an accident does happen. Worse, what happens if something more sinister happens, say a bomb attack? It doesn't bear thinking about.
Finally, I find your use of the term "eco-fascists" rather tiresome. You have used it not only on threads to do with this subject, but also on matters regarding the proposed Trump development. Such terms are normally used by those who wish to dismiss all those who present a view other than their own as "weirdos", and in fact reveals a fundamental lack of confidence on your part in your own argument.
Posted by: Julianfff, Glasgow on 2:51pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote]quote[/quote] It is, however, a lie ... to say that it is expensive. since there can be no honest denial that France has been producing nuclear electricity at half the price of coal & 1/4 that of wind[quote]quote[/quote]
It is a big fallacy that France - or anyone else- produces Nuclear Power cheaply. Like all government programs of Nuclear building, the massive capital costs were written off by the French government. The only reason we can buy their off peak power cheaply, or for that matter have cheap night-time units from our own reactors is the low MARGINAL cost. If you've got a reactor running, you can't just switch it off at night when there's low demand so you have to sell off cheaply what it's generating.
The overall cost is still very high - much more expensive than gas, coal or wind.
Let's not forget that we have a privatised power industry. NPower, Scottish Power and EON and the like have been free to propose building more reactors. They don't because the economics just don't stack up and never have. No-one in the city wants to touch nuclear with a barge-pole unless there's subsidy of some sort.
And the government have left that possibility wide open. They've already said there'd be tax write-offs -that's a subsidy. They've also said that the taxpayer would step in if there were a major 'incident' so in effect we're paying for the insurance.
I don't see any other parts of the energy sector being offered those subsidies.
quote
It is, however, a lie ... to say that it is expensive. since there can be no honest denial that France has been producing nuclear electricity at half the price of coal & 1/4 that of wind
quote
It is a big fallacy that France - or anyone else- produces Nuclear Power cheaply. Like all government programs of Nuclear building, the massive capital costs were written off by the French government. The only reason we can buy their off peak power cheaply, or for that matter have cheap night-time units from our own reactors is the low MARGINAL cost. If you've got a reactor running, you can't just switch it off at night when there's low demand so you have to sell off cheaply what it's generating.
The overall cost is still very high - much more expensive than gas, coal or wind.
Let's not forget that we have a privatised power industry. NPower, Scottish Power and EON and the like have been free to propose building more reactors. They don't because the economics just don't stack up and never have. No-one in the city wants to touch nuclear with a barge-pole unless there's subsidy of some sort.
And the government have left that possibility wide open. They've already said there'd be tax write-offs -that's a subsidy. They've also said that the taxpayer would step in if there were a major 'incident' so in effect we're paying for the insurance.
I don't see any other parts of the energy sector being offered those subsidies.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, glasgow on 3:16pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote]That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste[/quote] Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it.
Julian I accept your claim that French nuclear is expensive as representing the very highest standard of honesty normally available from eco-fascists - that is to say a total & deliberate lie. Or do you intend to produce any evidence that, as you claim, France is selling vast amounts of electricity at below cost to ensure the wealth of Germany, Italy, spain , Belguim & Britain?
Readers will have to decide for themselves which is more credible - that the entire Green movement are wholly dishonest fascist barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did, or that the French are are all saints with nothing but charitable intent towards the Germans. It has to be one or the other.
In fact opponents of nuclear insist that it not be disposed of thus so that the waste remain available as it is likely to turn out to be valuable. This therefore precludes them from com[plaining about it being impossible to dispose of.
Or at least it precludes any of them who are not deliberately lying or have believed those who lied to them. I think that also disposes of points 2 & 3.
!Eco-fascist" is an accurate description of those who would enforce this Ludditism on us all for their own idealogical reasons. It is infinitely more accurate than the term "environmentalist" for those who would despoil our environment with windmills & who care nothing for our environment. I suggest you spend your time criticisng their nomenclature.
That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste
Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it.
Julian I accept your claim that French nuclear is expensive as representing the very highest standard of honesty normally available from eco-fascists - that is to say a total & deliberate lie. Or do you intend to produce any evidence that, as you claim, France is selling vast amounts of electricity at below cost to ensure the wealth of Germany, Italy, spain , Belguim & Britain?
Readers will have to decide for themselves which is more credible - that the entire Green movement are wholly dishonest fascist barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did, or that the French are are all saints with nothing but charitable intent towards the Germans. It has to be one or the other.
In fact opponents of nuclear insist that it not be disposed of thus so that the waste remain available as it is likely to turn out to be valuable. This therefore precludes them from com[plaining about it being impossible to dispose of.
Or at least it precludes any of them who are not deliberately lying or have believed those who lied to them. I think that also disposes of points 2 & 3.
!Eco-fascist" is an accurate description of those who would enforce this Ludditism on us all for their own idealogical reasons. It is infinitely more accurate than the term "environmentalist" for those who would despoil our environment with windmills & who care nothing for our environment. I suggest you spend your time criticisng their nomenclature.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 3:33pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Neil:
Your rant is getting more hysterical by the minute. Who here is promoting blanket windfarm coverage? Try and temper your language or you are the one who will be written off as the moron.
Neil:
Your rant is getting more hysterical by the minute. Who here is promoting blanket windfarm coverage? Try and temper your language or you are the one who will be written off as the moron.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, glasgow on 4:59pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Alastair i simply do not believe that you have never heard representatives of the Green movement saying we should go entirely for "renewables", which quite cerainly does involve "blanket windfarm coverage".
I note that you have not retracted your claim that it is impossible to bury nuclear waste.
I must therefore accept both statements as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire. It is not unusaul to find that people who style themselves "honest contributor" turn out not to be. It is a regular eco-fascist tactic.
Alastair i simply do not believe that you have never heard representatives of the Green movement saying we should go entirely for "renewables", which quite cerainly does involve "blanket windfarm coverage".
I note that you have not retracted your claim that it is impossible to bury nuclear waste.
I must therefore accept both statements as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire. It is not unusaul to find that people who style themselves "honest contributor" turn out not to be. It is a regular eco-fascist tactic.
Posted by: Rob, Glasgow on 5:02pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Neil - Alasdair has a point - perhaps at his insistence he and his fellows should be more accurately classified as "fascist eco-weirdos" instead of "eco-fascists". As you rightly state, they certainly do not qualify as envirnmentalists given their advocation of the subsidisation of foreign windfarm companies - or perhaps they wish us all te revert to candles and horse-drawn carriages?...
PS - if India and China are building 100 nuclear stations, why are all our friendly eco-wierdos not over there protesting instead? Time for anothe world eco-convention - mmm, done Bali so... Barbados this time perhaps?!
Neil - Alasdair has a point - perhaps at his insistence he and his fellows should be more accurately classified as "fascist eco-weirdos" instead of "eco-fascists". As you rightly state, they certainly do not qualify as envirnmentalists given their advocation of the subsidisation of foreign windfarm companies - or perhaps they wish us all te revert to candles and horse-drawn carriages?...
PS - if India and China are building 100 nuclear stations, why are all our friendly eco-wierdos not over there protesting instead? Time for anothe world eco-convention - mmm, done Bali so... Barbados this time perhaps?!
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 5:09pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Neil 9% Growth[/bold] wrote:
Alastair i simply do not believe that you have never heard representatives of the Green movement saying we should go entirely for "renewables", which quite cerainly does involve "blanket windfarm coverage". I note that you have not retracted your claim that it is impossible to bury nuclear waste. I must therefore accept both statements as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire. It is not unusaul to find that people who style themselves "honest contributor" turn out not to be. It is a regular eco-fascist tactic.[/quote] Neil:
I have never heard of representatives from the Green movement calling for blanket windfarm coverage. You are the one claiming "renewables" automatically leads to blanket windfarm coverage.
I have not retracted my claim re safety. If you look carefully I said "as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste". This is not the same thing. My statement leaves open the possibility that it might be, but I have not heard of it. I remain open to correction by experts in the field, althugh deeply sceptical. I stand by my claim. You are the one who has twisted my words - I suspect deliberately - and therefore I can only assume that you are the one who has engaged in dishonesty here. Forgive me if I don't carry on the debate here, but I've got more important things to do this evening!
Neil 9% Growth wrote:
Alastair i simply do not believe that you have never heard representatives of the Green movement saying we should go entirely for "renewables", which quite cerainly does involve "blanket windfarm coverage". I note that you have not retracted your claim that it is impossible to bury nuclear waste. I must therefore accept both statements as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire. It is not unusaul to find that people who style themselves "honest contributor" turn out not to be. It is a regular eco-fascist tactic.
Neil:
I have never heard of representatives from the Green movement calling for blanket windfarm coverage. You are the one claiming "renewables" automatically leads to blanket windfarm coverage.
I have not retracted my claim re safety. If you look carefully I said "as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste". This is not the same thing. My statement leaves open the possibility that it might be, but I have not heard of it. I remain open to correction by experts in the field, althugh deeply sceptical. I stand by my claim. You are the one who has twisted my words - I suspect deliberately - and therefore I can only assume that you are the one who has engaged in dishonesty here. Forgive me if I don't carry on the debate here, but I've got more important things to do this evening!
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, glasgow on 5:47pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote]I have never heard of representatives from the Green movement calling for blanket windfarm coverage. .....as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste[/quote] Ok you have [bold]never[/bold] heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.
Bull.
And from experience, this is the standard of honesty in which the eco-fascists normally debate.
I have never heard of representatives from the Green movement calling for blanket windfarm coverage. .....as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste
Ok you have
never heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.
Bull.
And from experience, this is the standard of honesty in which the eco-fascists normally debate.
Posted by: Greg, Glasgow on 6:47pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Neil
"Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it."
RUBBISH
Where did you get your Geology knowledge from a pop up book. Wrong on so many counts it would take for ever to give you details of your errors.
But
Britain is not likely to be subducted any time within the thousand years that the waste will be redioactive, crust is not always subducted but can be thrown up on the adjacent plate (see Ballantrae) also the melted crust on subduction then becomes the source for the associated volcanoes.
If this is an example of your research & knowledge then should we dismiss the other dubious facts you state?
Neil
"Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it."
RUBBISH
Where did you get your Geology knowledge from a pop up book. Wrong on so many counts it would take for ever to give you details of your errors.
But
Britain is not likely to be subducted any time within the thousand years that the waste will be redioactive, crust is not always subducted but can be thrown up on the adjacent plate (see Ballantrae) also the melted crust on subduction then becomes the source for the associated volcanoes.
If this is an example of your research & knowledge then should we dismiss the other dubious facts you state?
Posted by: Stuart Allan, Dundee on 7:37pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Neil 9% Growth[/bold] wrote;
[italic]Ok you have never heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.[/italic][/quote]
Just because some-one says something, it does not make it true. Nowhere on the planet is safe from earthquakes and the like. Burying nuclear waste anywhere is effectively a punt on nothing untoward happening at some time in the future. There are already many things thought safely buried which have found their way back to the surface and into water courses due to some unforseen (or ignored) possibilities.
Neil 9% Growth wrote;
Ok you have never heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.
Just because some-one says something, it does not make it true. Nowhere on the planet is safe from earthquakes and the like. Burying nuclear waste anywhere is effectively a punt on nothing untoward happening at some time in the future. There are already many things thought safely buried which have found their way back to the surface and into water courses due to some unforseen (or ignored) possibilities.
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 8:38pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[bold]Neil 9% Growth, glasgow[/bold]
[quote]Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it.[/quote]
Neil, you are an idiot. This is precisely the solution ther UK government proposed when it announced its intention to bury English Nuclear waste in Scotland. They chose Mulwharchar Hill in Galloway, as their experts said it was the most geologically stable ground in the country. Before they could start their disposal, there was an earthquake in the region with their proposed site right exactly in the epicentre! That idea quickly went away - but not to idiouts like you incapable of learning from this man-made near disaster which could have depopulated the whole Galloway region and possibly have made Chernobyl look tame..
Neil 9% Growth, glasgow
Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it.
Neil, you are an idiot. This is precisely the solution ther UK government proposed when it announced its intention to bury English Nuclear waste in Scotland. They chose Mulwharchar Hill in Galloway, as their experts said it was the most geologically stable ground in the country. Before they could start their disposal, there was an earthquake in the region with their proposed site right exactly in the epicentre! That idea quickly went away - but not to idiouts like you incapable of learning from this man-made near disaster which could have depopulated the whole Galloway region and possibly have made Chernobyl look tame..
Posted by: Displaced Glaswegian, Lanarkshire on 9:21pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Neil 9% Growth once again shows himself to be a pompous, ill-informed a*se.
I know it is difficult fellow bloggers but this man should be ignored. He is not deliberately winding up - he really believes he is right. Sad. Pathetic.
Neil 9% Growth once again shows himself to be a pompous, ill-informed a*se.
I know it is difficult fellow bloggers but this man should be ignored. He is not deliberately winding up - he really believes he is right. Sad. Pathetic.
Posted by: David Walters, California on 9:25pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Nulear costs are NOT expensive. This kind of urban legend needs to be squashed. BRITISH nuclear might be expensive (poor design, non-existent decommissioning, expesnive builds) but the average cost for nuclear in the use is about 1.7 cents per KWhr now...LOWER than coal because the plants are paid off and they are essentially the most profitable sector of the energy industry in the US.
The idea that French nuclear power is expensive has absolutely no meaning. Their plants were cheaper to build than US plants, better run and pay back more than they ever put into it. France to Europe will be like England will be to Scotland when they build their plants: the read of Europe (like Scotland) will "pretend" they don't use nuclear when in fact it's very CHEAP French nuclear that supports all their alternative projects like Wind.
Scotland will be importing massive amounts of cheaper English power. If the SNP really had the stones, they'd say they will stop immediately all imports of this power NOW and then see what happens!
David
left-atomics.blogspo
t.com
davidwalters.dailyko
s.com
Nulear costs are NOT expensive. This kind of urban legend needs to be squashed. BRITISH nuclear might be expensive (poor design, non-existent decommissioning, expesnive builds) but the average cost for nuclear in the use is about 1.7 cents per KWhr now...LOWER than coal because the plants are paid off and they are essentially the most profitable sector of the energy industry in the US.
The idea that French nuclear power is expensive has absolutely no meaning. Their plants were cheaper to build than US plants, better run and pay back more than they ever put into it. France to Europe will be like England will be to Scotland when they build their plants: the read of Europe (like Scotland) will "pretend" they don't use nuclear when in fact it's very CHEAP French nuclear that supports all their alternative projects like Wind.
Scotland will be importing massive amounts of cheaper English power. If the SNP really had the stones, they'd say they will stop immediately all imports of this power NOW and then see what happens!
David
left-atomics.blogspo
t.com
davidwalters.dailyko
s.com
Posted by: SC, Dundee on 10:09pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Neil 9% Growth[/bold] wrote:
[quote]That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste[/quote] Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it. Julian I accept your claim that French nuclear is expensive as representing the very highest standard of honesty normally available from eco-fascists - that is to say a total & deliberate lie. Or do you intend to produce any evidence that, as you claim, France is selling vast amounts of electricity at below cost to ensure the wealth of Germany, Italy, spain , Belguim & Britain? Readers will have to decide for themselves which is more credible - that the entire Green movement are wholly dishonest fascist barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did, or that the French are are all saints with nothing but charitable intent towards the Germans. It has to be one or the other. In fact opponents of nuclear insist that it not be disposed of thus so that the waste remain available as it is likely to turn out to be valuable. This therefore precludes them from com[plaining about it being impossible to dispose of. Or at least it precludes any of them who are not deliberately lying or have believed those who lied to them. I think that also disposes of points 2 & 3. !Eco-fascist" is an accurate description of those who would enforce this Ludditism on us all for their own idealogical reasons. It is infinitely more accurate than the term "environmentalist" for those who would despoil our environment with windmills & who care nothing for our environment. I suggest you spend your time criticisng their nomenclature.[/quote] 9%, I usually agree with you, but it is perfectly possible that the French will tax their own citzens to subsidise an industry in order to earn foreign business. They have a very strange view of globalisation! I think it it is called mercantilism.
Did you see how they were willing to create a huge monopoly in their own market with GDF-Suez to stop the latter falling into foreign hands? From their perspective, it is all about who owns what, not that companies, markets and people are efficient. This is the reason that the UK (and Scotland) have overtaken the French in the past 20 years, despite their impressive infrastruture and education.
Neil 9% Growth wrote:
That said, as far as I can see, no-one has ever come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste
Burying it far underground is a perfectly safe way of disposing of it. Burying it in land being subducted into the Earth's mantle ensures it will not reappear within the lifetime of the planet. Since reactor waste has a lifetime measured in, at most, centuries, this seems to be overdoing it. Julian I accept your claim that French nuclear is expensive as representing the very highest standard of honesty normally available from eco-fascists - that is to say a total & deliberate lie. Or do you intend to produce any evidence that, as you claim, France is selling vast amounts of electricity at below cost to ensure the wealth of Germany, Italy, spain , Belguim & Britain? Readers will have to decide for themselves which is more credible - that the entire Green movement are wholly dishonest fascist barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did, or that the French are are all saints with nothing but charitable intent towards the Germans. It has to be one or the other. In fact opponents of nuclear insist that it not be disposed of thus so that the waste remain available as it is likely to turn out to be valuable. This therefore precludes them from com[plaining about it being impossible to dispose of. Or at least it precludes any of them who are not deliberately lying or have believed those who lied to them. I think that also disposes of points 2 & 3. !Eco-fascist" is an accurate description of those who would enforce this Ludditism on us all for their own idealogical reasons. It is infinitely more accurate than the term "environmentalist" for those who would despoil our environment with windmills & who care nothing for our environment. I suggest you spend your time criticisng their nomenclature.
9%, I usually agree with you, but it is perfectly possible that the French will tax their own citzens to subsidise an industry in order to earn foreign business. They have a very strange view of globalisation! I think it it is called mercantilism.
Did you see how they were willing to create a huge monopoly in their own market with GDF-Suez to stop the latter falling into foreign hands? From their perspective, it is all about who owns what, not that companies, markets and people are efficient. This is the reason that the UK (and Scotland) have overtaken the French in the past 20 years, despite their impressive infrastruture and education.
Posted by: SC, Dundee on 10:17pm Mon 14 Jan 08
Also, while I'm at it, the reason the French use nuclear, is that they don't have oil, so it helps the balance of payments. Again, the French are happy to subsidise a less efficient technology because they have a poor understanding of economics.
Rather than allowing their people to develop other skills in order to buy the oil to burn to make electricity, they'd rather tax them to pay for an industry that no-one other country has got even close to being profitable.
(You should have heard Sarko lambasting the Frenchies for their weird way of thinking - personified by Royale.)
Also, while I'm at it, the reason the French use nuclear, is that they don't have oil, so it helps the balance of payments. Again, the French are happy to subsidise a less efficient technology because they have a poor understanding of economics.
Rather than allowing their people to develop other skills in order to buy the oil to burn to make electricity, they'd rather tax them to pay for an industry that no-one other country has got even close to being profitable.
(You should have heard Sarko lambasting the Frenchies for their weird way of thinking - personified by Royale.)
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 10:44pm Mon 14 Jan 08
[quote][bold]David Walters[/bold] wrote:
Nulear costs are NOT expensive. This kind of urban legend needs to be squashed. BRITISH nuclear might be expensive (poor design, non-existent decommissioning, expesnive builds) but the average cost for nuclear in the use is about 1.7 cents per KWhr now...LOWER than coal because the plants are paid off and they are essentially the most profitable sector of the energy industry in the US.
The idea that French nuclear power is expensive has absolutely no meaning. Their plants were cheaper to build than US plants, better run and pay back more than they ever put into it. France to Europe will be like England will be to Scotland when they build their plants: the read of Europe (like Scotland) will "pretend" they don't use nuclear when in fact it's very CHEAP French nuclear that supports all their alternative projects like Wind.
Scotland will be importing massive amounts of cheaper English power. If the SNP really had the stones, they'd say they will stop immediately all imports of this power NOW and then see what happens!
David
left-atomics.blogspo
t.com
davidwalters.dailyko
s.com[/quote] Like Three Mile Island? A multi megaton nuclear bomb, the likes of which the world has never seen, defused at the last second? When cooling pumps, in true capitalist manner built to the lowest tender failed? It's what you get when you build them cheap, with capitalist greed and profit your only motive!
David Walters wrote:
Nulear costs are NOT expensive. This kind of urban legend needs to be squashed. BRITISH nuclear might be expensive (poor design, non-existent decommissioning, expesnive builds) but the average cost for nuclear in the use is about 1.7 cents per KWhr now...LOWER than coal because the plants are paid off and they are essentially the most profitable sector of the energy industry in the US.
The idea that French nuclear power is expensive has absolutely no meaning. Their plants were cheaper to build than US plants, better run and pay back more than they ever put into it. France to Europe will be like England will be to Scotland when they build their plants: the read of Europe (like Scotland) will "pretend" they don't use nuclear when in fact it's very CHEAP French nuclear that supports all their alternative projects like Wind.
Scotland will be importing massive amounts of cheaper English power. If the SNP really had the stones, they'd say they will stop immediately all imports of this power NOW and then see what happens!
David
left-atomics.blogspo
t.com
davidwalters.dailyko
s.com
Like Three Mile Island? A multi megaton nuclear bomb, the likes of which the world has never seen, defused at the last second? When cooling pumps, in true capitalist manner built to the lowest tender failed? It's what you get when you build them cheap, with capitalist greed and profit your only motive!
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 9:20am Tue 15 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Displaced Glaswegian[/bold] wrote:
Neil 9% Growth once again shows himself to be a pompous, ill-informed a*se. I know it is difficult fellow bloggers but this man should be ignored. He is not deliberately winding up - he really believes he is right. Sad. Pathetic. [/quote] Hi DG! Good to hear from you again. You beat me to it! I likewise propose everyone leave Neil 9% Growth in blissful solitary ignorance and leave the debate to people with something serious to say, whether that be in accordance with your own views or not!
Kind regards
Alastair
Displaced Glaswegian wrote:
Neil 9% Growth once again shows himself to be a pompous, ill-informed a*se. I know it is difficult fellow bloggers but this man should be ignored. He is not deliberately winding up - he really believes he is right. Sad. Pathetic.
Hi DG! Good to hear from you again. You beat me to it! I likewise propose everyone leave Neil 9% Growth in blissful solitary ignorance and leave the debate to people with something serious to say, whether that be in accordance with your own views or not!
Kind regards
Alastair
Posted by: Camille, a leafy branch on 12:03pm Tue 15 Jan 08
As a non-scientist, i'd just like to smack the wrist of the sub editor who titled this piece - 'costly and expensive' mean more or less the same thing - shame on the herald for being so sloppy with language!
As a non-scientist, i'd just like to smack the wrist of the sub editor who titled this piece - 'costly and expensive' mean more or less the same thing - shame on the herald for being so sloppy with language!
Posted by: Big Jock, Falkirk on 1:14pm Tue 15 Jan 08
The fundamental point which most of the pro nuclear brigade fail to understand. Is that Scotland does not need it. We export 20% of our electricity. We represent 5% of the UK population. England needs Nuclear because it is an overcrowded little island. They cannot sustain their long term needs. So nuclear is right for England but wrong for Scotland. If you take morals out of the equation and think with your heads then Scotland has anough Hydro,Wind Wave and conventional power to keep us going for a century! The recent hydro scheme just opened in Inverness has enough power to keep the whole of Glasgow going. Glasgow represents 20 % of the Scottish population . 20% of our population sustained from one Hydro scheme. The only people with no brains are the sychophantic Scottish Labour party. They don't think in terms of Scotland. Like everything else they think UK. If England sneezes Scotland goes down with the flu in sympathy. Wake up and smell the coffee Scotland these unionist care more about preserving the UK than they do about you or I and the environment!
The fundamental point which most of the pro nuclear brigade fail to understand. Is that Scotland does not need it. We export 20% of our electricity. We represent 5% of the UK population. England needs Nuclear because it is an overcrowded little island. They cannot sustain their long term needs. So nuclear is right for England but wrong for Scotland. If you take morals out of the equation and think with your heads then Scotland has anough Hydro,Wind Wave and conventional power to keep us going for a century! The recent hydro scheme just opened in Inverness has enough power to keep the whole of Glasgow going. Glasgow represents 20 % of the Scottish population . 20% of our population sustained from one Hydro scheme. The only people with no brains are the sychophantic Scottish Labour party. They don't think in terms of Scotland. Like everything else they think UK. If England sneezes Scotland goes down with the flu in sympathy. Wake up and smell the coffee Scotland these unionist care more about preserving the UK than they do about you or I and the environment!
Posted by: Fred Bear on 4:04pm Tue 15 Jan 08
An t-Amadan
TMI was a nuclear reactor which, due to a combination of circumstances, caused the operators to be completely misled about its status. 'Cheap' pumps did not fail, they were switched off by the operators who believed there to be too much water in the core, not too little as was the case.
The operators and regulators were concerned for some days that there was a risk of a fuel meltdown, unaware that this had already happened in the first few hours of the event. Due to the inherent negative reactivity co-efficient and effective containment, this caused an insignificant off site effect.
To describe the plant as a multi megaton nuclear bomb is absurd and silly.
An t-Amadan
TMI was a nuclear reactor which, due to a combination of circumstances, caused the operators to be completely misled about its status. 'Cheap' pumps did not fail, they were switched off by the operators who believed there to be too much water in the core, not too little as was the case.
The operators and regulators were concerned for some days that there was a risk of a fuel meltdown, unaware that this had already happened in the first few hours of the event. Due to the inherent negative reactivity co-efficient and effective containment, this caused an insignificant off site effect.
To describe the plant as a multi megaton nuclear bomb is absurd and silly.
Posted by: neil 9% growth, glasgow on 3:56pm Wed 16 Jan 08
[quote]Neil 9% Growth wrote;
Ok you have never heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.
Just because some-one says something, it does not make it true[/quote] Stuart recheck my post & you will see that I was answering Alastair's claim to never have heard of the option of burying. That, as you clearly accept, was indeed bull.
I consider it a perfectly sensible option & am unconvinced that there is a serious risk of whichever piece of land is chosen suddenly being thurust upawrd many thousands of feet by an earthquake in Britain sometime in the next couple of centuries. In any case if such a violent event happened I suspect we would not be around to worry.
SC I think this idea of French secretly deliberately ruining their economy, is stretching credibility a little & would at least require some serious supporting evidence.
DG & Ant you can thcweam & thcweam as much as you want but the fact is that you are limited to personal attacks because the actual facts are totally against you.
Neil 9% Growth wrote;
Ok you have never heard anyone say that it is possible to bury "waste" safely either.
Just because some-one says something, it does not make it true
Stuart recheck my post & you will see that I was answering Alastair's claim to never have heard of the option of burying. That, as you clearly accept, was indeed bull.
I consider it a perfectly sensible option & am unconvinced that there is a serious risk of whichever piece of land is chosen suddenly being thurust upawrd many thousands of feet by an earthquake in Britain sometime in the next couple of centuries. In any case if such a violent event happened I suspect we would not be around to worry.
SC I think this idea of French secretly deliberately ruining their economy, is stretching credibility a little & would at least require some serious supporting evidence.
DG & Ant you can thcweam & thcweam as much as you want but the fact is that you are limited to personal attacks because the actual facts are totally against you.
Posted by: Stuart Allan, Dundee on 7:29pm Wed 16 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Neil 9% Growth[/bold] wrote;
[italic]In any case if such a violent event happened I suspect we would not be around to worry.[/italic][/quote]
Says it all really as far as [bold]Neil[/bold] is concerned. [italic]Never mind the future, so long as I'm okay[/italic], eh [bold]Neil[/bold] :(
Neil 9% Growth wrote;
In any case if such a violent event happened I suspect we would not be around to worry.
Says it all really as far as
Neil is concerned.
Never mind the future, so long as I'm okay, eh
Neil :(
Posted by: Fred Bear, Cheshire on 11:46am Fri 18 Jan 08
Stuart
This thread may have died a death, but in case people are still reading:-
I think you may have misunderstood what Neil meant in his last post (understandable beacuse, although he and I sit on the same side of the argument, he reduces the impact of his case through over excitability).
I took him to mean that, if any part of the UK was thrust upwards by significant distances in the next few centuries, we (the population at the time) will have been subjected to events far more significant than the disturbance of encapsulated nuclear waste (which has been engineered to remain intact during certain seismic events). By this, he probably means severe earthquakes, tsunamis etc causing great loss of life.
Stuart
This thread may have died a death, but in case people are still reading:-
I think you may have misunderstood what Neil meant in his last post (understandable beacuse, although he and I sit on the same side of the argument, he reduces the impact of his case through over excitability).
I took him to mean that, if any part of the UK was thrust upwards by significant distances in the next few centuries, we (the population at the time) will have been subjected to events far more significant than the disturbance of encapsulated nuclear waste (which has been engineered to remain intact during certain seismic events). By this, he probably means severe earthquakes, tsunamis etc causing great loss of life.
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (29)
