This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Nuclear power - no thanks
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 02 May 15 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 chris123  hove actually 02 May 15 6.12pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 02 May 15 6.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 02 May 15 6.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 02 May 15 7.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
You will import hydro-carbons, nuclear is un-sustainable. There are not the uranium resources.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 02 May 15 7.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 7.23pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
You will import hydro-carbons, nuclear is un-sustainable. There are not the uranium resources. Well Uranium from sea water one day and there is always Thorium.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 02 May 15 8.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 7.33pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 7.23pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
You will import hydro-carbons, nuclear is un-sustainable. There are not the uranium resources. Well Uranium from sea water one day and there is always Thorium. For sea water..........one day meh....needs to be soon.... the expense would be immense. Thorium is interesting, I must admit I don't have stats on fuel availability. ...as I said pro and anti nuclear both have their head in the clouds.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 02 May 15 9.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 8.46pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 7.33pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 7.23pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 6.12pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 6.02pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote pefwin at 02 May 2015 5.37pm
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Rubbish as I have said on other threads it would max give 30-40 years supply with the increased demand. I believe there are other battery storage breakthroughs either happening or just announced including British research. One thing, probably the only thing, I agree with Clarkson on is that the height of technologic aspiration, especially, in the UK was 1968, and it has been a slow decline since.
I did not say don't use it, I stated it was not a medium or long term solution. I do disagree with article on safety and additionally on price; however, this resonates "The nuclear power issue is “so polarized that people who oppose nuclear power will immediately dispute the numbers” I find this true with both the pro and anti lobbies. So what bit of what I wrote is rubbish? It is not a solution, not sustainable, and you need to import fuel. The article also forgot the cost of build and decommission, waste storage, and the fact that there from a risk management point of view, that there is a small likelihood of a massive pollution event. The scope of the report is extremely narrow. However, It does recognise that global warming is a human made event, it does recognise that nuclear power has advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. My 6 year could tell you that it is the one area where it has an advantage. It was deliberately written to highlight the benefit, what if they had compared half -life of waste as the only factor. Their data seems pretty, sparse, the assumptions around causal rates of cancer would be very interesting etc.. HOWEVER, I would not dispute at present the estimates (and depending on how you estimate) would be 2.8 - 32.7 deaths per 10 billion kilowatt hours for coal compared to 0.2 - 1.2 for nuclear. For me, Most interesting deaths due to hydroelectricity generation would be between 1.0 -54.7 due to whether include dam collapse To be honest, I can't believe that they have not even mentioned the radio-activity of coal ash waste or "acid rain" in such a dissertation, if you truly want draw up negatives of fossil fuel, but then how would they quantify it and what the impact would have been.
You will import hydro-carbons, nuclear is un-sustainable. There are not the uranium resources. Well Uranium from sea water one day and there is always Thorium. For sea water..........one day meh....needs to be soon.... the expense would be immense. Thorium is interesting, I must admit I don't have stats on fuel availability. ...as I said pro and anti nuclear both have their head in the clouds. India is building a fast breeder reactor that uses Thorium as it's feedstock for producing Uranium 233.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 May 15 10.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 02 May 2015 11.00am
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel and means you can be secure in your energy supply, as you don't need to import hydrocarbons. Unless something goes wrong, in which case the effects can be fairly devastating. Its also very expensive to build and surprisingly inefficient although not so much in terms of long time. The waste is a problem, and security is a bitch in the age of modern terrorism.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 03 May 15 10.48am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 02 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 02 May 2015 10.20am
Quote serial thriller at 02 May 2015 10.03am
All sounds good, but I still don't think it's as efficient a system as invading a country, bombing its people, digging miles in to that land's core, blowing up rocks, extracting some oil and selling it in big buildings on the side of motorways.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 03 May 15 10.51am | |
|---|---|
|
My experience of life is that you never get something for nothing. Sounds good nick, but there will be some major flaw/payback later down the line.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.