Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2011, 08:15 AM   #11
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,007
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_boothby View Post
wow... way to misrepresent what he was saying there.
Quote:
Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants."
Quote:
"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."
Right,
in day to day use, a coal power station will emit more radiation than a nuclear station producing the same energy.

but at the end of that, you're left with a pile of ash that decays.

at the end of a fuel rods life you're left with a very large source of much more radiation.

you just twisted a factual article to suit your own means. the fact is that nuclear energy. over the whole life of the fuel will release more radiation.

here are the facts.
mining
coal, very low radiation risk
nuclear, high radiation risk, marked as occupational hazard in this article
(hundreds if not millions times more radiation)

generating power
coal, adds radiation in amounts that add less than half a percent of the background radiation levels in the ash in the ash
nuclear, adds radiation

disposing of waste
coal, adds no radiation (well it does, but I already counted that in the generating section)
nuclear, has massive amounts of radiation in the waste (so much that it needs to be encased in lead an buried!).
coal.

basically, at the point of generation coal adds some radiation, and nuclear adds a little less, but the nuclear waste is many times more radioactive.

lets face it whilst that article is accurate it lies, it doesn't look at a whole lifetime picture... it takes a single small part of a puzzle and twists the facts to suit it's self.

Quote:
And as for believing climate change is a load of rubbish......Im afraid it is. Its arguable wether its anthropogenic or natural, but you can not deny that the climate is not changing. Its fact, Im in no way a eco-basher, but climate change is happening and it will have increasing effects.
Sad fact is, nuclear energy is the 'cleanest' out there. With least CO2 emmisions
again, a small part of the puzzle, c02 emissions are negligible compared to methane, but I don't see people earnestly campaigning that we should stop farming cows. or kill all the ants in the world...

and that's the trouble with some scientists, it seems to be especially prominent amongst climate scientists.

here's a small fact, now ignore the big picture, latch onto the simple fact and make a whole theory from it.


the fact is that there is no reliable data to adequately say that rising C02 has made temperatures rise.

we found all of this out when wikileaks published the UOE emails (dubbed "climate gate"). we know that the hockey stick model is a lie, we know that in the middle ages C02 levels were lower and global temperatures higher. we know that the "experts" fiddled the figures to fit their models, it's in black and white on the wiki leaks site.

(and I know that it's not actually as bad as sceptics were trying to make out at the time, but it is still pretty damming) -except for the hockey stick graph, we know that's just entirely fabricated.

Even so, I'll concede that not knowing what is happening doesn't mean that we should plough on regardless.

perhaps we should kerb out emissions, if only because it may turn out that there is an effect that we are having.

Quote:
Originally Posted by berry120
as long as green peace don't try and claim we can get just as much power from a couple of windmills off the coast of south kent that is...
we don't have enough wind for wind power, it's not strong enough, not reliable enough, and forming large grids of metal poles offshore really messes with long range radar systems...

what we do have in this country, in abundance is coast lines.
we don't need wind energy, we need tidal. (or wave).
tidal is constant, and it forms a coastal barrier. (any idea how much is spent stopping the erosion of coastlines, mostly by pouring concrete [which is a massive source of C02!]).

if it weren't for scientists in the 70's fudging figures to try to prove that wave energy wasn't effective. (oil co employed scientists!) we'd have wave power by now. (read about the sea ducks).

nuclear is an answer, but it's a short term answer, masses of energy is used to make a plant, (more pollution)...


if you really want to reduce C02 in this country or any others, you need proper schemes.
not these stupid ideas with arbitrary numbers (1990 levels) by arbitrary dates (in twenty years!). sure those things make good sound bites, but they just push you into short term thinking.

what we need is better built/better insulated houses.
more economical cars, we need things like the volvo road train, we need to make mass transit more efficient, (for example loading trailers onto freight trains to travel the length of the country so that lorries are only used for local interconnects rather than the current method of sending lorries all over the place.

we need ideas like they have in Spain at the moment reducing speed limits to conserve fuel and bring down C02.

we need solutions that look at bigger pictures, like wave power that can also protect eroding coast lines.

we need to stop wasting energy. -from an IT angle, why are there massive data centres and office buildings that have masses of air conditioning wasting heat to the atmosphere, why aren't they heating local homes (especially true of data centres in the London docklands).

why are our office spaces heated to 21degrees all year, in Japan they've widened the limit to >18 degrees <26 degrees and saved loads of energy/co2.

we need better (and cheaper) public transport to encourage people out of cars.
we need to be more cycle friendly (in places where it's practical to cycle).

I've got solar lights in my garden, for a tiny 3cm x3cm solar panel, i can get light from them for the evening, why don't street lights have solar panels and batteries as a primary energy source with the grid as a simple backup.
better directed street lights (focusing all energy downwards), will increase their energy efficiency, allow then to not use as much energy and reduce light pollution.
turning off street lights outside of towns, (where cars are driving that already have lights) would save loads of energy.

all of those ideas above are minimum costs. (some of those are zero effort and just save costs and energy)
we need to look at how to better use what we've already got before looking at the bigger projects like more power stations.


speaking of power stations,
what's the price ticket on a power station anyway?

we need to look at micro generation, lets face it, we don't get a lot of sun in this country, but there are probably 40 million homes. putting a 1.5watt solar panel on each house (currently retailing in Maplins for £9.99) would generate 60MW. (about 0.7% of didcot b power output). but at a one time cost of £400mil (less than £10 per person in the UK). (though only one tenth of a percent of the nations need!)
(to put that cost into perspective digital switchover has been taking £15 of the license fee for may years so has cost significantly more!)

if one tenth of a percent of the nations need isn't enough then again maplins offer a 60W kit for £200.
on 40 million homes that's 2,400 MW (for a cost of £8billion)

current demand can be seen here
National Grid: Real Time Demand Data - Last 60 Minutes

at 13:05 (now) demand is 44674MW.

so for 8 billion pounds we can (at midday) provide 5% of the UK energy needs... (£125 per every man woman and child in our 65million populous). -again less than the cost of a TV license!


you ask how to save Co2, do all of the above first, then talk about building nuclear power, which is more dangerous and more radioactive than the current coal stations.
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 08:22 AM   #12
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
we don't have enough wind for wind power, it's not strong enough, not reliable enough, and forming large grids of metal poles offshore really messes with long range radar systems...
Completely agree, however not many people seem to realise that. That's what I was hinting at, I've seen lots of ill advised political parties try to brainwash the public with ideas that just don't add up like the above.

Quote:
what we do have in this country, in abundance is coast lines.
we don't need wind energy, we need tidal. (or wave).
Potentially I agree, but the research for that is still in its infancy. It does look promising as another renewable source but like other renewable sources I doubt it will actually live up to its promise. I'd gladly be proven wrong though.

On the other hand, we know nuclear fission provides more than enough power for now, and we know that nuclear fusion, when it's perfected will provide an even greater and cleaner power source. I just think it's a much better idea to spend money researching into something with far greater promise. The only reason why it's not is because average Joe cries out that whenever someone utters the word "nuclear" everyone in a 5 miles radius will grow a third eye and tentacles for arms!
__________________

__________________
Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 08:38 AM   #13
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,007
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

the thing about tidal,

it's a massive source, (whole gravity of the moon as an energy source!)
it's predictable -we know when high tide will be hundreds of years in advance.

we've got bucket loads of coast line.

if you say a typical power station provides 1400 MW (again I'm looking at Didcot B) then if you can only provide 500MW from a single tide generator, then build three of them. (there's plenty of coastline!).
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 03:29 PM   #14
In Runtime
 
alex_boothby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 310
Send a message via MSN to alex_boothby
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

all good stuff, but i was just asking if anyone knew what the most appropiate reactor would be if the uk was to have to produce electricity mainly from nuclear.
alex_boothby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:04 PM   #15
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,007
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Why such a closed question?

You're going down a path that nuclear is somehow green dispute the fact that there is massive radioactive waste. Current events in japan have shown that reactors are very safe. (surviving tsunami is impressive) they aren't fool proof. Is the current evacuation area actually feasible in this country? What do we do with the waste? (hint selling it to America to make bombs out of isn't a good answer).

Less CO2 doesn't mean less pollution. Nuclear doesn't mean more pollution, in a lot of ways it can mean more...
We need a holistic approach... Something that's rarely done in this country.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 02:54 PM   #16
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Yeah, after the problems with the 2 reactors in Japan, do I need another reason as to why we don't want them? They are too uncontrollable.
I know we don't get earthquakes like that here (they hardly rate anything when we do), but one thing I don't want is for the chance for something like that to happen.
Us as humans just aren't capable of controlling them at the moment.
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 02:59 PM   #17
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
I know we don't get earthquakes like that here (they hardly rate anything when we do), but one thing I don't want is for the chance for something like that to happen.
Other than earthquakes though, what could cause such a thing to happen?
__________________
Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 03:00 PM   #18
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Mistakes? Chance?

Would you seriously feel happy if you had one of them by your house?
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 03:05 PM   #19
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
Mistakes? Chance?

Would you seriously feel happy if you had one of them by your house?
As I said earlier, all software behind such stations has to be mathematically proven to be correct. Safety measures are as stringent as they can possibly get.

In all honesty I'd be perfectly happy living by one of them. Well, perhaps not from a scenic point of view but I'd feel just as safe as anywhere else. In fact all of last year I lived relatively close (within a few miles) of the one at Dungeness without worrying one bit! Yes, I suppose there is a tiny tiny chance that it could get nasty. But we're talking less than the chance of getting hit by lightning here... it's all about perspective.
__________________
Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 03:33 PM   #20
In Runtime
 
alex_boothby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 310
Send a message via MSN to alex_boothby
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

I agree, Dungeness is closing in 2018, that will result in a loss of 1.1Gw of capacity, The uk has to go ahead with the proposed 10 new sites, if not we will have a large energy gap! ther will be one anyone, due tot he fact that new plants cant open as quick as old ones! With out nuclear we will all be sitting in the dark very soon! as the 10Gw of capacity they all currently produce wont be fully replaced by the 19Gw of the new EPR generation until 2025ish!!
__________________

alex_boothby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0