Sellafield

axtradub12 · 01-07-2005 11:16pm #1

Sellafield a live nuclear bomb waiting to go off. What is our government doing about it.Charles Haughey promised to close it down when he was Prime Minister. More leaks this week. Check New Scientist, UK Nuclear Fuels

county · 01-07-2005 11:21pm

charles haughey was to busy running guns to the IRA and up to his neck in corruption,there was just to much on the mans plate

A Dub in Glasgo · 01-07-2005 11:35pm

county wrote:

charles haughey was to busy running guns to the IRA and up to his neck in corruption,there was just to much on the mans plate

Running guns?? that was very early 1970s, nothing to do with when he was in a position to do something about Sellafield. You are right on the corruption angle though.

What exactly can the Irish government do to pressurise the UK inot looking at all the luminous fish on the west coast of England??

axtradub12 · 01-07-2005 11:38pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Running guns?? that was very early 1970s, nothing to do with when he was in a position to do something about Sellafield. You are right on the corruption angle though.

What exactly can the Irish government do to pressurise the UK inot looking at all the luminous fish on the west coast of England??

Bycott British Goods.The French did it long enough and that was'nt a life or death tro

county · 01-07-2005 11:44pm

all british goods,bit extreme

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 12:16am

axtradub12 wrote:

Sellafield a live nuclear bomb waiting to go off. What is our government doing about it.Charles Haughey promised to close it down when he was Prime Minister. More leaks this week. Check New Scientist, UK Nuclear Fuels

Why do you think this, precisely? It isn't the best-maintained, but "live nuclear bomb" is a huge exageration. It's essential to the UK nuclear industry; if all that power was being generated with coal, many, many more people would be dying than Sellafield has killed (hint: it hasn't killed ANYONE).

Capt'n Midnight · 02-07-2005 12:31am

What is our government doing about it ?

Planning an interconnector to Wales ( Eco Eye RTE1 ) so we can buy cheap nuclear electricity.

And no it's not a bomb, even at Chernobyl it was a chemical explosion not nuclear. ( not sure about the one back in Russia in the 50's ) Doesn't mean it's safe. The difference with miners is that people who aren't miners aren't as exposed to the risks. Also round here coppiced trees would be a better idea than coal.

The nuclear power plants in Japan have killed people recently though.

1947 was when the Brits/Yanks/Cannuks agreed that there was no such thing a safe level of radiation and that each increase brings increased risk. There is a principle that we should not have to accept more risk if there is no benefit, the increase in background radiation causes a reduction in heath. Building an interconnector would mean we "benefit" and so would have less reason to complain.

axtradub12 · 02-07-2005 1:30am

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What is our government doing about it ?

Planning an interconnector to Wales ( Eco Eye RTE1 ) so we can buy cheap nuclear electricity.

And no it's not a bomb, even at Chernobyl it was a chemical explosion not nuclear. ( not sure about the one back in Russia in the 50's ) Doesn't mean it's safe. The difference with miners is that people who aren't miners aren't as exposed to the risks. Also round here coppiced trees would be a better idea than coal.

The nuclear power plants in Japan have killed people recently though.

1947 was when the Brits/Yanks/Cannuks agreed that there was no such thing a safe level of radiation and that each increase brings increased risk. There is a principle that we should not have to accept more risk if there is no benefit, the increase in background radiation causes a reduction in heath. Building an interconnector would mean we "benefit" and so would have less reason to complain.

The present Irish government is doing nothing about it. The Rainbow governments done nothing. A new system of government in Dail Eireann wil close it down

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 2:48am

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What is our government doing about it ?

Planning an interconnector to Wales ( Eco Eye RTE1 ) so we can buy cheap nuclear electricity.

And no it's not a bomb, even at Chernobyl it was a chemical explosion not nuclear. ( not sure about the one back in Russia in the 50's ) Doesn't mean it's safe. The difference with miners is that people who aren't miners aren't as exposed to the risks. Also round here coppiced trees would be a better idea than coal.

Yes, and the interconnector is a good thing; it'll save us from having to build more conventional plants. It would be better if the prevailing political climate would allow us to build our own nuclear plants, but the interconnector is better than nothing.

Coal fired power plants are the major source of radiation release currently (in the form of Uranium and Thorium naturally embedded in coal. Of course, they also give out sulphur dioxide, mercury and lead. As an example, the Ontario Medical Association in Canada estimates that that city's local coal power plants kill 2000 a year.

Oil is better, but not too much better, and makes us dependant on an ever-falling supply. Gas ditto. Other fossil fuels ditto; and of course all conventional power sources are greenhouse gas contributors.

Hydro is expensive, fussy about geographical conditions and horribly ecologically disruptive. Tidal is hugely expensive and difficult to maintain. Wind and to a lesser extent solar are useful, but not as an always-on power source. Fusion is decades away.

And we're dependant on nuclear industry byproducts for medical applications, smoke alarms, many manufacturing industries... Nuclear is the way to go; it's about the only way left.

CaptainPeacock · 02-07-2005 5:58pm

rsynnott wrote:

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Half-Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,
And we're dependant on nuclear industry byproducts for medical applications, smoke alarms, many manufacturing industries... Nuclear is the way to go; it's about the only way left.

Don't be stupid. I mean, "smoke alarms"! OMG, there's no way to make smoke alarms but to open up a nuclear power plant. We're all going to die in house fires because we have no smoke alarms!

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 6:06pm

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Don't be stupid. I mean, "smoke alarms"! OMG, there's no way to make smoke alarms but to open up a nuclear power plant. We're all going to die in house fires because we have no smoke alarms!

There are two major varieties of smoke alarms. One, the most commonly used, uses Americium-241, which is produced from Plutonium-241 in nuclear reactors, to detect smoke. The other is optical, and is inclined to be a little slower to respond.

So, yes, we are dependant on the nuclear industry for effective smoke alarms (and many other things, which I listed).

Hagar · 02-07-2005 7:06pm

Charlie Haughey was never Prime Minister, it might have interfered with his duties as Taoiseach.

Barry Aldwell · 02-07-2005 7:55pm

axtradub12 wrote:

The present Irish government is doing nothing about it. The Rainbow governments done nothing. A new system of government in Dail Eireann wil close it down

Last time I checked the Irish government have no say in the activities of British Nuclear Fuels. So unless your radical new government (which will of course solve every concievable problem, ever :rolleyes:) is planning to go to war with Britain (which is a really, really bad idea), there isn't much they can do.

Mention "nuclear" to someone and they automatically think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the deterrant of the Cold War. They don't think of cancer treatments, reliable fire alarms as rsynnott described, or cheap, almost limitless energy. Nuclear materials are another case of it's not the material itself, it's the uses men put it to. As long as you don't let every Tom, Dick and Harry (read: Iran, Libya and North Korea) have weapons grade nuclear material, it can be put to good use.

And boycotting British goods is not only incredibly stupid, it's also a form of economic suicide. We would be up excrement creek without a paddle.

StupidLikeAFox · 02-07-2005 9:46pm

Look at every shop on grafton street and see how many are english owned. You ask people to avoid every english owned shop and see what sort of reaction you get

A Dub in Glasgo · 02-07-2005 9:49pm

Barry Aldwell wrote:

Mention "nuclear" to someone and they automatically think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the deterrant of the Cold War. They don't think of cancer treatments, reliable fire alarms as rsynnott described, or cheap, almost limitless energy. Nuclear materials are another case of it's not the material itself, it's the uses men put it to. As long as you don't let every Tom, Dick and Harry (read: Iran, Libya and North Korea) have weapons grade nuclear material, it can be put to good use.
.

Mention "nuclear" to someone in Scotland and they will automatically think of radioactive leaks and dumping all over the place (not even near Sellafield!) and major major problems with decommonissioning which will haunt the future generation. Not to mention Faslane and WMD.

Remove the subsidy and look into the real cost of nuclear energy

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 10:31pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Mention "nuclear" to someone in Scotland and they will automatically think of radioactive leaks and dumping all over the place (not even near Sellafield!) and major major problems with decommonissioning which will haunt the future generation. Not to mention Faslane and WMD.

Remove the subsidy and look into the real cost of nuclear energy

Remove nuclear energy and look at the people dying of cancer. Like it or not, we are now dependant on the nuclear industry; it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

frootfancy · 02-07-2005 11:30pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4555345.stm

Well all but one nuclear power station in the UK will be shut in the next 20 years, however the government is looking at building new ones so watch this space. However as building new is preferable to re-starting old ones, Sellafield may close yet... :eek:

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 11:35pm

frootfancy wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4555345.stm

Well all but one nuclear power station in the UK will be shut in the next 20 years, however the government is looking at building new ones so watch this space. However as building new is preferable to re-starting old ones, Sellafield may close yet... :eek:

Sellafield isn't a power plant; it's a reprocessing plant.

That article is not saying that there'll be only one power plant in the UK in 20 years; it's simply saying that all but one of the current ones will have reached its planned end-of-life. It's highly likely that at least some of them will be replaced.

frootfancy · 02-07-2005 11:49pm

oops i posted the wrong link. hang on i'll have a look for the other one i read. Stands to reason no power plants, no reprosessing plants.

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 11:51pm

frootfancy wrote:

oops i posted the wrong link. hang on i'll have a look for the other one i read. Stands to reason no power plants, no reprosessing plants.

But you're missing the point, a bit, I think. They aren't planning on abandoning their nuclear industry; it's simply that they'll have to build new plants to replace old.

For a model nuclear industry, see France's (or to an extent, Japan's).

frootfancy · 02-07-2005 11:54pm

i understand that. read something earlier this week about moving away from nuclear power. will have a look see if i can find it, something about windfarms and Salter ducks.

rsynnott · 02-07-2005 11:56pm

Problem with that is that windfarms aren't always-on. For the moment, nuclear is the only practical clean energy source.

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 12:05am

sort of 'clean' except for that bothersome glow in the dark waste they have to chuck down holes in the ground. Nuclear only counts for about 20% of energy production in the UK too, not too much that it can't be replaced. Can't bloody find it now :mad:

just found the post i was looking for, it relates to Sweden. Teach me to post when i'm drunk.

still the UK government is looking long and hard whether or not to continue the nuclear industry so who knows..

Moriarty · 03-07-2005 1:21am

I'd feel safer living close to a well run nuclear power plant than living close to a well run oil/gas/coal power plant, that's for sure.

"New" variants of nuclear fission reactors are the way to go (until we properly lick fusion reactors) in my opinion. I'd much prefer if the irish government went nuclear instead of building more fossil fuel plants.

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 3:11am

I'd much rather live next door to..

This is the Gaia windfarm in Delabole a couple of miles from where my parents live. Its quiet magestic watching those blades spinning

Time Magazine · 03-07-2005 3:30am

frootfancy wrote:

I'd much rather live next door to ... [the] Gaia windfarm in Delabole a couple of miles from where my parents live. Its quiet magestic watching those blades spinning

Yep, but build enough of them to power this country and you actually change our climate

.

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 3:34am

hopefully if the country can get over the 'not in our back yard' syndrome

rsynnott · 03-07-2005 1:30pm

frootfancy wrote:

sort of 'clean' except for that bothersome glow in the dark waste they have to chuck down holes in the ground. Nuclear only counts for about 20% of energy production in the UK too, not too much that it can't be replaced. Can't bloody find it now :mad:

Well, you know, sort of 'clean' as in far, far cleaner than any other major source of power in the UK...

Hagar · 03-07-2005 1:32pm

Nuclear power is indeed short term clean but long term, really long term, incredibly dirty.

netwhizkid · 03-07-2005 1:59pm

We need thermal energy, just drill deep enough and it will eventually get so hot to boil steam ala energy all from the earths heat. Isn't most of the old glow in the dark dumped off Craggy island these days.

Regards netwhizkid

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 2:09pm

"Well, you know, sort of 'clean' as in far, far cleaner than any other major source of power in the UK..."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/eternity/intro.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/north_dim/ndep/ip02_1024.htm
http://www.greenworld.org.ru/eng/proj/danger/laes/laes01.htm

Not exactly pine fresh when compared to renewable energy sources...

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 2:10pm

"Isn't most of the old glow in the dark dumped off Craggy island these days."

Or is it the waste-pipe outlet from Father Jack's underpants hamper?

netwhizkid · 03-07-2005 2:17pm

Originally Posted by frootfancy
Or is it the waste-pipe outlet from Father Jack's underpants hamper?

Isn't Fr. Jessop still in there ?

On Topic. Ireland needs a sustainable energy source and with CAP on the way out and farming wallowing in the mess it created. Wouldn't Biomass seem like a goos idea we have the perfect climate for Willow (thats the Sally tree to you and me) We could be completely Sustainable for our energy and home heating need through willow wood pellets. If only this government had vision.

Regards netwhizkid

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 2:26pm

Apparently he escaped Sahwshank Redemption style down the sewage pipe.

Biomass is a very credible energy source. Recently there have been dramatic improvements in harnessing wave energy too. Its apparent that just one renewable source type won't be enough. its frustrating people are looking for wholesale answers rather than just taking the plunge and seeing what amalgamations of technology can do. Bit of solar, bit of thermal, bit of wave, bit of wind. Its the only way its gonna work.

On an aside note have you seen that new Saab that runs on Ethanol? Its great, you can fill it up and get hammered at the same time. Just think if only they could make a car run on meths for harry ramps...

StupidLikeAFox · 03-07-2005 2:40pm

frootfancy wrote:

On an aside note have you seen that new Saab that runs on Ethanol? Its great, you can fill it up and get hammered at the same time. Just think if only they could make a car run on meths for harry ramps...

Brazil have been running cars on alcohol for a good while afaik

rsynnott · 03-07-2005 11:14pm

frootfancy wrote:

Biomass is a very credible energy source.

Not a clean one, however; it is still a CO2 contributor.

frootfancy · 03-07-2005 11:26pm

Although not on the scale that fossil fuel power sources are currently. Another reason why the answer to sustainable energy lies not with one single renewable source. Also with biomass energy you're not left with giant flasks full of waste that's likely to still be around in a few hundred years time.

axtradub12 · 03-07-2005 11:47pm

I wonder if those Iodine tablets still work?

the_syco · 03-07-2005 11:48pm

Moriarty wrote:

"New" variants of nuclear fission reactors are the way to go (until we properly lick fusion reactors) in my opinion. I'd much prefer if the irish government went nuclear instead of building more fossil fuel plants.

Fission power plant won't be built for another 20 years. Well: thats how long it'll take to build it anyhoo's.

=-=

The US has nuclear power plants. And lots of [strike]Nevada[/strike] desert land to store the "old" stuff in.

netwhizkid wrote:

We need thermal energy, just drill deep enough and it will eventually get so hot to boil steam ala energy all from the earths heat.

If a fissure is created, then magma could come up, and doom us all. Look up "yellowstone park". Its estimated it'll blow in the next 200 years, or so.

=-=

And yeah, I support nuke power.

rsynnott · 03-07-2005 11:52pm

the_syco wrote:

Fission power plant won't be built for another 20 years. Well: thats how long it'll take to build it anyhoo's.

Fusion, but this is broadly correct. The first fission power plant was built in England in the 50s (Calder Hall 1); the first fusion power plant has just been given the go-ahead in France, and will be completed in 2015. That will just be a proof of concept though; if it even works properly (which now seems likely but not definite), it'll be a few years more before it begins deployment as a practial power source.

rsynnott · 03-07-2005 11:56pm

the_syco wrote:

If a fissure is created, then magma could come up, and doom us all. Look up "yellowstone park". Its estimated it'll blow in the next 200 years, or so.

This isn't actually very realistic, and could only really potentially happen at a fault line or other area of geological activity. However, this sort of drilling isn't as trivial as it sounds, by a long shot.

bonkey · 04-07-2005 7:40am

rsynnott wrote:

Not a clean one, however; it is still a CO2 contributor.

But isn't the point with biomass that you're using a rapid-carbon-fixing growth-process to grow what you burn, so you're removing carbon from the atmosphere conincidental with releasing it?

I know its not a balanced equation (there is a net emission), but just how relatively dirty/clean is biomass as an option?

jc

Sellafield

Comments