Go Nuclear or no?

Capt'n Midnight · 01-05-2006 12:21pm

Vey few remember the 900,000 who died as a result of the KMT blowing up a dam to block the invading Japanese in July 1938. An explosion that killed more than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and the biggest raids on Hamburg and Tokoyo put together. Yet it's almost as unknown as the bombing of Chefchaouen. The problem for the nuclear industry is how badly the public have reacted in the past to bad news about the nuclear industry. Ask an accountant/economist to put a book value on "goodwill" for the industry, ask for an insurance premium to cover for the plant being cancelled by external factors over which the industry has no control.

Hoang-Ho / Yangtze Kiang dam / Hwangho
( you'll see from 500,000 to 1,400,000 deaths attributed to this. )

...

As for Bhopal it just renforces my point about having the thrid world subsidise our nuclear plant by having less stringent (ie. cheaper) health and safety. That is a totaly different topic but I've no problem with out sourcing jobs provided workers there get the same rights we get, if they get a fair wage and conditions fine, but if the workers there are exploited to a greater extent especially on the health and safety side it's a moral issue. But since our uranium would come from Canada or Oz or South Africa that's isn't really an issue, eh?

...

Ok maybe wind farms might cause a 0.7 degree increase in air temperature, nuclear power plants do cause 10-15 degree increase in water temperature , an effect orders of magnitude greater.

...

Then there is the history of many previous cost escalations, of well over 100%, and possible bribery scandals.

bonkey · 01-05-2006 3:52pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Only a few hours, (but it should be enough time to get other plants on line)

So you'd still have to have the other plants....

But that technology could be retrofitted to most existing hydro plants.

To what extent?

ESB lists Turlough at 292MW, and has a sum total of in-nd-around 200MW available from the other hydro plants, of which tehre are a whopping 5. And I dunno if you've seen (m)any of them, but there isn't a single one with a drop comparable to Turlough Hill for such retro-fitting.

And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

I was hinting at how realistic a "more Turlough Hills" may or may not be as a solution, not suggesting that I'd rather have a thermal station regardless.

Again I'll point out that decomissioning costs of Nuclear Plants must be factored in fully, bearing in mind that the requirements may be more stringent than at present and the economic climate may mean funds are shorter.

Again, this has no relevance to the practicality of wind-generation. We can talk pie-in-the-sky notions till we're blue in the face, but when it comes to putting infrastructure in place, whatever we choose has to be the least worst solution. We can and should milk wind and water for all its worth, but generally the people providing detailed mathematics to support argumenmts are those talking about the limits of technologies. Then you get a lot of people rubbishing those figures with hand-waving arguments.

Thats why I asked the question I asked. If you want to propose something as a solution, surely its incumbent to show that its more than a pretty notion, but rather a considered and researched position which has solid science behind it.

If we were to invest in a Nuclear plant, the investment could be a total loss if it was closed down for some reason.

That logic, and a goodly chunk of the examples you give apply to any solution. People are just more likely to buy into the "wooo...nuclear is scary and we might have to close it down" argument than with some other solution.

Me? I just look at Moneypoint, and wonder if there's a single anti-nuclear point you made which doesn't apply to it. So one has to wonder why they're so often presented as anti-nuclear, rather than anti-thermal? After all, what if - at the end of it all - the government is swayed by all this no-way-nuclear talk and goes with another coal-burning plant.

Take that idea one cynical step further....

What if the current revival of the abhorrence against nuclear is little more than a ploy to get the public to accept a new coal-burning station. They'll rule out nuclear, and someone will show that wind etc. just won't cut it to supply (say) another GW or so of power, and oil/gas is just out of the question. So what if its all just a cover to make coal the least-worst option?

God thats depressing.

SpaceMonkey42 · 01-05-2006 7:59pm

If sea levels are going to rise as far as predicted, then the number killed will be in the millions.
the issue therefore is
A) Can we developed renewable fast enough to avoid this, and if not

Will the eventual death toll be lower with nuclear.

Firstly, if we were to stop all carbon production today there would still be a lag in climate response. Some deaths are now unavoidable.
Say X deaths.
If it takes 20 years to developed 100% renewable energy provision then those 20 years of carbon production will cause more climate change and more deaths.
X + Y deaths.

If it only takes 10 years to convert to Nuclear (at least 10) then this will reduce the extra deaths (y) by a fair amount say Z.

But it will also kill a certain number through accidents, waste leaks and terrorist attacks over the next century, lets say N.

So nuclear means X + (Y-Z) + N deaths.

The problem is figuring out if X + Y is any smaller than X + (Y-Z) + N

So it all depends on the value of (N) i.e. the number nuclear will kill.
And the value of (Z) i.e. the number killed by waiting an extra 10 years.

Its further complicated by the likelihood of a mixed transition of both nuclear and renewable, as well as different development rates and safety standards in different countries.

My personal suspicion is that some nuclear will be needed.
But im open to review on that one
.

piraka · 02-05-2006 10:44am

Very few remember the 900,000 who died as a result of the KMT blowing up a dam to block the invading Japanese in July 1938. An explosion that killed more than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and the biggest raids on Hamburg and Tokoyo put together. Yet it's almost as unknown as the bombing of Chefchaouen. The problem for the nuclear industry is how badly the public have reacted in the past to bad news about the nuclear industry. Ask an accountant/economist to put a book value on "goodwill" for the industry, ask for an insurance premium to cover for the plant being cancelled by external factors over which the industry has no control.

Hoang-Ho / Yangtze Kiang dam / Hwangho
( you'll see from 500,000 to 1,400,000 deaths attributed to this. )

Not sure what you point is, 60,000,000 people were killed in the Second World War, Yes war is terrible. Over 20,000 people were killed at Bhopal, a chemical plant, compared to 50 at Chernoby, a nuclear plant

As for Bhopal it just renforces my point about having the thrid world subsidise our nuclear plant by having less stringent (ie. cheaper) health and safety. That is a totaly different topic but I've no problem with out sourcing jobs provided workers there get the same rights we get, if they get a fair wage and conditions fine, but if the workers there are exploited to a greater extent especially on the health and safety side it's a moral issue. But since our uranium would come from Canada or Oz or South Africa that's isn't really an issue, eh?

How is the third world subsidizing nuclear plants? They are now in a position to exploit the west and make substantial profits from emission trading.

Ok maybe wind farms might cause a 0.7 degree increase in air temperature, nuclear power plants do cause 10-15 degree increase in water temperature , an effect orders of magnitude greater.

If you have an issue with individual nuclear plants changing climate. I don’t know how you will handle Urban Heat Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Capt'n Midnight · 02-05-2006 7:20pm

piraka wrote:

Not sure what you point is, 60,000,000 people were killed in the Second World War, Yes war is terrible. Over 20,000 people were killed at Bhopal, a chemical plant, compared to 50 at Chernoby, a nuclear plant

It's a lot more than 50 if you include those who will die of cancer etc. Just pointing out that the PR effect of deaths varies according to who/how they died.

How is the third world subsidizing nuclear plants? They are now in a position to exploit the west and make substantial profits from emission trading.

Expoit the west, don't worry the IMF will soon sort them out. Bhopal is a classic case of the third world subsidizing us, can you see as many deaths here if only because of our more expensive health and safety standards. Similarly recycling western electronic goods in the third world means either land fill and/or desoldering with poor fume extraction. African miners are cheaper because they don't have the same health and safety rights we do.

If you have an issue with individual nuclear plants changing climate. I don’t know how you will handle Urban Heat Islands.

I've mentioned INSULATION, public transport and usage of Diesel instead of petrol. I've also mentioned that one scottish plant was generating 4 times as much heat as electricity. Most of the electricity would end up as urban heat.
Yeah Urban Heat Islands happen, but nuclear plants are far more localised and in most cases evaporate far more water than would happen in a city.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-05-2006 7:39pm

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ireland.jpg - map of Ireland with 50mile scale bar. (254KB)

http://mafijas.valsts.lv/atteli/chernobyl_map.jpg - map of Chernobyl with 50 mile scale bar. (108KB)

Map of Chernobyl exclusion zones to scale of Irish map.

The chances of a Nuclear accident as bad as this happening in any one year are very small. But we could not afford the consequences.

SeanW · 10-05-2006 5:10pm

I consider myself a semi-environmentalist and for years I have been staunchly anti-nuclear.

But I've been doing research on the topic, and Chernobyl in particular, and I'm beginning to think that not only is nuclear not such a bad idea at all, but that we should actively campaign FOR nuclear power here.

The findings of my research is as follows:
1: The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by a very, very, long chain of errors going back to the plants conception, that the Soviet authorities and were reckless and incompetent on a scale unimaginable in the West.
This includes, faulty reactor design, problems with construction, pressure from Soviet authorities to bring Reactor 4 online before it was ready, a doomed safety test run by a skeleton crew who were newly trained and both incompetent and reckless, there was only partial containment on the building, and there was WAAAAAAAAY too much radioactive material on site, much more than there should have been.
2: That Global Warming is a real problem and requires that we do everything in our power to combat it. And I mean EVERYTHING, including Nuclear Power.
3: That nuclear power provides an abundance of energy, 2.2 pounds of Uranium provides as much energy as 3000 tons (50 full freight cars) of coal.
Without any of the attendent carbon dioxide emission.
4: Oil and Natural gas are filthy substances and both are quickly running out.
5: That coal mining kills thousands of miners annually, and that coal contains trace elements of Uranium and Thorium.
6: That a person living near a coal fired power station has higher radioactive exposure than one living a similar distance from a properly run Nuclear Power Plant.
7: Wind plants are unreliable, and do not function properly in conditions of low wind and high wind scenarios. That's not to say that they're bad, but they can not be relied on 100% and we need something else.
8: That Nuclear technology is improving all the time, and a new generation of reactor types, called "Pebble Bed" could theoretically make a nuclear meltdown impossible.

Subject to conditions, I personally would not oppose a nuclear power plant in my area.

The way I see it is this: You oppose nuclear, you support fossil fuels, and all their attendant problems of air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, radiation emissions and miner deaths, it's that simple.

Do we really want that? I don't.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2006 6:55pm

SeanW wrote:

1: The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by a very, very, long chain of errors going back to the plants conception, that the Soviet authorities and were reckless and incompetent on a scale unimaginable in the West.

I would say to this that of course Nuclear power can be the cleanest possible fuel and it is possible to store the waste safely till the background level falls off (vitrification and extremely deep burial etc.) , but not if you want to do it economically.

SeanW wrote:

2: That Global Warming is a real problem and requires that we do everything in our power to combat it. And I mean EVERYTHING, including Nuclear Power.

Replacing Petrol cars with a public transport system and other ways of reducing energy consumption eg: isulation and thermostats would do more, and you would not have the CO2 emissions associated with all the concrete used in pant and waste handling construction.

SeanW wrote:

3: That nuclear power provides an abundance of energy, 2.2 pounds of Uranium provides as much energy as 3000 tons (50 full freight cars) of coal. Without any of the attendent carbon dioxide emission.

and seawater provices the same energy as petrol. To get the full energy from uranium you need to convert it to plutonium in a breader reactor. Since isotopes have different decay rates, in a few hundred years you would be able to use te plutonium from waste since the 239/240 ratio would have changed a lot.

SeanW wrote:

4: Oil and Natural gas are filthy substances and both are quickly running out.

natural gas filthy ?

For Oil profitable deposits are running out, but as price increases oil shales and oil tars look attractive, also many wells still leave 30-50% of hydrocarbons unrecoverd.
Natural gas running out ? - Methane Hydrates

SeanW wrote:

5: That coal mining kills thousands of miners annually, and that coal contains trace elements of Uranium and Thorium.

Mostly in third world countries, you could argue that the fumes from car exhausts kill more than here.

SeanW wrote:

6: That a person living near a coal fired power station has higher radioactive exposure than one living a similar distance from a properly run Nuclear Power Plant.

Also the sulphur reduction technologies have removed much heavy metal from coal power stations so they no longer emit as much. Coal stations used to emit 5 times as much radioactivity as a properly running nuclear powerstation. But if you add up the leaks from improperly running stations it's not so even. If you add in the "missing" material it's far far worse.

SeanW wrote:

7: Wind plants are unreliable, and do not function properly in conditions of low wind and high wind scenarios. That's not to say that they're bad, but they can not be relied on 100% and we need something else.

Airtricity are building their own interconnector from Portugal and linking most of the sites together
Something else
Wave power
Tidal turbines
Pumped storage
Willow coppicing ( peat station )
Treatment of waste to produce oils/producer gas etc.
give tax breaks on insulation / double glazing / thermostat installs / storage heaters / Diesel cars / Diesel fuel
Invest in public transport
Invest in broadband so people have the option to telecommute

SeanW wrote:

8: That Nuclear technology is improving all the time, and a new generation of reactor types, called "Pebble Bed" could theoretically make a nuclear meltdown impossible.

We've heard that one so many times before, material science is improving but greater thermal efficiency means pushing the boundries and there is a depressing list of failures in the past of new nuclear technology.

SeanW wrote:

The way I see it is this: You oppose nuclear, you support fossil fuels, and all their attendant problems of air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, radiation emissions and miner deaths, it's that simple.

`If you are not for us, you are against us'
Presenting only two choices and saying those are the only ones ?

Must dig up figures of Irish Fuel imports to see how much used for transport/heating/electricity and compare that to how much a Nuke would save.

SeanW · 10-05-2006 7:55pm

Replacing Petrol cars with a public transport system and other ways of reducing energy consumption eg: isulation and thermostats would do more

Then do that, like I said, everything in our power, inclusive of all this stuff you just mentioned. And things like biodiesel and renewables. Just not excluding nuclear.

and you would not have the CO2 emissions associated with all the concrete used in pant and waste handling construction.

Wind turbines don't grow on trees either. They too, depend on the industrial base. Besides, if the builders, waste disposers, miners etc. are using BioDiesel, their actions are carbon neutral.

For Oil profitable deposits are running out, but as price increases oil shales and oil tars look attractive, also many wells still leave 30-50% of hydrocarbons unrecoverd.
Natural gas running out ? - Methane Hydrates

[sarcasm]So we can keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Yipee! That's cause for celebraaation![/sarcasm]

We've heard that one so many times before

Primarily from the Soviet Union I'm guessing.

To get the full energy from uranium you need to convert it to plutonium in a breader reactor.

Not necessarily. Some designs can use unenriched Uranium, most others use U238.

Must dig up figures of Irish Fuel imports to see how much used for transport/heating/electricity and compare that to how much a Nuke would save.

I don't have figures for this but we import heaps of Natural Gas, a lot of which ends up in thermal generator power stations.

turbine? · 11-05-2006 9:23am

An intersting lecture by Dr. David Fleming,

http://www.feasta.org/audio/Nuclear_IsItAnOption_Pt1.mp3

Its 45 mins long, but well worth a listen.

alternatively similar document available from

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

Puts nuclears ability to provide substantial electricity, for a meaningful time, in to question.

Pocari Sweat · 17-05-2006 8:57pm

piraka wrote:

That is the nature of economics of any industry, substitute chemical plant/Power plants etc. for nuclear plant.

The worst ever-industrial accident was not a nuclear accident, but an accident at a chemical plant. In Bhopal India over 20,000 people died when 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate was released to the atmosphere with over a 100,000 injured and still suffering to-day. The Union Carbide Plant was handed the plant back to the Indian government who are still dealing with major contamination and compensation issues over 20 years later. Nobody remembered this catastrophe on its twentieth anniversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/toxic-hotspots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/bhopal-disaster-has-no-paralle

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-bhopal-eng

I would rather live beside a modern nuclear power plant, than a chemical plant with a thermal oxidiser incinerating their toxic waste.

Nice one Piraka, I just started off a thread about Bhopal, and I suspect most people nowadays watch the Simpsons and form their impressions about nuclear power based on a cartoon.

Pocari Sweat · 18-05-2006 1:20am

Sorry to repeat myself on points made on my thread about Bhopal.

blowin · 21-05-2006 2:15pm

Ther debate is a done deal - The suits ARE going nuclear - public opinion stands for nout against stock markets and shares held by the suits!

Just as an aside, I think I've cracked the wind energy thing - Without giving anything away - would you be interested in cutting your electric bills by between 5 and 15%? and using wind power at the same time therby doing a very small bit for the environment? And at an initial outlay of about a grand. This isn't an advert, I really do think I'm almost there, what I need is some feedback. Unfortunately, I can't release any details yet cause it's all got to be finalised and properly tested.

Pocari Sweat · 21-05-2006 2:57pm

blowin wrote:

Ther debate is a done deal - The suits ARE going nuclear - public opinion stands for nout against stock markets and shares held by the suits!

Just as an aside, I think I've cracked the wind energy thing - Without giving anything away - would you be interested in cutting your electric bills by between 5 and 15%? and using wind power at the same time therby doing a very small bit for the environment? And at an initial outlay of about a grand. This isn't an advert, I really do think I'm almost there, what I need is some feedback. Unfortunately, I can't release any details yet cause it's all got to be finalised and properly tested.

It is probably not as good as my goat powered shed idea :

Tether flocks of goats on long bungie cords linked to a pulley system.

Using dynamos from old scrappage cars mounted inside garden sheds you could use a small proportion of the power to drive a tannoy system that roars out the odd recorded shouting noise that gets the goats into a kerfuffle and trotting away from the sound source and shed.

With enough goats and dynamos linked to racheted flywheels, I reckon a KW or two should not be too hard to rustle up.

You could leave the tannoy system switched off most of the time because there would be a tendency for the goats to graze on uneaten grass further away from the shed so the tannoy should only be activated at times of peak demand and the bungies should be wound out gradually to meet a larger grazing area as required.

If there were enough of these in most houses, then although I am pro-nuclear, you could leave the nuclear question on the back burner for another 20 or so years, and just return to the past focussing on more manageable and natural energy needs.

By products, like goat milk, cheese and maybe a goat meat industry would make more commercial sense of the idea.

Maybe larger goat powered stations could be developed, harnessing energy with higher efficiencies, making it look a lot more viable, if people thought it was a daft idea.

Pocari Sweat · 22-05-2006 8:26pm

Alternatively for the animal rights lobby, instead of goats, dig out small lakes in fields and grow loads of fish and fit them with small harnesses linked by fish line to mini dynamos back to the shed.

As using sharp hooks to get hold of fish just for a fun past-time isn't bothered with too much with activists looking more to save furry critters, surely even if they hear about the comfy mini harnesses used to link them to the dynamo pull lines, they probably would reckon the job of landing them has already been done and deter any would-be fishermen trying to get in on some action on said lakes.

.. i'll get me coat now ..

DublinWriter · 22-05-2006 9:21pm

DaveMcG wrote:

The 20th anniversary for Chernobyl is coming up, terrorist attacks are a constant fear, and with the price of oil reaching I think it's $72 a barrel, the idea of nuclear energy is being reexamined, and the debate is coming back to life.

True, but considering how MIMBY types don't even like their neighbours having a wind-turbine in their back yard *and* the parish-pump politics that go on in this country, how could you ever expect a nuclear power station to be built in this country?

Of course the hard fact that more people die in the harvest of fossil fuels (especially in China) each year than those working in the nuclear is completely lost on the NIMBY's.

The NIMBY's point to Chernobyl and froth at the mouth and wig-out like Sun readers outside a Paediatricians office. The fact is that Chernobyl was built with zero levels of contamination. Modern Western plants don't have that risk.

We're running out of fossil fuels and there is no alternative.

SeanW · 22-05-2006 9:32pm

Not just the lack of containment, there was a mile-long chain of mistakes by everyone involved.

Remember this is the same Soviet Union where you had to queue for 2 days to buy a loaf of bread. They messed up everything they did.

Chernobyl was inevitable. No matter what they'd tried to do there, it was always going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

If they'd tried to generate 6 GW power from coal, no doubt the emissions would have poisoned everyone in a 10 mile radius but cost the lives of tens of thousands of miners to get coal to feed it. Chernoybl was inevitable not necessarily because it was nuclear, but because of the put it there.

Trust me, I've been in the anti-nuclear camp for most of my life "because of Chernobyl." However, recently I've been researching the accident and what I've found, about the incompetence and recklessness in the lead up to the accident, is truly shocking beyond any comprehension.

Needless to say, I am now certain that saving some unimaginably absurd twist-of-fate, like a comet strike or something, it cannot happen again. You're right though, the with the amount of NIMBY-ism and the number of people who stick their heads up their rear ends in fear every time the N-word is mentioned, it will likely never happen.

Stark · 22-05-2006 9:47pm

Lump wrote:

I'd love to have plenty of Windmills in my house.... and solar panels, I think Wind Turbines look great.

John

I think they look great too. Unfortunately they don't sound great. People who live near them have claim the noise from the things is unbearable.

http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/noise.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/nwind25.xml

Capt'n Midnight · 22-05-2006 10:05pm

DublinWriter wrote:

Modern Western plants don't have that risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents

DublinWriter wrote:

We're running out of fossil fuels and there is no alternative.

We've hundreds of years of coal left.
Methane hydrates on the ocean floor.
Tar sands
And at present less than half the hydrocarbons in oil wells are recovered.
Lignite and other low grade fuels
By better use of insulation and changing from petrol to diesel (method of combustion not the actual fuel) we could save 1/3 of the current fossil fuel usage.

The main advantages of fossil fuels are they are cheap to produce since you extract them rather than make them. Most costs in refining are energy and that just involves a % of the feedstock.

SeanW · 22-05-2006 10:36pm

Most of those accidents in those pages are relatively small, resulting in little or no external radiation release, and only deaths small numbers of people working the plant such as the operator.

Chernobyl remains the only nuclear accident of any permnanent environmental damage or long term significance.

We've hundreds of years of coal left.

Wonderful. So we can have another 100,000 coal miner deaths and a couple of million megatons of CO2 emissions, not to mention MASSIVE radioactive emissions into the environment. Yay! that cause for celebraaaaaaaaaaaaation :rolleyes:

And at present less than half the hydrocarbons in oil wells are recovered.

At present, it takes more energy input to create petroleum motor fuels than the motorist gets out of them. As it takes more effort to get the oil out, this will only get worse.

Fossil fuels are so not the way to go.

Pocari Sweat · 22-05-2006 11:31pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents

We've hundreds of years of coal left.
Methane hydrates on the ocean floor.
Tar sands
And at present less than half the hydrocarbons in oil wells are recovered.
Lignite and other low grade fuels
By better use of insulation and changing from petrol to diesel (method of combustion not the actual fuel) we could save 1/3 of the current fossil fuel usage.

The main advantages of fossil fuels are they are cheap to produce since you extract them rather than make them. Most costs in refining are energy and that just involves a % of the feedstock.

Suppose CO2 harm to environment is proven mostly by solar cycles causing most of century to century heating spikes as it has done over millienia, and actually releasing most of CO2 from main abundance in oceans to show fossil fuel use is just a drop in the ocean, forgive pun.

Does this mean that direct loss of civilian life in US at quarter million per year or 1% of population plus massively higher levels of health and illness problems it causes is OK?

Does it eclipse the loss of life of miners in China, not that Chinese government cares in race to catch up with western economies?

Is the fact that loss of life through nuclear generation is probably a lot less than choking on peanuts globally, but as it is seen as being a fearsome and deadly thing because of Chernobyl, makes it right for the greens to say it is an uninsurable risk and it scares people so don't use it.

I renovate old houses and the first thing I have to make the clients agree on is block up all the old coal fireplaces and cap off chimneys, because I know coal is p*ss poor, dangerous, wasteful and thing of past, or I will not agree to do renovation, get some other cowboy.

I happily lost a big client when they were harping on about nuclear being dodgey and coal should be brought back as mainstream fuel source, until I stated that going back to the victorian age and start shoving people down mines to make their lives sh*te with disease like pneumoconiosis and silicosis, makes real sense. I told them to feck off.

SeanW · 22-05-2006 11:50pm

^^ what he said.

Coal is a dangerous, filthy mugs game. I cannot believe anyone could advocate its use other than as a no-alternatives-left worst case scenario. And most of those nuclear accidents aren't worthy mention TBH.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-05-2006 1:24am

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/government/discharges/index.htm
From - http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/government/discharges/pdf/rad_dischargestrat1.pdf

3.4The Environment Agency’s study showed that measured concentration levels indicate that
emissions of isotopes of uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and lead are below the
relevant limit in Schedule 1 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) and so do not
require authorisation under the Act. Total alpha/beta emissions from coal fired power
stations in the UK amount to 10-15 GBq per year. Doses to individual members of the public
have been calculated as less than 0.001 mSv, far below the site dose constraint of 0.3 mSv.
These releases and the resulting doses are much smaller than those from the nuclear industry
and below the internationally accepted criterion for exemption from regulatory requirements
of the order of 0.01 mSv a year or less for individual doses, as set out in Annex 1 of the Basic
Safety Standards Directive 96/29 Euratom. In accordance with a proportionate approach,
they are not, therefore, considered further in this strategy.

These releases and the resulting doses are much smaller than those from the nuclear industry

or

American Coal Ash Association, Inc.

naturally occurring radioactive (NORM) - the trace quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides U238, Th232 Th and K40
as well as their associated decay chain products that are
emitted from coal and as a result its ash. The US EPA considers coal ash to be a diffuse naturally occurring radioactive material – its most benign classification. The US Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheet FS – 163-97 states that “the vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements or in associated radioactivity, compared with common soils or rocks”.

Even if you go back to the original scaremongering coal is radioactive report you have to take two things into account.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year;

First the only 1/30th of the radiation dose equilivant comes from the power plant - the vast majority comes from the rest of the fuel cycle !! So even if the plant is totally 100% safe your still have over 96.7% of the radiation to worry about

Second since then most plants have had scrubbers fitted.
And the waste ash can be used for gypsum as it's less radioactive than some naturally occuring gypsum.

And you have summed nuclear power in two words - Uninsurable risk.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-05-2006 1:28am

http://www.acaa-usa.org/PDF/FS-163-97.pdf - more on radiation in coal /ash

SeanW · 23-05-2006 3:02am

This one kinda sums it up for me:

490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants.

So which would you rather live beside?

Second since then most plants have had scrubbers fitted.

Oh, yeas, I'm sure that filters out all the environmental contaminents contained in coal. As perhaps the filthiest substance on Earth, it must take a lot of "scrubbing"

For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year;

Which beats the heck out of 490? Yes?

the vast majority comes from the rest of the fuel cycle !! So even if the plant is totally 100% safe your still have over 96.7% of the radiation to worry about

Because coal mining is so much safer? That's only a minor list of a few accidents, it doesn't mention any of the coal mining disasters in China (6000-14000 (official) deaths annually), the old Soviet Union, the third world, etc.

And even if it did, it doesn't cover all the deaths from Black Lung and other conditions suffered by coal miners.

Then throw in all the people who will die because of coal's contribution to global warming.

It doesn't look so good, does it?

Fact remains coal has killed more people, and will continue to kill more people than nuclear power even with the most extravagent estimates of the Chernobyl death toll, which in and of itself was so vastly far out of line with safe nuclear practice it shouldn't even be in the nuclear safety debate in the firstplace.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-05-2006 1:46pm

*sigh*

The reason I quoted that 1978 paper was to show that Nuclear industry figures can be out by a factor of 30. (1.5 orders of magnitude). Even then some posters seem to think the nuclear industry overestimate fatalities by a factor of 1,000 :rolleyes:

They are Nuclear industry figures and don't include leaks and unplanned emissions which they are not licensed for. They date back from before coal industry used scrubbers and aren't comparable with current figures from DEFRA. And even DEFRA may not be impartial being a government body and all that. Also it's extremely hard for the coal industry to have/hide an accidental discharge equilivant to months of normal discharge. Coal is radioactive, like most substances really, maybe the radioactivity is concentrated when coal is burnt. In the nuclear industry two things happen, the natural radioactivity of the fuel is increased many fold and also concentrated. And that's not taking into account the gamma emitters produced or things like Iodine or Strontium which are easily assimilated into the body.

Back to Hydro-electric, have a look at the figures killed in dam collapses in China back in 1973. The reason people die in coal mining, dams and nuclear industry is because corners are cut in order to save costs. I believe that nuclear power can be safe and clean and there are proper solutions to the waste disposal. However, I also believe that they are not economically realistic never mind practicable at present.

Also the level of corruption in this country and the nuclear industry in gerneral don't inspire me at all. Had the plant been built in Carnsore Point we'd be discussing the upcomming decomissioning costs and how they would be met.

Pocari Sweat · 24-05-2006 11:37pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

*sigh*

Also the level of corruption in this country and the nuclear industry in gerneral don't inspire me at all. Had the plant been built in Carnsore Point we'd be discussing the upcomming decomissioning costs and how they would be met.

In the Daily mail this week it showed a map of the ESB network in Ireland and the cable link from Dublin via the Isle of Man to Stranrare, which imports nuclear electric into ireland from the UK.

If ireland wants to be nuclear free, but needs sufficient electric in the future with growing population, will they go for building nuclear plant in the UK and send across the supply, like is being done already, so as to get best of both worlds; NIMBY and plenty of safe nuclear electric without the fear of being on Irish soil.

And if the usual fears of catastrophe are still there, well it would only be one or two plants and the UK would probably have 20 or 30 themselves by then and the french well over 100.

Maybe you could develop the goat power idea. (Goats tethered by bungies to dynamos). Better efficiencies of goat power might be developed by building man made empty volcano like hills, where goats climb up to get to the grass on a plateau on the top and are tempted by tastier treats to bungy into a big hole, making greater returns from the bungy / dynamo arrangement as they freefall, landing safely of course and are then untetherted at the bottom to climb back up the hill.

Also farmers could be re-employed in this new industry and enjoy the personal challenge and drive to become world leaders of a green technology that does not exploit animals as badly as farming, whilst shoving two fingers up at the nuclear nations and their daft ways of making power.

Go Nuclear or no?

Comments