Climate Change & Global Warming

[PJ of Hildisvik]

AT... You believe that half the profits from the windfarm should go to developing wave and tidal power around Shetland...(never going to happen).

 

You quoted..

"If we have a 600MW interconnector we should try to ensure that we are pushing as close to 600MW down it as we can all the time."

 

Well of cause this will happen, with turbines working at maximun efficency of 50% or there abouts, all that is required is another 150 turbines to fill the void.

Now, i wonder where they might go?

Why bother with wave and tidal around Shetland, when the Scottish goverment has the Pentland Firth to play in.

[ArabiaTerra]

But back to nuclear power? Can't get my head around that one. Haven't we got enough to do clearing up after the last time we went down that road?

The thing that you have to realise is that 70-80% of the waste we are currently storing comes from the first generation of nuclear stations which were experimental and also designed primarily as bomb factories rather than power stations. This meant that they were designed to produce waste which could then be reprocessed to extract the plutonium and tritium etc needed to build the bombs.

 

Compared to these, modern power stations produce relatively little waste. Also, the waste problem is a political one not a practical one. The solution is to bury it in a stable geological formation. Unfortunately, solving the waste problem would open the door to new stations which is something the radical greens are fundamentally opposed to. Thus they have used every trick in the book to prevent the problem being solved, preferring the dangers of above ground storage to the prospect of new stations being built. Consider Arthur's Seat, in Edinburgh. This is the plug of an ancient volcano. It has survived all the ice ages and it goes down deep into the crust of the Earth. If you went down a mile and hollowed it out and put the waste there, do you think it likely that waste would see the light of day in anything less than several million years? There are thousands of similar geological formations all over the world which would be ideal for storage (Ronas Hill is another one ).

As I see it nuclear fission is a short term solution before the real saviour is properly developed - nuclear fusion.

I totally agree. A new generation of fission stations will be a one off deal to get us through the current crises while we do the research and development necessary to get fusion up and running. The world needs a "Manhattan Project" type crash program to make fusion work.

... Though suggesting that there is no more oil production is a step to far

I'm not suggesting an end to production, simply an end to exploration and the development of new fields. Those that are already developed should continue to be used until we have replacement technology in place to end our use of oil. Ending new development simply means an added incentive to get that technology in place before our current reserves run out.

What about the new clean coal technology. if they can scrub most of the co2 and sulphur from the waste gas then its worth investing in.

It's nice in theory, but regardless of the proposals to build new coal fired power stations that are "ready" for CO2 capture, the fact remains that nobody has shown any system that works at industrial scales, and if they do get it working it will still use quite a high % of the power generated - 20%+?

That's a very generous allowance , Carlos. The figures I've seen for carbon capture are more like 40-80% of the power output of the coal station, which makes "clean coal" a myth. It just can't be done economically (barring some radical technological breakthrough).

[ArabiaTerra]

Another thing which I would like to see (but which will never happen) is all the fossil fuel production companies (inter)nationalised under the UN or world bank and all their profits used to develop clean power. After all, they are the source of the problem, why shouldn't they be part of the solution and why should anyone continue to profit from them?

[captain kirk]

Where's the evidence that modern nuclear power stations produce relatively little waste? France? Finland? I hear the new EPR is coming along splendidly. Ha ha.

It's illogical to assume that "radical greens" are trying to get some sort of political mileage out of occupying an entrenched anti-nuclear position, come what may. What would be the point of that? There's plenty of evidence that the nuclear industry is still floundering around in its own filth and producing nothing that comes even close to the magic solution to the energy crisis that it keeps promising. Worse still- nuclear regeneration is diverting obscene millions away from renewables.

However it will guarantee a constant supply of depleted uranium which has come in so handy in Iraq and Afghanistan etc etc. And in the next war, wherever that may be.

E.ON and co want to make money. That's all. They're not interested in the future of humankind.

[Carlos]

Thorium fuelled reactors

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-thorium-the-answer-to-our-energy-crisis-428279.html

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

[captain kirk]

Thanks Carlos. Very interesting. Thought they had abandoned thorium in the seventies. Interesting that India is going ahead with it.

[Malachy]

No doubt I will get clobbered for saying this, but it's worth thinking again about nuclear power, and looking more carefully at some of our established beliefs about its dangers.

 

Until recently I was very anti-nuclear, mostly just instinctively. If you'd asked me, for instance, how many people were killed in the Chernobyl incident, I would probably have said in the region of 50,000 to 100,000, including those affected by cancer from radiation poisoning since the event.

 

So it came as something of a surprise to learn that the actual confirmed figure is around 50. (Indeed, in a report into deaths caused by the various energy industries, nuclear sits at the very bottom, with 31 deaths between 1970 and 1992, compared to 6400 from the coal industry, 1200 from natural gas, and 4000 caused by that clean, green, renewable source: hydro.)

 

The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation compile periodical reviews into the effects of Chernobyl on the people who were exposed, and their most recent report says this:

 

"There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident."

 

The main fear with nuclear I guess is the unknown element - we know that if a hydro dam bursts then people below it will either survive or they will drown. But with nuclear it's that invisible uncertainty that is so frightening. We are far more frightened of cancer than of anything else these days.

 

The waste issue too is a funny one, because, again, when there have been problems with waste disposal, the effects have been far less worrying than you might imagine. The scientist James Lovelock has famously offered to house a nuclear waste dump in his garden, because he feels so strongly that the dangers are exaggerated. And, crucially, they are exaggerated to the detriment of the environment.

 

And that is the most significant issue here I think. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to use nuclear because it's not perfect. It has risks with it. But the real, present and terrible danger that we're facing is global warming, and in order to tackle that we have to stop using fossil fuels. Right now. Nuclear is the only current technology that can even come close to filling the energy hole that would be created by shutting coal and gas power stations. Others will hopefully come along (and fusion, rather than fission would be infinitely better) but we have to act now, not in 25 years time.

[captain kirk]

I agree with you Malachy that it's a good idea to keep looking at nuclear power and try to sift the facts out from the hysteria and the hype on both sides. I am so convinced of the reality of climate change and the devastating effects that it will have on humanity in the near future that there is no way I would maintain a blinkered anti-nuclear position just because I did in the seventies. How silly would that be. I would willingly look at anything that might offer some sort of solution.

Concerning Chernobyl, I wish from the bottom of my heart that there had only been fifty deaths as a result of that explosion. I don't know where to begin on that one. Horrific increase in thyroid cancer in children in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and beyond. 40% increase in solid cancer incidence in Belarus now that twenty years plus has passed, set to increase. And so on. IAEA/WHO predict 4000 deaths as a result; TORCH predict 30,000 to 60,000. Take your pick.

I suppose it depends whether you just look at Chernobyl as a single event and decide only to measure the blast of external radiation that the immediate population was exposed to, as the International Commission on Radiological Protection prefers to do, or whether you examine the evidence of internal radiation received by the populations of a far wider, international, area ingested in food and water and milk etc that will continue for thousands of years.

Research into prolonged exposure to low level radiation is revealing that it has far more profound effects on cell mutation and reduced immunity than previously thought. It is causing multiple changes in human DNA that are passed on to future generations, weakening resistance to disease. This is happening before our eyes if we chose to look, in the hospitals of Iraq where incidence of childhood cancers and babies born with severe birth defects is increasing exponentially, due to radioactive contamination caused by depleted uranium in allied forces' weapons.

Statistics can be exaggerated. They can also be underestimated, discounted, and indeed hidden from the public if political need dictates. We have to keep on questioning what we are told.

I read Revenge of Gaia a few years ago and it certainly made me re-examine my views about environmentalism and nuclear power. I really wanted to agree with him but in the end there were too many contradictions. I have always found Lovelock's writing style to be persuasive to the point of manipulative. He's a clever man but we do not have to believe everything he says. I have not read Vanishing Face yet.

[Malachy]

Concerning Chernobyl, I wish from the bottom of my heart that there had only been fifty deaths as a result of that explosion. I don't know where to begin on that one. Horrific increase in thyroid cancer in children in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and beyond. 40% increase in solid cancer incidence in Belarus now that twenty years plus has passed, set to increase. And so on. IAEA/WHO predict 4000 deaths as a result; TORCH predict 30,000 to 60,000. Take your pick.

 

I'm not wishing to fight hard on this one, but I'm not sure about your statistics. The 4000 deaths is not a current prediction, it was the original prediction 23 years ago, which has now been dramatically reduced.

 

This is a quote from the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation in their most recent summary on Chernobyl, which you can find here (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health):

"there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses."

 

There has, as you say, been an increase in thyroid cancer among those who were children at the time - about 4000 possible cases. But these are not 4000 deaths, as thyroid cancer is only fatal in about 5-10% of cases.

 

As for the wider area, there is no doubt that the radiation spread, but it's only in the immediate area that it is traceable in much more than background levels. And again, this is the issue with nuclear - we assume that raised radiation levels, such as were caused by the Chernobyl cloud over Europe and the USSR, will automatically cause problems. But there isn't strong evidence that it has. It may be that our assumption is simply false.

 

I know that a Greenpeace study into the same populations came up with a vastly higher level of cancers and deaths, but their scientific methods have been strongly criticised.

 

The USCEAR have noted widespread health problems among the populations of Chernobyl refugees, and more widely in Belarus and Ukraine. But they have clearly attributed these problems not to radiation but to poverty.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ It should also be noted that burning fossil fuels releases far more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power.

Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.

[justlookin]

Its been a while since i've been here, but i cant beleive Arabia is still buying it. In the words of our other crazy religious fanatics, have you not seen the light?

 

try this one on for size.

 

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml

 

 

Now please, lets lay this one to rest.

[ArabiaTerra]

Its been a while since i've been here, but i cant beleive Arabia is still buying it. In the words of our other crazy religious fanatics, have you not seen the light?

 

try this one on for size.

 

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml

 

 

Now please, lets lay this one to rest.

(Spoinggg !!) Damn, my irony meter just exploded.

[sheepshagger]

I am so convinced of the reality of climate change and the devastating effects that it will have on humanity in the near future that there is no way I would maintain a blinkered anti-nuclear position just because I did in the seventies.

 

so now all these folks that bitched in the 70s and 80s against nuke power have a different agenda they are all for nuke power.

And we are supposed to listen to them.

"I was wrong then in my hysteria but now i'm right in my hysteria"

sorry but if you are now saying you were wrong then why the heck should I take you seriously now.

 

I bet you were so convinced of the dangers of nuke power then you would go on marches, protest wherever and whenever you could because if you didn't we were all going to die.

 

Whats different now except the cause you are bleeting about

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^ It's the lesser evil, a potential disaster as opposed to the certain disaster of business as usual.

 

(For the record, I've never been opposed to nuclear power. Or nuclear weapons for that matter.)

[sheepshagger]

Oh dear At it was not you I was refering to but another blinkered individual with more years under his belt than yourself.

 

In future AT I will let you know when your the blinkered fool I'm reffering to.

my appologies for upsetting you without forethought and malice, much more fun when it's intended