Jump to content

The energy debate - Nuclear vs renewable


Recommended Posts

"A Shell boffin John Sinclair BSc, a Principal Electrical Engineer at Shell UK Exploration & Production. Sinclair apparently believes he has stumbled on a breakthrough of great potential significance."

 

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough/

 

Remember if the ideas are correct, I and others believe they are along the right lines, not only will Shell have a new revenue stream from clean energy but it will have the key to getting rid of CO2 or methane or any other gas from the atmosphere, not merely locking them up
Einstein said he thought he was very probably wrong just before his death, all I am doing is agreeing with him and showing you why he was wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Taken from the global warming thread:

 

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/njugle/stats.jpg

 

from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

 

 

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this; some more research is required. I do, however, use electricity created by nuclear power on a daily basis, so I really should read up on it. The trolleybuses here run on electricity, and construction of a new bypass to divert cars away from the city centre is well underway, while plans to create a tramline are on the horizon. This should make for a greener city, but what of nuclear?

 

The only point I would like to raise re the above graph is why does it show "Immediate fatalities" only? Perhaps because it was compiled by The World Nuclear Association. I wonder what, for example, the statistics for accident related deaths would be in The Ukraine and Belarus? I can't find such a chart, and I guess the true figures will never really be known.

 

Anyhoo, here's what Wikipedia has to say re Chernobyl

 

The plume drifted all over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data,[2] about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus

 

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.

 

I know things have moved on and safety has improved immensely since the Chernobyl accident, but nuclear power still gives me the jitters when I think about it. I think I'll take a little more convincing.

 

For example, I'd be reluctant to move to Ignalina (Lithuania) which is where our nuclear power plant is situated, and by the same reasoning I wouldn't like to see one located on Shetland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody wants it on their doorstep. Nobody really wants any form of power plant on their doorstep (including an abundance of windmills). I still don't see nuclear energy production being any worse than any other form.

 

Had Chernobyl never happened I do wonder if people would react differently towards nuclear energy.

 

It may be a case that nuclear power plants would today be more common-place and, as a result of having no Chernobyl to judge standards by, be a lot less safe.

 

As it stands nuclear power production has come along in leaps and bounds since then, both in the technology used and the safety standards issued. It will never be 100% safe but then neither will any other form of power production.

 

The world as we know it is going to come to a crunch before much longer. People are consuming more energy as each day goes by and we are losing many of the natural resources to keep up that energy supply. When times get really bad then people are going to start looking at nuclear power production as a godsend.

 

Like it or hate it, nuclear power is going to become more and more acceptable as time goes on. Take a look at mobile phones. The benefit of having one tends to out-weigh the possible health risks associated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Had Chernobyl never happened I do wonder if people would react differently towards nuclear energy.

 

Perhaps, but I doubt it would be all that different. Nuclear had been the post war baby that was the answer to everything, but by the 70's it's lustre was already long gone, a steady stream of horror stories about waste contamination, minor (relative to the subject, but often with attention grabbing closely averted possible scenarios) accidents, and allegations of health risks to workers and nearby residents had soured it in the public eye to the point it was a dying breed, Chernobyl simply confirmed all the fears that had previously been flying around and put the lid on it's coffin.

 

Part of the problem now is, for those of us who remember Chernobyl and a good while before it, is that the word "nuclear" immediately places a picture in the mind of practices and operators within the industry as it was pre-Chernobyl.

 

That now is 20, 30, 40 year old technology and attitudes, and it's easy to forget that the industry has been quietly moving along and ahead for two decades since, of which most people know very little or nothing. Sure as hell I don't want to see a new Nuclear industry rise that is anything like that of the one of early 80's or before, and I know fine well if one does it won't be, but it is very difficult to give the idea a fair hearing when all we know is how it was then, not how it would be now.

 

I'm not particularly anti-nuclear, but I am very much anti the Mickey Mouse style of nuclear that was back then. There needs to be an immense amount of P.R/Educational work done to inform and reassure the population that the nuclear industry of the 21st Century has their house in order a sregards public safety. They crashed and burned somewhat spectacularly on their last flight, and that, unfortunately for them, is the most enduring thing they are remembered for. The ball's in their court to prove to the masses that they have learned how to fly without getting their tailfeathers singed these last 20 or so years they've been sent to Coventry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 years later...

Going on the pretense and assuming that we learn from each others mistakes, I would have thought that there would now be enough expertise in the "nuclear field " to build a modern very safe power station.

 

I would rather see a new well build power station embracing "2020" technology providing our electricity rather than all the hills ect,covered in wind turbines.

 

Could be possibly claimed that more damage is caused to the environment installing wind turbines than has been caused by nuclear disasters,depends on how one evaluates it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worlds largest uninterruptible power supply is in Fairbanks, Alaska Population: 31,535
Thats Battery Electric Storage System designed to stop power cuts.

Imagine if we had something like that

An oil burning generator for example can slow down or speed up as per demand
Heres the problem with renewable they go right onto the grid adhoc



People can go off grid and run their stuff off panels and turbines in the garden but that involves battery maintenance.

Most of our renewables are built by guys with quotas to fill and government money up for grabs plenty of reasonable criticism about the above ground structures but not enough deserved criticism about the wiring underground!

and an interesting note in America somebody was able to get government grant to design roads built out of glass because they put solar panels underneath
Solar Roadways Incorporated furthermore these were covered in LEDs that would waste any energy produced despite the cracks and dirt that would inevitability cover it
Solar_Roadway_Parking_Lot_Prototype.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...