last time I checked planes didn't feature the ability to make whole swathes of land uninhabitable for hundreds of years and spread poisonous material around the globe
and didn't have to be put underground for eons after use
(and didn't have to be put underground for eons after use
pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:21,
archived)
explainMaybe I've exaggerated a bit in terms of duration (I didn't look up details on half-life periods of the radioactive materials used there just now), but I'm strictly against a technology which can seriously fuck up a country's economy and ecosystem when blowing up, even if the chance for it doing so is pretty low (not speaking of the problems with long-term storage and the limited uranium supply). I just don't understand why nuclear reactors are still being built and promoted when there's lots of alternative technologies readily available which can as well supply the required amount of power.
( pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:49,
archived)
Ever been to Greenham Common?A USAF bomber crashed there and its nuclear weapon burnt up, thus achieving (on a smaller scale) what you mention.
However, what I was saying is that Chernobyl was a piss-poor design managed in an even more piss-poor fasion. It wasn't so much the design of the plant, but the idiots running it.
(However, what I was saying is that Chernobyl was a piss-poor design managed in an even more piss-poor fasion. It wasn't so much the design of the plant, but the idiots running it.
Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...",
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:39,
archived)
I don't care how low the chances to fail are for a well-built reactor maintained by a well-trained crewaccidents tend to happen nonetheless, and I'd prefer for a coal-fired plant to burn to the ground or a windmill to crash down opposed to a nuclear catastrophe any day
( pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:55,
archived)
Considerably worse is allowed to happen.Look at Bhopal - how many died, but we still have factories making the same stuff with far less safety features than a reactor. The contamination there will last a lot longer than the radiation around Chernobyl.
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...",
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:52,
archived)
I don't think "well, at least he's not as bad as Hitler" counts as an argumentOf course stuff like that should be illegal too. But this discussion is about the need to maintain fission as an energy source.
( pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:30,
archived)
bet it won't
sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:32,
archived)
This is all very well until you want to charge your phone or watch telly and you can'tbecause you don't have a regular source of power because you've run out of coal and it's not windy enough for the windmill/night so the solar cells aren't working.
If you want to live into the next century in the way you have become accustomed to, you will need nuclear power.
(If you want to live into the next century in the way you have become accustomed to, you will need nuclear power.
Smallbrainfield,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:59,
archived)
I'm not proposing to shut off all nuclear reactors immediatelybut to make an effort in exploiting any renewable resource we can in order to do so as soon as possible. The technology for fully replacing nuclear power is already there. Let's build offshore wind parks, solar farms and pump storages instead of planning new / extending the lifespan of old nuclear plants!
Also, as a response to your arguments: we've already reached the peak of uranium mining; at this rate, we'll run out of uranium faster than out of coal. And recent studies show that nuclear plants aren't flexible enough for the needs of the modern electricity market. You can't just power them up or down, it takes days. It'd be far more effective to use fast-switchable windmills and power storages (there's still plenty of room in Scandinavia for some high-lying new lakes).
(Also, as a response to your arguments: we've already reached the peak of uranium mining; at this rate, we'll run out of uranium faster than out of coal. And recent studies show that nuclear plants aren't flexible enough for the needs of the modern electricity market. You can't just power them up or down, it takes days. It'd be far more effective to use fast-switchable windmills and power storages (there's still plenty of room in Scandinavia for some high-lying new lakes).
pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:23,
archived)
Tidal power is consistentSome days it might not be as windy as others. That's why they're building turbines at sea. But you don't get days when there is no tide.
Drax is a coal fired power station, and produces almost 4GW, generating 7% of the supply. It can consume up to 9 million tons of coal per year.
The proposed Severn Barrage will generate more than double the power and requires no fuel whatsoever. Put one across all the major estuaries.
Plus then there are domestic waste incinerators providing NIMBYs let them get built instead of complaining about the toxins that are actually filtered. All of the incinerators in the country combined release less toxins per year than one single bonfire on Nov 5th. Plus it would get shut of a lot of landfill.
(Drax is a coal fired power station, and produces almost 4GW, generating 7% of the supply. It can consume up to 9 million tons of coal per year.
The proposed Severn Barrage will generate more than double the power and requires no fuel whatsoever. Put one across all the major estuaries.
Plus then there are domestic waste incinerators providing NIMBYs let them get built instead of complaining about the toxins that are actually filtered. All of the incinerators in the country combined release less toxins per year than one single bonfire on Nov 5th. Plus it would get shut of a lot of landfill.
sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:33,
archived)
one of many other forms of renewable energy we could harness, yes.And then there's geothermal energy, for example. Other technologies are in development right now e.g. salinity gradient power. We could fully replace fission by the 2020s if we just decided that we want to.
( pzyko Query failed.,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:43,
archived)
Then there'smicro-generation. Your own windmill, solar panels etc. Not viable in built up areas, but still an option. It's still a bit expensive for now, but it'll come down in price. However, then the government will introduce a domestic generation duty.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:54,
archived)
It makes sense in the UK at any rate, what with us being an island and all.I think there's an island in the highlands that's powered by tidal.
( Smallbrainfield,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:46,
archived)
There's one in Francethat's been on the go almost 50 years, and generates 600GWh per year.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally,
Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:51,
archived)