Why Nuclear?

Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large numbers here are some of these reasons. 1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this is in the building and clean up.
2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to terrorism.
3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by month without causing damage to our world. ///////////////// Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ---- Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites where these could be placed unobtrusively . Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy. These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the nearest service centre. This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs using GODS own energy that he gave us. So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is absolutely no need. Blair needs to be removed before his government makes even more trouble that will extend well into the future.

"rebel" wrote:

Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large numbers here are some of these reasons.

I have a bumper sticker that sez "I'd rather glow in the dark than freeze in the dark." 8*)
Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels, and can be significantly less expensive. Whether businesses can do nuclear power right is an open debate, but with the current public climate around the issue, they'll probably not get the chance to try again till we are all freezing in the dark.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "rebel" wrote:

Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large numbers here are some of these reasons. 1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this is in the building and clean up.
2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to terrorism.
3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by month without causing damage to our world. ///////////////// Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ---- Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites where these could be placed unobtrusively . Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy. These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the nearest service centre. This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs using GODS own energy that he gave us. So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is absolutely no need.

Wind isn't a base load generator; I'd be surprised if tides can be either.

Chris Hill wrote:

Wind isn't a base load generator; I'd be surprised if tides can be either.

Why not? Tides are _utterly_ predictable, and they only have quite short slack periods. -- derek

"rebel" wrote in message

Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large numbers here are some of these reasons. 1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this is in the building and clean up.

But they also provide 'huge' amounts of energy.

2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to terrorism.

'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common', or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.

3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by month without causing damage to our world. ///////////////// Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ---- Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites where these could be placed unobtrusively . Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy. These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the nearest service centre.

All these sources *should* be a part of our diverse energy programs. But none of them by themselves can meet our needs without major changes to society.

This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs using GODS own energy that he gave us.

Didn't God also create uranium? This sort of argument is silly. Folks have used 'God' to justify everything/anything. But what does it really mean?

So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is absolutely no need.

'absolutely no need' is a very subjective claim. Yes, given enough money, and enough changes to society, we *could* just live in deep underground caves heated by the earth. But we choose not to.

Blair needs to be removed before his government makes even more trouble that will extend well into the future.

Opinion with little facts is not a very persuasive position.
And what does this rather *political* rant have to do with homepower???
daestrom

Derek Broughton wrote:

Chris Hill wrote:
Wind isn't a base load generator; I'd be surprised if tides can be either.
Why not? Tides are _utterly_ predictable, and they only have quite short slack periods. -- derek

They also have a tremendous amount of energy available so the inefficiencies of a short duration storage system (flywheel, CAS, pumped hydro, etc.) to fill the slack periods can be largely ignored.
Pete C.

"William P.N. Smith" wrote in message

"rebel" wrote: Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large numbers here are some of these reasons.
I have a bumper sticker that sez "I'd rather glow in the dark than freeze in the dark." 8*)

Mine says "Better Active Today Than Radioactive Tomorrow."
Just kidding. What really worries me about atomic power is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientists. When they set off the first hydrogen bomb they weren't sure if it would ignite the entire atmosphere or not but set it off anyway. Add to that the "theory of the existance of subatomic particles" that may or may not exist and I'd say we still have a bit more to learn about this stuff.
I think the answer, or at least one answer, is to find ways to use less power. We seem to be constantly using more and more when less used to be enough.

Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels, and can be significantly less expensive. Whether businesses can do nuclear power right is an open debate, but with the current public climate around the issue, they'll probably not get the chance to try again till we are all freezing in the dark.

'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common', or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.

3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by //////////////////

You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.

Ulysses wrote:

Just kidding. What really worries me about atomic power is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientists. When they set off the first hydrogen bomb they weren't sure if it would ignite the entire atmosphere or not but set it off anyway.

I'm not sure I believe that myth. It just doesn't follow from the science they'd already done. There were people who worried about it - but I doubt they were the scientists who actually designed the bomb. In any case, that's a whole different line of physics from nuclear reactors.

Add to that the "theory of the existance of subatomic particles" that may or may not exist and I'd say we still have a bit more to learn about this stuff.

They really don't contribute to the problem - though conceivably ways could be found to use other subatomic particles to give larger energy outputs than fission or even fusion. Not knowing what subatomic particles exist doesn't change the physics of nuclear fission, in the same way that not knowing about nuclear fission never changed the chemistry of a coal fire.

I think the answer, or at least one answer, is to find ways to use less power. We seem to be constantly using more and more when less used to be enough.

I agree, but my personal jury is still out on nuclear. I'd be a lot happier if I could trust the numbers on "true costs" both sides throw around.

Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels,

at least - the most liberal figures on harm caused by Chernobyl don't come close to the most conservative figures due, annually, to coal (and Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster - despite immense amounts of human stupidity, the redundant safety systems worked [barely]). There are other victims of nuclear - but the fact that so much less fuel is required than other forms of power generation, means far fewer people are exposed to the dangers.

and can be significantly less expensive.

I just don't know - and I don't think anyone else does either - because _nobody_ has ever had to actually pay for permanent safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. I'm all for turning Chernobyl into an international spent-fuel storage facility - since it's de facto the first permanent storage facility on the planet. -- derek

One major reason is that nuclear is the only not fossil fuel based system that can produce large quantities of power. Wind farms are also expensive and are intrusive. Tidal is, at best, conceptual. I can see investing in research & development and, perhaps, experimental installations of tidal but it is not a solution for now.
The available fix for the next few decades is nuclear. Or put out the CO2. ////////////////////////////// As I have already said it is technically possible to build tidal turbines starting next week. the designs are already done. Ship yards are ideally suited to build the turbines so why Nuclear it will take ten years to build the first one and bring it on line, we could have the majority of tidal turbines built in ten years producing three times the power required for the UK.plenty to sell at a profit. By generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens more fish and less coastal erosion.

rebel wrote:

As I have already said it is technically possible to build tidal turbines starting next week. the designs are already done. Ship yards are ideally suited to build the turbines so why Nuclear it will take ten years to build the first one and bring it on line, we could have the majority of tidal turbines built in ten years producing three times the power required for the UK.plenty to sell at a profit. By generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens more fish and less coastal erosion.

What makes you think that you will be able to build tidal turbines with any less opposition from environmentalists than nuclear plants? It certainly can't and won't happen in 10 years - even if it really could produce three times the power the UK needs. We're just beginning the process of putting in a modern tidal power system in the Bay of Fundy - you read it here first: we won't have one built by 2016. (We do already have one in the Annapolis River estuary - it's essentially a conventional hydro-electric system with a reservoir that gets replenished at every high tide. I guarantee you that environmentalists will never let us build another system like _that_). -- derek

"rebel" wrote in message

'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common', or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by ////////////////// You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.

'Long Island'??? That is an island off the shore of New York city. Although a nuclear plant was built there (Shoreham), it was never operated. Concerns about evacuation routes and it's proximity to NYC created quite a commotion and the state bailed out the owner's by buying it for $1 and letting the owner recoup a lot of costs via rate increases.
Or, if you meant 'Three Mile Island', yes that was a significant nuclear accident. Melted about 1/2 the core. Yet radiation exposure to the public was barely discernable, and no land outside the site boundary was contaminated.
daestrom

rebel wrote:

'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common', or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by ////////////////// You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.

English would be helpful, but I'll try to translate. Dunrae? Not a nuclear plant or an accident, as near as I can tell from Google. "Long Island"? I'm not even certain there's a nuclear plant on any of the numerous "Long Island"s in the world. You likely meant Three Mile Island, which was a success.
So, so far, you've cited _one_ accident. There have been others, but not more serious than the coal mining accidents we hear of weekly. -- derek

generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens

more fish and less coastal erosion.

What makes you think that you will be able to build tidal turbines with any less opposition from environmentalists than nuclear plants? It certainly can't and won't happen in 10 years - even if it really could produce three times the power the UK needs. We're just beginning the process of putting in a modern tidal power system in the Bay of Fundy - you read it here first: we won't have one built by 2016. (We do already have one in the Annapolis River estuary - it's essentially a conventional hydro-electric system with a reservoir that gets replenished at every high tide. I guarantee you that environmentalists will never let us build another system like _that_). -- derek =============== Are you talking Barrages, I do not advocate the use of these, far to many problems with them. { expensive hard to maintain. not friendly } What I envisage are floating turbines that rise with the tide and turn as the tide turns, not depending on storage power just the speed of the tidal flow and does not obstruct the flow. and we have massive flows here in the UK. some places can generate 24 hrs. a day.

rebel wrote:

Are you talking Barrages, I do not advocate the use of these, far to many problems with them.

Pay attention. I said that's what we _have_ and no more will ever be permitted.

What I envisage are floating turbines that rise with the tide and turn as the tide turns, �not depending on storage power just the speed of the tidal flow and does not obstruct the flow.

You'll still get a lot of opposition from environmental interests. It won't happen fast.

and we have massive flows here in the UK. some places can generate 24 hrs. a day.

No, you have massive flows in the English Channel - almost as much as we get in the Bay of Fundy, in places. Most of England doesn't have that kind of tide (I'm having a little trouble figuring out how you can actually generate 24 hours a day - it _has_ to stop when the tide turns). I don't know about the rest of the UK.
Also, please fix your newsreader. OE can do much better - you're making it misquote. -- derek