Printable View
No, you're the expert. You're informing us that Finns are leading the way in waste disposal, but that only seems to mean that Finns have decided not to dump it in the sea but instead dump it far undergound. Credit to them for that decision to use their own territory, but I fully expect house prices around the area chosen to plummet in 50,000 years or so. Or possibly even earlier, when news about leaking cans leaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It’s only radioactive for about a thousand years so the cans leaking in 50,000 years shouldn’t be a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I revise my estimate of the fall in house prices to 2524.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Using language like dumping in the sea is daft isn't it. Even if they over estimated the safety of the 100,000 years by 90% they will still be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The problem is it isn't a nil sum game. So you say don't have nuclear because they might be mistaken when they say they can store it safely for a hundred millenia. You have to admit that instead of choosing nuclear you are choosing to burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels isn't a maybe something could go wrong it causes deaths simple as. The BMJ estimated that burning fossil fuels kills 5 million people per year so I'm glad that countries like China are investing massively in nuclear power as if they can switch completely then 5 million less deaths per year is better than who wants to live next to a nuclear waste facility. The planet is dying also and we simply have to get to net zero. Once there hopefully we can transition to purely renewable, in the meantime people are dying
https://bmjgroup.com/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuel-use-accounts-for-over-5-million-extra-deaths-a-year/#:~:text=deaths%20a%20year-,Air%20pollution%20from%20fossil%20fuel%20use%20ac counts%20for,million%20extra%20deaths%20a%20year&t ext=Air%20pollution%20from%20using%20fossil,publis hed%20by%20The%20BMJ%20today.
Nuclear is the safest fuel source we have. I’m all for it but for the price. It’s too expensive for Scotland given our renewable options but for other countries then they should go for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Forbes quoting 24,400 years for the half-life of Plutonium 239, in waste from breeder reactors. God only knows how long its whole life is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi...aste-disposal/
It's far more expensive than it should be due to our Victorian planning laws we take years to even start and dozens of applications, meetings, complaints ect ect. South Korea makes them like a conveyor belt and they get the electricity from them at a quarter of the price us auto this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Also until battery storage catches up we need another power source when renewables aren't enough.
Last year 56% of the electricity we used was from renewable, 30% from nuclear, 14% from burning fossil fuels. We produced 97% of what we use from renewable but at certain times so loads got exported. Some on here would be surprised how much we already rely on nuclear but one more small reactor would make us completely green and fossil fuel free when it comes to electricity.
The problem is with cars going electric and hopefully heating we are going to need more electricity and at all times including night or winter.
I’m def not against it, we just have to find a way of building them cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nuclear isn't fossil free even once the plant is up and running. Mining uranium and getting rid of the waste is a fossil fuel task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yeah I agree and Labour seem to be window dressing so far with the planning revolution. I read that the UK tax information has 16,000 pages so it's water tight. The planning application for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing runs to almost 360,000 pages. They had 20 meetings just to talk to objectors. A year and a half since they started pushing forward with it, £300 million in planning. Look at HS2 times times what France and Spain paid per mile as they said they wanted it and did itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Imagine the planning in the UK for new nuclear and they objections meetings ha. Other countries just get it done
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/building-back-faster/
1,961. That’s the number of documents contained within a single planning application for a wind farm off the northeast coast of England – capable of powering around 1.5 million homes. The environmental impact assessment and environmental scoping documents alone totalled 13,275 pages. To put that into context, that’s 144 pages longer than the complete works of Tolstoy combined with Proust’s seven volume opus In Search of Lost Time.
UK’s National Highways agency spent £267 million preparing a planning application to build a 23-kilometer road. The planning application, which featured 30,000-plus pages of environmental documentation, was the longest ever prepared.
Of course but it's an unbelievable net negative on co2. All they tasks are miniscule co2 positives compared to the megawatts of emission free energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
As I say it's not a nil sum game the alternative is using co2 to extract gas from the seabed get it to a refinery, transport it to a gas power station and then burn it into the air. We can still create co2 and use fossil fuels and be net zero but we should be pushing to be net negative in the next 50 years
The other thing on nuclear power. When has the UK ever built a nuclear power plant which was non-concurrent with a nuclear bomb programme? Without looking, probably never.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Hinckley c started being built in 2017 before that the last one to be built started in 1986Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
hinckley c taking 10-14 years to be built and commissioned? When does the green energy kick-in given all that fossil fuel being used during the build? Or does that get written off as negligible too?
Costing £46B at the moment. [emoji102] by 2030, if its finished, even more.
A wind power farm can be up and running in a year.
BTW am not convinced in any way that nuclear is green energy at all. Never have been and it seemed disingenuous when it began being labelled as such. So many lies were told about Torness's output when it was out of action, I just don't trust the people in charge.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Torness is coming to the end of its life.
Waste facilities at Sellafield...
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ilings-nuclear
If the waste is "safely underground" why does it take 11,000 people to tend to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Seems an obsolete shambles looking at that article.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
10 to 14 years is down to planning and NIMBYS. Hinckley took 10 to go from planning to construction, Finland took 4 years for Olkiluoto 3, France took 1 year for Flamanville.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Hinckley is costing 3 times Finlands Olkiluoto 3 and 5 times what south Korea builds its reactors for.
There wasn't much fossil fuels used in 14 years as most of the years it was planning, meetings, objections, meetings.
As I've said its the same with all projects in the uk hs2 3 times the price than Europe, tram projects almost double.
The green energy kicks off immediately a plant like Sizewell will save 3 gigawatt of fossil fuels being burnt per year! It's one or the other you need to choose. It's simply sometimes dark like just now and not always windy so until we progress storage we need another source. Right now its 30% is nuclear and 14% is fossil fuels.
11k aren't just looking after the waste. The site is massive it's got 2 power stations, a nuclear laboratory and college and waste decommissioning sights. About 99% of nuclear waste isn't the most harmful that needs stored underground, it can be processed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The article shows its cyber security is poor although seems like everyones is nowadays reading about attacks including UK gov
How much is "wasn't much"? (Sheesh.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
The green energy kicks off immediately
....but it doesn't though, does it.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Well none for 10 years as nothing happened as we live in the UK where planning is stuck in the 50s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
And of course it does its a green energy. No power is co2 free but nuclear is near the top. In its complete life cycle from planning to end of life nuclear omits half of hydro and solar and similar to wind. This is the median of multiple studies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
Coal – PC 910
Gas – combined cycle 490
Biomass – Dedicated 230
Solar PV – Utility scale 48
Solar PV – rooftop 41
Geothermal 38
Concentrated solar power 27
Hydropower 24
Wind Offshore 12
Nuclear 12
Wind Onshore 11
That's stats for when it's commissioned and I doubt it's taking into account the uranium mining or the build or the disposal or the decommissioning or the massive security required while they are running or the lies told about their output once they are commissioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Also they never run at full capacity and those in charge
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's getting a bit conspiracy theory. I read that a lot of the anti nuclear message was pushed by Russia and the oil and gas companies. In Europe its an either or between nuclear and burning fossil fuels. You obviously won't believe the figures even though one of the studies is from The International Panel on Climate Change, who also say nuclear should be used to bridge the gap before we're fully renewable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Renewables are the way forward and when battery capacity moves forward Scotland will be at the front of renewable power and a net exporter. In the meantime 44% of our power has to come from somewhere else what % do you want it to be nuclear and what burning gas. It's 30% to 14% just now. Should we do as Germany do close the nuclear early and go 44% gas or replace both with a new nuclear power station. Our stations were made before I was born I'd prefer a new higher technology small reactor personally and stop burning fuel for our electricity.
People are worried about what it's with nuclear but in the meantime 5 million die every year due to fossil fuels, makes the world's current wars look a small danger to life in comparison
Ok I looked around yesterday for a story that was in Evening News and Scotsman yesterday but to no avail.
I don't doubt the figures for the output you have listed. When I said they lied about their output it was regarding literature at the Torness visitor centre which overestimated their output, conflating potential with actual, which came at a time Torness wasn't generating any. In the literature they also claimed nuclear was 100% green, which it isn't. No conspiracy theory but I failed to find the story, so...
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I did the tour of Torness about 10 years ago. Quite an eye opener. Armed police with machine guns patrol 24/7 365 days a year. A control room that looked like something out of a Roger Moore era Bond film with modern computer monitors etc bolted onto it.
The info from the tour guide would have done North Korean propaganda proud and if you knew nothing about nuclear power and the cost of building new ones, short life of the power stations, huge costs involved in decommissioning etc you’d think there should be one in every corner of Scotland.
Solar, wave and wind power far superior. Pump the £20bn+ that a replacement for Torness would cost into these, grants for heat pumps, insulation etc.
Just transition estimated it will cost £130 billion to put heat pumps in every home. I'm not sure how we get there but we will certainly need grants. That is a separate issue from generation though. During the day when the sun is shining and when it's windy we generate more than enough electricity from renewables. At night and when there is no wind we use nuclear and gas. Hence although we produce the equivalent of 100% of our need in renewables, we sell a lot. In reality 44% of our use comes from nuclear and gas burning and more solar or wind won't change that too much. I believe when technology moves on battery power will sort that. In the meantime we need another source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
We are already 30% nuclear. It's the 14% gas we could do without. I actually believe there is some in Scotland that would close Torness now and stop that 30% from nuclear, the German way. A paper in Germany estimated them keeping their nuclear running would have meant a reduction in co2 of 73% in 2022 and a 50% reduction in costs of energy
https://x.com/AdamBlazowski/status/1800499047750590772
Every single person would choose replacing nuclear with other green energy. The fact is it'll be replaced by fossil fuel burning mostly. I don't know what the greens in Germany were thinking.
Thankfully this is just chat on a football forum and the rest of the world has agreed at copd to push massively to nuclear. The world's capacity will triple in 25 years
https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/
That's a live generation source.
Today 9.2% is nuclear and 83.1% is wind. 2.9% is gas.
Yeah I thought it would be closer during the day and windy try on a still day at 4am. I thought it would be 100% just now as during the day in summer we usually are. The fact is over the whole of the year we are still reliant on gas and nuclear. The 14% gas is a disgrace. I blame Nick Clegg he pushed against nuclear when he was in coalition as it would take over a decade to come online. The selfishness of politician's wanting the fruits in their time in office. We could be in a place where we weren't burning gas and polluting the air. There is British deaths on UK politicians hand for not going for nuclear and wind to a much higher degree over the last 30 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Gas is up to 11.6 in your link as of now, polluting Scottish air when it didn't need to happen
Rather than typing it out or copying and pasting, here are the reasons why I’m 100% against nuclear power:
https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reaso...limate-change/
Starts of ludicrous. He says waiting 14 years for nuclear to be built would cost 98 million lives as 7 million people a year die from air pollution just now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
Almost all these deaths are from fossil fuels. So is he saying we just click our fingers and stop using fossil fuels right now and there will be no deaths. And what's it to do with nuclear. Utterly bizarre. Most of the co2 produced is from motor vehicles and that isn't going to change soon so I'm afraid most of those deaths are baked in. Just a totally bizarre paragraph
He'd have voted for the German nuclear reactors to be closed and would sit with his mouth open when co2 rocketed and energy prices rose due to it. They just don't get it, it isn't nuclear vs wind. We must build every bit of wind and solar we can. The only conversation just now is what do you chose nuclear or burning fossil fuels for the rest. If you say no nuclear then no problem but your choosing fossil fuels and the deaths and co2 that comes with it. If it gets to the point where the choice is nuclear vs renewable I and every sensible person will chose renewable.
SSE Peterhead gas station is the biggest polluter by far in Scotland 1.6 million co2 tons per year, 3 times the amount of Mossmoran or Ineos Grangemouth. It will be great when we don't need gas but it won't be in the next few decades. In fact Scottish Government are going to build another gas power station next to Peterhead.
https://news.stv.tv/north/climate-activists-protest-against-plans-to-build-second-gas-burning-power-station-in-peterhead
I'm just against it as a pure gut feeling that it's deeply bad juju that we shouldn't be arseing around with. When Torness went up I just saw an abomination.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk