Nuclear power - Page 4

19-01-2005, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

this is the way forward:-

http://www.npower.com/At_home/Juice-...out_Juice.html

My mom likes the sounds of that

19-01-2005, 20:19

I do believe that everyone is a bit too sensitive about nuclear power. I'm sure that images of Chernobyl come to mind when we all think about the disadvantages, but since that one nuclear accident it has had a stigma of being far too dangerous to consider. I suppose it's in our nature to be more affected by one relatively minor accident that has already happened in the past than a larger catastrophe that will happen in the future (the extreme effects of global warming).

AndrewJ · 19-01-2005, 20:21

Well once fossil run out if we aint got something else it may be all we have, or we go into either space and live there, or just stay here and die.

Stuart · 19-01-2005, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

Well I've heard that our last nuclear plant is being shut down soon.

Well, the Nuclear Industry Assocation says that their last reactor will close in 2035, although the page is two years old (http://www.niauk.org/article_33.shtml)

BNFL say their last nuclear power station will close in 2016 or 2021 (http://www.metafaq.com/templates/bnf...0FJOJ4U19EGQLG)

punky · 19-01-2005, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

Well, the Nuclear Industry Assocation says that their last reactor will close in 2035, although the page is two years old (http://www.niauk.org/article_33.shtml)

Does that mean that no new nuclear plants will be constructed before that though?

**Chris** · 20-01-2005, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellwear

Sorry the second option was suppose to be along the lines of "no - I'm happy to keep replacing the ones we have."

In that case I've edited option 2 and voted for it.

AndrewJ · 20-01-2005, 13:09

all said and done I wonder if we will have beer in 50years time...

okay back on topic, it is quite likely if the goverment is thinking nuclear fission plants for future energy providing, that they will just make new reactor plants, due to the ones we have now, being in disrepair and unsafe, we have new metals new technology, and so long as the new stations aint running on Windows we shall be safe.

Matth · 20-01-2005, 16:56

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island represent the most serious potential problems with nuclear power - an accident of the most serious kind.

Windscale (now called Sellafield... just change the name and hope people forget) represents the another of the more worrying prospects - nuclear waste, a problem that is still just "swept under the carpet", as the containers slowly rust away.

Thirdly, the issue of inevitable background radiation increase around installations, minor leaks and spills etc.

And the fuel for nuclear is not unlimited - by many estimates, it wouldn't even last as long as coal, unless "breeder" reactors were used to prove additional enrichment (though that is Plutonium enrichment of the Uranium, and not the fuel-grade uranium enrichment of an increased U235/U238 ratio).

The entire "cradle to grave" lifecycle of any energy system needs to be considered, from the cost of construction, to the cost of decommissioning, the fuel used, the waste created, and the environmental impact of all the processes involved.

Eg. Growing and then burning "fuel crops" has ZERO CO2 impact, as the C02 released is what was taken in when they were grown - until solar cells reach greater efficiency, that may be the most effective way to use solar energy, and it provides an inherent method of storage as well.

20-01-2005, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matth

<snip>
Eg. Growing and then burning "fuel crops" has ZERO CO2 impact, as the C02 released is what was taken in when they were grown - until solar cells reach greater efficiency, that may be the most effective way to use solar energy, and it provides an inherent method of storage as well.

absolutely - provided other emissions can be controlled, this is entirely feasible, afaik feasibility trials have been done using straw & coppiced willow, but unfortunately, the project has never been taken to a commercial level.

Millay · 20-01-2005, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

stations aint running on Windows we shall be safe.

Microsoft realise this as well and have had this in there EULA fir any nt based OS:

7. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN

SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS

NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR

INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN

HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH

AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION

OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE

SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF

JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY,

OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

AndrewJ · 20-01-2005, 17:42

That true?? if so pmsl...well least they are covered, so when explorer.exe buggers up they are not covered then

keithwalton · 20-01-2005, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

That true?? if so pmsl...well least they are covered, so when explorer.exe buggers up they are not covered then

Yes thats true, it's been a m$ clause for a long time and thats for a final product. the beta testing agreement has similar terms to that effect, basically saying dont use the programs ever for anything more serious than pure and simple fun. we're not responsible for any losses that may occur due to use of our software ... yadda yadda yadda

greencreeper · 21-01-2005, 01:02

Why not build a nuclear power plant under the sea, with a sort of oil rig style platform for controlling it. That way, if the thing goes bang, the water shields the worse of the radiation. Ok, so you might have a few funny shaped fish, but better that than funny shaped babies

Profits always come before safety - we've had one too many rail disasters to prove that. For me to be in favour of nuclear power, it would have to remain nationalised, under government control. I would also want the safety records and audits to be public.

Sarah_77 · 21-01-2005, 08:29

No more nuclear.

Would you like to live near to a nuclear station I know I wouldn't !

Pierre · 21-01-2005, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_77

No more nuclear.

Would you like to live near to a nuclear station I know I wouldn't !

Wouldn't bother me living next to a power station

I would want to live next to Sellafield though.