Nuclear Fuel, Bring Back The Mining Industry

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I might be mad, but it will cost this country a fortune in having nuclear fuel, and building nuclear plants all over the country, why for heavens sake, don't they bring back the mining industry, there must be lots of pits all over the country that could be re=used, and it would also bring employment to thousands of people in desperate needed areas, we already have the re-invention of the coal fires, it would also be helpful to the vulnerable, without heating, when the mining industry was pushed to one side and closed down by a certain government, it brought devastation to many areas, that have never recovered, and we would not have to buy coal, from abroad, we have many companies that operate the coal industry today, but it is not big enough, just think of the amount of people who would come of the dole, and follow their parents down the mine

[Xaccers]

Have you not heard of carbon dioxide?

[Osem]

Nuclear power generates electricity but sadly isn't a total substitute for carbon based fuels/derivatives which we will still need and are becoming ever more expensive. For this reason and until alternatives are found, using the vast reserves of coal we still have may be the only viable option we have.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well l am 56, lived through the mining era, and l believe, with all the latest tech that they have today, they could overcome this,

[Xaccers]

Oxidising carbon without oxidising it? Interesting one that...

[WHISTLED]

Well l am 56, lived through the mining era, and l believe, with all the latest tech that they have today, they could overcome this,

Funny no one esle has thought of that considring all this 'global warming' chit chat I keep hearing about?!

There are more efficient coal powered stations in this country but you cant prevent a bi product

[BBKing]

I might be mad

...must...resist...

Yes, coal is perfectly splendid as a reserve, except that it's costly to get out of the ground and really really dirty. Nuclear is fine, apart from being costly to get out of the ground (and we haven't got any of it in the UK and there's less of it than people think and it's non-renewable) and really really really dirty.

'Dirty', of course, should be seen as an analogue of 'costs a lot of money to clean up' and nuclear, while it's not going to turn you green or give you 20 fingers, needs vast amounts of capital, from us.

I notice, totally coincidentally, that EDF Energy's PR head is one Andrew Brown whose brother Gordon is apparently Prime Minister. Fancy that. The nuclear industry has lots of good lobbyists*, and New Labour has lots of idiots who wouldn't recognise a scientific argument if you rammed it up their backsides, which is a marriage made in heaven. I also notice the old 1950s nuke argument of 'cheap electricity' is coming back, which immediately makes me smell BS. Remember the Olympics?

We do, of course, have a large coastline and a lot of wind. Stick up a tidal barrage or two (I'll help you hold down the environmentalists). Alternatively kill two birds with one stone and build your nukes in Tehran.

* I like the nerve of Brian Wilson saying that relying on fuel from unstable places like Russia, Nigeria and Kazakhstan makes gas a bad bet. Where the hell does he think uranium comes from? Tunbridge Wells?

[jkat]

i've never seen any rock solid figures (even if we could believe them) about renewable energy being able to supply most of the uk's power

Civil servants are wrong to advise ministers that the 20% renewable energy targets are unreachable; the renewables industry is ready to deliver 35% of the UK’s electricity supplies by 2020, given the right political framework.

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/071023.html

oz is the place for uranium now at 24% worlds supply followed by kazakhstan at 17% (eat your heart out sasha cohen lol) and canada 9%. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/mining.htm

friends in the usa swear by nuclear, their electric bills are dirt cheap.

me personally think we should have a mix renewable and nuke (small percentage) if scientifically possible??

[WHISTLED]

I like the nerve of Brian Wilson saying that relying on fuel from unstable places like Russia, Nigeria and Kazakhstan makes gas a bad bet. Where the hell does he think uranium comes from? Tunbridge Wells?

Why? 25% of the planets uranium deposits are in Oz and 4-5 of the countries that mine uranium are in the commonwealth, then there is the US and a few in Europe. His comments make perfect sense.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I might be mad, but it will cost this country a fortune in having nuclear fuel, and building nuclear plants all over the country, why for heavens sake, don't they bring back the mining industry, there must be lots of pits all over the country that could be re=used, and it would also bring employment to thousands of people in desperate needed areas, we already have the re-invention of the coal fires, it would also be helpful to the vulnerable, without heating, when the mining industry was pushed to one side and closed down by a certain government, it brought devastation to many areas, that have never recovered, and we would not have to buy coal, from abroad, we have many companies that operate the coal industry today, but it is not big enough, just think of the amount of people who would come of the dole, and follow their parents down the mine

well said arthur, and lets not forget that every town had its own coking plant to produce town gas[no need to rely on any one] whats so difficult about scrubbing the waste. Power from coal ,gas from coal,jobs in the coal industry, more work for road and rail hauliers, sounds like a sound economic venture to me, on the other hand nuclear power stations produce dangerous waste that no one knows how to de activate or dispose of safely,and lets not rule out terrorist attacks one hijacked plane flown into a reactor and its good by UK,we are literally sitting on massive reserves of energy,why not put it to use ,does it make any sense to leave millions of tons of fuel burried and persue a technology we dont fully understand ,a technology that is fraught with dangers and toxic waste.

[BBKing]

His comments make perfect sense.

Going back a few years and changing the fuel:

"We've got plenty of North Sea Gas, switching to using it for electricity means we're not at the mercy of Arthur Scargill or the Arabs"

The point is that it *runs out*, and if everyone switches to it it runs out faster. As someone else stated, a lot of it's in Kazakhstan, which isn't an especially stable place.

lets not rule out terrorist attacks one hijacked plane flown into a reactor and its good by UK

a) no it isn't
b) the risk of terrorist attacks is no basis for policy decisions

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Going back a few years and changing the fuel:

"We've got plenty of North Sea Gas, switching to using it for electricity means we're not at the mercy of Arthur Scargill or the Arabs"

The point is that it *runs out*, and if everyone switches to it it runs out faster. As someone else stated, a lot of it's in Kazakhstan, which isn't an especially stable place.



a) no it isn't
b) the risk of terrorist attacks is no basis for policy decisions

burying ones head in the sand does noty make the threat go away, and a plane hitting a reactor at 500 mph is something i dont want to see, and where did you dig up arthur scargill from, them days are gone

[BBKing]

them days are gone

'Those' days.

I was going back twenty years or so (when we had a coal industry that a lot of powerful people wanted to kill permanently for ideological reasons*) and digging up the arguments used for the 'dash for gas' which, as people pointed out at the time, was a short-term solution justified by specious argument rather than proper strategic thinking. I was drawing an analogy with the current 'dash for nuclear' which is a short-term solution justified by specious argument rather than proper strategic thinking, with the disbenefit that it takes a long time to build and is very expensive (though this will be got round by throwing planning controls in the bin and ignoring objections from the people forced to pay for it. Thus does British democracy flourish).

* Actually, the French nuclear industry was built partially to remove the power of the coal unions, so it's not just us.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Well l am 56, lived through the mining era, and l believe, with all the latest tech that they have today, they could overcome this,

Technology (assuming for a second that the companies have invested in it, which isn't a given) cannot overcome that particular problem. It also can't overcome the fact that supplies of coal are limited.

[iglu]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oxidising carbon without oxidising it? Interesting one that...

Here it is.