Nuclear project in disarray as two pull out making new plants

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Mertle



Do you know how long that takes

Thats only one 3 ways earthquakes happen in intraplate earthquakes. Just giving you one possible reason for intraplate earthquakes.

Ask yourself this why do we get over 4 earthquakes. since 1931 6 which was over 5 and 1 those was a 6. Roughly every 12 years we get 5 or more we dont know where it will be next. We might be unlucky hits area which could do damage people lose there lives.

You do realise depends where earthquakes epicentre you could have things like liquidfaction.

It often is where the earthquake is depends on damage just lucky most are not towns/cities or areas great damage likely. number factors such ground type, remember spanish one. Less than ours but caused lots damage sadly death. Old homes narrow streets and the sandy soil. Smaller quakes been known to be more agressive than larger ones done more damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

About as long as it takes the governement to come up with a workeable energy policy

Not that long surely?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by mertle

Thats only one 3 ways earthquakes happen in intraplate earthquakes. Just giving you one possible reason for intraplate earthquakes.

Ask yourself this why do we get over 4 earthquakes. since 1931 6 which was over 5 and 1 those was a 6. Roughly every 12 years we get 5 or more we dont know where it will be next. We might be unlucky hits area which could do damage people lose there lives.

You do realise depends where earthquakes epicentre you could have things like liquidfaction.

It often is where the earthquake is depends on damage just lucky most are not towns/cities or areas great damage likely. number factors such ground type, remember spanish one. Less than ours but caused lots damage sadly death. Old homes narrow streets and the sandy soil. Smaller quakes been known to be more agressive than larger ones done more damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

Straws and grasping come to mind. I ask you this

How do we in the next 30 years produce enough power to feed this country with its anticipated power needs if we don't use Nuclear and i mean power on tap not at the call of nature ????

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Straws and grasping come to mind. I ask you this

How do we in the next 30 years produce enough power to feed this country with its anticipated power needs if we don't use Nuclear and i mean power on tap not at the call of nature ????

sirius not against them

read my post further back they necessary evil but we must plan for risks.

Until nuclear fussion we got go ahead with nuclear reactor hope they build generation III reactors but no harm planning to withstand 8 earthquakes.

Now some thing interesting new tech being developed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17219991

[AdamD]

I have no problem with nuclear power, but I DO have a problem when we create technology, which is potentially very dangerous and not create the same level of safeguards in case something goes wrong.

In the Fukushima incident for example, why did they put the emergency generators for the cooling system at a level which could flood?

It was build in an earthquake prone zone, situated right on the sea front, with the potential for tsunamis.

Did none of the super smart engineers figure that out before building it? heh

The problem though, isn't the technology, the problem is us.

I often wonder how people 100 years from now, would look back on the mess we're making of this world.

Dumping radioactive waste into the sea, burying radioactive material under the ground and burying carbon emissions in the ground, because we don't have the technology to get rid of it.

[mertle]

AdamD some good points japanese asking questions.

On why near the see my understanding was they would deliberately use salt water as emergency cooling. Problem is its can erode but they felt it was short gap measure.

I agree strange considering tsunami risks but actually did have good safety reason..

Sadly like aircrafts when they have what known risk management to costs. Why build say for 8 level earthquake costs enormous we only have 5 level earthquake. Costs overbearing reason for certain reasons. Hopefully like aircraft accidents they learn lessons .

The earthquake to be fair was very big seen the damage caused in bed of see like a staircase each level huge each. It caused really strong tsunami.

Not sure if japanese could built it stronger although mistakes in design like backup generators. If it would been in land it would likely ended a meltdown.

[Nidge41]

My my my how we need those coal mines that were closed all them years ago.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Nidge41

My my my how we need those coal mines that were closed all them years ago.

There is no way they would be cost effectve these days as the wages bill would have prevented that.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There is no way they would be cost effectve these days as the wages bill would have prevented that.

but now we have minimum wage and most of Europe looking for a job

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There is no way they would be cost effectve these days as the wages bill would have prevented that.

That's what the government said in order to defend their decision to close them.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Burning more coal will just make the oncoming climatic disaster happen sooner. The legions of deaths from that will make any nuclear accident look like a walk in the park.

That's why they have filters on the chimneys of coal power stations these days.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Filters don't stop the Carbon Dioxide that's causing global warming. Capture and storage of which is an unproven technology on a large power station scale despite the previous £1b prize on offer from the UK government, no takers.

In the short term until alternatives are developed, it's far better than releasing radiation into the environment.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

In the short term until alternatives are developed, it's far better than releasing radiation into the environment.

i agree with that .