Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
19 October 2010
19:3675662and dont forget nuclear has healing properties to.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
19 October 2010
19:4275664Currently wind power is heavily subsidised by government and us the consumer, it is not an economically viable alternative; solar is getting cheaper from a micro generation perspective (i.e. at home) but is a limited option from a mass generation perspective for now, wave power is perhaps a longer term viable option but demands some serious engineering investment to get it to that stage and has a significant environmental impact in terms of altering tide patterns etc.
Whilst long term fossil fuels are limited there is significant investment by the major players in finding ways to maximise yields from existing sources as well as research and development of alternative energy sources (biomass, algae, solar etc.) in the short term we need to build on the work of developing greater efficiency in use of fossil fuels (e.g. fuel cells for cars, coal fluid bed boilers for power stations etc.).
Lesley is correct that we need to moderate demand, however all the studies I have seen suggest that for example the more efficient lighting becomes in terms of power consumption the more we use to light our homes so the power consumption does not drop, of course with a growing population it actually rises. It is a conundrum that is taxing many very clever people and our politicians.
So sadly the short to medium term answer to our power demand issues is a limited increase in the use of nuclear power.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
19 October 2010
20:1075672I always wondered how on earth a nuclear power station came to be built there in the first place (no neighbours to complain maybe). Dungeness is just a pile of shingle that has been drifting along the coast, it is never stable and since the 1950's a fleet of lorries has been taking shingle from the east side and dumping it on the west side to try and stop the errosion/movement. Just take a walk along in front of the power station and see how close it is to the sea. There are no stable rocks for foundations. It will have to be looked after for how many (hundreds) of years after it is decomissioned ?
19 October 2010
20:2875675There are more important issues than economic viability, even in todays world.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
19 October 2010
20:5875678Whatever happen`s down here, up there it`s got to be nuclear power all the way, and certainly where the future of our species lies. Let`s just hope a gamma ray burst doesn`t get us first, and render us extinct, as then it won`t matter at all.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
19 October 2010
21:2475682Back to Earth, and during the great coal industry days, massive slag heaps appeared, then years later that useless side product was found very useful in the building industry. The same went for all the millions of tons of power station residue accumulated over the years. Back in the 90s, it became a very useful and sought after commodity. My own personal feelings on the toxic waste is that it will be useful one day, and maybe 100(s) of years hence, or even less. We are a remarkably resourceful species, especially where dumping then recycling is concerned, and I don`t see nuclear waste as being any different. As to the new power stations, I don`t know where the info`s come regarding a 30 year life, but the first nuclear power station in the world, Calder Hall, (British) ran for 47 years, until 2003!
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
19 October 2010
21:4675684According to the BBC there has been a rush from farmers to set up fields of solar panels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11483542
Perhaps DDC could consider panelling over the Betteshangar Business Park and the DTIZ site for starters.
The feed-in tariff is guaranteed for 25 years and I cant see anything being done with the sites in the interim the way things are going......
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
21:5575687bob
there are times that i think you are being sarcastic, then i realise you are just trying to be helpful.
19 October 2010
22:0675691Howard, sarcastic moi?
Having had my proposals for a new cemetery at either/both sites knocked on the head I though I might try a different tack.
Still 25 years from now I suspect that we will all either be speaking Mandarin Chinese, Russian or Arabic depending which of them realises first that the shiny new aircraft carriers don't actually have any aircraft.
19 October 2010
22:3775693Colin, I am guessing that the figure of 30 years is the average life expectancy, but this is the figure generally bandied about and I am happy to be corrected. I wonder how old Dungeness was before being decommissioned? But even at the ripe old age of 47, that is an incy wincy percentage of the life span of the toxic waste material. And we are not talking about slag heaps here. We are talking about a product that interferes with the atomic structure of your body. Cancers, boils, ulcers - death by exposure is not quick, unlike those caught in an atomic explosion.
I am sure the Government will put some spin on it, but the truth of the matter is that this stuff is deadly and it will never go away in the lifetime of humankind. It will remain as a toxic legacy for all our ancestors, that'll be something to be proud of, huh? And where do you think the waste from the decommissioned plants has been put? I don't know, but I do know that the Government spends millions on nuclear waste. It has to be secure, it has to be guarded and this costs money. So, spread those costs over the future of humanity for the next few thousand years and you can see why nuclear is considered a turd for future generation. It is hardly cost effective, as some argue.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
20 October 2010
07:4775697Gd points lesley, this debate will go on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
20 October 2010
09:5475717I know all about radiation and it`s effect`s Lesley, and the difference between a slag heap and nuclear waste. Radiation and nuclear power has been an interest of mine for year`s. I know exactly the points you`re getting at though, but like it or not, nuclear power is the most efficient of all, and is here to stay. Can`t comment on cost`s. Regarding other alternative sources of power, remember the attitude a couple of years back about the wind turbine`s? It`s okay, but not in my backyard! Anyway, as Ross correctly says above, these devices are not very cost effective, and who wants to see thousand`s of windmills across the landscape? I would like to hear though of a `real` alternative though. If solar panels are so efficient, why aren`t we all going out and buying them for `free` energy? Let me hasten to add here that I`ve had a long time interest in this radiation business, and nuclear power for space travel on the astronomy side of it, and I don`t pretend for one minute to be any expert on the subject. Anything I mention is from my basic knowledge. Back in the early 90s I went to safety brief`s as I did get involved with the nuclear flask trains we worked in and out of the Dungeness power station railhead. If they still do it, and you get the chance, go on one of the site visit`s around Dungeness, and see another side to it all.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
20 October 2010
10:1475720Here's an interesting point that I've been trying to find the figures for but can't so you'll have to take my word for it (came from an Open University course originally) - because there is naturally a very small amount of radiation in the air, water and soil, this was taken up by plants and concentrated in coal over millions of years, so a traditional coal power station puts more radiation into the atmosphere over it's lifetime than is present in a nuclear power station.
20 October 2010
12:2375729Ray, yes you are right, radiation does come from coal and the ash surrounding a power station can be 100 times more radioactive than the surrounding area of a nuclear power plant. (see
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste). But don't get me started on coal! Brown coal produces 130 times more CO2 than methane (which can come from fossil fuels, or even better from sustainable biomass). So good news for all those around Kingsnorth that the new coal fired station is on hold.
Bear in mind though that this stat only refers to a secure and efficient nuclear power station where escape of radiation is heavily guarded against. A disaster at one of them is a disaster in every sense of the word.
And we could go nuclear free. Germany is a heavily industrialised country and generates its electricity using a much higher percentage of renewables than the UK. It has renounced nuclear and is not, as far as I know, going to build replacement plants (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/791597.stm) If they can do it, and generate lots of jobs along the way in green energy, then why can we not? I'm sure nuclear scientists are very clever people and would be able to adapt or learn new skills to work in the renewables industry.
Colin, if I had plans to stay in this country then I would definitely be putting up solar. Its crazy not to, with the generous feed in tariff offered by the Government. I haven't looked into it too closely due to my future plans, but I would imagine that there are grants available too, to help with the initial cost. You say you can't comment on costs in the nuclear waste programme, but in this day and age costs are important. Now I know that a Government only has a five year life span, and they are not going to look at the costs of nuclear storage after 30 years, but you and I have a commitment to our children not to allow these costs and problems to escalate in their lifetime.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
20 October 2010
12:5175732Lesley,
You certainly have a lot of knowledge of the Nuclear industry.
Its the waste that should concern us all,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
20 October 2010
13:0775734Thanks Keith. I am just a concerned citizen who can see through the spin and do some independent research. No affiliation to the nuclear industry at all. I understand that one of the 'solutions' is to build concrete capsules for the waste and dump this at sea.
Now, we live near the coast and we can all see how the sea erodes that which is in it. Those grains of sand were once part of huge boulders, bricks washed up on the coast are beautifully rounded off, cliffs collapse due to erosion. How can those who are paid to come up with these solutions even contemplate the sea as a 'safe storage facility'. Even if these capsules last 1000 years, that is not long enough! There is no such thing as a safe nuclear waste facility.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
20 October 2010
14:0475738Lesley,
still feel concerned at DUMPING ALL IN THE SEA not just nuclear but other stuff as well.
I'm sure this to is a serious health risk,
I'm still unconvinced at the water companies dumping sewage further out to sea, yet still dump it.
Plus everything else that gets dumped.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
20 October 2010
14:2975742Lesley, once I get involved in a good debate, I do get carried away, so a belated welcome to the forum from last night. I`m not up to date with toxic waste dumping, but I thought they`d abandoned all that dumping at sea in concrete. Underground storage where it can be monitored is fine by me, but I`ve always been against dumping in deep water for obvious reason`s.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
20 October 2010
14:3475743Colin,
Like you aas a regular poster I ommittedto say hello to lesley and welcome her,
So welcome lesley.
The storing of nuclear waste in concrete has its problems as produced by a panorama programme.
nuclear waste is an issue,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
20 October 2010
14:3975744Yes, Keith, it is a serious threat to marine life as well as a threat to our coastline. There is so much wrong with our modernised civilisation that it is hard to know where to start.
Sewage could be reused in biomass generators, creating green energy and jobs.
Plastic bags and bottles should be banned. There are alternatives, and plastic waste is a huge problem to the marine environment as well as to our beaches. There was such an uprising about the oil spill in the Gulf, but at the end of the day all that oil would have become pollution elsewhere, be it CO2, waste oil or plastics. It was only that it was so concentrated that it became a big media issue, and because crude oil is ugly and visible but airbourne pollution is all but invisible. Oil = pollution, in whatever form it takes. And before you ask, yes I do drive a car. But I try to keep its use to a minimum and if there were alternatives to oil, I would use them. But there aren't. The big money in oil makes sure of that.