Global Warming Mad

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, I'm a bit perturbed about people just talking about 'this country' - this country can never be self-sufficient in energy even 'unclean' ones like coal. It is an international problem and requires international action. The technology is there, or could be developed, to lay masses of solar panels across the Sahara and other deserts which could then distribute electricity all over the world. The electricity could be stored or used for electrolysis of water to make hydrogen for fuel if necessary.
Just needs international action .....

Originally Posted by nick_rowe

We have to find a solution for the world as a whole, not just "us".
The problem that needs solving is how to supply all the nations of the world with electricity-generation technology which is environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately nuclear is fuel is a finite resource which also becomes massively expensive when it comes to disposing of the waste and decommissioning (something that our nations still haven't worked out fully yet how to do). So it is not environmentally sustainable on at least 2 counts.
It staggers me that we are considering using nuclear technologies to solve an environmental problem of our own making It is wildly off-track ! The solution needs to be environmentally sustainable, not one making even more complex and dangerous environmental problems for the future!
Industry is always ready to jump to a solution without giving enough consideration to the dual-nature of the solutions they are proposing - they can see the dollar signs and want to make hay while the sun shines. What we as citizens need to demand are industrial solutions and innovations which are truly sustainable:
"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
And we need to do it now!

[Earth Hart]

On the Isle of Lewis they are wanting to put up a 240 turbine wind farm on a bog A turbine weighs 150 tons, they won't last long as they will sink or fall over. Also on Lewis, they are planning to build a farm on "The Sleeping Beauty", a range of hills near the Stone Circle of Callannish Great I hear you wind lovers say. But have you been to Lewis & seen the landscape, it's beautiful, a great tourist attraction. If the plan goes ahead it won't be. Still, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren what it was like & show them pretty pictures & videos of the land as it once was.

Sadly, we don't have the time to wait untill new technologies come to a stage where they can be put into full-scale production. Believe it or not, I want what's best for future generations & I wish I hadn't seen this all coming some years ago as now I find it hard to remain calm & diplomatic. Sorry all, for being a frustrated, angry old codger, who has the Earth at his heart & Grandchildren who would like to see Callannish in all her Glory.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

On the Isle of Lewis they are wanting to put up a 240 turbine wind farm on a bog A turbine weighs 150 tons, they won't last long as they will sink or fall over. Also on Lewis, they are planning to build a farm on "The Sleeping Beauty", a range of hills near the Stone Circle of Callannish Great I hear you wind lovers say. But have you been to Lewis & seen the landscape, it's beautiful, a great tourist attraction. If the plan goes ahead it won't be. Still, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren what it was like & show them pretty pictures & videos of the land as it once was.

Sadly, we don't have the time to wait untill new technologies come to a stage where they can be put into full-scale production. Believe it or not, I want what's best for future generations & I wish I hadn't seen this all coming some years ago as now I find it hard to remain calm & diplomatic. Sorry all, for being a frustrated, angry old codger, who has the Earth at his heart & Grandchildren who would like to see Callannish in all her Glory.

As to planting 150 ton structures on bogs, the reality is that they don't fall over, miles and miles of the railway network cross bogs these railways have been in place for 150 years and 130 ton plus locomotives and trains weighing more than 2,000 tons run over them without problem. So turbines tipping over or sinking is unlikely to happen at least as unlikely as a serious mishap with a nuclear power station. As to whether the windfarm goes ahead is a political and cosmetic issue not a technical issue. The real danger with nuclear is that one serious error and our children won't be around to see a future. A lot of people seem to think that what looks most pleasing for us is best for the environment and wildlife and survival, sometimes the reality is otherwise and I for one place more importance on the survival of the fauna and flora (and ourselves) as the first priority, another point to remember is that many of these "wildernesses" themselves are artificial creations of man rather than what would be there if nature had a free hand.

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

As to planting 150 ton structures on bogs, the reality is that they don't fall over, miles and miles of the railway network cross bogs these railways have been in place for 150 years and 130 ton plus locomotives and trains weighing more than 2,000 tons run over them without problem. So turbines tipping over or sinking is unlikely to happen at least as unlikely as a serious mishap with a nuclear power station. As to whether the windfarm goes ahead is a political and cosmetic issue not a technical issue. The real danger with nuclear is that one serious error and our children won't be around to see a future. A lot of people seem to think that what looks most pleasing for us is best for the environment and wildlife and survival, sometimes the reality is otherwise and I for one place more importance on the survival of the fauna and flora (and ourselves) as the first priority, another point to remember is that many of these "wildernesses" themselves are artificial creations of man rather than what would be there if nature had a free hand.

A friend of mine is a structural engineer, & was watching Countryfile with me, he laughed & said that the downward force would either cause them to sink or topple over. And I think he should know, he's had 35yrs in a major UK practice.

The load, 150tons, bearing down on a small area will have a dramatic effect, where as with a railway line, the load is spread over a greater area.

Even here in Somerset, the Glastonbury By-pass, which was built in the mid '90s, is now rippling due to subsidence.

Speckled wood, do youthink I would go for NP, if I thought your scenario would be played out? No. My deer, you're too wrapped up in fear to see where you are going wrong. I do suggest that you seriously read up on the subject & then come to your decision after fully understanding the overall implications. In fact, I think all of you who see NP as wrong should read up on it.

[lewisa]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

I think all of you who see NP as wrong should read up on it.

I second that motion. Having grown up under the cold war cloud, most over 20's have a unbalenced view of what nuclear is today.

Then we did face mutually assured destruction. Now we face erratic mentalists who might be able to cobble together a few bombs and a very small chance of localised accidental damage. Its a huge difference.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

A friend of mine is a structural engineer, & was watching Countryfile with me, he laughed & said that the downward force would either cause them to sink or topple over. And I think he should know, he's had 35yrs in a major UK practice.

Speckled wood, do you think I would go for NP, if I thought your scenario would be played out? No. My deer, you're too wrapped up in fear to see where you are going wrong. I do suggest that you seriously read up on the subject & then come to your decision after fully understanding the overall implications. In fact, I think all of you who see NP as wrong should read up on it.

I well remember an engineer telling 30 years ago that running 3,000 tonne trains at 60 MPH would not be possible, such trains have been running without problems since that time (soe of them originate from the Mendips. You engineer friend might be right, but then more probably he will be wrong and doubtless there will be a lot of other equally qualified and experienced structural engineers that think he is wrong.

On Nuclear Power there is your opinion, my opinion and the opinion of millions of other people on either side of the debate there will be highly qualified people, actually I am not wrapped up in fear but I am sufficiently aware and astute to realise that there are realistic and viable alternatives to nuclear energy that do not carry the same potential risk that Nuclear Power.

Ultimately we do have to face a very harsh reality which is that we are simply using far too much energy and we need to start using less energy because unless do not do so we will end up bulding thousands of nuclear power stations and sooner or later somewhere there will an an accident that will make chernobyl look like a storm in a teacup.

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

On Nuclear Power there is your opinion, my opinion and the opinion of millions of other people on either side of the debate there will be highly qualified people, actually I am not wrapped up in fear but I am sufficiently aware and astute to realise that there are realistic and viable alternatives to nuclear energy that do not carry the same potential risk that Nuclear Power.

Ultimately we do have to face a very harsh reality which is that we are simply using far too much energy and we need to start using less energy because unless do not do so we will end up bulding thousands of nuclear power stations and sooner or later somewhere there will an an accident that will make chernobyl look like a storm in a teacup.

First could you please name the "Viable Alternatives" & how they would cope with supplying enough energy to run our country & the rest of the world without taking us into another Dark Age? Forgive the pun but there will be blackouts to come if we don't get ours energy requirements sorted out in the next 10 years.

Secondly, the present day safty record of Modern NP stations is far better than 20 odd years ago so where will the accident come from that will eclipse Chernobyl?

I still feel that you do not know enough about the subject of Energy Generation in the 21st Centaury. I have spent the last 10 years looking at how people talk against NP without a background in the discipline. Even my daughter, who was against NP, has now come to see the need for it, as there are no other technologies that are up to speed in being able to generate enough electricity at the present time. She is a mother of two children & very much into the environment as a whole.

[Paul mabbott]

A lot of us have read up on it - not just taken the view given by the nuclear industry - every independent enquiry has always come down against NP. There are several problems:
Financial: the British nuclear power industry has never run at a profit, is grossly subsidised from taxes.
Safety: British reactors were built by the state to the highest specifications with top-class safety regulation yet there have still been leaks, near-misses and, as always, the problem of how to get rid of the waste ...
Long-term: nothing lasts forever and reactors sooner or later have to be decommissioned - what to do with the waste? Where to build the next one? There is a particular problem of on-going responsibility - standards may, at first, be very high but when there are budget cuts, loss of staff - Chernobyl ...
Responsibility: as mentioned, our reactors were built by the state and under strict control. Present plans are for private companies to build and run them ... probably multinationals: who will control them?
Where: no one is going to want them in their back yards - reactors shouldn't be built in areas susceptible to flooding (increasingly large parts of the country - look out Sizewell!), not on unstable geological structures, not in built up areas, not in natural areas .....
Technology: if someone gets nuclear fusion to work then maybe they'll be safe (is there any British research on fusion?) but fission is always going to produce hazardous isotopes which are a major threat to life where they are released ....

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

I do suggest that you seriously read up on the subject & then come to your decision after fully understanding the overall implications. In fact, I think all of you who see NP as wrong should read up on it.

[Earth Hart]

Paul, what do you suggest we use to run our country, that is as efficient at producing power as NP 24/7. 365 days a year, with little or no CO2 emissions?

I have read many reports from both the nuclear power industry & those outside, including those against. Yes, there are areas where we may beg to differ but from what I've read there is nothing now at the present that can do the job of NP. We have to have in place, in the next 10yrs, electricity generators to take the place of our existing coal, oil & gas power stations. As you seem to have the answers, what are they?

The French have been doing very well with their NP stations for tens of years, why can't we?

BTW I get the Hansard reports on Nuclear incidents, do you?

[Paul mabbott]

As many other people have said, first cut the 'need' - save 30% of energy use.
Then use everything else safe that is available - wind-power (15-20%), solar (10%? - but see my other comments on this), biofuel (doesn't need to be monoculture nor imported - can use some of our present surplus of sugar beet and corn but, more importantly, can use willow and other trees which can be grown to the benefit of nature - convert a lot of land by rivers into willow or alder pollards), work towards wave power (not tidal barrages, I would think), more hydroelectric (for some reason we seem to have pulled back on this in recent years) and get going on hydrogen fuel ..... all carbon neutral or saving ...

Yes, French reactors have been doing well for *ten* years - as I've said, apart from the cost, short-term issues are not the problem.

I don't see much of interest in Hansard - we know that the powers that be live elsewhere and publish as little as they can ....

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

Paul, what do you suggest we use to run our country, that is as efficient at producing power as NP 24/7. 365 days a year, with little or no CO2 emissions?
I have read many reports from both the nuclear power industry & those outside, including those against. Yes, there are areas where we may beg to differ but from what I've read there is nothing now at the present that can do the job of NP. We have to have in place, in the next 10yrs, electricity generators to take the place of our existing coal, oil & gas power stations. As you seem to have the answers, what are they?
The French have been doing very well with their NP stations for tens of years, why can't we?
BTW I get the Hansard reports on Nuclear incidents, do you?