View Full Version : Would you support a new nuclear power station at Dounreay?
According to a recent article in Scotland on Sunday (http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2062222005):
Blair gives green light to new nuclear power plants
TONY BLAIR has decided to back new nuclear power stations, which would be built on the sites of existing plants and presented to the public and his party as a job-creating answer to climate change.
A year-long government inquiry into Britain's future energy requirements is expected by the Prime Minister to conclude that more nuclear energy is the only plausible answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Would you support the construction of a new nuclear power station at Dounreay if such a proposal were to be made next year?
We are talking about a commercial power station here, not experimental reactors like DFR and PFR; but a power station more akin to the ones at Torness and Hunterston, each of which generates roughly 25% of Scotland's electricity.
You might wish to read the article in Scotland on Sunday (http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2062222005) before voting.
Ive heard whispers about this for a wee while now. In fact John Thurso mentioned it at the pre election hustings in the High School last May. Theres absolutely no chance of a commercial reactor being built at Dounreay was his opinion. Informed opinion up here say the same. Its more likely to be built in the central area. Probably Hunterston.
That being said I would give the project 100%support as the only means of maintaining power for the future. Mind you , windmills are cool too. :cool:
I would suport making dounreay a commercial reactor, as there is jobs, and emission free energy in large quantities. Far better than having every hill from Thurso to Truro covered in windmills.
Naefearjustbeer
14-Oct-05, 14:06
Is the national grid up here fit to deliver electricity generated from a modern reactor? I am all for nuclear power as mention already I dont want to see the whole of the highlands covered in windmills
Is the national grid up here fit to deliver electricity generated from a modern reactor? I am all for nuclear power as mention already I dont want to see the whole of the highlands covered in windmills
Not yet but reading between the lines (pardon the pun) I think the 'No to Pylons' protest may have something to do with the infrastructure needed to take nuclear energy from the North in the future.
cezzy1234
14-Oct-05, 18:25
yes its good for jobs and it also supports the local community
yes because the facilitys are already there, the staff with the experience in that field are there,its provides jobs and also good for the econemy for that location which doesnt really have much other big employers if you know what i mean.
And also its good investment into finding alternative energy fuels for the future generations because the fossil fuels isnt going to last forever
But with same token we also have to invest in natural power methods as well like solar,wind turbines as well
Am I missing something here?? Huh? Where's the poll?
500 odd views ond only 7 or 8 replies; only 30 odd or 40 odd poll results?????? Come on peeps: Lets use this to make a statement.
YES: A new power station at the Dounreay site! Definately. Makes more sense than pissy attempts at supplying more and more energy requirements to an ever expanding power hungry population! Where do these 'green' lovers expect to get their power from in the future??? Oh yeah, we can all go out and hug trees.... Of course the energy that will be expended there will light up cities for years! NOT!
I started a thread on this line a few days ago: Ressurect The Great Dounreay Site. We have a great concentration of Nuclear Power Experienced Personnel and facilities and support Companies etc in the area: Better to pump new money into resurrecting a Power Generating Facility here than to spend Multi Millions or Billions in turning a great facility back into a greenfield site for no future gain.............
Maybe this is too complicated a matter, or maybe too simple a matter for me to comprehend. I don't think so.
Where's the poll? Let me vote now!
Sorry: Couldn't see the Poll thingy when I logged into the thread at first... Done it now though.
BUT: This should go much, much further than a poll on Caithness.org......... How can we move this on???
BUT: This should go much, much further than a poll on Caithness.org.........
Oh it should indeed. I can likely take care of that if you want. I know exactly where the results of the poll should go. :D
Come on folks, keep voting. The results are interesting thus far but the statistics aren't good enough yet. And, yeah, I know it's not an unbiased sample, and it's by no means cheat-proof either, but it's informative nonetheless.
concerned resident
16-Oct-05, 10:25
I think it is just wishful thinking, hoping a new power station would be built at Dounreay. A site located it the far north would also be a none starter because the power is required in the south, and the power loss would be unacceptable. It would have to be a commercial company, which would have to be subsidized by the Government as it would not be financially viable. It would not be like before when Dounreay was built, as scientists then feared the experimental unit may have blown up.
It could possibly, not even be a British company. The existing work force would all have to be retrained.
Dounreay should stick to decommissioning, the only prospect of Dounreay getting anything in the future, is a waste dump, for nuclear waste not wanted down south.
So it is feasible then ;) :roll:
Well to have a private company in charge of a nuclear power station is not a good idea private companys are only intrested in profit and cutting costs.Nuclear power station have to be government run so everything is done properly safely and to protect it against possible terrosit attacks and i dont think private companys are ideal meeting that requirements and i most certanily against using uk in general as dumping ground for the rest of the worlds nuclear waste no matter how much profit can be made of it.
donreay would be an ideal place to continue into developing nuclear technolgy into the future energy sources and even a power source for the highlands and further if possible.And instead of wasting all the tax payers money over the years decommisioning the place they could be more creative and use dounreay to further the development of nuclear technolgy for a number of alternative methods.
As I understand it the present power supply lines are almost up to capacity, so there doesn't seem much prospect of a NPS at Dounreay unless more lines are built. Who's going to want more overhead lines between here and the south, that'll be a difficult one to get accepted. Underground lines are far too expensive to be viable. A modern NPS is typically generates 1300 MW of electricity, so lots of pwer lines needed, however there are some smaller units under 200MW being planned according to this link....http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
And instead of wasting all the tax payers money over the years decommisioning the place they could be more creative and use dounreay to further the development of nuclear technolgy for a number of alternative methods.
The location of Dounreay could well be used for siting a new NPS, however what already exists at Dounreay would still have to be decommissioned, regardless. You cannot re-start what facilities alread exist due to their current stages of decommissioning. Plus they were experimental, and only meant to last for a certain length of time, so it was known that the site would have to be decommissioned at some time.
It would be better to start afresh and build new state of the art facilities.
The expertise has gone too, more than likely, due to the physicists taking early redundancy, retiring, moving on to better things etc. The expertise that is left, only has knowledge of decommissioning, though I'm sure they could be re-trained.
Whatever the government decides, they would need to sort out the waste routes/repositories first, and as we all know the SNP are against nuclear power and nuclear waste in Scotland, as would other greens/NIMBYs, so I'm sure there would be major opposition.
The expertise has gone too, more than likely, due to the physicists taking early redundancy, retiring, moving on to better things etc. The expertise that is left, only has knowledge of decommissioning, though I'm sure they could be re-trained.
Absolute nonsense. Although dounreay may have relied on large numbers of physicists in the past that was because it was an experimental station, more of a physics experiment than a power station.
The bulk of employees at any working reactor plant are engineering personnel and administrative staff.
However a commercial reactor at Dounreay would only employ a fraction of the people there at the moment. How many were employed at PFR? How many at Vulcan?
I guess we won't get too many more votes on here, so perhaps I should send the results off to an appropriate person real soon now. Who knows, he might even read them, and perhaps even use them. Unlikely, I know, but highly improbable events do occur occasionally...
If anyone wishes to vote, but would like to read a little more about the various issues first, then there's a reasonably well-balanced set of articles on the Science/Nature section of the BBC News website. Click HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4216302.stm) to read them. Many of the articles under the headings Key Stories, Expert Views, and Background are quite informative. Some of the Related Internet Links make interesting browsing too.
Let's see if we can reach 100 votes. :D
MagicalTrevor
28-Oct-05, 10:19
Check out Finlands example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245298.stm
Also I saw on GMTV yesterday (hugely reliable source ;) that in the next decade or so 90% of our power will be taken from gas, and most of that will eventually be imported from foreign countries like the middle east.
Energy prices will soar due to import so we need an alternative. Im with the nuclear fans ;)
I think nuclear is a great alternative! Just build it/run it right and everything is great. Common sense type stuff.
They should build the new reactor over on the east side of the county. Wick needs a new energy source to power all those new retail parks etc. Building it locally would reduce transmission losses. ;)
porshiepoo
30-Oct-05, 11:16
Would you support the construction of a new nuclear power station at Dounreay if such a proposal were to be made next year?
Would we get cute little glow in the dark bunnies!
highlander2222
30-Oct-05, 12:36
Yes :D :D
I was a bit shocked when reading through this thread. Nuclear energy might not emmit noxious green house gases, but it doesn't come without a price. What about the spent rods, noxious to the template that encodes life itself (ie:DNA). We are only just waking up to the impact that a plastic bag thrown in the garbage has, and its life span is of only 3 odd years nowadays.
When you are talking nuclear power, you are talking polution from minute go: from mining the uranium to containing the spent fuel ( there is no way to dipose of it). It's half life runs anything from thousands to millions of years.
Not only that: accidents happen.They happen everyday because we are human and humans make mistakes. I can almost hear a collective groan of: "Oh, no not Chernobyl again". And it's true that it would be difficult to draw paralels between Chernobyl, a run down, poorly maintained and aged plant, with the strict controls in place on nuclear facilities in the UK. But, if nuclearpower is so innocuous whats with the very large no fish zone surrounding Dounreay??? Hmmmmm.....and if there are no accidents, why ere staff at Dounreay examined for radation inhalation just a few weeks ago??? And what is the name of that beach next to the plant where they pick up radio-active particles once in a while?????
To tell you the truth, I'd rather lie next to a wind farm than within a drivable distance of a nuclear plant ( and I can dive from here to Glasgow n a sitting when pressed to it! ;) )
I would love to understand why wind farming is such a huge problem when nuclear energy isn't. If it's the estetics, Caithness would not be coveredfrom tip to toe in windmills. There are even studies for off-shore windmills that would have a minor impact when considering the risks associated to nuclear energy. I would also argue that poles carrying electricity/telefone lines are very recent in historical terms, and yet for the most part we don't even "see" them anymore when appreciating a view. We have come to view them as a normal partof the enviroment.
If only the money poured into subidising nuclearpower plants," fixing" accidents and taking care of waste was redirected o developing alternative and renewable energy sources...... Ifyou have ever taken the time to look at the sea it's quite easy to imagine that efficient harnessing of its never-ending energy would feed our power hungry world.
PS: I've never hugged a tree, but am willing to give it a go.I have hugged cats and dog's though.... do they count?????
The issue of the spent rods is ongoing. But, we just haven't discovered an applicable use for them yet.
As for radiation? People are scared to death by these things simply because they use a nuclear reaction. But, a nuclear plant emits (at it's perimeter fence if you stand there all year) 0.1 to 0.5 mrem's per year. Your television set will give you 0.2 to 1.5 mrem's per year. A dental x-ray gives you 9.4 at one time. If you smoke, you're getting quite a few mrems too..more than anything. It takes 10,000mrems in one single dose to raise your chances of getting cancer by 1%. 100rems at once would make you sick and 450rems and over will kill you. So, these figures just to compare how safe it is.
*mrem Milli Roentgen Equivalent Man. Unit of measuring radiation absorption on living things.
RGM, very safe aslong as there is not an accident. But, you know what? Accidents happen. Often. And in the political climate we live in today, they might even be purposefully provoked (read terrorism).
Actually low grade Uranium was used in amoured vehicles, to proof them against attack. The problem was after they had been blown up, burnt and outherwise destroyed in places like....ohhhhh the gulf war, they needed to be cleaned up. Not that there is any (public) scientific proof, but the (non-existant) gulf war sindrome could be medically explained by inhalation of radio active particles which originated in the armour plated vehicles. But this sounds too much like a conspiration theory..... doesn't it?
and what is the problem with renewable energy????? After all the worst that could happen is a windmill falling over in a largely deserted field, maybe killing a sheep....orworst case scenario, a cow?
I would suport making dounreay a commercial reactor, as there is jobs, and emission free energy in large quantities. Far better than having every hill from Thurso to Truro covered in windmills.
"Emission-free" ! Wow! That will be a first!
But, the original question has certainly got the thread going. :eek:
A new power station would certainly inject into the county, what the decomissioning has not............a sense of "ownership".
Who knows? - a repeat of the 50s/60s - where people came to settle and bring up families.........here's hoping! :lol:
Nothing wrong with the windmills either, though!
RGM, very safe aslong as there is not an accident. But, you know what? Accidents happen. Often. And in the political climate we live in today, they might even be purposefully provoked (read terrorism).
Actually low grade Uranium was used in amoured vehicles, to proof them against attack. The problem was after they had been blown up, burnt and outherwise destroyed in places like....ohhhhh the gulf war, they needed to be cleaned up. Not that there is any (public) scientific proof, but the (non-existant) gulf war sindrome could be medically explained by inhalation of radio active particles which originated in the armour plated vehicles. But this sounds too much like a conspiration theory..... doesn't it?
and what is the problem with renewable energy????? After all the worst that could happen is a windmill falling over in a largely deserted field, maybe killing a sheep....orworst case scenario, a cow?
Very true. But, that's where common sense plays in. If you run it right and it's looked after, then there shouldn't be a problem. A nuclear disaster in the UK would be pretty disastrous to a political party, I think. One that they wouldn't want to see happen.
Things like Chernobyl and TMI happened because the basic fundamentals of upkeep and maintenance were ignored. There are many nuclear plants all around the globe and only two really caused any sort of havoc. It's been almost 20 years since the last accident anyway.
Terrorism is a valid point. But that's where strict measures should be put in to regulate who gets past the perimeter fence let alone into the actual plant itself. If effective measures are put into place, the terrorists will be at least discouraged (at least we hope.) Besides, if terrorists wanted to make a big statement, the way they'd do it is by detonating a dirty/atomic bomb in a highly populated area or do something like they did with the subway. That would have more of an effect then going gung-ho at a nuclear plant up there. These are points that have been tossed around quite a bit lately as to what terrorists would do and not do.
About Gulf-War syndrome. That's very much so a reality! All those spent uranium bullets and the armor you mentioned didn't just get swept into concrete blocks after the war ended! They are still there and they do make people sick. That is the unfortunate by-product of that war. I believe it will also be the by-product in Afghanistan and Iraq also. Dubya was thinking of leveling mountains (and the terrorists inside) with low-yield nuclear devices as well.
Hey I am all for renewable energy! :cool: If it was up to me, everything would either be Geothermal or nuclear fusion (fission being what we already have..fusion being the alternate nuclear). A geothermal would be good up there. Wind plants? Eye sores! Not many people want to see those looming over them let alone dotting the Highlands.
porshiepoo
30-Oct-05, 21:11
Have to say I would much prefer fields full of wind turbines that even one nuclear reactor plant.
Granted, the dangers of wind turbines perhaps hasn't been fully understood yet but can they really be worse than a 'chernobyl' disaster.
Besides I think they look pweeeety!! :lol:
As far as I can make out, the jury is still out on (the causes of) Gulf War syndrome. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war_syndrome) for example.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh recently commissioned an inquiry on Issues for Scotland's Energy Supply (http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/energy/) under the chairmanship of Prof Maxwell Irvine. An amazing amount of evidence (http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/energy/evidence/index.htm) has been submitted. Much of it is entirely predictable and a little is plain bonkers. However, some of it is really good and it's worth reading through. The committee looks a little academic to me, but I guess that minimises the danger of it being unbalanced by vested interests. I don't know Max Irvine, but I'm met him a couple of times and I would say he is a good choice as chair -- even if he is a theoretical nuclear physicist by trade! Most academics seem to be anti-nuclear by gut-reaction, and most are left-leaning and/or green politically, so their conclusions will be interesting reading.
I have read a lot of stuff about sources of electricity production and I don't think that wind turbines can provide a continuous, reliable, inexpensive large-scale source of electricity on their own. They are low-power-density, intermittent, and they still need a huge backup from a near-100% reliable source. (I haven't mentioned the issue of whether or not they spoil the landscape -- that is a different issue.) I'm not convinced by the combination of wind with tidal or wave power either, but I'm still open to persuasion on all accounts -- but only from people who know what they're talking about! ;)
As for fusion, it's still decades away, at best. Over the next few decades, we need something solid & dependable to replace the old nuclear stations and (eventually) the current gas-fired stations. Fission stations are not a panacea, they are indeed expensive to build, they produce dangerous waste products with long half-lives, and lots of lower-level waste too. They have to be looked after carefully -- they "burn" uranium and/or plutonium for God's sake -- and there are other well-documented issues. I am not a nuclear-fission fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but I predict that Max Irvine's committee will recommend the construction of new nuclear stations, and that the current Westminster government will push ahead with them -- despite what Holyrood currently thinks!
You heard it here first -- as cullbucket would say.
Have to say I would much prefer fields full of wind turbines that even one nuclear reactor plant.
Granted, the dangers of wind turbines perhaps hasn't been fully understood yet but can they really be worse than a 'chernobyl' disaster.
Besides I think they look pweeeety!! :lol:
Visual beauty is highly dependent on certain underlying believed principles.
If that belief is proved to be wrong then the perception of beauty will be severely affected.
An example of this would be a 4x4. Once over it was a status symbol because it showed that the owner was wealthy and he had the spare time to enjoy the countryside. Nowadays, they are considered to be gas guzzlers so they don't like as good as the used to.
Another is having a tan. Originally, having a tan was considered to be common that swarthy gypsy girls had. Then came Coco Chanel who first popularized a tan into western culture and for many years it was a symbol of decadence. Now because of the health issues with cancer, the tan is losing its beauty.
Obesity is another example, just look at any palaeolithic venus and any Reubens painting with todays models. Can you see a difference?
Windfarms are a symbol of sustainablity with the environment, if that was proved to be the opposite, would they look as good then?
, but I'm still open to persuasion on all accounts -- but only from people who know what they're talking about! ;)
I wrote my dissertation on the costs and benefits of windfarms,does that mean you will listen to me? :roll:
btw I have changed my views since then but that just means that I am more informed on my subject... ;)
porshiepoo
30-Oct-05, 23:05
Windfarms are a symbol of sustainablity with the environment, if that was proved to be the opposite, would they look as good then?[/quote]
Well if that was proved to be the opposite there would be no point to them, they woudn't lose their pweetiness just their functionality.
Nuclear power plants are something else. Surely with something we know to be a potentially enormous health threat, we should be more than happy to diversify into something that 'appears' to have less hazards.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess, but since windfarms are put up solely for their functionality then perceptions of beauty can only be drawn from their performance. Otherwise they could be just construed as follies.
On a purely personal opinion, if windfarms were shown to be the answer to our energy problems then they would be beautiful. If they aren't then I will prefer the hills to remain as they are.
It seems to me from porshiepoo's opinion that it will be worth putting them up even if they didn't work.
as I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
kwbrown111
30-Oct-05, 23:46
and what is the problem with renewable energy????? After all the worst that could happen is a windmill falling over in a largely deserted field, maybe killing a sheep....orworst case scenario, a cow?
What happens if one of the blades come off at the causeymire and lands on a car or even more chance a lump of ice flies of them. theres a lot more chance of that than being harmed by nuclear power
Nuclear power plants are something else. Surely with something we know to be a potentially enormous health threat, we should be more than happy to diversify into something that 'appears' to have less hazards.
Absolutely. But only if that something is capable of doing the job.
Rheghead, of course I listen to you -- well, usually lol. It must have been a year ago that we last discussed this issue.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 00:07
It seems to me from porshiepoo's opinion that it will be worth putting them up even if they didn't work.
Now see there you go again putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
I said that if they were proven to not do what they think they do then they would lose their functionality.
I stll think they look ok regardless, obviously though if they didn't work there wouldn't be any point to them being there.
One disaster at a nuclear power plant is all it would take for peoples health for miles around to be affected for decades to come.
Hopefully, that will never happen but if there is even a small chance of a new power source with hazards less than that of a nuclear power plant coming into fruition, then I say go for it.
What is it that people find so offensive about these turbines that they don't see in a huge golf ball surrounded by chainlink fence?
Also as far as I'm aware, turbines won't result in 'beach contaminated' signs being put up.
Also as far as I'm aware, turbines won't result in 'beach contaminated' signs being put up.
As far as I am aware, a new reactor wouldn't necessarily mean that there'll be contaminated beaches in scotland.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 00:55
As far as I am aware, a new reactor wouldn't necessarily mean that there'll be contaminated beaches in scotland.[/quote]
Really? I'm not sure what the beach is called but just a ways along from the plant in thurso thers a nice beachy / covey point. But don't get out the car as there are land contaminated warning signs on it. Lovely! [mad]
and what is the problem with renewable energy????? After all the worst that could happen is a windmill falling over in a largely deserted field, maybe killing a sheep....orworst case scenario, a cow?
What happens if one of the blades come off at the causeymire and lands on a car or even more chance a lump of ice flies of them. theres a lot more chance of that than being harmed by nuclear power
Let me see if I understand exactly what you are telling me:you find dodging an icicle incredibly more dangerous than dodging radiation? Hmmmmm....... personally I think I'd have a far greater chance of surviving ice thrown from those wicked windmill blades than a nuclear accident.
Would you mind me asking if refuse to get into a car because a tyre might blow?
Think a little, live alot
As far as I am aware, a new reactor wouldn't necessarily mean that there'll be contaminated beaches in scotland.
Really? I'm not sure what the beach is called but just a ways along from the plant in thurso thers a nice beachy / covey point. But don't get out the car as there are land contaminated warning signs on it. Lovely! [mad]
You seem to know very little about the nuclear energy industry.
The beach contamination is from an experimental programme, not from a commercial nuclear reactor.
kwbrown111
31-Oct-05, 10:15
Well Ju i can only presume you have 6th sense if you think you would be able to dodge the icicles as you wouldn't see them coming. Personally i think nuclear has a lot more advantages than disadvantages and more reliable. the only way renewables would be able to supply all the power we need is if they were spaced out at distances 100ft between all over the country. i presume you will be one of the ones who won't complain when there is no electricity or heating and you are freezing to death.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 10:21
i presume you will be one of the ones who won't complain when there is no electricity or heating and you are freezing to death.[/quote]
Um! Thats happening to old people now :( And it's not because there is no heating it's cos they can't afford it :( :(
kwbrown111
31-Oct-05, 10:24
True but i will certainly be a lot worse not only old folk
i presume you will be one of the ones who won't complain when there is no electricity or heating and you are freezing to death.
Um! Thats happening to old people now :( And it's not because there is no heating it's cos they can't afford it :( :(
Currently with fast breeding technology, there is about enough uranium resources to supply electricity at current demand for 2000 years.
Too cheap to meter?
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 10:29
Currently with fast breeding technology, there is about enough uranium resources to supply electricity at current demand for 2000 years.
Too cheap to meter?[/quote]
Great! pehaps they'll bring the prices down :eyes :eyes
Put wind turbines up I say and get rid of all nuclear reactors. :)
Currently with fast breeding technology, there is about enough uranium resources to supply electricity at current demand for 2000 years.
Too cheap to meter?
Great! pehaps they'll bring the prices down :eyes :eyes
Put wind turbines up I say and get rid of all nuclear reactors. :)
A menu for disaster,
both for the environment and for the old folks. The energy will be too dear for them and the heating will have a habit of going off when the wind drops.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 10:39
A menu for disaster,
both for the environment and for the old folks. The energy will be too dear for them and the heating will have a habit of going off when the wind drops.[/quote]
Don't know! Theres enough wind on this site to keep the whole country going :lol: :lol:
Could get smelly though! [lol] [lol]
A menu for disaster,
both for the environment and for the old folks. The energy will be too dear for them and the heating will have a habit of going off when the wind drops.
Don't know! Theres enough wind on this site to keep the whole country going :lol: :lol:
Could get smelly though! [lol] [lol]
Porshiepoo, 3 questions
1) What would be the minimum distance that you would find acceptable to live near a windfarm? (To help you, it is about 300m from the road to the nearest turbine at Causeymire and about 2 km to the furthest turbine)
2) What percentage of the UK's energy do you want to be generated by land based windfarms? (Kyoto recommends 60% renewables by 2050)
3) Given your criteria in 1) and 2), what coverage of the UK that is covered by windfarms would you find unacceptable? Give answer in percent.
Answer those questions then we will see if windfarms are worth while.
Great! pehaps they'll bring the prices down :eyes :eyes
Put wind turbines up I say and get rid of all nuclear reactors. :)[/quote]
Wind turbines can not replace power stations, you have to have the power stations as well to supply electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
Which leaves us a choice of coal, oil and nuclear. Coal would have to be imported from Poland as we don't have a mining industry any more, that would be expensive. Oil is a limited resource, we haven't enough to keep going much longer ourselves and would have to start importing oil and gas, that would be cheaper in the short term but once world oil production peaks anything can happen. World oil production could well peak in the next few years.
So apart from small scale local power production, such as coppicing, we don't have too much choice. I think the government will probably go with oil and gas as by far the cheapest solution short term and put pipelines in across the channel. I think they would be making a big mistake.
AIRYFAIRY
31-Oct-05, 12:12
Rheghead - found your comments regarding a nuclear power station very interesting! :D How does the fact that because the beach was contaminated by an experiment make it justified? :confused Its still contaminted is it not? I certainly would not wish to live anywhere near a nuclear power station - do I take it you would? or is your house nowhere near it either? :roll: There has been a proven increase in cancers related to nuclear power stations, and who really knows just what damage is being done to plants, animals, people etc etc..
If there is an alternative way of providing electricity then it seems only logical that it should be used - does it not? :confused
There has been a proven increase in cancers related to nuclear power stations
Your source please Airy.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 12:43
Porshiepoo, 3 questions
1) What would be the minimum distance that you would find acceptable to live near a windfarm? (To help you, it is about 300m from the road to the nearest turbine at Causeymire and about 2 km to the furthest turbine)
A damn sight closer than to a nuclear power plant!
2) What percentage of the UK's energy do you want to be generated by land based windfarms? (Kyoto recommends 60% renewables by 2050)
As much as is feasible.
It's a fact that wind power is the worlds fasted growing source of energy after solar and is the most established sustainable energy market around the globe with Europe dominating about 90% of the market ( I think). If recommendations from the likes of Kyoto say 60% then who am I to argue!
3) Given your criteria in 1) and 2), what coverage of the UK that is covered by windfarms would you find unacceptable? Give answer in percent.
Yes headmaster :eek:
Personally I don't think it matters what I find acceptable or unacceotable.
The thing is there shouldn't need to be a huge coverage of turbines. 1 turbine at a reasonable site would produce 4.7 million units of electricity a year which is enough to meet the annual needs of 1,000 households.
Before these turbines are put into place, a mass of things are taken into account i.e. land boundaries, overhead lines, meteorological masts, public safety, risks from failure, ice etc, aircraft activity, existing radar and communications systems etc etc.
The reason these turbines are placed where they are is that these are the areas they need,i.e. the best places for turbines are coastal areas, open plains and gaps in mountains where the winds are strong and reliable, needing an average wind of around 10 mph.
The other point to consider is that the average wind farm will pay back the energy used to manufacture it within about 3-6 months , one nuclear power plant takes at least 6 months.
Maybe the question should therefore be how much are we willing to sacrifice in the cause for renewable energy? Asthetics to me is much more acceptable than health hazards from nuclear plants.
Why not harness a free commodity such as wind and adapt it to provide a clean renewable energy source? As times and technologies progress the turbines will probably decrease in size as they increase in numbers anyway.
It won't be too far away before we have depleted all non-renewable sources of energy such as oil etc and then what do we do? Perhaps we will then look into a growing trend thats currently in several developing countries, geothermal energy.
Answer those questions then we will see if windfarms are worth while
Ah bless! Are you suggesting that my opinion is the deciding factor in whether windfarms are worthwhile or not :lol:
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 12:45
Wind turbines can not replace power stations, you have to have the power stations as well to supply electricity when the wind isn't blowing.
At the moment yes! Wait for solar power to step up a gear or geothermal energy to really take off. Then Goodbye power stations!
AIRYFAIRY
31-Oct-05, 12:52
JJC - one of my sources is www.kare-uk.org/coreguide/trainguide.htm ;)
There continues to be an increase in childhood leukaemias around Sellafield.
Do your own research and you will see.
Rheghead - found your comments regarding a nuclear power station very interesting! :D
Thank you! Are you willing to answer my questions 1-3?
How does the fact that because the beach was contaminated by an experiment make it justified? :confused Its still contaminted is it not?
I am not justifying the contamination, I was just putting you all straight on the fact that fuel particles will not end up on a beach as result of a commercial nuclear reactor.
I certainly would not wish to live anywhere near a nuclear power station - do I take it you would? or is your house nowhere near it either? :roll:
OK you have strong views on nuclear power, but what is the alternative? Answer my questions above then I will have a greater understanding of your ideas.
, and who really knows just what damage is being done to plants, animals, people etc etc..
If there is an alternative way of providing electricity then it seems only logical that it should be used - does it not? :confused
There is a direct relationship between exposure to radiation and the risk of cancer from direct observation.
I find the Dounreay risk assessments of walking along Sandside beach to be reassuring.
Ah bless! Are you suggesting that my opinion is the deciding factor in whether windfarms are worthwhile or not :lol:
As I thought, you weren't prepared to commit yourself to the answers, non committal.
I wasn't trying to make out whether you are the deciding factor on windfarms, I was trying to work out whether you actually understand the problem with windfarms in a logical manner or that you are advocating the use of windfarms purely on a leap of Faith.
It seems you are the latter...
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:06
OK you have strong views on nuclear power, but what is the alternative? Answer my questions above then I will have a greater understanding of your ideas.
But rheghead, I, Porshiepoo has already offered at least 1 viable source of alternative energy. Geothermal energy.
Whats the point in me answering your questions if you're going to ignore whats been said :lol:
I find the Dounreay risk assessments of walking along Sandside beach to be reassuring.[/quote]
Well if thats the beach I went to that had 'contaminated land' plastered on it.
Good luck to ya! ;)
AIRYFAIRY
31-Oct-05, 13:07
Rheghead - where is your evidence that fuel particles will not end up on beaches as a result of commercial nuclear reactor? :confused Could it be possible that not all risks from the assessment of Dounraey were available for public viewing?? :eek:
For the record - no- I dont feel the urge to answer you questions - why dont you try answering them yourself, you might learn something! :lol:
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:09
Ah bless! Are you suggesting that my opinion is the deciding factor in whether windfarms are worthwhile or not :lol:
As I thought, you weren't prepared to commit yourself to the answers, non committal.
I wasn't trying to make out whether you are the deciding factor on windfarms, I was trying to work out whether you actually understand the problem with windfarms in a logical manner or that you are advocating the use of windfarms purely on a leap of Faith.
It seems you are the latter...
Oh Rheghead I understand both the concept and functionality of wind energy perfectly well believe me!
So, just because I haven't plastered a long list of problems, that must mean my belief in the windfarm must be a leap of faith [disgust]
The advantages out weigh the disadvantages every time!
Not so with the nuclear plants. No matter how advantageous they are they just kinda don't beat the disadvantage of health related risks we know they produce.
Rheghead - where is your evidence that fuel particles will not end up on beaches as a result of commercial nuclear reactor? :confused Could it be possible that not all risks from the assessment of Dounraey were available for public viewing?? :eek:
For the record - no- I dont feel the urge to answer you questions - why dont you try answering them yourself, you might learn something! :lol:
Fuel rods won't be machined at a commercial reactor.
All records relating to the particles are available for public viewing.
HAHA, another hazy pointer that is non committed to the cause...another leap of Faith
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:12
All records relating to the particles are available for public viewing.
Ha ha thats what you think. Now that's a leap of faith. :lol:
Ah bless! Are you suggesting that my opinion is the deciding factor in whether windfarms are worthwhile or not :lol:
As I thought, you weren't prepared to commit yourself to the answers, non committal.
I wasn't trying to make out whether you are the deciding factor on windfarms, I was trying to work out whether you actually understand the problem with windfarms in a logical manner or that you are advocating the use of windfarms purely on a leap of Faith.
It seems you are the latter...
Oh Rheghead I understand both the concept and functionality of wind energy perfectly well believe me!
So, just because I haven't plastered a long list of problems, that must mean my belief in the windfarm must be a leap of faith [disgust]
The advantages out weigh the disadvantages every time!
Not so with the nuclear plants. No matter how advantageous they are they just kinda don't beat the disadvantage of health related risks we know they produce.
It appears that you don't, I have been reading your posts!!!
All records relating to the particles are available for public viewing.
Ha ha thats what you think. Now that's a leap of faith. :lol:
Not only are you a hazy pointer but you are a conspiracy theorist as well. LOL LOL
You have just wasted some of my life...
AIRYFAIRY
31-Oct-05, 13:16
What makes you so sure ALL records were available - is it because thats what they told you?! :lol: :lol:
For the record I am no "hazy pointer", just someone stating that I personally would not want to live so close to a "time bomb" of destruction - did not realise my personal opinion should be scientifically supported and agreed by high all mighty you! ;)
Well for the record, if the UK produced 15% of its power from land based windfarms then 75% of the UK would be covered by them.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:19
All records relating to the particles are available for public viewing.
Ha ha thats what you think. Now that's a leap of faith. :lol:
Not only are you a hazy pointer but you are a conspiracy theorist as well. LOL LOL
You have just wasted some of my life...
I beg to differ there! YOU have just wasted some of your life :lol: :lol:
I assume you work in the dounreay facility somewhere then?
Never mind lol someone had to :lol:
Perhaps you should do regular anatomy checks though :confused
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:21
Well for the record, if the UK produced 15% of its power from land based windfarms then 75% of the UK would be covered by them.
Why is the only substitute to nuclear energy, wind farms?
What about other renewable sources??
You're not biased are you Rheghead, surely not :lol:
All records relating to the particles are available for public viewing.
Ha ha thats what you think. Now that's a leap of faith. :lol:
Not only are you a hazy pointer but you are a conspiracy theorist as well. LOL LOL
You have just wasted some of my life...
I beg to differ there! YOU have just wasted some of your life :lol: :lol:
I assume you work in the dounreay facility somewhere then?
Never mind lol someone had to :lol:
Perhaps you should do regular anatomy checks though :confused
It is a known fact that nuclear workers have good health record.
No, I do not work at the Dounreay complex.
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 13:25
It is a known fact that nuclear workers have good health record.
No, I do not work at the Dounreay complex.[/quote]
OK, if you say so. Course the general public would get to hear about it if that wasn't quite so wouldn't we? ;)
Well for the record, if the UK produced 15% of its power from land based windfarms then 75% of the UK would be covered by them.
Why is the only substitute to nuclear energy, wind farms?
What about other renewable sources??
You're not biased are you Rheghead, surely not :lol:
Now you are finally talking sense, partly. There is loads of alternatives to fighting climate change than the wanton destruction of the countryside. The real threat is from fossil fuels.
No, I am totally unbiased, I can just as easily argue for windfarms and be far more effective than what I have seen from either you or Airyfairy ;)
concerned resident
31-Oct-05, 19:39
Dounreay Spillage
I thought we should not forget the latest news, that the skilled trained staff , allegedly ignored the alarms, now its going to take 9 months to clear up, and cost us the poor old tax payers, 1million pounds. What with the other mishaps (being polite) lately, and no one is responsible or accountable, what sort of secret society is this.
UKAEA ’s hopes of getting a new contract, I would think have gone down the drain with the hot spots, and the staffs canteen meals will disappear when the new contractor is in place, as there will not be enough staff left for it to be viable.
It might be a good idea to get some more Dounreay staff and relations, to vote in the poll
Then there may be a few jobs, when they decide to send all the waste up here to be dumped .
porshiepoo
31-Oct-05, 19:43
Oh Dear! It would appear our concerns with regards to nuclear power plants are not unfounded after all.
Lets ask the people who are affected by this very real threat. Nuclear power plants or wind turbines?
Isn't methane produced from porshiepoo?
north_skye
01-Nov-05, 11:42
Yes i would support a new power station in caithness.
It would bring more opportunities for young people within caithness and provide the folk of the county with skills for life and a sustainable future.
What we would do with out it , return to fishing (not likely Ross Finnie has seen to that for the scottish fleet) return to farming ?? become Wind Farm engineers ??
I for one do not want to the scenic beauty of our Northern landscape covered in windfarms.
Yes I would support a new nuclear power station in Caithness.
We've lived with the current model for 50 years, and its been the lifeblood of the county.
What's the alternative ? Be realistic...... wind farms, wave power, etc just isn't going to provide the demand for power which we have. I studied the energy options years ago whilst doing an OU degree course. The overwhelming fact is that we will have to continue to use nuclear power to meet the demand. Fossil fuels just will not cut it. Neither will the green alternatives. Thats not to say that the alternatives shouldn't be used. In fact I am of the opinion that they will have to backfill requirements, but probably at best only amount to less than 10% of total demand.
Whitewater
01-Nov-05, 12:28
This has been an intresting thread, and some good points have been muted by all involved.
Fosil fuels are causing great harm to the Earths eco systems and they are also expendible. Too much is being put into windfarms, the consequences have not been properly thought through, who in there right mind would go for anything that at it's best is only 20% efficient, it's just plain crazy like the government that thought it out.
Nuclear energy has not had too good a press recently, many people are questioning it and rightly so, mistakes have been made, but you must remember that the goal posts are being shifted all the time. A few days ago in Wick the construction team at the 'Homebase' sight chopped through a power cable, Lidls lost all there refrigerated produce. You know the outcry if a power cable had been cut at Dounreay, national headlines, even though Dounreay has emergency supplies. How many people have been killed in the Nuclear industry?? People are being killed off shore and in the Construction industry daily and not a word said, you may see a few lines in the Sun or some such paper but that appears to an acceptable cost. Imigine a death at Dounreay no matter what the cause, people would be shouting for closure, a heart attack I'm sure would be blamed on a spurios beam of radiation coming from some highly active area.
Thank goodness Dounreay has on of the best health records in it, and Rhegers agrees all the workers have good health records, and he has not worked in the nuclear industry.
I support a new nuclear powerstation, whether it will be sited at Dounreay is a question for the Government and designers. A Commercial Fast reactor was designed in the mid 90s but it is doubtful if it would have been sited at Dounreay had it been built. However, under the current regulations it is doubtful if a Safety Case could ever be produced to satisfy the Regulators, but we can only hope as Nuclear power is the only way forward.
porshiepoo
01-Nov-05, 12:34
Yes i would support a new power station in caithness.
It would bring more opportunities for young people within caithness and provide the folk of the county with skills for life and a sustainable future.
What we would do with out it , return to fishing (not likely Ross Finnie has seen to that for the scottish fleet) return to farming ?? become Wind Farm engineers ??
I for one do not want to the scenic beauty of our Northern landscape covered in windfarms.
The windfarms will soon be hidden by all the development anyway!
Besides what is so more appealing about the sight of a nuclear power plant compared to a wind farm? Surely the danger a power plant imposes kinda takes the edge away from it!
Surely clean, renewable power is better!
Besides isn't one of the reasons for everyone being in favour of development, for the job prospects for the young uns?
Surely we don't need to ok a nuclear power station based on the same theory.
There are more favourable ways to harness power without the need for such a eye sore not to mention danger.
One disaster from that reactor and we're left with decades of aftermath.
Why not spend the money it would take to get another reactor up and running into more wind farms, more solar power and geothermic power.:eek:
What's the alternative ? Be realistic...... wind farms, wave power, etc just isn't going to provide the demand for power which we have.
It just might, with propper planning, it could well provide for our demand for power. The problem is it wouldn't provide for everyone elses demand for power.
I think the way forward is for each area to be responsible for generating their own electricity. I don't mean do away with the national grid, I mean each area be capable of producing the electricity they use. The possibilities then become far greater, Caithness would have several options. An area may still go with oil and gas but then they get the polution. An area could still go with nuclear, nuclear doesn't have to be big, they put them in submarines, they would then take the risk. An area with coal could well decide to open up a coal mine. Caithness could go for peat, wood, wind, tide or a combination.
It would be expensive, very very expensive but safe, the country wouldn't be relying on one source of power, one area goes down they can buy power from other areas till they get back. It would be green, people are less likely to polute their own area than someone elses, prepared to pay a bit more for their power for a cleaner environment.
It wouldn't make economic sense now but after oil peaks or if their were a major nuclear accident it would.
What with the other mishaps (being polite) lately, and no one is responsible or accountable, what sort of secret society is this.
My logic does, from time to time, fail me. Perhaps this is one of those occasions because I really cannot understand how it is that you are using reported incidents which are in the public domain and which you clearly know about to suggest that there is a conspiracy of silence.
Enlighten me, please?
JJC - one of my sources is www.kare-uk.org/coreguide/trainguide.htm ;)
There continues to be an increase in childhood leukaemias around Sellafield.
Do your own research and you will see.
Sorry Airyfairy, I'm not ignoring your post. I'm a little busy at the moment and feel that this subject deserves more than five minutes of my attention.
However, let me assure you that I have done my own research on this and I think you'll be surprised at the differences (not least in their legitimacy) between peer-reviewed, scientific studies and personal statements of opinion made by campaigners of groups such as "Cumbrian's Opposed to a Radioactive Environment".
Anyway, more later... and if you want someting to do whilst you're waiting perhaps you might like to read the Tenth Report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. It's a cracker.
porshiepoo
01-Nov-05, 13:50
Anyway, more later... and if you want someting to do whilst you're waiting perhaps you might like to read the Tenth Report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. It's a cracker.[/quote
A bit obnoxious jjc to assume that AiryFairy would actually wait around desperate to hear your next biased word on the matter.
One can only assume from the sarcastic tone the last sentence had, that you assume she will then think you are more intelligent than you actually are due to the fact that you seem to need her to know that you read such benign drivel.
Poor jjc, do you need your ego stroking!
It's a fact that there are more numbers of childhood leukaemias around sellafield and thats without a leak! Imagine the dangers imposed on nearby residents of those that live near these facilities, it must be quite a worrying thought.
Best move to the relative safety of wind farms, oops, maybe not, someone might get hit by a propellor;) and that would be sooooo much worse.
Before you ask, no I don't have to live near the turbines but neither do I live near a reactor plant so my opinion is completely unbiased.
Fred made a good point with regards to each area being accountable for it's own energy supply and use. It would probably be expensive but the resources are there to build the nuclear plants so why not move with the times (after all everyone wants tescos lol) and diversify into something 'cleaner' and 'safer'.
One can only assume from the sarcastic tone the last sentence had, that you assume she will then think you are more intelligent than you actually are due to the fact that you seem to need her to know that you read such benign drivel.
Now you are making assumptions about assumptions. Will you never learn? :rolleyes:
Oh, and if you consider COMARE reports to be benign drivel then I’d suggest that you are in the wrong thread.
It's a fact that there are more numbers of childhood leukaemias around sellafield and thats without a leak! Imagine the dangers imposed on nearby residents of those that live near these facilities, it must be quite a worrying thought.
You’ve made the same assumptions - again with the assumptions! - as Janine Allis-Smith has done in the article which Airyfairy linked to: you have taken a statistical cluster of childhood leukaemia in Seascale, you have assumed that this is due to increased radiation doses and you have assumed that it is representative of all nuclear facilities.
Before you ask, no I don't have to live near the turbines but neither do I live near a reactor plant so my opinion is completely unbiased.
As you well know, whether you live near to a nuclear plant has absolutely no bearing on whether you hold an opinion on nuclear safety and, therefore, neither proves nor disproves any bias.
porshiepoo
01-Nov-05, 17:13
Now you are making assumptions about assumptions. Will you never learn? :rolleyes:
Oh, and if you consider COMARE reports to be benign drivel then I’d suggest that you are in the wrong thread.
[/QUOTE]
Your opinion jjc! But FYI I am very much aware of the the 10th COMARE report, which is why I called it benign drivel. The backtracking in that report, however un-dangerous to the health, flowed like saliva from the mouth - Benign drivel :p
You’ve made the same assumptions - again with the assumptions! - as Janine Allis-Smith has done in the article which Airyfairy linked to: you have taken a statistical cluster of childhood leukaemia in Seascale, you have assumed that this is due to increased radiation doses and you have assumed that it is representative of all nuclear facilities
Yes but see all previous COMARE reports found that there did appear to be increased numbers of childhood leukaemia and non-hodgkin lymphoma within 25km some of the sites, sellafield being one of them.
However, in their wisdom they decided that a firm conclusion was not possible unless it was supported by further data. Convenient!!!!!!!
Perhaps the latest COMARE report has backtracked a little but they agreed before that Dounreay did show excesses of some types of childhood cancer, that may have been way back in '88' but they now claim that even that was incorrect. So if they've been wrong once what stops them from being wrong again?
As you well know, whether you live near to a nuclear plant has absolutely no bearing on whether you hold an opinion on nuclear safety and, therefore, neither proves nor disproves any bias.[/quote]
I don't believe I said it did. I merely tried to point out to you that as I live near neither windfarms or radiation city, I have no preference based on that. My humble opinion is wind farms are safer!
porshiepoo
01-Nov-05, 17:15
I find it so ironic that you're quick to believe 1 report (albeit COMARE) that claims everything is relatively safe and choose to blissfully ignore the years worth of reports that claim there is a high risk of cancers near to the plants. (Ignorance, as they say, is bliss!)
But when faced with experienced opinions from people who have lived in quiet towns turned into sin cities, you claim these to be OTT.
Just out of interest, what was it that caused the chernobyl plant to blow? Human error wasn't it? Now, statistically what would the chances of that have been? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? But it happened once and look at the destruction it caused!
What would happen to the windturbines if there was a human error? They wouldn't blow up! They wouldn't leak radiation and poison every living thing for miles around.
What a perfect way for a terrorist to exact revenge, through nuclear plants.
Spacemonkey
01-Nov-05, 19:35
Just a thought.
Which would you consider more hazardous to the health, safety and wellbeing of the citizens of this country?
Nuclear power, or no power?
porshiepoo
01-Nov-05, 20:15
Just a thought.
Which would you consider more hazardous to the health, safety and wellbeing of the citizens of this country?
Nuclear power, or no power?
Why does no nuclear power mean no power at all?
concerned resident
02-Nov-05, 16:02
JJC Quote.
My logic does, from time to time, fail me. Perhaps this is one of those occasions because I really cannot understand how it is that you are using reported incidents which are in the public domain and which you clearly know about to suggest that there is a conspiracy of silence.
Enlighten me, please?
The secret society part is where no one is accountable, for being incompetent, and wasting Tax payers money. Who else could afford to do this other than a Government Body. I apologise if you thought I meant the masons, as it was always alleged they had a lot of members at Dounreay.
Health of employee’s at Dounreay, I had three relatives who worked there, none of them every reached the age of retirement to collect their pensions. Remember this is a Government Department with its own publicity department, ready to put spin on any bad publicity.
Harmless power Stations, some one should ask the eleven farms still being monitored after the Chernobyl incident.
Health of employee’s at Dounreay, I had three relatives who worked there, none of them every reached the age of retirement to collect their pensions.
I'm sorry to hear that but your statement is rather bald. Without probing into your family business I don't know what their medical history is - they could have all had heart attacks or been hit by buses!! I'm not trying to be flippant but just because they died before retirement age and worked at Dounreay does not automatically mean that they were subject to something underhand which led to their deaths and was therefore hushed up by a Government Agency!
porshiepoo
02-Nov-05, 17:42
Fifi, I've tried the Chernobyl point but people choose to ignore it, amazingly! :rolleyes:
That was down to human error and while people may claim that there is hardly any risk of a leak at these plants all it takes is one 'slack Jack' and goodbye health, hello ill health.
I completely fail to see how people can compare the health hazards of the turbines to a nuclear power plant!
I know that there are dangers associated with the wind turbines e.g migratory birds that like to use the strong winds but other than that it's mainly the fact that some people think it's an eyesore. Surely asthetics shouldn't come before health?
And for anyone that doesn't think Dounreay is a health risk, how would you feel if yourself, a member of your family or your child was diagnosed with one of these cancers and you could find a link between the cancer and working at the plant?
Spacemonkey
04-Nov-05, 14:52
Why does no nuclear power mean no power at all?
The govenment and its advisors have identified a gap in the energy supplies available against projected demand, this gap is expected to make its presence felt in about 5 - 10 years.
What do we have available or in the pipeline to fill this gap, curently nothing.
Renewable energy in the form of wind/wave power is woefully ineficient and will never provide a reliable base load.
Fossil fuels are running out at a rate of which most people are blisfully unaware. at present, most of our fossil fuel is now imported, either from, or with supply chains running through, countries which, shall we say, are not on our Cristmas card list. This leaves oor energy supplies attrociously vulnerable.
In addition, fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste by burning them. Our grandchilren will undoubtably look back in horror and disgust at a society which wantonly destroyed such a valuable asset and deprived them of the raw materials from which plastics, medicines etc are derived.
What does that leave us with?
Fusion and/or efficient solar power is decades away. So, if not nuclear, then what?
Our society is energy dependant, remove that energy and society, as we currently know it, ends. Most people will not thank you for defending them from the supposed horrors of nuclear power only to leave them to starve or freeze to death.
Its interesting that whilst we older folks seem to have "issues" around nuclear power the teenagers at my sons school have been discussing it for sometime. It appears they dont have the same sort of issues as we do - there seems to be a general acceptance that without nuclear power there is likely to be no power at all and whilst they support the wind farms they also see the need for nuclear power. My son and a group of his friends were telling me all about it the other day - it was interesting to see how open they were to the idea
porshiepoo
04-Nov-05, 17:09
I'll admit education with regards to nuclear power is a good thing, especially with a community that has to live with it. As long as the education isn't biased and debates the pitfalls as well as the one or two :D good points.
I'm not suggesting shut down power plants and do a mad scrabble for energy what I'm saying is that we have depended on nuclear power for too long now, so instead of investing in new plants, invest that money into cleaner power so that eventually all power plants can be shut down.
concerned resident
04-Nov-05, 19:01
After mentioning the incompetence of the skilled staff,in a previous reply, I neglected to mention the security of Dounreay police letting tourists drive through the Main Gates, and now there counter parts in Springfields Nuclear site in Preston Lancashire, have lost a Hand Gun and Ammunition, as reported by the P& J. This Department is the Security for Nuclear Power Stations, we should be quite safe, as any terrorists probably can’t stop laughing.
Fifi, I've tried the Chernobyl point but people choose to ignore it, amazingly! :rolleyes:
That was down to human error and while people may claim that there is hardly any risk of a leak at these plants all it takes is one 'slack Jack' and goodbye health, hello ill health.
Chernobyl was brought up at the beginning of the thread. It was run down, with no proper maintenance (EU standard maintenance). The reactor should have already been retired. There was no safety programme. There were design flaws in the reactor itself and no properly emergency procedures.
Mostly, though, it was old and an accident waiting to happen. There was no one person to whose error could be blamed for the melt down, but a series of errors on all heirarquical levels.
With regard to plants in the UK and rest of Europe, I would hope that there would be a firmly established culture of safety. I would also hope that all critical control points were monitored and that not any ONE ("slack jack") person could, by their mistake, provoke an accident, however minor.
But yes, accidents happen, and I wouldn't want to be near a nuclear one. I do not believe that reporting of accidents, close accidents or scientific studies on the effects of living in the vicinity of nuclear reactors are wholey transparent. It is in no money generating industries interest to make public knowledge anything negative about their industry, unless they have to. Think about mobile companies that would decry studies that link pathology to the prolonged use of mobile phones ( NOOOOO....there is no effect, but don't let your child, under age 9 use one #sarcasm#). Think sixties/seventies when tabacco companies vehemently denied any cancerous effects their products had.
I would prefer to use energy that does not impact on a world already suffering so much from our presence. I believe that the study and development of alternative energy sources would alleviate the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy (Not that we are going to have the choice o fossil fuels forever). In 1940 no one could imagine nuclear power generating energy to heat our homes and power our industries. Who knows where renewables will lead us eventually. Maybe (I hope) we will look back 50 years from now, in horror, at the types of energy we used.
Personally I prefer hugging trees!
Personally I prefer hugging trees!
Me, I prefer something with fur.......... cat, dog, bunny ( what were you all thinking I meant? ;-)
Yes, I would support the building of a new nuclear power station at Dounreay, and have just cast my vote. Even before reading the Scotland on Sunday article, my answer would have been affirmative. :)
sheep_doctor
08-Nov-05, 01:46
ill support any team if they win on a regular basis:confused:
A ring , a ring of electrons
A pocket full of protons ,
A fision , a fusion
We all fall down
porshiepoo
08-Nov-05, 02:04
Hahahaha, how very apt!
Ring a ring of pylon blades
a pocket full of dead birds
A swooshing, a swooshing
They all fall down
Try this game out!
http://www.ae4rv.com/games/nuke.htm
News today, looking good if you would like another reactor at Dounreay. This doesnt mean that we would get one up here, but you never know.
The Government could be ready to give the green light to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The Prime Minister is reportedly convinced that this once feared technology can now help beat global warming and satisfy our massive appetite for energy.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 10:28
This is true, however there won't be a new nuclear power plant in Caithness, unfortunately.
This is true, however there won't be a new nuclear power plant in Caithness, unfortunately.
What is your reason for saying this?
Read about John Thurso on nuclear power (http://www.sundayherald.com/53305) in today's Sunday Herald.
He sounds pretty on-the-ball to me.
What is your reason for saying this?
I have a understanding that the HRES only supports an upgrade to the Dounreay-Beauly line from 275kV to 550kV. This will be just enough to support all the windfarms. However, the 275kV was only to support the 'small scale' reactor on the Dounreay site, if a commercial reactor is to be sited up here then I expect that the Dounreay-Beauly line needs a major over haul rather than a piecemeal upgrade.
If it could be said that there was a foolproof way to get rid of waste and it could be guaranteed that there would be no further pollution of the county of my birth and we could rely on the honesty of the powers that be and the veracity of the information they give out,then yes, I might be in favour. Say what you want about wind farms, but they can be dismantled and removed at any time with no lasting harmful effects. To endanger the future of my children so that we can continue to enjoy unlimited power now is criminal and selfish to an astonishing degree. To crusade against wind farms because they destroy our appreciation of the scenery here and now and because a few birds might move on to their next incarnation early(or at their appointed time?) is selfish to a shocking degree. The wind farm on the Causewaymire is far nicer to look at than the desolation left by the digging up of masses of peat and not many raged against that desecration of our landscape.
Pollution from the internal combustion engine and the voracity of their appetite for oil is harming our ecology in so many ways but the trend is to make more and more of them. If the race is at all concerned about the future , then conservation of energy is more important than creating more.
How many of us, however, are prepared to cut back on the use of our labour saving devices and go back to a simpler time when we had no problem with global warning,a failing Gulf Steam or all the other major problems that we and,more importantly, our children will have to cope with in order to survive the absolutely horrendous problems that have been left to us.
landmarker
06-Jan-06, 20:00
I'm no expert but I think nuclear is as essential part of our future energy needs. The locals clearly want it. So do I, with of course the latest technology and every safeguard under the sun. THe risk is minimal, but the benefits, and the uncertain alternatives make it worthwhile in my opinion.
Do the locals want it because it guarantees local work for a longer period.
The risk cannot be calculated from any direction and the alternatives manifold,eco-friendly and safe.
landmarker
06-Jan-06, 20:30
Do the locals want it because it guarantees local work for a longer period.
The risk cannot be calculated from any direction and the alternatives manifold,eco-friendly and safe.
not as reliable as a power source though, in the main.
Clean coal could be another option??
Clean coal is a finite source and to utilise it would be short term.New sources must be clean and renewable.
New Year Resolution about to be broken and it's only the 6th. Promised myself I wouldn't bang on about wind energy anymore but given recent developments just couldn't resist responding to Gleber2.
Wind energy will NOT replace any of our existing base load generators - coal, gas, oil AND NUCLEAR. Wind energy is in addition to not instead of other types of generation.
Coal, gas and oil are all dirty and pollute our atmosphere contributing to climate change. Nuclear creates a dirty waste product but doesn't emit CO2 so is the lesser of the evils. While we demand a steady supply of electricity it has to be generated somehow.
It would be 'nice' if wind energy could supply the demand but it can't. Therefore any sacrificing of our landscapes is a complete waste of a very precious commodity and is going to do nothing for future generations - except possibly give them a laugh at the absurdity of our actions.
Clean coal is a very real and sensible option for the short and medium term - we have a few hundred years of coal supplies. Unfortunately whether we like it or not we need nuclear until a more reliable form of renewable generation - tidal for example - has been developed. If we hadn't wasted both the time and the money over the last 10 years on wind energy the technology would probably have been available by now.
I agree with one thing Gleber2 said - energy conservation should be the priority along with small scale and micro renewables (including wind) to reduce the demand on the grid.
And we haven't even begun to tackle an even dirtier polluter of CO2 than electricity - transport.
It would be 'nice' if wind energy could supply the demand but it can't. Therefore any sacrificing of our landscapes is a complete waste of a very precious commodity and is going to do nothing for future generations - except possibly give them a laugh at the absurdity of our actions.
Clean coal is a very real and sensible option for the short and medium term - we have a few hundred years of coal supplies. Unfortunately whether we like it or not we need nuclear until a more reliable form of renewable generation - tidal for example - has been developed. If we hadn't wasted both the time and the money over the last 10 years on wind energy the technology would probably have been available by nowquote]
I am no authority on the facts and figures of the case,but I would rather the future generations laughed at our efforts with wind as they easily clean up the aftermath of our actions,than curse us for the insanity of leaving them with a pile of highly active waste. Money wasted on wind against the money wasted on fast reactor development. Which is greater I wonder?
I would rather see a concentrated effort to reduce the absolute waste of energy until we have enough to cover our needs or until we have moved beyond the need for electricity by inventing a substitute.
If every small community had their own wind farms and everyone tried to be self sufficient the problem would be greatly reduced. If the locals arround each farm benefited directly from local power generation instead of the income going into the pockets of the private developers then,perhaps, there would be less people fighting the wind farms.I smile when I pass a wind farm but I shudder each time I pass Dounreay,Torness etc.
I dont see nuclear power as the devil its painted out to be. How do we de-invent it now its been discovered? We have to learn from our mistakes though. Thats what the guys decommissioning Dounreay keep saying. Its unlikely a reactor would be built up here in the near future but I believe the future is nuclear.
It has been said by quite a few people to me recently,that the improvement in the roads,planning permission now being granted for formrly rejected housing plans and the coming to the county of several large stores is an indication that something is going on that we are not being told about. Makes me think!!!If we have a future, I sincerely hope that it is not nuclear but I seem to be in a minority in these parts.
Until Global Warming nobody bothered in the least about Coal Fired Power Stations. When I compare the millions of deaths caused by them give me Nuclear anyday.
I don't know if you've heard the song "Dirty Old Town" but that was written about the place I lived most of my life in. Until the 1970s it had the distinction of having the highest rate of deaths from Bronchitis in the whole of Britain.
Most of the fear over Nuclear is because it was originally opposed because "they are using it to make bombs" and it was automatically tied in with that.
Most people can understand gas, coal and oil but nuclear is a mystery to most people, they only have a vague idea of how it works. This makes it far easier to create scare storied.
When I was a child there was a huge scare after an incident at a place called Windscale. "Don't drink the milk, it's full of Strontium 90 and Cesium 80."
As kids, when there was still School Milk, we used to say "Pass us a bottle of Strontium!" I'm still waiting to find out what horrible effect it is going to have on me. If I find out before I die I will let you know but so far, so good!
And just to clarify a point, I have no links with the Nuclear Industry and never have had!
Now the pigeons in Windscale(Sellafield) have been found to be at the same level as low level waste. My father was there during that scare and turned against nuclear energy completely until he died. I spent three years as a very inneficient scientific assistant at Dounreay and, although no expert,I learned enough to agree with me Dad.Even the emmissions from coal fired generaters can be filtered and cleaned although that is not a road I would like us to travel.
Gleber2
I am no authority on the facts and figures of the case,but I would rather the future generations laughed at our efforts with wind as they easily clean up the aftermath of our actions,than curse us for the insanity of leaving them with a pile of highly active waste. Money wasted on wind against the money wasted on fast reactor development. Which is greater I wonder?
I think you missed the main point being made. The choice can never be between nuclear and commercial wind energy. It's only possible to use wind energy with energy from conventional power stations. So why use it at all????
I'm not a supporter of any particular energy source but I do know that we need a steady, reliable source unless we wish to bring the country to its knees.
Jaws raised a very valid point about the dangers of mining if we choose to go down the clean coal road. We have very little supply of oil left and we read only this week how fragile our imported gas supplies are.
So just say we had no oil, no gas and no coal. What then? It has been calculated that wind energy needs between 75% - 90% of backup available at all times from baseload generation. I think I'm right in saying that nuclear can't be used as a backup as it can't be turned up and down as required - when the wind blows too hard or not at all.
Lights out!! If we are forced down the nuclear road there is NO requirement or use for commercial wind energy.
If the consumer is happy to have electricity only when wind conditions are right and engineers find a way to overcome the massive instablility put on the grid and we are happy to cover the country in thousands upon thousands of wind turbines - wind is the answer.
Perhaps I did miss your point and I grovel at your well informed feet.:) I have no real feeling for or against wind power but I am competely against Nuclear as a power source. Hydro power could be developed and a lot of experiments are being carried out using biomass such as compressed hemp. Atom power seems to be an easy option but,in my book, try everything else first.
It's only possible to use wind energy with energy from conventional power stations. So why use it at all?
Wind energy is supposed to mitigate fossil fuel consumption when the wind blows. I would take a lot of convincing that they can't under that condition.
Imagine an old steamship like the 'SS Great Britain' that crossed the Atlantic. It had sails as well as coal fired engines. When the wind blows the captain throttled off the engines and the ship kept an even keel, likewise, when the wind dropped, the engines came online with no loss of performance.
The net effect is a very noticable reduction in the use of coal in comparison to a ship that had not been fitted with sails.
This is totally analogous to the use of windpower for the national grid.
Rheghead, I feel you have the right of it.Does this mean that you are anti-nuclear?
.Does this mean that you are anti-nuclear?
No, I am all for a mixed energy strategy but with the profile of the use of fossil fuels being reduce, that can only mean an investment in nuclear.
Dounray is a global monument of mankinds scientific problem solving skills.
In the fifties, the challange of building a power station to last a few decades was easy compared to the problems now faced deconstructing it. Often overlooked are Dounrays upper managment team, composed of some of the greatest scientific thinkers in the Uk, if not the world.
They face very complex projects which have never been attempted before. The decision makers are like explorers walking into wild woods, with no tracks and no signs to follow. While most of us worry about making and keeping money, their words and actions decide the saftey of many people and they put their balls on the line, daily.
If I was a white coat, looking at the global nuclear scene, I would see a glaring alternative to closing my site down. I would install a Generation Four PBMR. What is a PBMR? It is a high-temperature helium-cooled reactor using a direct cycle gas turbine. Essentially it is a nuclear plant which is inherently safe, presents lower-cost options and facilitates problem-free siting.
How does a PBMR work? The nuclear fuel is contained in 60 mm diameter pebbles, then helium at a temperature of about 500 €C is introduced into the top of the reactor. The building and development will create many more jobs than at present, and their is no limit to its expansion.
G4 would lodge Dounray as the worlds leader in the production of eco-safer nuclear power, and Caithness will remain a scientific frontline well into the 22nd century.
Rheghead, if I remember correctly, Brunnel had the masts and sails put on the Great Britain to keep the public happy.
A ship of such a size with a propellor was a brand new concept and there was a fear the paying public may feel some uncertainty about it's ability to cross the Atlantic.
The PR being, "Don't worry, we've always got sails to get us there safely."
The frightening thing about the ship is that even with modern computed design propellors nowadays are only about 5% more efficient.
Of course, modern things are always a vast improvement on what's gone before. ;)
You seem to know what you are talking about. How would you deal with the waste inherent in the use of nuclear power?
How would you deal with the waste inherent in the use of nuclear power?
A lot of the waste is generated needlessly through ignorance and bad planning. An overhaul of this would greatly reduce it.
Reduction of waste is OK for the future maybe but what about the massive ammount of waste world wide which needs to be addressed in a safe way? A half life of 250,000 years is a daunting prospect and we do not seem to be able to see beyond tomorrows dinner and next weeks oil and electricity.
By the way,your inbox is full Rheghead.
Well I went to the meeting at the Reay Hall re. the plan to bury low level waste on the Dounreay site. I saw nothing wrong with the plan in principle.
tierce-de-picardie
09-Jan-06, 18:18
im jsut a kid dont really know anything about the political sides of nuclear energy. but im sure this thread will apreciate yungsters views considering we will one day be the local old.
i think a new nuclear power station would be excellent really its the way forward. because really we dont have lavish supplies of fossil fuels left. Nuclear is relativly safe and clean as ling as dealt with properly and safly i think. it would also be a gud sorce of electricity for the hydrolysis of water for the hydrogen as that is said to be the next fuel for cars ect. i think so ye im all up for nuclear energy
Geological instability in the very long term would be enough for me to disagree with the proposals,particularly if more than Dounreay's waste is being talked about. It is more on a global rather than local situation which concerns me.
Gleeber2. Modern nuclear production methods cause little problem with waste, and the method I mentioned has very little waste to be concerned with. The present waste problem we face now is bad, but as problems go, what to do with nuclear wastle is virtually non existent compared to the imediate damage caused by burning ff's.
Waste nuclear products are controlable, burning fuel is not. Waste nuclear fuel may be reusable, or decontaminatable in the future when our technologies have advanced. I would rather bury it safley, and give my children a chance to tackle the problem, rather than perpetuate the present oil and coal crisis and resuting problems.
What do you think the solution is?, cause if you aint part of the solution.....(haha)
What to do with nuclear waste is a big problem all right, but at the moment our governments face many layers of waste material problems. For example, America is forced to ship Asian nuclear waste into the U.S to reduce the risk of it being sold to terrorists. Many countries have America in this political corner. This 'take it from us or else' situation means quietly and regularly, thousands of tonnes of toxic materials are shipped through the San Francisco Bay on the way to Idaho storage sites. This is a major vulnerability, for if one of these ships spilled its cargo the entire San Francisco Bay and the Pacific goes green.
Relating more directly to your views in the current 'has the world gone insane' thread, but very relevant here:
Reuters reported on June 13, 1997 that voters in the town of Bolshoi Kamen (near Vladivostok) voted in a non-binding poll to reject a proposal that would have allowed a floating nuclear waste processing plant to be docked near them. A floating nuclear waste processing plant. Regional governor Yevgeny Nazdratenko has warned that unless something is done about the huge quantities of low-level nuclear wastes, they will be dumped into the Sea of Japan, a threat that elicited alarm in Tokyo.
Pure insanity.
The instant we split the atom, the few who represent the many had a crucial decision to make. Funds from the weapons program could have been redirected into developing safe, long-term energy production plans. They could have faced the really hard waste disposal questions from the start, but the knight took the bishop. Since splitting air in Japan, proving his ferocity to the world, the mighty atom has been at war since.
There are now so many nuclear waste related military situations like those mentioned above, for all the nations to come together and develop then adhere to a logical waste strategy is an ideal which may take many centuries to manifest.
As I see it. Allegorically, mankind has played social and political chess on a flat board for many hundreds of thousands of years, but when the atom was split, the board transformed into a cube. It appears chopping atoms comes with a web of social problems, as multi-dimensional as the subject matter. The trouble with cubic chess is it takes so long for a winner to rise, more often than not, both players give in way before the true conclusion is reached, a messy battlefield being all that is achieved.
I once had this theory put to me.The Universe is a machine in perfect balance with anti-matter balanced against matter.Positive and negative universes so to speak.Since the splitting of the atom we have ,for the first time,been destroying matter and in consequence we have upset that balance and the seesaw is teetering. Who knows,he could be right and we all know what happens when matter meets antimatter.ONE BIG BANG!!!
Thanks for your detailed and knowledgable replies to my queries on waste.
I once had this theory put to me.The Universe is a machine in perfect balance with anti-matter balanced against matter.Positive and negative universes so to speak.Since the splitting of the atom we have ,for the first time,been destroying matter and in consequence we have upset that balance and the seesaw is teetering. Who knows,he could be right and we all know what happens when matter meets antimatter.ONE BIG BANG!!!
That's not a theory. It's a few sentences of random ramblings by someone who hasn't a clue what he's on about. :lol:
It's interesting though. I imagine it could make perfect sense if you don't know any of the relevant physics. As a metaphysical postulate, it sounds wonderful -- full of insight and imagination.
I'm not going to shoot it down or point out what's wrong with it, because that would be boring, and I would be little more than a bully for doing so. It would be much more interesting if you or your postulating friend could elaborate a little. Go on, I'm all ears. I won't be too rude -- I promise. :D
At this point, the script probably calls for someone to ask how I know it's rubbish, or for someone to tell me I should be more open-minded.
I'm glad your smilie is on there my good Doctor.or I would be thinking you were a latent opinionated bully.:eyes Of course it's rubbish if a man of science says so and you should be more open minded.After all,they put poor old Gallillo(sp.) to death for something that proved to be right.:grin: Metaphysical expostulates are singular and peculiar to the particular metaphysisist and to explain a point he would have to explain his train of logic from the start.How boring and pointless,a bit like life really.[evil] [smirk]
Lol, nice retort! :D
I don't have to be opinionated to shoot it down. I could guide you to a website that would do it with pedagogical and objective precision. But, as you say, I prefer to be latent. Sad innit? :eyes
After all,they put poor old Gallillo(sp.) to death for something that proved to be right.
Incorrect.
He was placed under house arrest and was allowed to live his life in relative comfort while still inventing things.
Humbly corrected. They must have killed somebody round about then?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.