Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Discussion in 'The Front Room' started by Scouse, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. rynnor

    rynnor Rockhound Moderator

    This is true but it also degrades your entire circulatory system, fucks up your lungs and makes you stink so its not without other downsides...
     
  2. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    In fact Thorium used to be mentioned in the 40s all the time alongside Unranium. Bertrand Russell talked about them in the same breath in a lecture :)
     
  3. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    No.

    Absolutely. And it should be. Anything to use up the power that will otherwise sit decaying over a longer period of time.


    FWIW we've got ourselves into a bit of a fix over nuclear and should do what is necessary to get ourselves out of it.

    I'm with Lovelock on fracking and methane. Wind isn't truly renewable anyway (long term only solar is - and we've not currently got the tec or the political maturity to plaster large swathes of the Sahara with solar and cheaply transport the energy over all of europe - which is what the head of the UN environment committee (*or whatever it was called) said he would do...)

    I'm against new build. I don't think it makes a lot of sense given our inability to deal with nuclear waste. But there's no sense whatsoever dismissing the other alternatives out of hand.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  4. rynnor

    rynnor Rockhound Moderator

    Other than they are bloody useless at supplying our energy needs and require a ton of conventional generators for when they arent working.

    Oh and they are massively driving up electricity costs, blight the landscape and fill the pockets of the rich at great cost to the poor - but scouse loves them because hes living in la la land.
     
  5. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    Actually, raging-rynnster, you'll notice that that post started with me saying we should reprocess nuclear waste, that I'm with Lovelock on fracking and methane and that I don't consider wind to be a "true" renewable.

    Hardly wishy-washy stuff eh? But keep on raging m8. Keep on raging :)
     
  6. rynnor

    rynnor Rockhound Moderator

    What else is there - solar is a joke and unless you are Iceland geothermal isnt going to get you far either so what are these mystical alternatives to current methods?
     
  7. Cemeterygates

    Cemeterygates One of Freddy's beloved

    Dunno if it's just me, but that seems quite irresponsible....."we won't be here so fuck it". No different to leaving the world in a shit pile for 5 generations away...."I won't be there so why care"
    Kinda proves how shit we are as a species really.
     
  8. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Or a logical attitude to risk vs susperstitious cowering.
     
  9. Job

    Job The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse

    We can harness the wind..but its not easy money for the investors..so it wont happen..the real wind is five miles up and wed need kite like structures to grab the 200mph winds..very useful..but noones going to make money out of it
     
  10. old.Tohtori

    old.Tohtori FH is my second home

    Well going to ignore Scouses "Nu-uh" arguments and answer this;

    The plan here is that there is no maintenance(as stated on the article). It's built, it's covered with tested materials and then forgotten. No matter the political or sociological reasons no-one has any reason to go there. There's only saltwater in the area, there's nothing in the ground worth digging up and the site all in all will be unremarkable at best. In essence it's not just a burial that will keep people safe from it, but also a site that will keep it safe from people.

    Why i have faith in this instead of, say, the US making this is that Finland has a better track record of going through with plans and we don't do things half-arsed, or double-paid. Comparing this countries that run or die with politics isn't exactly apt, instead should be judged by the science behind it(which is solid(har)).

    Oh and no harm on the condescending part, just sounded that way ;)

    And point still stand anyway on the harm being 0 from nuclear power.
     
  11. Hawkwind

    Hawkwind FH is my second home FH Subscriber

    67 billion is a lot of money but what is that as a percentage of the output? How much was the electricity worth when sold over those years? Agreed it is a large number but given the alternatives even Greenpeace agree that it is the way to go.

    The first part of that is plain wrong. British Scientists were at the forefront of nuclear/reactor tech. The issue now is that only governments or extremely large multi nationals can even afford to mount such mega projects. For the past 30 years successive UK Governments have preferred to farm out such work to the Private sector. The costs of such major projects are a huge barrier. Personally I think the Government should step up, keep it British and help fund it. Nationalise a percentage of the end business and use the long term profits to invest in the technology and cleaner methods of disposal.

    http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=1041&newsid=2646

    Centrica pulls out the UK new build siting costs, forecasts for the project exceeded their 1 billion GBP cap.
     
  12. old.Tohtori

    old.Tohtori FH is my second home

    To sum up the thread; nuclear power is like giving a tribal a bazooka. Sure it might get the job done, but it only really works if you know how to use it.

    Well, to sum up my opinion on the matter ;)
     
  13. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    That's *just* on current waste storage at Sellafield. Not on construction or running of owt.
     
  14. Bahumat

    Bahumat FH is my second home

    Didn't Co-Op buy Sellafield?
     
  15. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    2.8p / kWh I believe.
     
  16. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    Let the Earth do it for you; drop it into the subduction zones along fault lines and let it disappear below the mantle. Its been proposed quite a few times, but it would require a fundamental change to the international disposal treaties (Treaty of London) because you'd have to do it at sea, which is currently illegal. Legislators don't like it because obviously you can't control the way subduction layers behave or the time it takes to do its stuff, but there's active tectonic activity going on the sea bed literally all the time.

    Firing it into space is a hilariously unsafe, and bear in mind cost per KG for rockets is mind-bogglingly expensive and spent fuel rods are fucking heavy.
     
  17. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    IIRC that's been discounted because some bright spark modelled it and showed that there was a small but real risk that when a volcanoes go through their pop-shots significant amounts of the offending material can be ejected into the atmosphere.
     
  18. TdC

    TdC Trem's hunky sex love muffin Staff member Moderator

    that sounds like fun actually: design a delivery casing that is safe enough to allow us to inject it in to magma, but will degrade quickly enough that said casing won't be ejected from a volcano as the world's most well-meant dirty bomb :D
     
  19. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    Seems a bit unlikely; the volcanoes around subduction zones aren't right on top of them, they run parallel, and the sheer volume of magma involved would mean spent fuel rods would be literally a drop in the ocean. The fact is, there is no "zero-risk" solution for the disposal of any waste products, not just nuclear waste; you just have to work with the best odds (waste disposal would be a massive issue with plastering solar panels all over the Sahara as well).
     
  20. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    I agree, but the magma-disposal one involves a lot of unknowns and an unquantifiable one is probably worse than a known one. Better the devil you know, so to speak...

    As for waste from saharan solar - yep, it'd be a lot of waste, though much of it would be recyclable and none of it would kill humans who were simply stood near it.
     
  21. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Couldn't we just shove it all up Scouse's arse?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Bodhi

    Bodhi FH is my second home

    What would he talk out of if we did that?



    Oh. I see your point.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    It wouldn't even count as noxious waste then - what comes out of my arse is far hotter.
     
  24. TdC

    TdC Trem's hunky sex love muffin Staff member Moderator

    magma injection seems hella cool. I just wonder how we could insert a capsule far enough without the delivery mechanism being destroyed or the capsule being returned. nice problem :)
     
  25. Embattle

    Embattle FH is my second home

    At the present time we are stuck with Nuclear with a combined mix from renewables which must also get more investment to improve efficiency rates as well as improving the ability to store captured energy but the main goal is towards Fusion power.
     
  26. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    Disagree. We're choosing it because it's politically expedient. We could quite easily choose a nuclear free energy solution for the future, meet our carbon targets, use existing technology, and have a similar, if not advantageous, cost base.
     
  27. rynnor

    rynnor Rockhound Moderator

    Currently in the UK we are on course for brownouts and energy rationing due to too much spend on unreliable renewables and too much foot dragging over nuclear.
     
  28. SheepCow

    SheepCow Bringer of Code Staff member Moderator

    Solar catcher thingy in space, satellite dish receiving on planet. What can go wrong?








    Wait, isn't that in SimCity and doesn't it "miss" the receiver sometimes ...
     
  29. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    SimCity2000. It went wrong every so often. Meh.
     
  30. Chilly

    Chilly Balls of steel

    Cost of rebuilding is normally way lower than the benefit from having it. It's why cities dont build proper flood defenses. It's cheaper to just build it all (and handy, cos re-developing cities needs doing every 50 years).
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.