- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.
- Thread starter Scouse
- Start date
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
To power the entire countrys energy needs, we would need all the turbines in the world just for the UK and every lake turned into hydro storage.
So we are just looking at a bit of the electricity only and having to top it up with conventional...just for homes.
We are still going to need massive amounts of energy to run the country.
Hydrogen is viable but yet to be tested at that immense scale.
If no fossil then nuclear is the only option.
So we are just looking at a bit of the electricity only and having to top it up with conventional...just for homes.
We are still going to need massive amounts of energy to run the country.
Hydrogen is viable but yet to be tested at that immense scale.
If no fossil then nuclear is the only option.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #843
OK. So basically it all sums up as: you can't read.
Scotland already produces more than double the annual electricity requirement in just six months from wind power alone. The rest of Blighty will be on course for being a net exporter of electricity from renewables.
A small amount of nuclear + european wide renewables. Job jobbed.
All your doom are belong to wind. Your ongoing pessimism is just this.
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
I said total energy needs.
This is an issue for all this rhetoric, people act like turbines power everything.
You want to reduce co2 right?
Well building thousands of turbines just to power homes for a third of the year aint going to do jack shit.
This is an issue for all this rhetoric, people act like turbines power everything.
You want to reduce co2 right?
Well building thousands of turbines just to power homes for a third of the year aint going to do jack shit.
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,835
Timing...
Superconductors: Material raises hope of energy revolution
Scientists find a material that displays a much sought-after property at room temperature.
www.bbc.co.uk
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
Trusting other countries?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #849
He's on about batteries again. And lack of capacity. Alongside all the other stuff that maybe in 2012 was a worry - but in 2020 is clearly not even something we should care about any more (and has been shown to be so).
We've solved the energy thing. With wind and cooperation.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #850
Japan to release 1m tonnes of contaminated Fukushima water into the sea – reports
Local media say release could begin in 2022 and would take decades to complete, but local fishermen say move will destroy their industry
I feel for the fishermen and, generally, for the planet.
It's low risk, not no risk. And is a problem we've still no solution for
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #851
It's like the Japanese government doesn't get the well-understood mechanism of bioaccumulation.
www.theguardian.com
What they're also not saying is that this isn't the only time they're going to want to do this - given that they've still no idea how to dismantle the site - and are still having to pump thousands of tonnes of water across the reactors to stop runaway uncontrolled fission occuring.
Releasing that stuff into the ocean could be seen as an act of war by it's nearest neighbours IMO.
If only they'd listened to the people who said it was fucking madness building the plants where they built them in the first place.
Fukushima reactor water could damage human DNA if released, says Greenpeace
Environmental organisation says ‘dangerous’ levels of carbon-14 exist in water that could soon be released into Pacific ocean
What they're also not saying is that this isn't the only time they're going to want to do this - given that they've still no idea how to dismantle the site - and are still having to pump thousands of tonnes of water across the reactors to stop runaway uncontrolled fission occuring.
Releasing that stuff into the ocean could be seen as an act of war by it's nearest neighbours IMO.
If only they'd listened to the people who said it was fucking madness building the plants where they built them in the first place.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #854
What do you mean it's holding up pretty well? There was a fucking triple meltdown.
Now there's nuclear core material exposed to the atmosphere they have to keep pouring water on otherwise it'll spew radioactive material everywhere and they've zero idea how to dismantle because the special robots they've developed to get access to the core get fried when they get close - and become radioactive material themselves.
It's a fucking shitshow, with no end in sight.
This is my primary objection to nuclear - we've no idea what to do with nuclear materials (or waste) and they're like that for the next hundred thousand years.
Fukushima was 9-odd years ago. Are they going to have to fill / empty those barrels into the sea 11,111 times over the next hundred thousand years? (You know, only 50,000 times longer than christ was supposed to have been pootling around kicking banker's tables over).
It's not even a new problem. We knew before we built the first nuclear reactor that if this sort of shit hit the fan that we'd have no plan to get out of it. And we still don't have that plan - because, you know, the laws of physics are hard to circumvent.
People protested building nuclear plants on a tectonically active shoreline for the exact reasons that occured. Some of these were prosecuted by the Japanese government. Other people have protested against nuclear because we still have zero idea what to do with the waste. We still have retards suggesting we shoot it into space, despite the obvious reasons why not.
I could rant about this for ages. The levels of idiocy we're displaying as a species are mind boggling. But rest assured - nothing is holding up well, yes they are desparate but they're trying to save money by dumping that stuff in the sea.
Fuck them. And their families.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
I've already stated that if we decide to send our waste into space, especially our nuclear waste, our first contact with aliens won't result in the creation of the United Galaxy Republic any time soon.
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Thewhole subject of nuclear waste is completely distorted by pressure groups and movie images of leaking barrels.
The vast majority of it is low level and just like asbestos is surrounded by a hysteria and legality which makes it very difficult to dispose of.
Most of it is buried and the earth they dig out is more radioactive than the waste.
Spent fuel rods are packed with useful energy and be basically continously reused except this is a political hot potato because the plants that do it also produce nuclear bomb material.
America banned this process and we actually made a lot of their bomb material for them.
France recycles rods because 90% of the energy is atill in them after 5 years in a reactor.
This wiki explains the Fukuahima situation.
en.wikipedia.org
Heres a great article on why its so bad to launch into space.
The vast majority of it is low level and just like asbestos is surrounded by a hysteria and legality which makes it very difficult to dispose of.
Most of it is buried and the earth they dig out is more radioactive than the waste.
Spent fuel rods are packed with useful energy and be basically continously reused except this is a political hot potato because the plants that do it also produce nuclear bomb material.
America banned this process and we actually made a lot of their bomb material for them.
France recycles rods because 90% of the energy is atill in them after 5 years in a reactor.
This wiki explains the Fukuahima situation.
Spent fuel pool - Wikipedia
Heres a great article on why its so bad to launch into space.
Why isn't nuclear waste sent into deep space?
Jeffrey Naujok, Computer Programming Guru, Space Freak, and font of trivia
Three reasons, really. But first, a little background.
The first is that most of what you think of as “radioactive waste” is what’s considered low-level waste. Things like rags used to wipe up radioactive water, or metal with neutron exposure making it slightly radioactive. Most of this could be disposed of safely with common means, were it not for the instant, panicked, knee-jerk reaction to the word “nuclear waste” in our society.
What’s left, the high-level waste, is largely “spent” fuel rods. In a real nuclear society, these would not be “waste” but “ready for reprocessing.” Right now, our Uranium fed nuclear reactors use less than 5% of the actual fuel in the fuel rods, but thanks to laws passed by lobbyist action to protect the market for fuel rods in the 1970’s, re-processing those spent rods to remove the actual fission byproducts and retaining the remaining 95% of the fuel for re-use, is illegal.
Someday, that “waste” will be viewed as what it really is, a great source of fuel for the future, so throwing it off the planet is a really, really bad idea, because Uranium 235 is an extremely limited resource.
But, let’s say you do process it, and you’re left with the nasty byproducts of fission power, like polonium, and radium, and a whole host of other nasty isotopes of more common elements.
Most of these byproducts have two things in common: they are very, very poisonous or hazardous to the health of living creatures, and they are very, very heavy. The final product in most of the Uranium decay chains is lead. That’s the lightest element in the chain.
Now, let’s look at putting things into space, and get to those three reasons.
The first rule of space flight is, “don’t send up anything heavy.” Well, nuts. All this waste is heavy, and at a cost of thousands of dollars per pound, getting it into space (especially along with a heavy containment vessel) is going to cost a fortune. A typical U.S. reactor runs with several tons of fuel rods in the core. That means several million dollars of lofting costs even before you put it into a containment vessel. Which has to be prohibitively strong and sturdy because of reason number two.
Rockets explode.
And if they are carrying tons of radioactive nastiness and explode, you have created what those in the know call, “a dirty bomb.” You have just spread some of the nastiest, most hideously poisonous materials over a large area of the Earth. People freaked out from a couple of picocuries of cadmium-113 in the ocean water, now imagine dropping a couple of tons of polonium (250,000 times more poisonous than hydrogen cyanide) into the ocean. LD 5050 of that stuff is 1 microgram. Oh, and it goes right through your skin.
So, reason two is that any accident with this stuff on a rocket is exceedingly nasty.
That leaves reason number three.
You ever hear the old adage, “What goes up, must come down?”
Well, launching something into space isn’t like saying, “goodbye,” it’s more like, “see you again soon.”
Back a few years ago, an astronomer thought he had discovered a new near earth asteroid. He tracked it, and found that it was, in fact, captured into an Earth orbit. But the orbit was unstable, it hadn’t been there a few months before. But, when he got a spectrum from the asteroid it was a shock. The thing was composed of titanium and aluminum.
Of course, after a bit, he realized it wasn’t actually an asteroid. This was a S-IVB booster rocket, one that had pushed the Apollo 12 command module and LEM to the moon, and then flown past the moon, out into the solar system.[1]
Thirty-one years on, it was back at Earth.
Orbits are funny that way, they always come back to where they started.
The booster was thrown back into a solar orbit a few years later (2003), but in around 240 years or so, after another half-dozen or so visits, it will come back, and this time the curve around the moon will send it back into the atmosphere of Earth, and it will plunge down, burning into cinders and small pieces of dust.
And that’s the same thing that will happen to anything successfully sent into space. Eventually, it will come back.
And, no, you can’t send it into the sun. To do that, you need to cancel the 19 miles per second (31 km/s) of delta-V imparted by the Earth’s motion. Turns out that getting to the sun is really, really hard. [2]
So, no, there’s no reason to send our waste into space, and at least three really good reasons not to.
Jeffrey Naujok, Computer Programming Guru, Space Freak, and font of trivia
Three reasons, really. But first, a little background.
The first is that most of what you think of as “radioactive waste” is what’s considered low-level waste. Things like rags used to wipe up radioactive water, or metal with neutron exposure making it slightly radioactive. Most of this could be disposed of safely with common means, were it not for the instant, panicked, knee-jerk reaction to the word “nuclear waste” in our society.
What’s left, the high-level waste, is largely “spent” fuel rods. In a real nuclear society, these would not be “waste” but “ready for reprocessing.” Right now, our Uranium fed nuclear reactors use less than 5% of the actual fuel in the fuel rods, but thanks to laws passed by lobbyist action to protect the market for fuel rods in the 1970’s, re-processing those spent rods to remove the actual fission byproducts and retaining the remaining 95% of the fuel for re-use, is illegal.
Someday, that “waste” will be viewed as what it really is, a great source of fuel for the future, so throwing it off the planet is a really, really bad idea, because Uranium 235 is an extremely limited resource.
But, let’s say you do process it, and you’re left with the nasty byproducts of fission power, like polonium, and radium, and a whole host of other nasty isotopes of more common elements.
Most of these byproducts have two things in common: they are very, very poisonous or hazardous to the health of living creatures, and they are very, very heavy. The final product in most of the Uranium decay chains is lead. That’s the lightest element in the chain.
Now, let’s look at putting things into space, and get to those three reasons.
The first rule of space flight is, “don’t send up anything heavy.” Well, nuts. All this waste is heavy, and at a cost of thousands of dollars per pound, getting it into space (especially along with a heavy containment vessel) is going to cost a fortune. A typical U.S. reactor runs with several tons of fuel rods in the core. That means several million dollars of lofting costs even before you put it into a containment vessel. Which has to be prohibitively strong and sturdy because of reason number two.
Rockets explode.
And if they are carrying tons of radioactive nastiness and explode, you have created what those in the know call, “a dirty bomb.” You have just spread some of the nastiest, most hideously poisonous materials over a large area of the Earth. People freaked out from a couple of picocuries of cadmium-113 in the ocean water, now imagine dropping a couple of tons of polonium (250,000 times more poisonous than hydrogen cyanide) into the ocean. LD 5050 of that stuff is 1 microgram. Oh, and it goes right through your skin.
So, reason two is that any accident with this stuff on a rocket is exceedingly nasty.
That leaves reason number three.
You ever hear the old adage, “What goes up, must come down?”
Well, launching something into space isn’t like saying, “goodbye,” it’s more like, “see you again soon.”
Back a few years ago, an astronomer thought he had discovered a new near earth asteroid. He tracked it, and found that it was, in fact, captured into an Earth orbit. But the orbit was unstable, it hadn’t been there a few months before. But, when he got a spectrum from the asteroid it was a shock. The thing was composed of titanium and aluminum.
Of course, after a bit, he realized it wasn’t actually an asteroid. This was a S-IVB booster rocket, one that had pushed the Apollo 12 command module and LEM to the moon, and then flown past the moon, out into the solar system.[1]
Thirty-one years on, it was back at Earth.
Orbits are funny that way, they always come back to where they started.
The booster was thrown back into a solar orbit a few years later (2003), but in around 240 years or so, after another half-dozen or so visits, it will come back, and this time the curve around the moon will send it back into the atmosphere of Earth, and it will plunge down, burning into cinders and small pieces of dust.
And that’s the same thing that will happen to anything successfully sent into space. Eventually, it will come back.
And, no, you can’t send it into the sun. To do that, you need to cancel the 19 miles per second (31 km/s) of delta-V imparted by the Earth’s motion. Turns out that getting to the sun is really, really hard. [2]
So, no, there’s no reason to send our waste into space, and at least three really good reasons not to.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #859
No it doesn't. It's absolutely nothing to do with fukushima.This wiki explains the Fukuahima situation.
Spent fuel pool - Wikipedia
It's a non-technical article about temporary spent fuel storage. Fukushima is non-spent melted (but solid) uncontained live fissile material desparately being drowned in coolant to prevent runaway fission.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #861
You said, and I quote, it "explained the fukushima situation". Not that fukushima was mentioned.
It doesn't m8. Not even close. Suffice it to say that of course fukushima has spent fuel pools (they all do - you have to store the spent fuel somewhere), but it's the non-spent live-but-melted-down nuclear reactor cores that are the bigger concern.
As I have pointed out, very clearly.
But even then - yes - the spent fuel pools are a problem at fukushima. It's a total clusterfuck.
But even wider than that - when you have the world's most advanced spent fuel storage and processing facility, which has never had any threat of seismic activity or natural disaster, designed in perfect conditions, yet posing us a ridiculously expensive, mortally dangerous and unsolveable (on evolutionary timescales) problem then you're decribing sellafield, in the lake district.
Fukushima dreams of being that fucked up.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #862
Aussies getting it right!
www.theguardian.com
Really good read that.
Green giants: the massive projects that could make Australia a clean energy superpower
The Asian Renewable Energy Hub would have an energy content equivalent to 40% of Australia’s overall electricity generation
Really good read that.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #863
And:,,,.
www.carbonbrief.org
Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA
The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
So Johnson probably never going to happen ban on the sales of non electric cars in 2030, isnt a ban on ice cars or vans
Its just on the sale of new ones, and hybrids are exempt till 2035.
You will still be able to drive and buy used ice cars, though no doubt they will introduce charges to make it more and more expensive, which is probably what they expect to happen...millions of ice cars paying billions in penalties, which will hit the poor who cant afford a new car or live in flats and terraced roads with no way to charge and with less street security if they did.
blog.greenflag.com
Its just on the sale of new ones, and hybrids are exempt till 2035.
You will still be able to drive and buy used ice cars, though no doubt they will introduce charges to make it more and more expensive, which is probably what they expect to happen...millions of ice cars paying billions in penalties, which will hit the poor who cant afford a new car or live in flats and terraced roads with no way to charge and with less street security if they did.
What will 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars mean? - Green Flag
The UK government is seriously considering a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars. We investigate what the sales ban really means?
blog.greenflag.com
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,835
Well, we have to change so yeah....
Although electric cars are a dead end, expensive, environmentally dirty tech (once you consider the damage extraction of materials cost)
It will all be replaced by hydrogen soon enough, which will likely be viable before 2030 anyway.
Although electric cars are a dead end, expensive, environmentally dirty tech (once you consider the damage extraction of materials cost)
It will all be replaced by hydrogen soon enough, which will likely be viable before 2030 anyway.
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
Out of interest, what is your favourite element on the periodic table?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #867
HHeLiBeBCNOFNeNaMgAlSiPSClArKCa
I learned that phonetically in the first year of GCSE chemistry so I've never forgotten the first twenty of the periodic table.
I don't have a favourite one however. I always remembered Xenon out of the intert gasses for this reason tho
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,404
Just cos you live in Wales don't expect us to listen to that shit thx
Ormorof
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,887