Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
For or against DiSsers - and why?
It's a lot cleaner then other forms of power such as Coal.
invest in renewable energy, promote energy efficiency. stop trashing the world.
of nuclear power ?
that's part of the debate lyle I guess.
Mr Blair was giving it some on the subject of Nuclear power yesterday
and I wondered what the general feeling amongst the community on this board is as regards the nuclear question
Fusion or fission?
As I've talked about below.
It stinks. If we don't wake up to renewable energy right now, it's game over.
Nuclear energy might improve the emissions statistics so politicians can talk about a shiny new low percentage but the risks are substantial.
If we commit to nuclear energy, there will be no going back as billions will have been invested in it. They're not going to suddenly turn their backs on it.
It's obvious renewable energy makes sense in every way - it's safe, it's long term, it's not poisonous, it's ecologically sound, it's kind to animals, it's message is love, whereas nuclear's message is fear.
Put all the money into renewables, bring in pollution-based tax, then we're heading in the right direction.
Basically, most carbon emissions are down to the building industry in all its guises. The key problem is the inefficeincy of old houses.
To solve the carbon worries of this country all that really needs to be done is to double glaze everything and to knock down a load of crappy old houses with appalling u-values. Unfortunately there's an attitude to preserve anything old here, so we get fobbed off with propoganda about sustainability and renewable.
Just insulate your homes, use less fuel and the problem diminishes like that *snap*
air con. so, so needless in a temperate country.
Nuclear FUSION power, of course.
If only they could feckin' get it to work all this would be academic. Fusion power doesn't result in all the waste problems that cause headaches in fission power.
would be nice but it's not going to happen any time soon
For the record I am completely and utterly 100% against building new nuclear reactors to provide people with the energy to watch Pop Idol etc.
But seriously - building reactors takes years - decomissioning them takes almost literally forever and surely it's a strange message to be breathing down the neck of certain countries for their investment in nuclear technology whilst we build new reactors ourselves.
And that's before even discussing the possibility of meltdown or leaks of any kind...
But the problem is that renewable power is so shit!
We'd never supply the UK using renewable power based on current technologies. We'd need to cover every uninhabited bit of the country in solar panels ands wind farms at a huge energy cos in building them.
There's only 2 ways we'll be able to move away from the current systems of power production.
1) Reduce the ammount of power we use, this isn't simple. The easiest way would be to reduce the population, I'd suggest we nuke the North, but in a particularly populated area. Or even better we could sell human hunting triops to rich americans and they could drive around council estates shooting from pick-ups.
2.) Improve the efficiency of the renewable energy sources. Extensive design and research effort could be used in doing this. But As a mechanical engineer approaching my graduation date I thought 'I'd like to do something worthy like wind power' and looked... there's no damn jobs, and the 3 that there are require a PHD and pay about Â£4 a year (not literally, but you get the idea)
So in conclusion we're fucked and we may as well use nuclear power because it has the one virtue of producing tiny carbon emissions.
Nuclear fusion is far from providing us with the energy we need, but hopefull once ITER is built it'll all work out. check again in 20 years.
because they have all the mountains so they'll have big bunkers to escape into.
could have solar panels y'know
and there are ways of reducing the power we use
and a real major one is to stop eating meat, that wastes loads of energy.
But even if we do all those thngs we'll still need laods more energy than can be provided 'reasonably' by current renewable energy sources.
We do need some serious investment in them, which hopefully will come from the government until such time as market forces drive commercial research.
They'd just turn over in a huff and start writing nasty letters to the BBC.
(Unless it was ITV because ITV seems to be utterly unaccountable. They only care if an advertiser writes in to say their attempt to sell substandard and dangerous items was compromised by Trevor MacDonald doing an exposÃ© on something really quite bland. This may not be true.)
I mean, what does it matter? What does anything matter?
that their affluent carefree little lives are being brought into question - they're in denial.
The annoying thing is that for people that actually want to embrace environmentally friendly ways such as buying organic and using renewable energy, they have to pay more than everyone else to do it.
what are they like live? any tunes on myspace?
Nuclear power is the way forward, in both long and short run points of view. Cleaner and SAFER than burning oil and coal. More effecient than wind, HEP and tidal power. If disposed of in a responsible manner, the waste poses no threat to the environment.
Because of it's efficiency there's also an almost infinite supply of uranium.
Say AYE for British Sea- I mean Nuclear Power!!
'If disposed of properly'
that's a big IF
and isn't the safe, reliable model for our nuclear future just an open invitation to further gluttony of the earth's resources?
Don't we need some austerity measures
when the fuel is processed it is poisenous radioactive crud. it has to be stored and then left sealed for 10,000s of years. the cleanliness involves it being kept safe and secure for upwards 5x the lifetime of christianity.
tell me, did you here about chernobyl? when nuclear goes wrong it goes very wrong.
fusion is great though. just pretty hard to manage. fingers crossed they'll have sustainable fusion in france in the near future.
that Chernobyl-like accidents would occur in the UK. There's regulations and checks.
Chernobyl occured because of politcal pressure to push the use a reactor in an irresponsible way. Such things do not occur in the UK.
Nuclear power really is safer for you and your family than coal power and there are statistics to prove it.
statistics are one thing, i'm talking about potential. when it goes wrong it goes wrong. there have been times in the west when it's been 15 minutes from a three mile island.
anyway, all radiation is bad for you. it's my job.
What does this mean?
also its ridiculous to say 'statistics are one thing, but...'
but nothing! Less people suffer ill health or death as a result of nuclear power per megawatt of power produced than for coal by quite a long way.
chernobyl is still toxic, still radioactive, people are still dying from it, people are still giving birth to deformed children.
i'll accept nuclear has a good track record, but if fusion goes wrong it goes more wrong than anything else.
my 15 minutes claim is that there was a reactor that was 15 minutes from going beyond critical and melting down.
but as I said before; we live in a very beurocratic country. And though this sometimes riles taxpayers it does mean we are hugely protected from such stupidity as led to the Chernobyl disaster.
When a plane goes wrong everyone on board dies, but it is made extremely unlikely due to the huge smount of training or poeple and checking of systems and machinery which is legally required. For the same reason nuclear power in the UK would be fine.
when i was at school and they had such talk, i literally couldnt see the downside.
just do it well and itsallgood.
Even on a purely financial level. We are spending something like Â£67 billion to dispose of the nuclear waste from our current nuclear facilities. This number will only increase, if we build more facilities.
And where does this waste go anyway?
So much more could be done in terms of energy efficency, and also in terms of renewables. We are the country with the most potential for renewable energy in Europe but we haven't even begun to exploit tidal energy, or have a decent amount of windfarms.
Do people believe carbon burial to be better then the disposal of nuclear waste as well?
As I underwstand it the idea is to carbonate the north sea. Making a kind of cod-ade. But more seriosuly... I think it sounds like a stupid idea. The problems we are facing won't be solved by wasting lots of energy pumping carbon dioxide into the sea?! surely?
I don't know, I'm not too well informed on this matter (though I realise that isn't a requirement to have an opinion these days)
I was just thinking of starting a thread on here about this subject, because I have to write a 2000 word essay on this(or rather, Britains Energy Crisis). Does anyone mind if I plagiarise the hell out of you all? (assuming anyone says anything better than i could myself - quite likely)
Don't forget to mention the child labour going on in Sellafield...
For the record, I'm also agin it. Anything which Digby Jones wants can only be a bad thing.