The never ending green bollox.

[Sysman]

The older power stations were certainly "dual use", fissile material for Britains Nuclear Deterrent was certainly produced in parallel to the generation of electricity. Which of the two was "by product" is open to debate.

The Beeb has some good documentaries about the early days of nuclear power. Well worth watching out for the (inevitable) repeats.

[Sysman]

Just found out this lot are "auditing" us next week:

Green Dragon Environmental Standard

It's no fecking wonder the country is going down the tubes, more fecking five a day green auditors than you can incinerate comfortably in a blast furnace (if we still had some of those cos they're really nasty CO2 emitters of course and deserve to be shut down as soon as possible).

ISO 14001 standard

ISO 14001, as with other ISO 14000 standards, is voluntary (IISD 2010), with its main aim to assist companies in continually improving their environmental performance, whilst complying with any applicable legislation. Organizations are responsible for setting their own targets and performance measures, with the standard serving to assist them in meeting objectives and goals and the subsequent monitoring and measurement of these (IISD 2010). This means that two organizations that have completely different measures and standards of environmental performance, can both comply with ISO 14001 requirements (Federal Facilities Council Report 1999).

Just hot air then.

[Diver]

thats true, but isnt nuclear subsidised as well ?

Heavily. Wind power is not.
Costs for nuclear power generation and decommissioning are approx 3 times that of wind power.
Decommission a wind farm and all but about 12% of the installations are recyclable with no long term contamination.

[EternalOptimist]

Heavily. Wind power is not.
Costs for nuclear power generation and decommissioning are approx 3 times that of wind power.
Decommission a wind farm and all but about 12% of the installations are recyclable with no long term contamination.

wind is not subsidised ? you are bonkers

[mudskipper]

Green bollox.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/29...crotum-SPL.jpg

NSFW. Don't click the link if your eyes water easily.

[TimberWolf]

I don't think anyone knows how much nuclear costs, especially since plants were historically "bleeding edge prototypes" rather than mass produced off-the-shelf products. The Frenchies seem keen on them and seem to make good(ish) ones, but we'll probably get ripped off with ones that go boom, I expect.

[Diver]

wind is not subsidised ? you are bonkers

Read it again EO, I didn't say it wasn't subsidised, I inferred that Wind is Not Heavily subsidised, which it isn't. there is a few million pound in subsidies yes, but Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).
The Lions share of 0.4 billion going to Nuclear.

I am currently working on three offshore wind projects of the 11 under development or in design.
1 at 2.5 billion
1 at 2.7 billion
1 at 4 billion
The money apart from a few measly million is coming from private investors not government.

A few million in subsidies doesn't make a dent in that lot. Remember that the 0.7 billion in subsidies is split between the dozens of onshore wind farms and wave & tidal projects too.

Do some research

Most of the Decc's budget is spent on decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn in 2010-11. Nuclear power is expected to benefit from the forthcoming carbon floor price, receiving perhaps £50m a year, and possible tax exemption on uranium. "hidden subsidies", such as the limit on an operator's liability for accidents which reduces insurance costs, are worth billions alone.

[d000hg]

Diver you seem to think being an expert on the subject makes your opinions more valuable, like you're some kind of expert.

[Diver]

Diver you seem to think being an expert on the subject makes your opinions more valuable, like you're some kind of expert.

[wim121]

I don't think anyone knows how much nuclear costs, especially since plants were historically "bleeding edge prototypes" rather than mass produced off-the-shelf products. The Frenchies seem keen on them and seem to make good(ish) ones, but we'll probably get ripped off with ones that go boom, I expect.

The plants that the French and the UK use are a purchased design by the US.

Back in the wars of nuke plants, just before the Thatcher era started. Britain though, could never stabilise and make ARG's though, that is why we purchased the American designs as many others did.

not like 6 big power stations.

only a lunatic would build six big power stations and then say, they will only produce lecky when the wind blows, at the right speed, and we will subsidise them by putting their three times cost onto bills, thereby ensuring an increase in fuel poverty, and by the way, we will have to build a further 6 big power stations to back these ones up for when the wind does not blow.

lunacy

and we will ruin your view as well

ugly things

Not only that, but other factors are an issue as well:
- Land space: To provide the same amount of power as other plants, much more land mass is needed.
- Materials: To produce the same energy as any other power plant, far more many raw materials are needed. The concrete bases/foundations, the giant steel structures, the generators attached to each motorised gearbox, etc etc. In short, win turbines are far more environmentally harmful even before they are switched on. Another con like the Prius.




EO and others seem rather reasonable and might like a paper written by Jesse H. Ausubel of the rockefeller university:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...DI7vpQ96VFKEwA

In it he explains how the greenest power generation is nuclear fission and to grow the market and be sustainable nuclear must pair with methane. In the paper he labels each alternative energy production method such as wind or hydroelectric and then disproves each in turn with facts and figures, explaining how each harms the environment.

I have a copy saved on my server, called "people who believe in green energy are retarded" and pass it on to others willing to read it.

If we stopped morons blasting nuclear fission and embraced it, then in time we can move closer to fusion which will revolutionise the way we think of power.