• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The never ending green bollox.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Nuclear key facts
    Previousely it had been announced;
    EDF intends to build four new EPR reactors (amounting to 6.4GW) at Hinkley Point and Sizewell;
    Horizon Nuclear Power (a joint venture between RWE and E.ON) had set out plans for at least 6GW of new nuclear capacity at Wylfa and Oldbury. RWE and Eon (Horizon nuclear power’s parent companies) have announced on Thursday 29th March 2012 that they are withdrawing from new nuclear investment in the UK and are selling Horizon and these sites.
    NuGeneration, a consortium of GDF SUEZ SA and Iberdrola SA, has set out plans to build up to 3.6GW of new nuclear capacity at Moorside

    Capital costs are estimated to be 6 times that of building offshore wind farms generating the same output, factoring in availibility (wind). annual costs in subsidies for decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn in 2010 are estimated to average out at £3,2 billion a year for the life of these power stations.
    Annual cost in subsidies for operating the offshore wind farms = £0 of taxpayers money.

    and if there is an incident that destroys the wind farm, nobody gets irradiated and it isn't a total ecological disaster lasting years and affecting generations like Nuclear power station accidents and incidents;

    2011 Fukushima 5 Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
    2011 Onagawa Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
    2006 Fleurus 4 Belgium Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
    2006 Forsmark 2 Sweden Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
    2006 Erwin US Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
    2005 Sellafield 3 UK Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
    2005 Atucha 2 Argentina Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
    2005 Braidwood US Nuclear material leak
    2003 Paks 3 Hungary Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
    1999 Tokaimura 4 Japan Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
    1999 Yanangio 3 Peru Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
    1999 Ikitelli 3 Turkey Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
    1999 Ishikawa 2 Japan Control rod malfunction
    1993 Tomsk 4 Russia Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure
    1993 Cadarache 2 France Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design
    1989 Vandellos 3 Spain Near accident caused by fire resulting in loss of safety systems at the nuclear power station
    1989 Greifswald Germany Excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods
    1986 Chernobyl 7 Ukraine (USSR) Widespread health and environmental effects. External release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory


    No brainer really
    Confusion is a natural state of being

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by wim121 View Post
      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.
      Wasn't there something about his recent "Deep Carbon Cycle" research and other projects being funded by Oil & Gas companies & Nuclear ?

      Not that I'd suspect Oil & Gas & Nuclear companies to be against wind farms
      Confusion is a natural state of being

      Comment


        #43
        Chancellor George Osborne faced criticism from green groups for announcing £3 billion of new tax breaks for offshore fossil fuel extraction in his March Budget.
        Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks | Environment | The Guardian

        Public subsidies for the development of wind power in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels, a new Guardian analysis has revealed...
        Whatever the truth of the matter, it's not as clear cut as green = subsidised, fossil fuels = free.

        Comment


          #44
          What I really dont get is :

          Why can canada fuel 50% of BC from Hydro electric power on its rivers and sea, and yet we , an island surrounded by water don't use hydro..

          I just don't get it.

          http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electr...s/default.aspx
          Last edited by Scoobos; 26 April 2012, 09:28.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Diver View Post
            Nuclear key facts

            and if there is an incident that destroys the wind farm, nobody gets irradiated and it isn't a total ecological disaster lasting years and affecting generations like Nuclear power station accidents and incidents;
            Whilst I agree with you - this seems a bit out of character !!! - Do you have a vested interest in a competing technology by any chance?

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
              What I really dont get is :

              Why can canada fuel 50% of BC from Hydro electric power on its rivers and sea, and yet we , an island surrounded by water don't use hydro..

              I just don't get it.
              The Scots (+ a bit Welsh) have got it all (need mountains which BC has in abundance)
              How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Troll View Post
                The Scots (+ a bit Welsh) have got it all (need mountains which BC has in abundance)
                See also Norway, Switzerland, Austria etc.
                Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
                  What I really dont get is :

                  Why can canada fuel 50% of BC from Hydro electric power on its rivers and sea, and yet we , an island surrounded by water don't use hydro..
                  Hydro from rivers and from the sea are quite different things... the UK is pretty useless as far as rivers are concerned.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                    Hydro from rivers and from the sea are quite different things... the UK is pretty useless as far as rivers are concerned.
                    What energy potential difference would you see in any of the UK's rivers...unless you were proposing building big dams everywhere
                    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
                      Whilst I agree with you - this seems a bit out of character !!! - Do you have a vested interest in a competing technology by any chance?
                      I spent several years working at Hinkley Point nuclear power station, i have little problem with nuclear power other than the cost to the taxpayer (me) and the risks from that one in a million accident that seems to happen every few years.
                      Plus the cost and afteraffects of decommisioning these beasties which runs into taxpayer billions.
                      Hinkley Point nuclear power station is due to be decommissioned in 2016 by the way, and will cost more to decommission than all of the offshore wind farms currently being built are costing the developers.

                      As for a vested interest, Yes I have a vested interest. three grandchildren to date.
                      Confusion is a natural state of being

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X