You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In order for [s]nuclear[/s] wind-power to have any significant impact there needs to be a massive expansion of [s]nuclear power[/s] wind generation.There is not enough [s]fuel[/s] neodymium available to [s]fuel[/s] facilitate this massive expansion thus [s]nuclear[/s] wind power cannot actually ever be a significant part of preventing global warming
we'll run out of neodymium long before we run out of uranium.
therefore wind power cannot be part of the effort either.
the point still remains junkyard.
Sort of all depends this paper argues we have thousands of years left for example
The nuclear apologists like zokes claim nuclear is the only answer to global warming.
Why the need for the language like that? I dont think it is even true
Perhaps, and I am aware that off-shore wind farms have the potential to generate huge amounts of electricity, but to replace a modern nuclear or coal-fired power station that puts out 2 GWe, you'd need a wind farm of about 1000 turbines all outputting their maximum power. The oft-discussed 'perfect storm' that makes such a shift problematic is the typical still, cold winter's day, where there is no wind but it's cold and dark, so everyone needs heat and light. But nonetheless, I would never advocate not building renewables, I simply state, as ever, that unless we cut our energy usage drastically, and by that I mean to a point that would seriously impact on our current lifestyles, we need more power than can be generated by renewables alone. And that's before we start having to use electricity for a greater proportion of our transport and heating requirements as gas and oil become more scarce.I honestly think that solar power has a surprisingly large part to play in the UK, and may well generate more than most people imagine. I have a friend in Sheffield who has fitted solar panels to his house and has seen a huge reduction in his bills. But not many are far-sighted enough to wait 10-15 years for that reduction to become a profit.
Wave power is the one that TJ and others throw about the most, along with tidal turbines. Both do look promising, and I agree that in 10 years time they may well have a big part to play. But they are not ready yet, and may not be ready by then.
this seems pretty reasonable to me and not just pro nuke fanaticism
In order for nuclear to have any significant impact there needs to be a massive expansion of nuclear power generation.There is not enough fuel available to fuel this massive expansion thus nuclear cannot actually ever be a significant part of preventing global warming
depends what you mean by significant and massive expansion tbh
he is offering a view that is not the same as your but you cannot just call him a nuclear apologist...he has view you should respect it and defeat it with the power of your argument, facts, figures, studies rather than just invective
Personally I wish we did not need nukes but the reality is threefold
More nukes in the short run - nothing lese will meet energy demands reliably currently.
Huge investment in renewables for the long term
Massive energy reduction by us all.
Massive energy reduction by us all
Good point, and everyone can make small, simple contributions towards energy conservation, can't they... like insulating and double glazing their flats 😉
Devils advocate
So, assume that nice fluffy wind, wave and solar is our saviour, IF we install thousands upon thousands of these devices, and do it quickly.
Couple of questions;
1) are there enough raw materials to build these things?
2) where does the power come from initially to build them?
Also, I believe that the costs to the environment are quite high for some of these technologies, so how long does it take to offset the 'damage' caused by their manufacture?
Finally, as these are not always converting energy to electricity, then surely any excess needs to be stored. I think that electrical storage equipment is very, very damaging to the planet as it involve some very nasty elements, not to mention the pollutants fom manufacture
I take a lot of your points TJ, but there are a few where you seem to struggle to draw a clear distinction between your own personal opinion and established fact - I quote your assertion that thorium fuelled power stations are a non-starter, when there is a lot of money being spent in research in this direction. Do you know something that the rest of us don't?
The other facts are clear - we need to reduce our energy consumption, which is going to be difficult in the face of rising populations and increased demand from newly industrialised countries. We need to reduce our dependence on oil, it's a finite resource which may well have already peaked. We need to look at a range of options to generate power, nuclear energy is not a complete solution and even if it were, the resources of fuel available are also finite.
Thorium - its not that it is a non starter - its that is unproven and experimental and not ready to produce energy yet. Who knows if it ever will be be. They are not the answer now.
Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.
We do not have the fuel to fuel the amount of reactors that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.
TandemJeremy - Member
Thorium - its not that it is a non starter - its that is unproven and experimental and not ready to produce energy yet. Who knows if it ever will be be. They are not the answer now.
POSTED 37 SECONDS AGO #
Much the same as tidal power then!
Who knows how the equipment they are trialling will deal with environment.
How will the infrastructure cope?
Can they cope with slack water?
Energy saving, [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8006668.stm ]windfarms[/url], solar and pump storage. We have the solutions, are you prepared to pay for them? I've only invested what many spend on their SUV to eliminate my part of the 30% or so of energy demand that comes from domestic use.
and I have shown by simple logic that the position that [s]nuclear[/s] wind power is the answer to global warming is nonsense.
We do not have the [s]fuel[/s] resources (land, time, neodymium, etc.) to [s]fuel[/s] build the amount of [s]reactors[/s] wind turbines that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.
(they're nice an all, but really, we'd need millions of the things)
Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.We do not have the fuel to fuel the amount of reactors that would be needed to make a significant difference to global warming.
Nope seemed to have missed that though i did notice you ignoring [and everything else tricky] the study I cited which concluded
In considering the question, “Are there enough
resources to meet the needs of the current
generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs?”, that
answer has to be yes. Sufficient nuclear fuel
resources exist to meet the energy demands of
this and future generations well into the future at
current and increased demand levels. However, to
use this potential, considerable effort and investment
will be needed to develop new mining projects
and to bring advanced technologies to bear
in a timely manner.
So looks like we have opinions to discuss. However I lack your sense of certainty in the rightness of my view.
you state your opinion like it is fact and imply [and sometime do it explicitly] that anyone who disagrees is somehow deficient in their ability to comprehend or just missing your point rather than disagreeing.
PS Tidal power is as unproven and experimental as thorium for example but I would imagine you dont conclude that is a non starter.I bet you conclude we need to invest in it , improve the technology, implement it , learn and develop better systems etc and you are certain this will work.
nor will you explain how we harness the wind with limited resources [NOT ENOUGH} or how we harness/store its power to respond to demandetc
We definitely have enough wood fibre, hemp, recycled polyester, straw, cellulose, hollow brick and wood to make a huge difference. Add even the most energy greedy insulating materials such as polythene, polystyrene, glassfibre and rockwool, double/triple glazing, heat recovery ventilation, solar water heaters, wood burners, PV ... and we can provide enough renewable energy, no problem.
*considers a weekly "Here's why you shouldn't argue online" thread*
Tidal generators have been running for many years producing electricity.
Junkyard - I have shown by simple logic that the position that nuclear is the answer to global warming is nonsense.
All you have shown is your ability to conflate personal opinion with scientific fact, and your inability to read said facts laid out for you.
As others have pointed out, I'm far from a nuclear apologist. Rather, I can see that coal is actually far more damaging, and if we must feed our need for electricity, then we need to do it with the least damaging of these methods. The simple fact is that 2GW generated by nuclear power is a lot less damaging to the environment than 2GW generated by coal. If there is only enough fuel left for one more generation of existing technology uranium fission reactors, then that's several fewer coal-fired stations that need to be built - a quantifiable reduction in pollution. What's the problem with this???
As others have said, [u]current[/u] renewable electricity methods aren't able to reduce GHG emissions by "appreciable" amounts, so by your own logic, we shouldn't bother then? Obviously there [i]may[/i] be improvements, but as we can't see that technology [b]now[/b], presumably we shouldn't consider it in the future c/f thorium or breeder reactors (or, heaven forbid, fusion).
You seem to be mistaking 'technology fetishist' for environmental scientist. I wouldn't dream of suggesting what level of care a patient needs, so I'm constantly puzzled why you seem to think you know a lot more about my own profession than I do.
As others have said, I have quite comprehensively answered your questions twice now, whilst you still can't provide a source for your inaccurate and subjective statements. I suggest you do this before continuing this 'debate' further.
[img] 
[/img]
We can all do something and save ourselves money.
Now we're near to the equinox the sun provides more than enough energy for our hot water and electricity needs. We lit the wood burner for the first time in a week because after three days away with the shutters closed the house had cooled down.
Zokes - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of nuclear generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"
where are you going to get the fuel
Where's your evidence that there's a shortage?
TJ - the answer is every other study that says uranium reserves are vastly greater than 40 years. Here's one:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
No zokes this one is one me [again]
In considering the question, “Are there enough
resources to meet the needs of the current
generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs?”, [b]that
answer has to be yes. Sufficient nuclear fuel
resources exist to meet the energy demands of
this and future generations well into the future at
current and increased demand levels.[/b] However, to
use this potential, considerable effort and investment
will be needed to develop new mining projects
and to bring advanced technologies to bear
in a timely manner.
the link again - it has a nice chart showing you how many thousands of years it will last and everything and in no way shape or form supports your 40 year argument about fuel
It has chart at the end that refutes all you say but I cant copy it in
[s]Zokes[/s]TJ - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of [s]nuclear[/s]wnd generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"
How many times do you need to be asked a question to answer - it seems it takes three answer for you to see that it has been answered and multiple contributors pointing this out - now 2 of us have asked you twice about windmills, have we reached the point where you answer?
TandemJeremy - Member
Tidal generators have been running for many years producing electricity.
POSTED 56 MINUTES AGO #
How many years have they been testing?
How many producers have been lost to storms?
If we scale these up, how much infrastructure can we predict will be lost to storm damage?
From the scientific american piece
According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year
so actually only 5.5 million tonnes known about so only a 80 year supply at current consumption rates.
So by the time we have the massive increase in nuclear reactor numbers needed to have any significant effect on global warming there is only enough fuel for a few years.
This is why nuclear reactors cannot be a part of the solution to global warming - we do not have enough fuel to run the number of reactors needed to make any significant difference.
How much is the current energy consumption in your houses? If you have central heating on guestimate the proportion of time it's running and multiply by the rating then add to what your electricity meter is reading.
2A here, or about 500W. TV, AMP, PC and a light.
Shock horror, TJ admitting that his previous facts were wrong.
But then he carries on if nothing else has changed.
TJ i included the next two paragraphs after as they dont support your 80 year view... an oversight on your part no doubt
Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
ps the preceeding paragraphs gave
About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.
if you do the maths that gives 785 years
can i see your maths to get
.only enough fuel for a few years
Edukator not ignoring you what you say is correct we all need to look at what we use where we can control it the most and that is the home.
I'm always skeptical when we get quantitative reports of undiscovered reserves. Known unknowns.
yes but some unknowns we know we know and this is one of them 😉
How does that work though? We know for a fact there's 10.5 million tons still to be discovered even though we don't know where it is?
I'm pretty sure there's cat **** in my garden but I wouldn't want to say how much til I'd dug it all up and weighed it.
We know for a fact there's 10.5 million tons still to be discovered even though we don't know where it is?
[img] 
[/img]
yes ernie that is just how science works - why are you not asking the same question to TJ about the neodymium needed for his windmills ?we clearly need a few more people to ask him before he answers. Perhaps he is off googling to look for something he can post up?
Anyway as you cannot be bother following links here is the explanation
Resources believed to exist and to be exploitable
using conventional mining techniques, but not yet
physically confirmed, are classed as “undiscovered
conventional resources”. These resources include
estimated additional resources category II (EAR II),
uranium resources that are expected to be located
in well-defined geological trends of known ore
deposits, or mineralised areas with known deposits;
and speculative resources (SR), uranium resources
that are thought to exist in geologically favourable,
yet still unexplored areas
call it an educated guess or an ESTIMATE if you prefer.
an estimate is not a fact, then again they have not weighed or extracted all the know stuff either so that is not a fact either. They are both estimates though we would all put more weight [ weight..get it ] to the "known" ones than the "unknown ones"
What do you think they do to find it [ or oil or gas or gold etc]just pick a spot and drill with their fingers crossed?
Have a gold star each, you bores. Back on topic, OP, those photos were interesting.
Zokes - what is the answer to "where are you going to get the fuel from to fuel the massive expansion of nuclear generators that is required if they are going to have any effect on global warming?"
Junkyard - MemberNo zokes this one is one me [again]
See, answered. (Cheers, JY!) As before, perhaps not the answer you were looking for, but it is answered.
Now then, you made a wildly inaccurate and emotional statement on the first page of this thread about 10s of thousands dead thanks to Chernobyl. Lets see the peer reviewed data to demonstrate that this statement of yours is neither wild nor inaccurate.
Anyway, in a nutshell, it appears that your main objections to nuclear are:
1) that they are apparently dangerous and massively polluting
2) that new versions are unproven tech and cannot be relied upon to work
3) that apparently they will only-be a bit-part player so we shouldn't bother
4) that we'll soon run out of fuel for them anyway.
Totally disregarding the fact that it's now been demonstrated that all these reasons behind your objections are wrong, lets see how coal, gas, and renewables stack up against them:
1) Release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution is predicted to kill or displace >1bn people through land loss, changes to weather patterns, extreme weather events etc. Additionally, many many more people are killed in the resourcing of these fossil fuels per TWh than are by nuclear power. So in the grand scheme of things, nuclear is at best relatively benign, and at worst, certainly a 'least worst' option.
2) Current, large scale proven renewable energy is based upon hydro or wind turbines. There are precious few extra places to build hydro reservoirs, and there isn't the space for all the wind turbines we need. Pretty much every other renewable technology is still very much in development for the purposes of being able to generate a meaningful amount of energy. So in that case, using your own argument against thorium cycle or breeder reactors, we can't rely on any sort of renewable other than what we already have, and I've just demonstrated by relying on them alone won't work.
3) As aracer put it a page or so back, certain renewables will only ever be a bit-part player in global energy production. Again, using your logic (which you imply is superior to my own and that of other contributors), they aren't worth bothering with.
4) I think we've now established that there is at the very minimum enough fuel to power replacements for the existing reactor fleet for 80+ years. In reality, there's actually much more, as demonstrated above. However, this isn't the case for gas (or oil for that matter), so we'd better stop developing anything using those fuel sources. Much more pertinent to this discussion is the shortage of rare earth elements (REEs - the clue's in the name here) such as neodymium for windmills, tellurium for PV etc. So, again using your logic here, we can't use the tech for more than 40-80 years we should just stop trying.
Frankly, I don't know why I even bothered to do this last post. Your opinions (often conflated with fact in your mind) have been comprehensively demonstrated to be false.
I suppose it would be good if you could furnish us with the details of all those deaths from Chernobyl (and Fukushima too - surely a few thousand must have been killed there as there were three meltdowns and some big explosions). Perhaps that peer-reviewed evidence (that only you are aware of at present) might persuade a few more of us that we need more care when considering nuclear power?
[img] 
[/img]
Having cycled around the German coast and across most of its lânder I can assure you that a tiny fraction of the potential wind sites have been occupied to produce 8% of the electricity produced. I can say the same for Spain where they produce 12%.
The Germans are building pump storage reservoirs on the tops of hills with no river input. There are more than enough hillls to build enough storage.
PV is up to 3% in just a few years. Again there are more than enough sites to produce the other 97% if necessary. Pump storage or hydrogen fuels cells to store the excess on sunny summer days.
There is only one reason coal and nuclear dominate, they're cheap in the short term.
The Germans are building pump storage reservoirs on the tops of hills with no river input. There are more than enough hillls to build enough storage.
Absolute tripe. Stations such as Dinorwig are extremely profitable, and will only become more-so as more renewable energy is produced. I can assure you as someone who did his degree 8 miles from Dinorwig (hence pumped storage featured pretty heavily in these sorts of discussions) that if other suitable locations were available, they would be utilised. There are a few sites in the UK suitable, and most already have these sorts of storage facilities set up, or are in National Parks and can't be developed. There are probably also a few sites in other hilly countries, but you need a decent hanging valley to make these things work, and there aren't many of them about.
So I guess in TJ-land it's another technology that can't possibly contribute much on a global scale and hence shouldn't be considered further 😉
There is only one reason coal and nuclear dominate, they're cheap in the short term.
This bit we can both agree on, but in the interim between achieving the ultimate goal of 100% renewable, or as near as we can, nuclear is much less polluting than coal.
Lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
From your German figures up there, that's 269 TWh that the Germans would need to produce by renewables to wean themselves off black and the even worse brown coal. Put it another way, on average, that's fifteen 2 GW nuclear power stations operating at 100% for 365 days of a year. Taking into account maintenance, the number required is probably nearer 20.
In terms of wind however, assuming 100 % output 356 days per year, it's 15,359 2 MW wind turbines that are required. I know Germany is quite a big country, but that's a heck of a lot of turbines, and that assumes that they are running at 100 %. So if we take an average load factor of a turbine as [url= http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html ]30 %[/url], that becomes 51,197 turbines you need to replace the 44% of Germany's electricity needs currently provided for by coal.
To scrap nuclear as well, the Germans would need 72,142 2 MW wind turbines.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that, but in essence, we're stuffed!
"tripe" you say. Thing is that they are building pump storage reservoirs now using lowland hills.
[img] 
[/img]
This graph would have continued its rise - had not the price per kWh paid to renewable energy providers been reduced. I suspect the curve will now flatten for a while.
I'll add intelligent metering to the mix to calm your worries about production and demand peaks. Signals sent remotely by energy providers to cut demand peaks and fill troughs. Your hot water tank will switch off during the advertising break and switch on when demand is low. Your washing machine and dish washer will require (an expensive) manual override to make them work during peak demand periods.
Zokes - yo still have not explained or answered that point.
Frankly, I don't know why I even bothered to do this last post. Your opinions (often conflated with fact in your mind) have been comprehensively demonstrated to be false.
Really - where? You have still not given an answers to those three questions.
the basic point is that nuclear can never make any significant contribution to stopping global warming as we do not have the fuel to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear energy that is needed to do so.
Really - where?
The vast majority of what you type on this topic, starting with:
TandemJeremy - Member[b]plenty of proof of many ten of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl at a bare minimum
No need at all for nuclear from any rational analysis. It can never be anything other than a very small part of energy usage worldwide[/b]
Posted 2 days ago # Report-Post
You have still not given an answers to those three questions.
I think you're now just trolling to try to get a response. I've answered them twice, others have answered them several times. The fact you disagree with the answers is what a rational person capable of intelligent debate would be discussing right now. Instead, you seem to just want to ignore the fact that the majority of this thread consists of answers to your questions, and none of it contains the evidence to substantiate your wildly inaccurate claims.
the basic point is that nuclear can never make any significant contribution to stopping global warming as we do not have the fuel to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear energy that is needed to do so.
So we shouldn't use what fuel we do have to negate the much more damaging emissions from an equivalent number of coal-fired stations for the next 80+ (using your figures up there) years??? This is a puzzling position for any rational person to take.
"tripe" you say. Thing is that they are building pump storage reservoirs now using lowland hills.
Presumably with a fraction of the power output of somewhere like Dinorwig. Even that behemoth can only manage 2 GW for 8 hours before all the water's at the bottom and you have to wait 16 hours (and 6 GW of electricity) to get it back to the top and start again. This is simple physics.
Zokes - can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.
Are you now accepting that nuclear will make no significant difference to global warming as there is not the fuel for the massive expansion of numbers of nuclear plants?
Plenty of proof of the Chernobyl deaths - reports from such bodies as unesco and WHO
No need at all for nuclear from any rational analysis. It can never be anything other than a very small part of energy usage worldwide
Are you refuting this? if so where are you going to get the fuel from?.
As nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in global energy generation and usage then its stupid to spend all that money and effort on it - that money and effort would be better placed being put into other measures that will actually have some significant effect.
Zokes - can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.
I have made several long posts over the past three pages answering these questions, I suggest you read them.
Are you now accepting that nuclear will make no significant difference to global warming as there is not the fuel for the massive expansion of numbers of nuclear plants?
A lot of things will make no significant difference to AGW on their own, wave, tidal and wind included. What we need is a mixture, not one or the other. Please try to keep up.
Plenty of proof of the Chernobyl deaths - reports from such bodies as unesco and WHO
Let's see it then. The accepted figures currently are 64 confirmed, with an estimation of about 4000 in the long term, which from both sides of this argument will be difficult to quantify. Neither of those figures are "tens of thousands". Then compare whatever predicted figure you are prepared to regard as [b]FACT[/b] with deaths predicted as a result of the multitude of effects of AGW, and treat those projections as [b]FACTS[/b] too.
As nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in global energy generation and usage then its stupid to spend all that money and effort on it - that money and effort would be better placed being put into other measures that will actually have some significant effect.
Such as??? I refer you to the case study of Germany that Edukator kindly provided me to do some sums on up there.
As you are being particularly hard of reading on this thread, I'll say it again:
[b]A lot of things will make no significant difference to AGW on their own, wave, tidal and wind included. [u]What we need is a mixture, not one or the other.[/u] Please try to keep up.[/b]
Harness mega-tsunami power for the free energy win?
So - no answers then. I thought not.
I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On "what to do with the waste" you just said "put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it" that is no answer
YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW - but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?
Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?
Again on sharing the tech - if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference
These three point show the impossibility of nuclear having any major effect on agw thus show the stupidity of wasting time energy effort and resources on it.
So - no answers then. I thought not.
Erm:
On "what to do with the waste" yo just said put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it"
That looks like an answer to me. At least by disagreeing with it you're acknowledging its existence, which is a start. I would suggest you find out what conventional power stations do with their waste. I think it involves chimneys and it being emitted to the atmosphere. So in most peoples' eyes, putting the waste securely underground would be a big improvement over breathing it in. But I accept that it is a point for debate, but the top and bottom ash from coal power stations is radioactive, and chemically toxic. Guess what current waste disposal routes there are for that.... You guessed it: a big hole in the ground (where unlike nuclear waste it won't be monitored or secured)
YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW - but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?
I did, then Junkyard did a better job than me, forcing you to accept that you were wrong and change your estimate from 40+ years to 80+ years.
Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?
Because right now the alternative is more coal, which will have far longer lasting and far more serious repercussions. Given the numbers of deaths projected from AGW, the numbers of deaths attributed to AGW per year already dwarf the wildest estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl.
Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power
Again on sharing the tech - if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference
With whom do we need to share the technology? Both Iran and North Korea have civilian nuclear facilities. The next big threats to USA dominance of international politics, China and India, have nuclear power. On the other hand as aracer pointed out at the end of the first page, Switzerland is going to have a very hard time making any electricity from tidal power, and I doubt there's much capacity for solar in Iceland. For large parts of Oz, hydro might be a bit tricky...
By your argument, presumably no technology that can't be universally applied, be it for political or geographical reasons, should be pursued. This is a nonsensical argument no matter what technology (wind, solar, nuclear, wave) you apply it to. So, leave the obfuscation out of it and deal with the answers.
Because right now the alternative is more coal,
Nope - the alternative a whole raft of alternatives.
For example -In the UK putting the money spent on one nuclear reactor into house insulation will save more energy than the nuke would produce.
I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim
Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power
so you are back claiming a massive expansion of nuclear generation is what is needed? without that massive expansion the re will be no significant difference in this.
this is the absurdity in the centre of your argument that you simply refuse to address.
You have now seemed to accept that there can be no massive expansion in nuclear power generation world wide as we do not have the fuel as well as various political consideration. However you keep claiming that nuclear will do all these things such as reducing deaths from coal mining. However without a massive increase in nuclear plants then there will be no change in the amount of coal used.
So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?
Dig a hole and chuck the waste is is no answer and you full well know that.
If I said - the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.
Coal isn't [i]the[/i] alternative, it's one of many. Don't forget to include the cost of land lost to rising sea levels when you calculate the price/kWh.
Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.
Iceland has geothermal and hydro.
Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.
I don't want to apply one universal technology. I want to apply the most appropriate mix of technologies to each region. I don't think we should let natiional boundaries get in the way of energy planning.
[img] 
[/img]
Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.Iceland has geothermal and hydro.
Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.
If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference
You have still not given an answers to those three questions.
[b]Are we reading the same thread?[/b] Can I shout that
He even numbers them to help you see it – he has answered so many times I have lost count 😯 😯 😯
What about you and windmills and the metals required – I bet you wish to claim you have answered that one as well don’t you 🙄
can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.
OH this really is pathetic you are a grown man – no one reading this thinks he has not answered. This is the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalaala
o - no answers then. I thought not.
I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On "what to do with the waste" you just said "put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it" that is no answer
That is an answer it is just that you do not like it but it still an answer [b]so the windmills and the metals needed where are you getting it from that is not answering a question[/b]
My irony meter just blew up it
YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW
I answered that numerous times with actual links and proper “stuff” as did others but hey you stick to form and ignore it
I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim
Yes just like the pope shows me god exists
🙄
What helmet for nuclear power?
Junkyard - go on then - where are the answers? Real meaningful answers or else I can simply say energy conservation will solve the problem.
He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else.
So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?
If its 1) where is the fuel coming from?
Thankfully, Edukator, you can see all this. You clearly missed aracer's sarcasm which I was echoing, as TJ had stated that if every country couldn't have nuclear then there was no point any country utilising it.
If I said - the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.
At last we can agree on something. 😀
So if we save much more energy we need to use less of it, which means that what renewables we currently can use will go further, with nuclear filling in the gaps, and no more dirty coal. However, there are limits to the amount of energy that a very selfish westernised democracy can be expected to save. Given the huge number of complaints there are about something as trivial as incandescent light bulbs being phased out, I suspect any government either presiding over enforced energy efficiencies, or radically increased energy prices (e.g. petrol demonstrations) will soon cease to be a government. Its successor will most probably be voted in on the back of revoking said legislation.
Sadly I won't have to suggest this soon. Australia now has a tax on carbon emissions, and in about 1 year's time, there will be a general election. I'm prepared to eat my shorts (a la Mark and the new forum) if Abbott's main manifesto point isn't repealing the carbon tax.
Jesus wept - who actually cares? This could have been a pretty interesting thread, and now its not. Well done...
That 28 days later site is amazing, the one on the Hydro-electric power station behind Niagra falls is something else....
Indeed, Clubber. That's because the sound of their own fingers typing is a more favourable source of aural pleasure...
If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference
I think you may have missed the point of that post.
I'm not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?
I think you may have missed the point of that post.
No - I think you missed the point of mine (I even included the typo).
I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: "this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed."
i.e. I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.
There is no point in arguing with someone who bases their argument on faith. I just hope that the majority of politicians are rational empiricists, otherwise we are all screwed.
Judging by the emphasis on faith, I reckon TJ is probably putting his faith in god to sort it all out. Now, where did I put that bucket of sand . . .
oh. sorry.
I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: "this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed."i.e. I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.
Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn't made in seven days. For that reason, I'll leave it to you guys.
Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world, wind power isn't the answer, eh Zokes (using current magnet types, there are generators that don't need powerful permanent magnets).
We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I'd like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.
Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world
that might have been me...
i know very little about turbine design, but i have a friend who designs electrical motors/generators for volvo trucks, he says neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of - and the situation is quickly getting worse.
i'm going to guess that neodymium isn't used because it sounds cool, but because the alternative is heavier / inefficient electrical machines...
pretend that we have enough of the stuff to make enough turbines to make a difference to climate change, that'll make it so valuable that wind farms will need to be guarded.
neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of - and the situation is quickly getting worse.
It's actually the subject of a WTO dispute at the moment because most of the relevant rare earths are found in China, which is restricting export because it's worth a lot of money and has military applications (if I have understood/remembered it correctly).
I'm not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?
Yes, 'cos that's what my moniker on here was (and kind of still is in my profile on here) before teh hack incident.
I want it back as my posting name though!
Anyway, isn't there a lot of arguing on here!
there's also a lot of interesting stuff.
Edukators posts particularly - i do like a nice graph.
A bit like Saudi/OPEC limiting oil supply then. Except that China doesn't need to consider keeping its military protectors happy.
So wind turbines might be a little less efficient without super powerful permanent magnets, still plenty efficient enough though. Just as electronic management systems have resulted in much more efficient internal combustion engines so the management of wind turbines and generators is improving. I'm convinced that if there are no rare earths to play with then engineers will optimise other technologies and arrive at much the same result.
I always thought the simple issue with turbines was economics. Power made by wind turbines is simply very expensive, and doesn't provide base load (so can't be the full solution).
He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else
We have ignored this - did your reference slip me by? - is it a an indisputable fact or just something you are saying that is open to debate ? Ps only you think the former so please dont answer.
Arguing we are ignoring you whilst not even bothering to answer about wind turbines and magnets is franklyt shameful and , even for you , an absurd level of unawareness.
As for your question AGAIN the link I gave you disputes your 40 years [ did I miss the reference for your claim?] and argues we have enough for thousands of years. Others have posted up links that refute your claim as well. Please feel free to ignore these links , the questions posed to you or indeed the answers given to your questions whilst “engaging in this debate”.
Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn't made in seven days. For that reason, I'll leave it to you guys.
Wise words dully noted yes TJ wins by attrition again and just repeating his view ad infinitum till other just give up "debating" with him
Edukator - my point re wind generator is that TJ applies double standards to his argument. ie we are running out of nuclear fuel [ which is debatable] but iognoring the fact we are running out of magnets - yes we may get more efficiency[ must do I assume] but remember that is not allowed in huis argument fo rnukes being more efficient so i assume we apply the same rule her too.
We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I'd like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.
I dont disagree with this at all. Unfortunately given AGW the risk of traditional methods using equally source resources means we will need to have greater reliance on nukes in the short run to replace coal/gas whilst the world adapts to using less energy and utilises renewable sources more effectively.
I assume we all agree on the solution in the long run it is the short run [ next 40 years] we are debating.
You might be trying to debate, but that's a tricky proposition against a protagonist who has an faith based, axiomatic position.
Bit like trying to argue that TJ doesn't exist.
Just as a last attempt to make an argument based on TJ's faith in other greeny lefty types, I'll link to here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/
"Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power. "
From the same bloke, here's a link to an article that thoroughly debunks the casualty figures for Chernobyl that TJ is so fond of spouting http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/.
Junkyard - your own link I followed only gave 80 years of known nuclear fuel at current consumption rates. YOUR LINk!
This remains the question [b]you will not face or answer[/b] - no one has yet on this thread. [b]If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors - where is the fuel coming from?[/b]
Not from any known source according to the sources you provided.
As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.
[url= http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article285956.ece ]Chinese wind turbines without rare earths.[/url]
A quick click on the tag "TJ Argues" shows that my posts above have already been done.
Glancing at that exchange seems to confirm that TJ has a dogma based approach. The only purpose in arguing with him is to publically rebut his faith based waffle, and I think that's been done adequately.
dj - can you answer that question? Or are you going to pretend this major flaw in the pro nuke argument does not exist?
Its not faith based waffle - this is a well founded logical position that no one has rebutted.
For those that are interested in sustainable power, this is fantastic resource IMHO:
It answers, in detail, several of the questions that have been discussed on this thread. The answers are not simple, and it's big on numbers, which might put off the non-techy types (but obviously they are pretty essential to the arguments).
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.
So if questioning the case for sustainable energy technology is irrelevant to the nuclear debate, what exactly is it you're planning on replacing nuclear with?
This is a fascinating website by the daughter of a Chernobyl technician, who used to ride her motorbike inside the dead zone:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors - where is the fuel coming from?
we don't need nuclear power stations to combat climate change, we need them because we need new power stations.
Edukator - MemberChinese wind turbines without rare earths.
great, they don't need rare-earths, they just need even more copper.
(interesting read though - ta)
Ok - so nuclear power stations will not have any appreciable effect on AGW then awwhiles - so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?
they're [s]cleaner and safer[/s] way cooler than coal power.
here's a question:
...[s]nuclear power stations[/s] wind turbines will not have any appreciable effect on AGW - so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?
the answer is (i think), that we can use a bit less coal/gas when it's windy.
but relying on coal and gas doesn't strike me as a great idea when i think about who supplies us with the fuel.
coal, gas, nuclear, wind, wave, tidal, efficiency measures, etc. it'll all add up, and we'll be fine.