You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
He's just answered that, TJ - because we need new power stations.
Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?
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.
Much as I strive to support an arguement against the faith healer TJ, that isn't exactly true. The European Regulations are pretty strict and the scrubbing in the chimneys is pretty damn good and very little does come out of the top. The waste is dealt with in other ways (gypsum, pulverised fuel ash in construction etc).
Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?
ok, instead of 15 new power stations, we now need 14.
To scrap nuclear as well, the Germans would need 72,142 2 MW wind turbines
2MW turbines are soooo 20th century.
These thread are hilarious, like a group of misinformed daily mail readers squabbling over tea and scones.
This is a fascinating website by the daughter of a Chernobyl technician, who used to ride her motorbike inside the dead zone:
As nice as that story is, I'm pretty sure that is was debunked in some way. I'll look for a link/try to remember.
globalti - thanks for that link, interesting site.
As nice as that story is, I'm pretty sure that is was debunked in some way. I'll look for a link/try to remember.
There are people who live in the exclusion zone - there's not much will or interest (or arguably point) in enforcing the exclusion and the residents are mostly poor pensioners who aren't worried about a increased risk of cancer when they're already way over the life expectancy anyway and can get free housing and land.
Found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_stalking#Chernobyl_stalking
Make of it what you will. Photos are still interesting, even if the narrative is suspect.
aren't worried about a increased risk of cancer
From what I've read, the precautions generally associated with radiation contamination appear to err on the side of paranoia, rather than a balance of cost and risks.
I think you're underestimating the impact of properly insulating domestic and commercial property, ahwiles. How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls? How many are heated by nothing more sophisticated than plugging in an electrical resistance?
Why aracer? Shall we spend the money that one nuclear power station costs on house insulation and save that energy instead? Then we do not need to generate it?
As awhiles said, but if you were looking for an answer from me, good idea - I'm all in favour of that. One less new nuclear power station.
Yes to all of the above, except the plugging in an electrical resistance. That's far too high tech for me - I burn things in a stove instead.How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls? How many are heated by nothing more sophisticated than plugging in an electrical resistance?
Double glazed sash windows are prohibitively expensive, and there is not much point putting them in with solid (non-cavity) brick walls. Haven't got around to taking up all the floorboards and insulating underneath, and I'm not particularly keen to do so (or to lose 4 inches from every room by slapping insulating panels inside). The extension is (with modern insulation) is lovely and toasty compared to the rest of the house funnily enough. But it's nothing that some more wood on the stove doesn't cure. Keeping the door closed on the sitting room also means it's relatively efficient, since the rest of the house can stay cold.
How many properties have any insulation under the floor at all? How many are still single glazed? How many don't even have cavity walls?
Aparrently, if you live in a flat in Edinburgh you're not even allowed to do [b]any[/b] of those things 😉
Can anyone tell me whats wrong with sticking radioactive waste in a hole in the ground? I mean, after all, thats where we found it isn't it? 😉
Junkyard - your own link I followed only gave 80 years of known nuclear fuel at current consumption rates. YOUR LINk!
The one I gave on the thread with this lead in ?
[b]this paper argues we have thousands of years left for example[/b]
Are you lying or just that misguided that you actually believe that? There is a bit of a clue in what they think and I have quoted it to you numerous times [ including emboldening the bit where they disagree with you –
[b]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]
It is not in anyway shape or form credible to argue that paper supports your view. It is disingenuous or belligerently false [ and frankly rather daft] to argue otherwise
Here is a nice chart about what they think – it is someway away form we a have 40 years left 🙄
You cannot paste charts so this is amended and based on 1999 levels
Current fuel cycle (LWR, once-through) 8 350 years
Recycling fuel cycle (Pu only, one recycle) 9 410 years
Light water and fast reactor mixed with recycling 12 500 years
Pure fast reactor fuel cycle with recycling 250 000 years
Advanced thorium/uranium fuel cycle with recycling 35 500 years
At no point do they say we only have 40 years left do they – QUOTE THEM to support this BS claim
This remains the question you will not face or answer - no one has yet on this thread. 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?
Not from any known source according to the sources you provided.
FFS how many times does it need answering for you to get the point that some folk disagree with you [ the ones using evidence]and you are not the only keeper of logic though you may be the only keeper of your version of it [ fingers crossed]
You did not read the article very well for example there are 4 billions tons in the sea that are currently not the cheapest to recover but it is still there – it is not running out in 40 years and this is not what the paper says at all - again your ability to misrepresent reality to for your agenda is frankly shocking
Now you may wish to disagree with it but to claim it supports your 40 year view is a lie.
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.
Now really that is not an answer it is just a refusal to answer 🙄 – it’s not that I just don’t like it you still have not actually answered it. Was this not something you moaned about even when it was answered multiple times before with numbers and everything
OH THE IRONING
Physician heal thy self
Can anyone tell me whats wrong with sticking radioactive waste in a hole in the ground? I mean, after all, thats where we found it isn't it?
yes I can apparently TJ thinks this is not an answer
djcombes Insulate and render over on the outside would be more efficient. (No gaps where internal walls abut the external ones to lose heat through).
Trouble with the external render approach is that it would ruin a very nice Victorian semi.
If aesthetics were not an issue, that might be a sensible solution.
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."
The only argument I have faith in is the unpalatable truth that we're all going to have to use much less energy in the future. Nuclear could well supply more of our electricity in the future, but as a method of cutting carbon emissions, it's a dead loss:
1. It's very expensive, so it competes with renewables and eficiency technology rather than fossil fuels.
2. It takes too long to build a new plant to contribute to carbon reductions any time soon. Which is too late.
3. France, which has 80% of its electricity from nuclear, has carbon emissions (IIRC) around 25% lower than ours. We need to be making an 80-90% cut.
4. If, as some suggest, we move to electricity for heating and transport (as gas and oil become scarcer) then it's highly unlikely we could build enough capacity to satisfy the increased demand.
As I say, it's all about efficiency and reduction.
Haven't got around to taking up all the floorboards and insulating underneath, and I'm not particularly keen to do so (or to lose 4 inches from every room by slapping insulating panels inside).
I recommend that you do. We had celotex fitted and wood flooring over the top - our downstairs is noticeably more comfortable and warms up quicker. Of course, it's very disruptive - we did it as part of other building work and redecorating.
I recommend that you do
It's on my list of things to do at some point, but I'm not in a great rush. The sitting room has more than enough warmth with stove lit.
I do wish that I'd insulating the big flat external wall while we were renovating - had all the plaster off and ceilings down, but didn't think of insulating as well as re-plastering at the time. Oh well.
We need to be making an 80-90% cut.
As I say, it's all about efficiency and reduction.
Whilst I admire the sentiment, 80% from efficiency measures is not possible without a huge (back to pre war days) change to the way we live and massive reduction in the amount of people in the country. Any govt which tried to change our lives to this degree would be booted out in quick order.
Efficiency is hugely important, but the manner in which we get our energy is too.
Yes wrecker, that's why we're screwed!
I think that ultimately you're right ransos. I don't think the planet will recover from the damage we've done regardless of how we change. It's admirable what the green lobby (for the main part) are doing but people are still chopping down rain forest, commerce in places the the US, China and India still comes a long way before any consideration for the environment. We'll do our bit on our little island. In the scheme of things, it won't change anything though. 😥
Junkyard -that piece uses the same data as Alistair Mcs link and give a figure of 80 years of fuel at current consumption rates.
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.
Thats 80 years worth of known and recoverable fuel at present consumption rates. All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
Using the same logic with renewables, we might as well give up with them now.
Oh, but of course that's ignoring the fact that they're actually relying on quite confident predictions of the availability of fuel based on scientific modelling, and current technology which just isn't in widespread use.
Let's think - who do we trust on this - TJ or the NEA?
Thats 80 years worth of known and recoverable fuel at present consumption rates. All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
That's not how it works. The "other fuel" in that article that you linked to is stuff that is above and beyond the 230 year supply. The 10.5 million tonnes will be places where the geology looks favourable for there to be large deposites of yellowcake but no one has actually dug any up yet, probably because there is no need to spend that sort of money on that sort of exporation when there is a better return to be had by getting after the proven stuff.
It's an estimate based on probabilities and created by people who have access to far more information about it than you or I do.
All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
this was done earlier
here is what I said then
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?
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-long-shadow-of-chernobyl/page/3#post-3602391
and from the link you cited and I am repeating this post as well as it is just after the bit you quoted
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.
so STILL NOT 80 YEARS
we did this on this post
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-long-shadow-of-chernobyl/page/3#post-3602280
This is pointless and I cannot be bothered to repost to the same question ad infinitum ..you wont change your view but you will select facts that fit your view and ignore the totality of the argument put forward in the papers neither of which support your 40 or 80 year view
[img] 
[/img]
Going back to pre war energy consumption levels (I'm guessing you mean WWII) doesn't seem to be much of a reduction when you look at the coal production graph. About 30% of the 1913 peak was exported but by WWII the coal graph is representative of most of the UK's energy consumption. A lot!
80 years of uranium (well 78 really) was based on 80s proven reserves. Prospecting stopped when the price crashed but rose enough to prompt more prospecting in 06/07 and a new estimate of 546 years. I'm sure a bit more prospecting would yield enough ofr thousands of years but would also result in a price crash that is not in the interest of the companies prospecting and releasing data.
In order for that graph to be of any use, we'd need to know the equivalent amount of energy we use today including nuclear, imported coal, renewables. We'd have to include gas consumption as well.
[img] 
[/img]
By 1970 most coal was being burned in power stations. Take the proportion of coal in 1970 on the electricity graph as a rough gauge of the energy derived from coal in earlier periods. (coal imports form a significant part of the coal used in power stations since the Thatcher years so recent coal use figures aren't useful for comparison purposes which is why I suggest using 1970 - post smokeless zones and hearth burning, pre imports)
Yep, left the thread for 12 hours, had a sleep, and the other posters have pretty much just repeated what has already been written twice, yet TJ still fails to listen.
I think we should start a thread on nursing (a topic hopefully TJ knows more about than he does about sustainable energy production [by the way TJ, the thread was actually about showing some URBEX pictures of Chernobyl, and not a discussion about [i]any[/i] sort of power generation])
We can then use all sorts of faith / daily mail based arguments about how the NHS is a waste of space, and how all nurses are unprofessional and spread disease etc. We could refuse to listen to the facts that TJ will furnish us with, instead pointing out things like MRSA.
That might seem a tad unfair, but as I stated earlier, I wouldn't have dreamt about questioning TJ's professional knowledge, so I'm puzzled as to why my own is fair game. I mean, we can all read [b]FACTS[/b] about nursing on a daily basis in the papers, so they must be true 🙄
TJ - I posted that 80 year link to disprove your faith based argument that has never been backed up with evidence. I was able to double your 40 year claim using a link on the first page of a Google search. If you are so certain you're right, surely the easiest thing you can do is refute my link with some other evidence?
Until that point, I'm out. No point in debating with you as you're clearly unwilling to accept you might be wrong.
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.
this really does amuse me - the touching faith you guys have in the nuclear industry despite 50 years of lies - still continuing today 🙂
Your refusal to give any meaningful answers to the three questions is laughable as well.
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
However to say as you guys do - waste can be got rid off by putting it in a hole in the ground, new tech will come on line meaning we have more fuel and new tech will come on line meaning reactors are less polluting is just accepted by you, Your faith is touching and laughable - and misplaced.
You can't even agree if nuclear is simply to replace the few reactors we have or if its a viable tool in the fight against AGW
So lets see some real meaningful answers - not just platitudes baldly stated that we have to accept on faith.
Waste - how are you going to manage it - High level stuff is usually chemically hot and reactive as well as radiactive. it will remain dangerous for many hundreds of years.
So - what rock - whats the location of the depository?
Waht process to make it chemincally inert?
How will you ensure it does not get into the water table in this timespan?
How can you ensure it willnot be affected by earthquakes over that timespan?
How will you monitor it
will you make it retreivable in the event of leakage?
all these and lots more questions need to be answere3d
So come on - real meaninful answers please.
Very interesting graph edukator. As that is gross generation, it would include the burning of imported coal though won't it?
Not sure what you're getting at about the imported coal though, it's being consumed and so would need to be included, no?
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as [s]the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.[/s] that doesn't upset my religious view too much.this really does amuse me - the touching faith you [s]guys[/s] have in [s]the nuclear industry[/s] your anti-nuclear position
FTFY
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
Given by default that is clearly your position go on then. Like the supply of rare earth magnets - "I'm sure we'll find some alternative" isn't a meaningful answer BTW.
"I'm sure we'll find some alternative" isn't a meaningful answer BTW.
tell that to zokes and junkyard 🙂
TandemJeremy - Memberall these and lots more questions need to be answered
So come on - real meaninful answers please.
So all the birthday politeness was just the "one off" eh 😆
[img] 
[/img]
Wow! This thread just keeps on giving!
tell that to zokes and junkyard
No answer then?
Your refusal to give any meaningful answer to that questions is laughable.
The difference of course is that isn't actually what they're saying.
There are comprehensive answers to your questions - and they've been given before on nuclear power threads. TBH I really can't be bothered - any answer we give you'll dismiss as "not an answer". The only interest in these threads when you get involved is in pointing out your hypocrisy.
Oh and in claiming 200.
I think you missed my link on page 4, Aracer. [url= http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article285956.ece ]Wind turbines don't need rare earths[/url].
80/240/540 years of proven uranium reserves is pretty good compared with any of the non-renewable alternatives.
Prematurely closing nuclear reactors which still have life in them wil just result in life as we know it ending sooner:
[img] 
[/img]
1)
So - what rock - whats the location of the depository?
There are a few prospective sites here in Oz. The place is only, what, 3.8 bn years old.
2)
Waht process to make it chemincally inert?
Turn it into glass, like already happens. Look up 'vitrification'.
3)
How will you ensure it does not get into the water table in this timespan?
See (1) and (2)
4)
How can you ensure it willnot be affected by earthquakes over that timespan?
See (1) and (2)
5)
How will you monitor it
I suspect it will involve computers and stuff. Also see (1) and (2)
6)
will you make it retreivable in the event of leakage?
See (1) and (2)
Easy really...
So lets see some real meaningful answers - not just platitudes baldly stated that we have to accept on faith.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
It's just like having cressers back 😀
Again, Macavity, why should I click on that link? Will it provide me new information? Will it back the opinions of others on this thread, or support my own?
In short, yur debatingz is saracin
EDIT: Having just skimmed your posting history, I've come to the conclusion you must be some sort of bot.
So, for the most part, we have reasoned argument backed up with scientific facts (and good discussions amongst these opinions, especially with Edukator) [i]vs[/i] a faith healer and a google-bot. No wonder this thread hasn't turned out very well
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.
Wow that is really really really generous of you no really it is…now all we need is someone else with like say a science background to agree with you and hey we can then debate that figure v what other scientists who work in the industry says
You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing - it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations
this really does amuse me - the touching faith you guys have in the nuclear industry despite 50 years of lies - still continuing today
Faith? I am not fan of it but it unfortunately the best short term alternative- does throwing gentle ad hominem and lazy slurs to those who have a different view to you part of your simple logic we cannot defeat?
Your refusal to give any meaningful answers to the three questions is laughable as well.
You refusal to accept any answer you disagree with as meaningful is somewhere between , desperate, tragic and laughable
Here is your answer to magnets btw to show you a non meaningful [ its just a refusal to answer ]
[b]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.[/b]
Is this the sort of meaningful answer you would prefer?
Really you are like a self awareness vacum accusing everyone of doing exactly what you do, your lack of self awareness is at Olympic levels here –
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
However to say as you guys do - waste can be got rid off by putting it in a hole in the ground, new tech will come on line meaning we have more fuel and new tech will come on line meaning reactors are less polluting is just accepted by you, Your faith is touching and laughable - and misplaced.
Your are right TJ life shows us that mankind does not progress, move forward and the next generation will not be able to do anything new that we cannot currently do. Its an excellent point well made. How is the leech treatment going of your patients and I assume you still drill their heads for mental health purposes?
You cannot even phrase the question respectfully no and you just assert it is both faith [probably because you cannot see the multiple answers given]and misplaced and then regale us with how logical your argument is ..its pish.
PS you know there are not enough magnets for your wind power are you hoping for some new technology we currently don’t have to come along toi make it successful. If"we" are doing this then so are you [ i knwo you will deny it but no one belives this]
It’s a shame the issue is complicated and it requires a subtle and nuanced debate to work out the best solutions [ with non being ideal tbh] in order to make something sustainable. That’s is a debate that can never be had when you are in the “debate” as you just polarise then brow beat…it’s the last time I am getting sucked in "debating" with youa as I now know what futile means
.[b]The only interest in these threads when you get involved is in pointing out your hypocrisy[/b]
THIS but it is pointless as despite you being told this on numerous threads by numerous people I really do believe you think it is all of us who have a problem and not you or your simple logic- that is tragic and I don’t wish to partake in “debate” with you.
Itis like debating with a person of faoth with limited intelect.
Junkyard -
You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing - it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations
Its not a meaningful amount - nuclear power is a small % of energy usage - so 80 years at current usage will make no significant difference to AGW
For nuclear to make any significant difference it needs to be expanded massively - and we do not have the fuel for that.
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
[b]No one on this thread has addressed this point.[/b]
Zokes - so no answers again then What a suprise.
aracer
There are comprehensive answers to your questions
Really - can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.
Zokes - so no answers again then What a suprise.
Umm did you not see the post where he said "turn it into glass and put it somewhere geologically stable"?
Or are you just being as closed minded?
gonefishin - its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
"Put it somewhere geologically stable" Really meaningful
Where is this mythological place? what type of rock? Where is it located?
You claimed no-one's mind could be changed earlier. Why don't you accept your own forecast and STFU giving everyone a rest from your tiresome argumentative BS.
I reckon you sat up half the night thinking of your first post this morning. You're clearly obsessed with something and it would appear to be with arguing for the sake of it.
Boring...
teasel This question shows the massive hole in the pro nuclear arguement and non of the pro nukes will answer it.
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
You claimed no-one's mind could be changed earlier. Why don't you accept your own forecast and STFU
its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
He took all of your questions and answered them one by one. That's not limited.
"Put it somewhere geologically stable" Really meaningful
That was me summarising what he said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
Since you are so fond of wiki, that's how several coutries have decided to do it.
Now I appreciate that you may not like the proposed solutions but that doesn't mean that they won't be effective.
Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
i refer you to the answer you eventually gave me after being asked about 5 times on wind generators where you simply stated you would not answer and you considered that an answer 🙄
No answer will satisfy you when it is given to you and any answer given by you is undefeatable simple logic... then you dollop in some slurs about faith and luaghing at others.
It does not matter what anyone says does it. How many people have told you it has been answered now? How many have agreed with you.
I cannot decide if this is tragic or funny.
i can it is tragic really tragic...every thread becsome this for you TJ 😥
Gonefishing - read your wiki link.
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, [b]although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[/b][
Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described [b]the as yet unsolved dilemma [/b]of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."[8]
Junkyard - if the questions I posed have been answered will you please copy and paste them?
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
You mean the nuclear industry's own figures which say they have 230 years of fuel at current usage levels, but that could be more than doubled by more efficient use of fuel (using current technology)? So if we allow for 50 years of use (before things like Thorium or fusion come on-line), that allows for 10 times as much nuclear power as we have now - is that not a massive expansion?
Or do you mean TJ's grossly distorted figures?
How much [b]real[/b] baseload energy do renewables supply compared to nuclear?
<though I'm really not sure why I bother - doubtless that's not a proper answer to the STW "expert" on this>
No - I mean the industries own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.
Really - can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.
Nope - CBA expending the effort in a futile attempt to win an internet argument with you about this - not when you'll doubtless dismiss them in the same way you do with any other reasoned argument which doesn't agree with your religious view.
No - I mean [s]the industries[/s] my own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.
FTFY
Aracer - direct lift from the NEA numbers. 80 years worth of KNOWN reserves
TJ = Worzel Gummidge doing a five-knuckle shuffle.
[s]Only if you completely misinterpret the way the word "known" is used when presenting such figures. The "nuclear industries own figures" include rather more than that[/s]
CBA - we've done all this before, and you refuse to accept the way this is calculated by every scientist involved.
[img] 
[/img]
if the questions I posed have been answered will you please copy and paste them?
Just when I thought you could not get worse
Ok i am going to runa sweep stake on this i am going for you having been answered 23 times and claimin got have not been answered 25 anyone else
PS 1 more page before closed as well
direct lift from the NEA numbers. 80 years worth of KNOWN reserves as that fits my view . I am going to ignore the rest of the quote about how much they can reasonably expect to find once they explore other potential sites as frankly that part of their view does not fit with my view so I shall just ignore it and pretend it is not part of their viewDont challenge me I shall mock your faith whilst bigging up my simple logic if you do NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION BY AGREEIN WITH ME
FTFY
[img]
[/img]
Jesus wept pathetic - you dont like the amswers that is your problem
I note wyou dont comment on your own refusal to even answer the question and ewhen you eventually did answer all you said was that you were refusing to answer. Super work of comedic genious or shocking lack of self awareness?
You are going to claim the edinburgh defence soon aren't you as franky this is getting more and more tragic by the post.
I am leaving the thread before the mods express their displeasure in me again.
I could answer your question by saying " new technology will come on line meaning this problem will disappear"
you seem to find that an acceptable answer for the questions I ask about nukes 🙂
Ok i am going to runa sweep stake on this i am going for you having been answered 23 times
19
So, renewables. At the moment it makes up a teeny weeny proportion of power generation. How will these be expanded to meet the shortfall with no coal or nuclear (and longer term gas too).
How many windfarm, Solar installations, geo-thermal stations, hydro electric, wave thingies and anything else will we need?
Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?
Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?
Ah, a daily mail reader!
piedi di formaggio
apparently its acceptable to answer:-
"new tech will come on line and make it all work in a satisfactory way"
Where did this word "known" come from. As a geologist I'd rather quote "proven", "probable" and "possible". After digging about a bit on the Net, for uranium those correspond to 80+ years, 2-600 years and very approximately 3000 years. Look at the evolution of "proven" reserves for oil and gas over the last 50 years and you'll see that we are now running on what was "possible" back then.
So, renewables. At the moment it makes up a teeny weeny proportion of power generation. How will these be expanded to meet the shortfall with no coal or nuclear (and longer term gas too).
They won't
How many windfarm, Solar installations, geo-thermal stations, hydro electric, wave thingies and anything else will we need?
There is not enough land space in the UK to satisfy our energy requirement through renewables
Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?
No.
I don't read the mail.
So, without (at current technological levels) nuclear, when the sun goes down, it's going to go dark & quiet.
Ironically, it's also going to be darker for longer in Scotland 😆
Interesting news on the BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17445479
A US power company is planning to build a coal-fired power station at Grangemouth, BBC Scotland has learned.
The proposed plant would be built at the Port of Grangemouth, on the Firth of Forth, west of Edinburgh.C02 emissions would be captured and piped to St Fergus in Aberdeenshire, before being stored deep under the North Sea.
Sound familiar?
So after "not enough rare earths" and "not enough uranium", Wrecker now adds "not enough land space for renewables".
Yes it does sound familar, Pied, and will probably go the way of the previously announced, much vaunted, and cancelled capture and storage projects.
Zokes - so no answers again then What a suprise.
PMSL! Well, you've cheered me up this morning with such an insightful and decisive argument winning post 😆
Australia has been about for billions of years, it's outlived the dinosaurs and god knows what else. I'm pretty sure the place will outlive humanity without changing much. Seeing as I spend far too much time travelling around it for work, I can assure you it's pretty bloody big too. So, if we're looking for somewhere that's large enough (it was mainly formed in the early archaean age - the clue's in the name) and also geologically stable, I'd suggest I'm sat on it right now. Ironically, it's also where most of the stuff comes from in the first place.
As for vitrification: well, I've never head of glass dissolving. I accept if you leave it somewhere windy and dusty it might erode, but deep under ground there's not much wind.
TandemJeremy - Member
piedi di formaggioapparently its acceptable to answer:-
"new tech will come on line and make it all work in a satisfactory way"
I think you'll find we borrowed this fro you re: wave / tidal on a large and non-environmentally-damaging way.
C02 emissions would be captured and piped to St Fergus in Aberdeenshire, before being stored deep under the North Sea.
Well, as opposed to letting this harmful pollution out into the atmosphere, I suppose "just sticking it in a hole in the ground" might be an improvement, if it can be kept there for eternity, seeing as CO2 doesn't decay at all...
Australia has been about for billions of years.....it was mainly formed in the early archaean age - the clue's in the name
😕
Truly EPIC BATTLING guys, mostly TJ tho, the rest of you need to reed that parable about internet arguing and pig wrestling.
Im still after the proof that 10's of thousands died as a result of the op subject. Seriiously TJ, i'd like to see it but I can't find it. Pointers please?