General Discussions

[LP]

Oh my!

London: Boris Johnson has pledged to approve up to eight new nuclear power plants in the next eight years as Britain seeks to end its dependence on foreign oil and gas, and dramatically cut its emissions and lower household energy costs.

Who'd have thunk that wind wouldn't cut it for the UK or other European destinations!

[Mav]

I wonder why he's not relying on solar. We have the full range of renewable solutions at our disposal.

[kruddler]

The thing that is often overlooked with this whole power thing is its availability.
The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours.
The wind doesn't blow for 24 hours.
What do you do in the meantime? You need some HUGE batteries to cope.....and then we start into our battery debate again.

What happens if we put all our eggs into the solar basket and there is a volcano, or even an asteroid that plunges a city, state, country into darkness for days on end? Remember the volcano that shut down all of europe a few years ago?

Nuclear works, just like coal, whenever you need it too.

[Mav]

Yep, you can have those sorts of unexpected natural disasters. I seem to remember a Tsunami took out the nuclear power plant at Fookushima. It would indeed be unfortunate if we had a nuclear power plant that was taken out by a volcano, an earthquake or an asteroid strike.

PS: Yes, I know that's not the actual name of the place in Japan but the system changed what I wrote to screwushima!

[LP]

I wonder why he's not relying on solar. We have the full range of renewable solutions at our disposal.

I was surprised just how much solar they had last time I was in the UK, it's all over domestic roof tops, but I suppose the UK the population is less mobile, they tend to put down roots and stay.

[LP]

Yep, you can have those sorts of unexpected natural disasters. I seem to remember a Tsunami took out the nuclear power plant at Fookushima. It would indeed be unfortunate if we had a nuclear power plant that was taken out by a volcano, an earthquake or an asteroid strike.

The reality is that the bulk of harmful emissions from these events are very short lived and the bulk of it is contained to the immediate vicinity, the long lived stuff the anti-nuclear lobby continually harp on about remains contained. Three Mile Island for example emitted no radiation at all.

The real risk for long term dispersed contamination is the way waste is stored, handled and dispersed, not the threat of the power plant or it's reactors. Even the recent case in the Ukraine held very little risk of a major event, however if the same bombs had targeted the waste facilities then it would be a different matter. This is why I'm an advocate for Australia and other similar geographies to be global repositories for waste, and actually profit enormously from it. I realise the anti-nuclear / pro-renewables brigade rally against this idea, but in the same breath they demand Australia be held to account for it's waste from coal exports which seems hypocritical.

By volume more radioactive particulates are emitted from a normally operated coal fired plant over it's lifetime than will ever comes out of a normally operated nuclear plant over it's lifetime.

The best solution, in terms for having an immediate short term impact that can be sustained long term, seems to be a balanced approach using a diverse array of low carbon energy sources.

[Mav]

Do you think it's a bit naive to be taking what Boris says to the bank? Boris, Scomo & Trump are birds of feather. Scomo has gone big on projects that will only start years into the future (if they ever do) and I guess Boris has learnt at the feet of the master.

[ElwoodBlues1]

The reality is that the bulk of harmful emissions from these events are very short lived and the bulk of it is contained to the immediate vicinity, the long lived stuff the anti-nuclear lobby continually harp on about remains contained. Three Mile Island for example emitted no radiation at all.

The real risk for long term dispersed contamination is the way waste is stored, handled and dispersed, not the threat of the power plant or it's reactors. Even the recent case in the Ukraine held very little risk of a major event, however if the same bombs had targeted the waste facilities then it would be a different matter. This is why I'm an advocate for Australia and other similar geographies to be global repositories for waste, and actually profit enormously from it. I realise the anti-nuclear / pro-renewables brigade rally against this idea, but in the same breath they demand Australia be held to account for it's waste from coal exports which seems hypocritical.

By volume more radioactive particulates are emitted from a normally operated coal fired plant over it's lifetime than will ever comes out of a normally operated nuclear plant over it's lifetime.

The best solution, in terms for having an immediate short term impact that can be sustained long term, seems to be a balanced approach using a diverse array of low carbon energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/109139629...oactive-zo
A few old locals still residing around those danger areas too, be interesting to test those Russian troops and those locals and see what levels they have. As you say I dont see a waste dump for profit being a popular idea in Aus, didnt that idea get brought up years ago with the French wanting to dump uranium waste in Aus?

[capcom]

As you say I dont see a waste dump for profit being a popular idea in Aus, didnt that idea get brought up years ago with the French wanting to dump uranium waste in Aus?

Bob Hawke floated the idea in the 80s EB .... somewhere on the border of NT and SA

[Gointocarlton]

The thing that is often overlooked with this whole power thing is its availability.
The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours.
The wind doesn't blow for 24 hours.

If you can explain that to all the hippies it would be much appreciated. Good Luck.