It is currently 29 Mar 2024, 12:35
9fingers wrote:Seems to me in the case of electricity generation and possible a few other things too, the fundamental problem seems to be that successive govts don't want to own any infrastructure. The UK model of whichever political flavour seems to be to create an economic environment where private industry (including foreign owned) is encouraged to provide power stations, solar, wind etc at their expense.
However they force older facilities to close so we have lost (or soon to lose) a few nukes, coal generation is virtually shut down.
Add to that proposals for ASHP heating as a replacement for gas central heating and EVs with no real plan how it will be powered.
As Roger's screen shots show this time of year we are perilously close to using everything we can generate and little or no margin.
Bob
Woodster wrote:It’s an interesting topic. Some weeks ago wind turbines were supplying over 50% of our electricity here in the UK. ....
Woodster wrote:......... It will apparently remain radioactive for between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
Woodster wrote:
As a species we’ve so far produced over a quarter of a million tons of nuclear waste and we don’t know what to do with it. It will apparently remain radioactive for between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
Lurker wrote:we will be upstream of the waste ...
Nope, we already have plenty of really nasty stuff up at sellafield.
Sheffield Tony wrote:Wind is currently supplying more than our nuclear capacity.
To my thinking, if we are going to be paying EDF (thus the French government) to build and operate reactors, why not just install a thicker cable and buy the power from France and let them have the reactors there, we end up reliant on them in any case, and if the glaciers advance we will be upstream of the waste ...
It is hard to escape the conclusion that that there are now so many humans consuming so much there is no way to provide for them without significant ill effects on the environment. Reducing consumption seems to be entirely unpalatable to the majority.
Lurker wrote:Woodster wrote:
As a species we’ve so far produced over a quarter of a million tons of nuclear waste and we don’t know what to do with it. It will apparently remain radioactive for between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
True but 90+% is low hazard, far less dangerous than what’s leaking out of the granite in cornwall for example.
Remember that initially the nuclear power stations in the U.K. were primarily interested in producing bomb materials, the power was just a side benefit. That legacy is the nasty bit.
Mike G wrote:Lurker wrote:Woodster wrote:
As a species we’ve so far produced over a quarter of a million tons of nuclear waste and we don’t know what to do with it. It will apparently remain radioactive for between 10,000 and 100,000 years.
True but 90+% is low hazard, far less dangerous than what’s leaking out of the granite in cornwall for example.
Remember that initially the nuclear power stations in the U.K. were primarily interested in producing bomb materials, the power was just a side benefit. That legacy is the nasty bit.
Not only would any waste be at risk from glaciation, but any power stations (still in use or de-commissioned) would be ground flat by the ice.
Lurker wrote:True but 90+% is low hazard, far less dangerous than what’s leaking out of the granite in cornwall for example.
Pete Maddex wrote:What gets me is that the power stations suck electrons from the ground near your house all the way back down the wires.
Pete
Woodbloke wrote:When fusion powered reactors come on line, we'll wonder what all the 'lecky fuss was about - Rob
Woodster wrote:A message proposed in 1993 by the US Department of Energy to warn future generations of nuclear-waste sites.
Return to The Woodmangler's Retreat
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests