Obelix Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 . One is sustainable, safe and secure and the other is nuclear. And again you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Sorry plekhanov but these are all mature technologies, with working power stations around the world. If I could put my own emphasis on my quote: "We need to develop renewable energies quickly" The UK is miles behind the rest of the world on renewable energy (a legacy from our cheap North Sea gas). It's time we caught up and to do that we need to invest in renewable energy not nuclear. One is sustainable, safe and secure and the other is nuclear. This simply isn't the case, there are plenty of small scale power stations across the world intermittently generating small amounts of power from renewable sources. Nowhere though is there a mature technology which can replace coal, gas & nuclear's roles in generating the bulk of our electricity. This is why we, humanity, need to develop these technologies, because at the moment they don't exist. If you want to prove me wrong all you need to do is cite specific examples of proven technologies already mature and in use which can generate not just a few % here and there but the bulk of or energy needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I think you both misunderstand the precautionary principle. 'The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.' I don't believe we have been dealing with nuclear waste for the last 50 years. We've been storing it all up, not quite knowing what to do with it. I think you may have missed my earlier post. I understand you perfectly well. You are taking advantage of Japan recent earthquake and tsunami to try a bit a scaremongering about nuclear power here in the UK: "After Japan's problems should we have new nuclear power stations in the UK?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Judging from the poll results though he's not been enourmously successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I think you both misunderstand the precautionary principle. 'The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. Everything has a risk of causing harm, so nothing would ever be done. You start of talking about the risk of harm and then ask for proof that something isn't harmful. Which is nonsense, you evaluate the risks, investigate mitigation and decide whether the benefits out weight the risk. This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. Not the case for nuclear waste then. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.' I don't believe we have been dealing with nuclear waste for the last 50 years. We've been storing it all up, not quite knowing what to do with it. Storing it up is what to do with it. And then burying it several miles underground in a geologically stable location. Has any harm actually occurred from nuclear waste since we started building reactors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 Storing it up is what to do with it. And then burying it several miles underground in a geologically stable location. So why has nobody done that? Has any harm actually occurred from nuclear waste since we started building reactors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_Disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 So why has nobody done that? People like you objecting? So an accident that occurred over 50 years ago, with a type of waste that isn't generated today that was stored in a non safe manner... I've not claimed that nuclear power or waste is safe to keep in your compost heap, it needs treating appropriately, but when that's done there is no significant risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 People like you objecting? I'm flattered, but it doesn't really explain why countries such as China, Russia and North Korea have not done it. So an accident that occurred over 50 years ago, with a type of waste that isn't generated today that was stored in a non safe manner... Shows some of the risks associated with underground storage in a confined space though. I've not claimed that nuclear power or waste is safe to keep in your compost heap, it needs treating appropriately, but when that's done there is no significant risk. Noted in the Star today Professor Neil Hyatt from Sheffield University who researches nuclear waste said: 'In the UK, much more of concern is the safe and rapid decommissioning of our existing radioactive waste storage facilities, some of which are in a highly hazardous state' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It shows some of the risks of underground storage for that particular type of waste. I might be slightly misquoting, but I read something about the amount of waste produced by a modern reactor being 100's of times less voluminous than the old reactors, or it could have been 1000's of times.... Okay, so some old storage sites need attention, clearly there will be risks if they are neglected (although not if they're permanent and several miles underground). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I'm convinced that the stored nuclear waste is the back up system for the "Northern Lights". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.