Karis Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 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?" He's not the only one. While the Japan crisis was at its peak, the BBC newsreaders would regularly speak to specialists in the field and ask questions like: "you have to admit there's a chance it will happen here", basically trying to get them to admit the UK could face the same kind of problems. They were trying to steer the conversation down a cheap and sensationalist route. I found it outrageously poor journalism and exceptionally thoughtless to be spending a second during this tragedy to be trying to focus on our own minuscule problems when Japan has been so hugely ruined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In the face of further damning evidence of the potential for destruction on an apocalyptic scale, the results of this poll read more like a measure of levels of human stupidity than the safety of atomic power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 He's not the only one. While the Japan crisis was at its peak, the BBC newsreaders would regularly speak to specialists in the field and ask questions like: "you have to admit there's a chance it will happen here", basically trying to get them to admit the UK could face the same kind of problems. They were trying to steer the conversation down a cheap and sensationalist route. I found it outrageously poor journalism and exceptionally thoughtless to be spending a second during this tragedy to be trying to focus on our own minuscule problems when Japan has been so hugely ruined. if there is a problem with radiation, why are so many BBC jounalists out there, surely not to get just a tan. (Sorry, forgot about expenses) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 if there is a problem with radiation, why are so many BBC jounalists out there, surely not to get just a tan. (Sorry, forgot about expenses) Free holiday? They're not the ones at fault (in all seriousness), it's the ones in the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Globally, renewable energy already produces more electricity than nuclear and about as much as gas. As I said before it is Britain that lags behind the rest of the world. No one has suggested that there is one source of renewable energy that can replace all others. What is needed is a mix of the sources I have already mentioned. Some are very predictable (hydro/tidal), others less so (solar and wind) and others very manageable (biomass). The energy sources are there, it's more a case of a strategic approach to managing them so the lights don't go out that is missing. As for examples (from 2007) Iceland produces 100% of it's electricity from renewables, Austria 60% and Sweden 52%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Globally, renewable energy already produces more electricity than nuclear and about as much as gas. As I said before it is Britain that lags behind the rest of the world. No one has suggested that there is one source of renewable energy that can replace all others. What is needed is a mix of the sources I have already mentioned. Some are very predictable (hydro/tidal), others less so (solar and wind) and others very manageable (biomass). The energy sources are there, it's more a case of a strategic approach to managing them so the lights don't go out that is missing. Wow how "specific":roll: The only renewable power source that's got any track record of providing significant amounts of power is hydro, this of course required damming a major river in a way that suited the rather specific needs of hydroelectric power generation. Specifically which river/s are suited to this is the UK and where will the massive dams be placed? Name a specific proven tidal technology that we can simply implement in the UK. Where are we going to get the biomass to fuel any such power stations, how much power can they realistically be expected to generate. You have named 5 renewable energy sources of them: 2 solar and wind are by your own admission not very predictable. 1 Hydro has particular geographic requirements, does UK meet these? 1 biomass needs large amounts of fuel, does the UK have the capacity to produce enough fuel to produce significant mounts of electiricy? 1 tidal is still very much in the development stage and is anything but proven. Yet again you have abjectly failed to demonstrate that renewable sources can be relied upon to gnerate the UKs baseload electricity needs. As for examples (from 2007) Iceland produces 100% of it's electricity from renewables, Austria 60% and Sweden 52%. And what dishonest examples they are. Sweden & Austria are both very well suited for hydro, is the UK? Iceland of course is very volcanically active which makes geotheermal power easy to implement there, can you say the same for the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Curiously, you have to consider where that geothermal heat in Iceland comes from. Oh yes... decay of radioactive nuclides. So Iceland really runs 100% on nuclear energy...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Curiously, you have to consider where that geothermal heat in Iceland comes from. Oh yes... decay of radioactive nuclides. So Iceland really runs 100% on nuclear energy...:-) Lets that that argument a step further, ultimately we get all of our energy from the sun, so all of the world runs 100% on nuclear energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Indeed. Union Carbide at Bhophal killed at least 3,500 - potentially many more. Closer to home we have had Piper Alpha of course for the dangers of gas power plants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Lets that that argument a step further, ultimately we get all of our energy from the sun, so all of the world runs 100% on nuclear energy. Fortunately we live 93 million miles away from the sun...but it still gives people skin cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.