Speaking of hidden agenda's

Days after Tony Blair won a reduced majority in Parliament, the truth behind his Kyoto hysterics is unveiled in documents leaked to The Observer.

In a 46-paragraph briefing note for incoming ministers, Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the new Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry, warns that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost green energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently. It advises that 'it is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament'.

Rrright, and it is also generally easier to unveal them after election day than before, isn't it? Kind of reminds you of the episode where Mr Blair committed himself to the American plan for "regime change" in Iraq months before he told either Parliament or the British people.

"Well Tony, have you consulted the Attorney General on nucelar energy yet?" :mellow:

Old news that has been going for several years, since at least 2000 with more and more intensity as power stations get older. The problem is the economic policy on energy contradicts the sustainability policy, and so prevents it from getting up and going. That and trying to ride to sustainability on the back of the dash to gas power stations (from coal stations with their high CO2) and lower energy use growth than expected in the late 90's.

The extent to which the public will oppose nuclear power isn't something thats too clear, I don't see many complaining about our current facilities, and the next gen will be even better. Theres some impressive improvements in nuclear generation and its inherent safety (yes you can make such a thing to a point) in the last 5 years, including some from odd places like South Africa. With that sort of system and the alternative largely being coal or import reliance, I can see us getting a few stations built if they put their ass in gear on it.

I think that's a good thing. It seems there is a shift in policy regarding nuclear power in several countires. Finnland is just building a hyper-modern reactor that will solve all its energy issues.

Quote:

---

solve all its energy issues

---

Well it will make sure that there is more electrical power and won't contribute to the greenhouse effect, but it will create some other issues that need solving!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Well it will make sure that there is more electrical power and won't contribute to the greenhouse effect, but it will create some other issues that need solving!

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I think that's a good thing. It seems there is a shift in policy regarding nuclear power in several countires. Finland is just building a hyper-modern reactor that will solve all its energy issues.

---

There is a shift, but there isn't a proper debate to accompany it. I keep hearing about 'new generation' nuclear plants that will solve all our energy needs, but I'd like a debate among scientists about their potential benefits, costs and risks. A serious debate, since I have serious Questions and Doubts

I recall recent EU studies that concluded Europe wouldn't be able to cover even its electricity need with nuclear plants. Warmth and transportation require different kinds of energy sources altogether, so building nuclear plants wouldn't do much good in those sectors. And nuclear energy would merely make a dent in total antropogenic CO2 emission because the bulk of emissions are caused by transport, heating, agriculture, production of cement or deforestation.

The most disappointing aspect of the 'shift' is the widespread notion that nuclear energy production is somehow miraculously 'clean' because its byproducts don't include greenhouse gases. However, in the process of building and running nuclear plants a lot of fossile fuel is used. Comparative studies of the lifecycles of so-called energy-bearers like wind, water, nuclear, gas and coal show that nuclear is more costly in terms of CO2-equivalents than either wind or water.

Maybe the Finns can cover all their needs this way, A.Saturnus, providing they have women to keep them warm at night, they move by dog sled, and they take up producing booze instead of cement to secure for themselves the necessary moral fortitude.

Quote:

---

Such as?

---

High level radioactive waste that needs carefull storage for centuries and decomissioning costs. You might argue that this is preferable to buring fossil fuels (I might agree!), but there is no such thing as an energy source that does not have its own problems. Fusion power may be an exception. The current problem with this source is that it does not work yet!

well maybe the extremely high temeratures needed and to be maintained for Fusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Maybe the Finns can cover all their needs this way, A.Saturnus, providing they have women to keep them warm at night, they move by dog sled, and they take up producing booze instead of cement to secure for themselves the necessary moral fortitude.

---

If there's energy available people will use it, but a new reactor will be helpful anyways. We've had to shovel quite a bit of coal through reserve power stations thanks to the cold winter.

The women are beautiful, city people can move by bike and we consume lots of Finnish booze. There's a saying that what you lack in courage and other moral stuff is available in half litre bottles from the liquor store. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

If there's energy available people will use it, but a new reactor will be helpful anyways. We've had to shovel quite a bit of coal through reserve power stations thanks to the cold winter.

The women are beautiful, city people can move by bike and we consume lots of Finnish booze. There's a saying that what you lack in courage and other moral stuff is available in half litre bottles from the liquor store. ~D

---

And you guys have a lot of humour, and a sense of the bizarre that comes through beautifully in Finnish movies (Leningrad Cowboys anyone?). So I'm glad you took my remarks with Finnish panache.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

There is a shift, but there isn't a proper debate to accompany it. I keep hearing about 'new generation' nuclear plants that will solve all our energy needs, but I'd like a debate among scientists about their potential benefits, costs and risks. A serious debate, since I have serious Questions and Doubts

I recall recent EU studies that concluded Europe wouldn't be able to cover even its electricity need with nuclear plants. Warmth and transportation require different kinds of energy sources altogether, so building nuclear plants wouldn't do much good in those sectors. And nuclear energy would merely make a dent in total antropogenic CO2 emission because the bulk of emissions are caused by transport, heating, agriculture, production of cement or deforestation.

The most disappointing aspect of the 'shift' is the widespread notion that nuclear energy production is somehow miraculously 'clean' because its byproducts don't include greenhouse gases. However, in the process of building and running nuclear plants a lot of fossile fuel is used. Comparative studies of the lifecycles of so-called energy-bearers like wind, water, nuclear, gas and coal show that nuclear is more costly in terms of CO2-equivalents than either wind or water.

Maybe the Finns can cover all their needs this way, A.Saturnus, providing they have women to keep them warm at night, they move by dog sled, and they take up producing booze instead of cement to secure for themselves the necessary moral fortitude.

---

Can you tell me a scientific reason why it shouldn't be possible to cover our energy needs with nuclear power? The only possibility that comes to my mind is the lack of resources, but I would need some numbers to judge that. Germany currently receives about one third of its energy from nuclear power, despite not having build any new reactors since the 70ties. In comparison, wind and water cover less than 5%. That nuclear power isn't "clean" is obvious, but it is cleaner than our current main source fossil fuel. The idea that we can rely entirely on clean sources within the next 100 years is unfortunately utopic. Warmth and transportation do not require any different kinds of energy, they only require good batteries. These batteries are currently about to arise in form of hydrogen-based energy cells.
We only have the following choices:
relying on fossil fuel as we do now until it's used up and hope a miracle appears then
using nuclear power
or introduce an energy pause

Which would you take?
BTW, water isn't such a clean source as is sometimes claimed. True, it produces no CO2 but all grand-scale water plants have been ecological disasters.

Quote:

---

High level radioactive waste that needs carefull storage for centuries and decomissioning costs. You might argue that this is preferable to buring fossil fuels (I might agree!), but there is no such thing as an energy source that does not have its own problems. Fusion power may be an exception. The current problem with this source is that it does not work yet!

---

Of course, everything has its problems (including fusion) but radioactive waste doesn't strike as that much of a problem. After all, the material was already radioactive before we dug it out of the earth. We dig it out, use it to get energy and dig it up again. It's not as if radioactive material wouldn't lie around everywhere already.

Besides, the net radioactive effect of a nuclear plant isn't all that different to a coal plant - which produces vast quantities of very low level radioactive material... that hangs around in the atmosphere. As well as all the other junk that ends up shunted into the air. At least with a nuclear plant, most of the waste can be isolated and buried somewhere irrelevent and out of the way.

Quote:

---

After all, the material was already radioactive before we dug it out of the earth.

---

This is a misconception. In a fission reaction, Uranium 235 nuclei are split into two roughly equal parts (and some neutrons are released too). The two new nuclei are very unstable and highly radioactive - much more radioactive than the original nuclear fuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Can you tell me a scientific reason why it shouldn't be possible to cover our energy needs with nuclear power?

---

Like I said, I'd like to see a serious debate of the issue because there is none. Maybe if you show us how we can trap heat in batteries without significant loss of energy, you might start such a debate all on your own. Heat usually 'kills' batteries.

Edit
I better take that last remark back. Tongue-in-cheek doesn't go down well on this board lately, even with a smiley.

In fact, even when it comes to a choice between your three scenario's I'm not sure that this is the full range of choices we have. And I'd like to see the science that backs up your vision of a fully nuclear-dependent Europe. I'll look for stuff myself, maybe we can find links to material that gives substance to our discussion.

There was a documentary done on this subject that was aired a few months ago, can't remember the name unfortunately, the presenter, originally vehementally anti-nuclear at the beginning, came to the conclusion that nuclear power is the best of our rather limilted options. I think his opinion was backed by some green campaigners.

Quote:

---

Maybe if you show us how we can trap heat in batteries without significant loss of energy, you might start such a debate all on your own. Heat usually 'kills' batteries.

---

Of course I can show you that. Take a source of energy, like a nuclear reactor. Use it to seperate water into hydrogen and oxigen in an energy cell, get the energy cell into you house. Use it to send electical energy through a conductor, the conductor gets warm, you have heat. Repeat as often as necessary.

Quote:

---

In fact, even when it comes to a choice between your three scenario's I'm not sure that this is the full range of choices we have. And I'd like to see the science that backs up your vision of a fully nuclear-dependent Europe. I'll look for stuff myself, maybe we can find links to material that gives substance to our discussion.

---

Of course, substance is always good for the discussion, but my trust in the possibility of a nuclear-dependet Europe comes mainly from the fact that I have trouble conceiving any reason why it should be impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Of course, substance is always good for the discussion, but my trust in the possibility of a nuclear-dependet Europe comes mainly from the fact that I have trouble conceiving any reason why it should be impossible.

---

Stuff like this happens from time to time.

leak at thorp
another source

And the problem with the highly radioactive remains that need long term containment is still somewhat problematic AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

There was a documentary done on this subject that was aired a few months ago, can't remember the name unfortunately, the presenter, originally vehementally anti-nuclear at the beginning, came to the conclusion that nuclear power is the best of our rather limilted options. I think his opinion was backed by some green campaigners.

---

Aye I saw that program as well, one of the most convincing things was that the proffessor that invented the Gaia Earth theory said that we cannot as a planet replace carbon emmisions with anything else other than Nuclear power before its too late and the environment goes down the plughole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Take a source of energy, like a nuclear reactor. Use it to seperate water into hydrogen and oxigen in an energy cell, get the energy cell into you house. Use it to send electical energy through a conductor, the conductor gets warm, you have heat. Repeat as often as necessary.

---

How often would that be? And how many gas-guzzling trucks are necessary to transport the batteries? We are talking about millions of batteries per urban area. Anyway, I can see the possibilities and I like your 'We have the technology' attitude. I'll look into it, along with other stuff on the subject if I can find it, including those 'safe new generation nuclear plants'.

New generation. Safe. Controlled risks.
Funny how certain phrases always pop up in those brochures I get from the nuclear industry. ~D

I think it's either nuclear fission or sticking with fossil fuels until fusion comes along. Maybe sooner than you think. *runs off to poke bubbles to try and recreate cold fusion*

As it is, wind power is useless and pointless, tidal power might go somewhere, hydroelectric power needs power to pump the water back up and creates loads of CO2 anyway, solar power is pretty useless here in Britain, leaving just nuclear power as the 'clean' option. Just the waste needs to be dealt with.

Aye, there was plans to create huge windfarms in the North sea but as far as I know nothing has been done about it.

Quote:

---

How often would that be? And how many gas-guzzling trucks are necessary to transport the batteries? We are talking about millions of batteries per urban area.

---

You would be surprised how easily energy can be transported. I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but here we have something called electrical outlets. A wonder of modern technology. ~;)

Quote:

---

New generation. Safe. Controlled risks.
Funny how certain phrases always pop up in those brochures I get from the nuclear industry.

---

Well, nothing is safe. Except maybe the pollution and finiteness of fossil fuel...