Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"

On Mar 28, 1:07 pm, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 28 Mar, 17:48, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:



On Mar 28, 9:40 am, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 28 Mar, 17:04, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:

Ireland has opted for 80% of electricity from Wind as a target.
Ireland wont. They dont have the hydro resources to do 80% wind for
dispatching and they'll be unwilling to have higher electricity prices
than even the Danes. Heres what will happen: They'll talk the talk
untill power crunches set in and then just build more coal plants. Its
happened in Germany allready.

YEAH! The British Coal industry could produce 50-100 million tons of
coal a year and sell some to Ireland & Germany
(which has a lot of lignite, but very little anthracite) (or transmit
electricity via a high voltage d.c. power cable) It's better than
burning peat.
If they enationalised the coal mining industry and told the truth
about the extent of coal reserves in Britain, Invested money in
efficient power stations and re-built the mining communities, it would
be a good outcome.
It would still represent only a fraction of the 3,000 million tons the
US and China produce every year.
It's the global emission of CO2 that matters and that can only be
arrived at by an international agreement which recognises the specific
energy situation of each country.

This isn't desirable when you can produce all your electricity from
nuclear power, and its simply wasteful of coal resources which are
better applied towards synfuel production. You're hard pressed telling
me why Britain and Ireland deserve to burn coal where Shanghai
doesnt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For one thing, all of the British nuclear power stations are on the
coast.
So they've recently been shitting themselves over the question of
whether sea-level rises will actually render them inoperative within
less than a century.
(Allegedly not, but check the latest posting on 'Real Climate' on
that, which states that 1 meter sea-level rises are a *possibility* by
2100)
The East Coast of Britain, where Sizewell Nuclear Power station is
sited, is also particularly prone to Storm Surges, as happened in
1953, with disastrous consequences. So, combining the two, that's
quite a worrying scenario and there are plenty of people who simply
don't want any expansion of Sizewell.

Even in the US, generating all electricity from nuclear power would
require a masssive increases in power stations and re-processing of
nuclear fuel.
I know all of your arguments about Pebble Bed reactors, Re-Processing
etc, but arguing for that as a solution simply runs against the grain
of people's experiences with nuclear power so far. I'm all for
investment in fusion research, but the storage and or disposal of
nuclear waste is still an issue that won't go away.

The disposal issue is 95% fictional. the "experiences" of
nuclear power have been overwhelmingly, laughably positive with the
exception of 1 criminally negligent incident in ukraine, impossible on
any western reactor and 1 successful test of the last failsafes in
TMI, again, totally impossible in any reactor the year followinng the
event. The problems with nuclear power are pure propoganda.

I've never argued at any time for an anti-coal fundamentalist
position. As I've stated before, a proportion of coal is essential to
an industrialised economy.
The amount of hydrocarbons produced and consumed per year can only be
decided by two things: -

1) A scientific appraisal of what is allowable without triggering
climate changes which will harm humans society and living things on
the planet.
2) An international system of quotas.

Most reasonable people agree with this, it's only vested interests and
stupidity that prevent it being acted on.
Time's running out.

There are only 2 options for primary electricity generation in
any except a very small very lucky subset of countries, 1 = coal,
50-80% coal. 2 = nuclear, 50-80% nuclear. wind is a distraction from
a real solution, pursuing it beyond 20% absolutely guarantees that any
coal quotas will be misses and that emissions will continue to grow
apace. the only way to reduce emissions is nuclear power. once you
get used to that fact, you can begin to be a constructive part of the
solution instead of another coal shill painted green. What prevents
your co2 quotas from being acted upon is nothing more or less than the
resistance to nuclear. that is true today and will continue to be
true for the forseeable future.

.

Quantcast