SOS Tell the World

Discussion in 'Motorhome Chat' started by bigfoot, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. bigfoot

    bigfoot Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    5,054
    Location:
    Wirral
    As our lords and masters are busy discussing solutions to climate change. Take a look at this website esp if you love Cumbria. The proposed area was flooded last week and strangely it didn't make the national press
    http://www.savekirksanton.org.uk/node/1
     
  2. ithomas2009

    ithomas2009 Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn’t it be brilliant to be able to cut off the electricity to houses that get their supply from nuclear power stations! What if the picture was of wind turbines, would you still complain?
    Seems to me that you have groups against not only nuclear but wind turbines, coal fired, oil fired and tidal, every group comes up with an excuse why not to have them, whichever system you prefer to generate electricity I bet there will be a group that oppose it.
    As you can guess, I work in a nuclear power station.
     
  3. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .
    With 58 nuclear power stations, France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.
    I don't see anyone protesting about consuming the imported nuclear power or when on holiday.. especially on an aire hooked up to a free EHU ..

    I am also en ex nuclear power worker and lived with 2 miles of one.. and I don't glow in the dark .. Nuclear is the only long term viable fuel option for the UK,.. unless someone invents a rain power station .. we pi**ed all the oil and gas away..

    Just another case of NIMBYism, a few days of power cuts might dampen the protestors enthusiasm ..


    jim..
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2009
  4. Munchie

    Munchie Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,533
    Likes Received:
    11,669
    Location:
    Champagnac-La-Riviere
    Agree wholeheartedley Jim. :thumb:
     
  5. Larrynwin

    Larrynwin Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    12,721
    Location:
    Norfolk
    Because of demonstrations from anti nuclear and other PC pressure groups we have stopped building NUCLEAR power stations and will have to wait some 10 years before any replacements can be planned and built. In the meantime the GAS power stations that have been constructed in the last 10 years or so will rely almost entirely upon imported gas from Russia and eastern Europe, AT WHAT COST AND CAN THE SUPPLY BE MAINTAINED. The WINDMILLS will never give us the power we need and COAL fired stations will not meet Emission standards. WATER powered turbine development has been deserted in spite of the fact that the tides never stop.
    For the forseeable future NUCLEAR POWER is the only way or the lights may go out !!!
     
  6. DESCO

    DESCO Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,651
    Likes Received:
    267
    Location:
    London
    I have to admit to not being a fan of nuclear power, but being logical I can't see any alternative. Must admit don't like coal, gas we are dependant on outside pricing and being held to ransom from abroad.
    I don't see renewable technology as the answer at the moment, it lacks development.


    Dave:thumb::thumb:
     
  7. JQL

    JQL Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South of Paris
    I used to live in Workington about 1 mile from where the bridge collapsed, and I lived in Cumbria (mainly on the West Coast) for over 25 years. I believe the West Coast of Cumbria is a good place to site a Nuclear Power Station, providing the correct procedures are followed as to the choice and suitability of the site.

    I am totally in agreement that Nuclear Power is the only way forward for the present. We have a much more stringent safety regime and culture in the UK so, in theory, Nuclear Power should be “Clean, Green and safe”.

    There are problems though...

    Uranium is, like oil, a finite resource*; it is usually found in areas where there can be, erm, political problems; and the waste can be a bitch to dispose of.

    I firmly believe that the governments of the world should use Nuclear as a “stop-gap” while sensible green energy is developed. Not these ugly Wind Turbines which spoil some of the most beautiful views in the world and only work when the wind blows quite hard.

    What I’m thinking of is something that can be sited on the sea-floor, out of sight, that uses the currents to generate power. And/or make every roof out of Photo-Voltaic panels** so that when we use energy the most (which is during the day) we are supplying it from our houses and getting paid for it as well!

    As for cars: the hybrids are currently, over their whole life, usually, more polluting than cars that run on hydrocarbons. LPG is not the answer (it’s a hydrocarbon), nor are battery powered cars as their batteries are really nasty. What we need is something like Hydrogen*** which is clean and green and could be made by large solar power plants creating hydrogen from sea water. The storage of hydrogen is not an issue (we put LPG into vehicles), the problem is (the idiots) filling up the vehicle.

    So let’s have Nuclear for 50 years or so until sensible green energy is deleveloped.


    P.S. I now live and work in France and benefit directly from Nuclear Power.

    -------------------
    *Yes, I know about Fast Breeder Reactors for the creation of Plutonium (probably more than I want to know)

    ** I understand that the latest technology for creating PV panels uses inkjet printers to create the panel on a type of paper which is then weather-proofed!

    *** Would the water vapour created by a large number of hydrogen powered vehicles make it more likely to rain where there are large concentrations of them for instance, in big cities?
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2009
  8. bigfoot

    bigfoot Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    5,054
    Location:
    Wirral
    I think you are all missing the point1 It is not anti-nuclear,in fact it was sent to me by a friend who wasa worker Sellafield for many years,it is the fact that the area is geologically unsuitable. It is planned on a flood plain. also it is in an area which could embrace tidal power.
     
  9. JQL

    JQL Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South of Paris
    I think you'll find that my 1st paragraph doesn't "miss the point".
     
  10. GJH

    GJH Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    27,246
    Likes Received:
    34,478
    Location:
    Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
    Quite right that development - whether nuclear plants or anything else - has to take place in suitable areas which will not be prone to flooding and the like.

    The tragedy is (thinking back to watching Tomorrow's World programmes in the 1960s and 1970s) that successive governments over the last 30 odd years have failed to act on development of sustainable power generation methods (e.g. wind, wave, solar, hydro). As others have said, whether we like it or not, nuclear power seems to be inevitable now.

    On a slightly different tack, it always made me laugh when loony left elements of Middlesbrough Council in the 1980s declared itself a "nuclear free zone". Presumably if anything had gone wrong at the Hartlepool nuclear power plant across the Tees they would have all held hands and formed a chain to stop any fallout :Doh:

    Graham
     
  11. JQL

    JQL Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South of Paris
    It was unfortunate that some in the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) in the 80’s “couldn’t see the wood for the trees” and equated Nuclear Power (good) with Nuclear Weapons (bad) and no one bothered to correct this oversight.

    The Nuclear Lobby should have been more vociferous in defending Nuclear Power then we would be the mess we are in now.
     
  12. Jaws

    Jaws Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    18,347
    Likes Received:
    21,705
    Location:
    Narrfoook
    Quite right that things should be built in the correct place .. but...............
    Until some clever sod sorts out cold fusion or a truly efficient thermal exchange method of running generators ( or something even wilder such as Ion driven ( vaguely possible ) or dilythium based technology (somewhat unlikely LOL ) nuclear power is a good cheap way to generate electrickery

    Interesting if somewhat meandering point..
    I wonder how many miners died digging coal for power stations? How many oil rig workers died drilling oil for power stations ?

    Even taking into account chernobyl ( there were no fatalities directly attributed to the Three Mile Island incident so that is neither here nor there ) I would be surprised if it was less than had died as a direct result of the use of nuclear power

    Yes, there is always threat of problems and the so called china syndrome, but then, no one seems too concerned about chucking thousands of tonnes of metal etc into a decaying orbit !
     
Loading...

Share This Page