news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

they phase out, because no way renewables can plug the hole left by fossil fuels for a few decades at least. I agree with why nuclear isn't great either...especially the waste bit..needs to be buried underground for 1000s of years or something...

Nukes have their issues but without a working tidal system nukes are the answer to the UK's needs of guaranteed base level power.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

they phase out, because no way renewables can plug the hole left by fossil fuels for a few decades at least. I agree with why nuclear isn't great either...especially the waste bit..needs to be buried underground for 1000s of years or something...

Which is why I think Labour’s green plan is a good one as they would phase out fossil fuels in a fairly good timeframe, stopping new oil/gas licenses and enable much more renewable sources of energy through on and offshore wind farms.

[fraybentos1]

15 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

1) The waste, where is it all being kept that can be certain to be safe?

they do it in France fine

 

15 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

2) The cost and price of the electricty

fair enough, would need to look into that 

 

16 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

3) The time it takes to  build - 15 years and counting

I think building the equivelant energy generation from solar/ wind etc would also take ages and take up a hell of a lot more room surely? Also so what if it is 15 years, if we'd built it 15 years ago it would be here by now. We are always gonna need the energy 

[Crazyfool01]

18 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I do feel like the Green party has wild aversions to things and will generally let perfect be the enemy of good. For example, they're against nuclear power which imo is just ludicrous for a party which also wants no fossil fuel usage.

Hinckley point is a never ending project … on completion who owns it . Edf and the Chinese I think which hardly gives energy security ? And what is the unit price of the electricity ? Alternatives are much cheaper aren’t they ? Hopefully the waste issue is dealt with by new technologies but so far the build is 23 billion and counting 

[Guest]

India have a higher yearly coal consumption than Germany. 

[steviewevie]

Just now, Ozanne said:

India have a higher yearly coal consumption than Germany. 

they also have 1.4billion people.

[Guest]

Just now, steviewevie said:

they also have 1.4billion people.

Yes they do. 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, lost said:

They need to take a look at what has happened in Germany. Their green party was born out of the anti-nuclear movement in the 60's. They got their wish shutting nuclear down and are now burning more coal than India as alternatives don't provide the always on base current.

 

 

they cocked up - thought they could rely on lovely cheap russian gas...but still carbon footprint the same, they will just have to import carbon free energy from elsewhere...

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

India have a higher yearly coal consumption than Germany. 

What? They also have like 20x the population. What is your point?

[lost]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

they also have 1.4billion people.

Yes meant per head which for a 1st world country where the greens are easily the third biggest party is a massive bollock drop.

[steviewevie]

Finland has a plan for the nuclear waste...bury it for just 100000 years.

Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years - BBC Future

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes meant per head which for a 1st world country where the greens are easily the third biggest party is a massive bollock drop.

Germany went big for coal after they closed their nukes following the Japanese tsunami.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Finland has a plan

thats the big news, cos no one else has a plan.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

Germany went big for coal after they closed their nukes following the Japanese tsunami.

Germany isn't exactly prone to massive earthquakes though.

But, I guess a terrorist targeting a nuclear plant, or a chernobyl like f**kup, could be catastrophic.

[lost]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Germany isn't exactly prone to massive earthquakes though.

But, I guess a terrorist targeting a nuclear plant, or a chernobyl like f**kup, could be catastrophic.

I believe the older plants you had to keep taking energy out to stop the reaction. The newer ones you have to keep putting a bit in to keep it going hence if anything goes wrong it simply dies out.

These Rolls Royce small modular reactors look interesting at cutting costs

Edited August 31, 2023 by lost

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Germany isn't exactly prone to massive earthquakes though.

But, I guess a terrorist targeting a nuclear plant, or a chernobyl like f**kup, could be catastrophic.

the japanese tsunami, was a Chernobyl-like f**k up, most of the problems are cos of human error, not following procedure. they're still trying to sort it out, just last week they released a load of radioactive water.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

the japanese tsunami, was a Chernobyl-like f**k up, most of the problems are cos of human error, not following procedure. they're still trying to sort it out, just last week they released a load of radioactive water.

I know...might have to avoid the sushi next time I go to Japan...

[steviewevie]

or maybe they sell all the glowy fish to China...

[Neil]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

or maybe they sell all the glowy fish to China...

no, cos china has banned japanese fish.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Do you think no one considered whether the same spend would be better made on current network. You'd better give the railway a call cos you're the genius that's worked out what bo one else has. How it can be better spent on the current network. And for that to be something more than hollow words from you.

So rather than answer a polite question you turn into a fish and throw insults.

Oh well, I tried to engage but you chose to ignore all references to what a chair of HS2 said, select any little part and refuse to give an answer to a simple question.

As for do I think they looked at it - well yes they did and numerous studies said the money was better spent on the network as  a whole but a Labour government decided against that....................... I could go and find lots of links but I know you will ignore them.

Don't let the fact get in the way of you turning into the rude person you were before you sold this site. As I see no reason for your rudeness, and I know where it goes to having seen it all too often, You are now ignored as it really is rather pointless, same as with the fish man.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Nobody Interesting

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

they phase out, because no way renewables can plug the hole left by fossil fuels for a few decades at least. I agree with why nuclear isn't great either...especially the waste bit..needs to be buried underground for 1000s of years or something...

If, 10 years ago, renewables were built as though we were at war then we could have done it. Now we need t, as you say, phase out fossil fuels as we build renewables fast - and even a slower build would be on tap before nuclear.

[steviewevie]

34 minutes ago, Neil said:

the japanese tsunami, was a Chernobyl-like f**k up, most of the problems are cos of human error, not following procedure. they're still trying to sort it out, just last week they released a load of radioactive water.

and that is the problem ultimately...human error...and nuclear stuff is kind of dangerous.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

they do it in France fine

 

fair enough, would need to look into that 

 

I think building the equivelant energy generation from solar/ wind etc would also take ages and take up a hell of a lot more room surely? Also so what if it is 15 years, if we'd built it 15 years ago it would be here by now. We are always gonna need the energy 

No nuclear waste is safe - one day somewhere terrorists will target it.

Solar takes no more room if put on roofs and the equilvelant of a power station can be done in a year (from Green party web site after studies). Wind is quick to go up. Tidal 3-5 years. But the government of the day needs to say 'let's do it'

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If, 10 years ago, renewables were built as though we were at war then we could have done it. Now we need t, as you say, phase out fossil fuels as we build renewables fast - and even a slower build would be on tap before nuclear.

ironically russia/ukraine war may have speeded up things in europe...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

No nuclear waste is safe - one day somewhere terrorists will target it.

Solar takes no more room if put on roofs and the equilvelant of a power station can be done in a year (from Green party web site after studies). Wind is quick to go up. Tidal 3-5 years. But the government of the day needs to say 'let's do it'

We won’t get that with the Tories, as I suspect they are backed by the big energy firms in some form or another. Fortunately Labour will invest in those renewables, let’s just hope it’s not too late.