Quote from: Serious on March 27, 2011, 05:41:54 AM

Quote from: Mongoose on March 23, 2011, 18:49:39 PM

If you want base load generating capacity in the GW range, you currently have 4 options

1. Coal - dirty as hell
2. Gas - price fluctuates wildly and as resources deplete it becomes more environmentally damaging to extract
3. Oil - similar problems to Gas, plus dirtier.
4. Nuclear fission - produces radioactive waste, plants are hard to decommission

you can make good arguments in all directions for which of these is least bad, but to argue that we can currently make do without any of them is simply not accurate. In reality, a sensible energy policy includes a variety of fuel types. Gas for example can be spooled up really fast, making it handy for peak load use. Nuclear and Coal are a pain to start up and shut down, so should only be used for base load.

Energy policy is extremely complex.

You don't include Solar, tideal, wave, oceanic current, wind or other similar generation method. There is already over 5000MW of wind turbine electricity generating plant in the UK with a lot more planned.

OK, some idiots think that turbines are an eyesore, offer them a nuke plant as an alternative... 

Some idiots think that you can equate one wind farm to one nuclear power station. You can build a small number of nuclear power stations and tuck them out of the way, whilst we would have to plaster half of the countryside with wind farms. That's a completely bullsh*t analogy and you know it.

Quote from: Quixoticish on March 27, 2011, 10:14:17 AM
That's a completely bullsh*t analogy and you know it.

Anyone who claims bullsh*t invariably hasn't checked up on their 'facts'.

Largest ones now installed can supply 3MW and designs for 10MW versions are in progress. These are estimated to produce minimum 30% of their maximum output spread over any year.

The land area you are talking about was a complete fabrication, Modern turbines are much bigger than the tiny ones that were available when that myth started. As you rack up the size the area needed drops drastically meaning you only need thousands. Most will be put up out to sea, not affecting land at all.

Note, I'm not saying they are anywhere near a complete answer, but, they are definitely part of the answer. Chances are we won't have a complete answer until fusion is sorted out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Japan still not in the clear. I think they were right when they named it Fuk-u-shima. Americans still seem to be recommending a 80KM evacuation area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327

the idea is, by the time we have enough wind/hydro/wave/solar power.... they should be finished the super high voltage DC like around the uk they've been planning for years... they'll have a similar system around the rest of Europe.... (and to Africa for lots of solar in the desert)

once all that is sorted... it's not a big deal if we don't make enough power for ourselves... it should even out over all of Europe and we'll be ok
still need power stations etc... but it's a step in the right direction....

Quote from: Serious on March 27, 2011, 15:58:01 PMAmericans still seem to be recommending a 80KM evacuation area.

...says the Country that still hasn't sorted the Bhopal disaster...

Quote from: Serious on March 27, 2011, 05:41:54 AM

Quote from: Mongoose on March 23, 2011, 18:49:39 PM

If you want base load generating capacity in the GW range, you currently have 4 options

1. Coal - dirty as hell
2. Gas - price fluctuates wildly and as resources deplete it becomes more environmentally damaging to extract
3. Oil - similar problems to Gas, plus dirtier.
4. Nuclear fission - produces radioactive waste, plants are hard to decommission

you can make good arguments in all directions for which of these is least bad, but to argue that we can currently make do without any of them is simply not accurate. In reality, a sensible energy policy includes a variety of fuel types. Gas for example can be spooled up really fast, making it handy for peak load use. Nuclear and Coal are a pain to start up and shut down, so should only be used for base load.

Energy policy is extremely complex.

You don't include Solar, tideal, wave, oceanic current, wind or other similar generation method. There is already over 5000MW of wind turbine electricity generating plant in the UK with a lot more planned.

OK, some idiots think that turbines are an eyesore, offer them a nuke plant as an alternative... 

no I didn't, because I was talking about GW class production of reliable base load electricity.

Quote from: Serious on March 27, 2011, 15:58:01 PM

Quote from: Quixoticish on March 27, 2011, 10:14:17 AM
That's a completely bullsh*t analogy and you know it.

Largest ones now installed can supply 3MW and designs for 10MW versions are in progress. These are estimated to produce minimum 30% of their maximum output spread over any year.

so basically are providing 1mw a year on average.. not much point in them then

It still has much to do with the will to do stuff as it is possible  within 25 years to go fully solar/wind.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/31/all-of-humanity-could-shift-to-solar-wind-energy-in-less-than-25-years-policy-study-group-claims/

another has hit.. tsunami warning for north east

Missus' brother is in the air to Japan as I type this,

So Fukushima is now INES 7. That means it's officially at least 10 times worse than the Kyshtym disaster and 100 times worse than 3 mile island or the Windscale Fire.

Anyone else feel like someone hasn't mentioned something important?

Err its not

They are basing that in some yardstick that is a complete load of pap by the sound of it, they have basically said that its a 7 assuming they cant seal it any time soon.. or ever. Its still not even close to being as bad as Chernobyl as far as i can tell.

I'm really not clear why they would want to classify it level 7 if they could possibly get away with not doing so, given that up to now the only events to exceed level 5 were both Soviet ****-ups.

The news yesterday was talking about overall release of material ~10% that of Chernobyl. On the basis of material released that should therefore make Fukushima INES 6. Of course the criteria by which INES works are fuzzy at best, but up to now I haven't heard anything that suggests to me a level above 5/6 at worst.

If they are saying 7, they are either fools of the highest order or they know something which they aren't mentioning.

having done a little reading it seems the basic issue is that level 7 is actually totally inadiquate to describe Chernobyl. It's not so much that Fukushima should be a 6 as Chernobyl should be an 8.

They're calling Fukushima a 7 on the basis of radioactive release, and by that measure it certainly is a 7, but I would still argue that by consequences it's still more like previous level 5/6 accidents. Perhaps that just goes to show what the difference is when you handle an event somewhere close to properly rather than the Soviet approach of pretend it didn't happen.

The scale they use seems a total joke tbh

agreed, you can't really describe something as varied as a nuclear incident with a single number. I wouldn't be surprised to see the scale overhauled after this, even if only to stop people going on about how it's a 7 so it must be as bad as Chernobyl.