quote:

We should have been replacing our nuclear power stations 20 years ago, but were "prevented" from doing so by a highly vocal CND minority.

Was it not reasonable to require that the powers that be decide what to do with the waste before building another lot?

Lucibee

quote:

We should have been replacing our nuclear power stations 20 years ago, but were "prevented" from doing so by a highly vocal CND minority.

Only if it best value for money. Remember if we had built more nuclear than someone else would have been able to afford the slightly cheaper unused oil and gas.

Steve_M

quote:

Was it not reasonable to require that the powers that be decide what to do with the waste before building another lot?

Powers that be will make decisions that suit them when it suits them. Twenty years ago we were riding high in the Thatcher car and oil economy. The French didn't have oil so they went for more nuclear.

quote:

Put this in your pipe...

fuel for thought

Please tell me you are joking
did you read the comments at the end.
This is a science forum Luci, don't need any links to trashy yank comics

Scientific American is NOT a trashy yank comic!

quote:

Steve_M:
Was it not reasonable to require that the powers that be decide what to do with the waste before building another lot?

Sure - but what kept them dragging their feet once France had worked out what to do?

quote:

Scientific American is NOT a trashy yank comic!

So you say

quote:

Sure - but what kept them dragging their feet once France had worked out what to do?

French sent it up here to get it reprocessed didn't they?

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

Scientific American is NOT a trashy yank comic!

So you say

Have you read it? (not the online version)

quote:

French sent it up here to get it reprocessed didn't they?

No, they have been reprocessing it and storing it themselves and for other countries since 1976.

quote:

Have you read it? (not the online version)

Yeah, I took it for about six months after I'd given up on the new scientist, but in the end it was just the same, nice big sexy articles that in the end don't actually say anything(though I do miss the letters section from NS)

quote:

quote:
French sent it up here to get it reprocessed didn't they?



No, they have been reprocessing it and storing it themselves and for other countries since 1976.

Whos cr*p am I sat above then(Nippon's)

I have no idea. I think under nuke regulations, each country that produces unreprocessable waste has to provide its own storage, so I presume it's UK waste. What are you doing sitting on it anyway? Surely that will make your bottom a little warm!

quote:

I have no idea. I think under nuke regulations, each country that produces unreprocessable waste has to provide its own storage, so I presume it's UK waste.

Nah, Thatcher was taking in everyones waste in the eighties. The CND minority saw the danger and did everything in their power to stop it.
Don't believe everything you read about our wonderful nuclear fission Saviour, its a buy now someone else pays(much later!!!)solution.
I've worked on the power plants and I'd rather devolve back to the caves than rely on that for power(EVIL)

mufcdiver.

Guess you and Luci are back talking again.

Best regards, suricat.

We might have been taking in waste to reprocess it, but anything unprocessable has to be sent back from whence it came.

The way I look at nuclear power is the whole life costing of it. That includes the clean up and the cost of this is zillions.

They haven't even designed the gizmos to tackle that radioactive muck in that Windscale (now called Sellafield) chimney. And how's about that beach in Dounray which has "bits" in it.

We're talking decades and telephone numbers here. When I was working on the THORP project BNFL were spending a million a day on it at one time or so the rumour in the office had it.

Back to offshore WP! That Booker chappie claims that each offshore wind turbine will weigh 2000 tonnes. And guess what? He's about right! I suppose he can't be wrong all the time.

But here's the tale of the tape. Perhaps this would be better posted in engtips.com but an ounce of practicality is worth a pound of theory.

In a water depth of 45m.

1 Rated Power Output 4.5 MW
2 Hub Height above sea level 85 m
3 Rotor Diameter 120 m
4 Tower Weight 210.0 tonnes
5 Nacelle Weight 188.7 tonnes
6 Rotor Weight 86.3 tonnes
7 Individual Blade Weight 15.3 tonnes
8 Substructure 1080 tonnes
9 foundation 170 tonnes

Foundation weight and designs are dependent on the soil condition so weight could vary quite a bit.

Booker claims they can only be installed 3 months of the year. I beg to differ but will get back to you on a better number.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

Don't believe everything you read about our wonderful nuclear fission Saviour, its a buy now someone else pays(much later!!!)solution.
I've worked on the power plants and I'd rather devolve back to the caves than rely on that for power(EVIL)

I think Lovelock sees it as buying time while new, "safe", effective replacement technologies are developed.

You will also be aware that in addition to our own installations we are already exposed to loads of them just across the channel. Dive for cover now if I were you !!

quote:

I think Lovelock sees it as buying time while new, "safe", effective replacement technologies are developed.

You will also be aware that in addition to our own installations we are already exposed to loads of them just across the channel. Dive for cover now if I were you !!

I'm not on about now Dude, I'm on about a new innocent civilization unwittingly digging up our waste in a couple of thousand years

Hey, has anyone heard anything about using offshore wind farms to produce Hydrogen from the sea. Apparently its more efficient that using them to produce electricity!

quote:

I'm not on about now Dude, I'm on about a new innocent civilization unwittingly digging up our waste in a couple of thousand years

Ever heard of half-life? It won't be half as dangerous in the thousand years...!

quote:

Ever heard of half-life? It won't be half as dangerous in the thousand years...!

a) Unless the half-life is more than a 1000 years - I see figures of 20000 years for some high-level waste.

b) How dangerous is a gramme of plutonium? How dangerous is half a gramme of plutonium?

i suppose it depends how much lead and concrete has been used to shield the waste...

...and it depends on how ingeneous those descendents of ours who survive the destruction of our current civilisation are in digging up the stuff...but I suppose I might be being sentimental by considering them (hope Roger's not reading).

I'm sure they'll be able to put it to good use - and maybe they'll have developed a way to use it more efficiently than we have been able to.