Liverpool FC Forum

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:22 pm

After reading the Pakistani Earthquake thread, certain members expressed their dread in a potential future war that will largely consist of 'dirty' bombs or Nuclear devices. However, I was reading a recent article about Nuclear Power and I couldn't help think that this might be the potential danger in our midst and could perhaps cause more problems than any war could.

As the reality of an Energy Crisis deepens, I feel that the governments of certain country's are moving closer to the 'cliff edge' and succumb to the flawed Energy alternative.

SELLAFIELD (Reuters) - The nuclear power industry is quietly confident that the world is about to beat a path to its door in an increasingly desperate search for "clean" energy that doesn't heat up the planet.

Soaring oil prices and new data on global warming -- brought into sharp focus by devastating hurricanes in the United States -- have heated up the nuclear debate and outraged the environmental lobby, which says nuclear power is not the answer.

China plans to invest some $50 billion to build around 30 new nuclear reactors by 2020, there are investment incentives in the United States and nuclear power was back on the agenda at a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in July.

The nuclear industry now feels it is on a roll -- 20 years after an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor spread a cloud of radioactivity over Europe and dealt a severe blow to the reputation of a sector long denounced by environmentalists.

"Nuclear power is in the ascendant world-wide -- less so in the (United Kingdom) than elsewhere, but that will change," said Ian Hore-Lacy of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which aims to promote nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource.

Last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged a review of the country's climate change commitments which he said must include looking at the nuclear option.

Scientists' warnings about global warming have increased the pressure on rich nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Experts have said that the Earth's temperature will rise by at least two degrees centigrade by the end of this century due to greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, putting millions of people at risk from floods and droughts.

It is difficult to tell if global warming caused hurricanes Katrina and Rita, scientists say but they forecast more unpredictable weather as the world gets hotter.

CLEANING UP ITS IMAGE

The nuclear debate has long stirred passions in Britain, home of one of the most intensively used nuclear sites in the world at Sellafield, northwestern England.

In the late 1990s, Sellafield found itself in the firing line after a report criticized safety standards at the nuclear reprocessing plant which has been operating for some 50 years.

Now, workers understand the public relations challenge.

"We have got to demonstrate that we can clean up the legacy of the past. That way we can show we can deal with the waste of the future," said Tony Price, head of the clean-up program.

Waste has long been an industry black spot. The enriched uranium used in atomic reactors in nuclear plants is highly radioactive and spent fuel remains hazardous for 100,000 years.

"As we show we are dealing with the legacy waste, people are starting to get more confident," Price said.

The nuclear industry's most optimistic projection, from the WNA, sees global nuclear power capacity doubling to around 750 gigawatts over the next 25 years but its share of world electricity supply only edging up to 18 percent from 16 due to booming demand, expected to double between 1990 and 2020.

To put that in context, 750 gigawatts of capacity could produce up to 5.2 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity which would be enough to supply every person in the United States, Britain, Russia, France and Germany for a year.

"Between 2030 and 2050 you could see nuclear as a percentage of world electricity supply rising sharply," Hore-Lacy said. "It is not hard to envisage a scenario where nuclear could provide 50 percent of world electricity."

"THE WRONG ANSWER"

Environmentalists say the true costs of nuclear power are three times those stated, there is a risk terrorists could get hold of deadly plutonium and waste is a problem for the future.

"We are not taking an ideological view ... We have analyzed the pros and cons ... and we have concluded that (nuclear power) is the wrong answer," said Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth.

"A much more positive set of options are there," he said, citing a combination of energy efficiency, microgeneration, renewables, carbon capture, and more sustainable transport.

Greenpeace told the European Parliament last week that far from being the answer, nuclear power should be phased out.

"To replace one environmental catastrophe -- polluting fossil fuel power -- with another environmental disaster -- nuclear energy -- is clearly not the answer," it said.

Environmentalists want more use to be made of renewable energy like solar, wind and waves. The wind power industry says that by 2020 wind could provide 12 percent of the world's electricity, but it complains of administrative barriers.

It says wind power has no carbon emissions, employs many and is good for local economies -- although most complaints come from people who don't want wind farms in their back yards.

If any of you out there have a view on this, I'll be interested to hear from you.

Nice one,
Wrighty

by **Judge** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:23 pm

if you wanna save the atmosphere from global warming, then your answer is staring you right in your face!!

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:54 am

Apparantly most of the Earth's Global Warming is caused by Cows. I kid ye not.
Thats what I read somewhere, that cow farts are more to blame than anything else. Interesting.

by **looprevil** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:07 am

Nuclear power has always sort of scared me. The environmental impact the waste has, coupled with the dreaded threat of a disaster or terrorist attack doesn't exactly make me want to endorse it. I think the safer more environmentally friendly alternatives are the way to go. Although they might be more expensive or may not produce the same amount of power it has to reach a point where we as humans look to value the earth and protect our environment by using alternative earth friendly means and not let our greed for the quick easier fix or cheaper solution of nuclear power get to our heads.

by **Judge** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:58 am

looprevil wrote:Nuclear power has always sort of scared me. The environmental impact the waste has, coupled with the dreaded threat of a disaster or terrorist attack doesn't exactly make me want to endorse it. I think the safer more environmentally friendly alternatives are the way to go. Although they might be more expensive or may not produce the same amount of power it has to reach a point where we as humans look to value the earth and protect our environment by using alternative earth friendly means and not let our greed for the quick easier fix or cheaper solution of nuclear power get to our heads.

you mean green technologies. These are expensive to set up at the moment. But as you say more beneficial to the environment.
But Nuclear is the only viable alternative at the moment, so we are stuck with it im afraid.

by **Woollyback** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:03 pm

wind power is the way forward - infinite, clean and certainly more pleasing on the eye than a f*ckin great big nuclear power station. the only problem is NIMBYs ("not in my back yard!) who want all sorts as long as it can only be seen from some other bugger's lounge window, not theirs

wind farms etc are expensive to set up but if we don't invest in new energy sources now then it's gonna be a bit f*ckin late when the ice-caps have melted and stopped the flow of the gulf stream which means the rest of the world bakes whilst we get lumped with another f*ckin ice age

by **Judge** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:05 pm

perhaps we could tie a tube to wrightys ar'se, as their be plenty o wind for power

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:03 pm

Judge wrote:perhaps we could tie a tube to wrightys ar'se, as their be plenty o wind for power

That's funny comin from somebody who loves it when you put 'tube' and 'ar.se' together. Ha. Pillow biter!

by **Pablo_Escobar** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:19 pm

NUKE ALL !! Let's have scorpions the size of elephants, triple headed dogs, cows with two heads, mutants running our streets. I can't wait

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:22 pm

hahahahaha! funny bugger!

by **drummerphil** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:28 pm

get rid of cows i say

by **DrTNT** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:47 pm

Why not??

No carbon emissions so less global warming but theres the problem with the radioactive waste :glare:

by **Afroman** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:07 pm

DrTNT wrote:Why not??

No carbon emissions so less global warming but theres the problem with the radioactive waste

I think you answered your own question

by **RUSHIE#9** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:13 pm

There must be some way that they can transform sh!t into power. That is what i call renewable power; and there certainly plenty of it created on here everyday(you all know who i'm talking about - clue C F)

[IMG]http://img429.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ianrushpiccopy6xi.jpg

by **neil** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:55 pm

s.hit is converted into breeze blocks that you live and/or work within. wind and solar power is the way forward,these are projects currently in their infancy(relatively speaking) but these things should save the planet, sorry that should read 'humans'

Liverpool FC Forum

Nuclear power - Thoughts

Nuclear power - Thoughts

Who is online