Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STMO123]

No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.

Yes they are!  It may be behind the scenes stuff as I have stated before but both Hitachi and EDF are working  towards building the new nuclear power stations, although we all recognise it is never a simple process.  Below is an assortment of indications of the progress going on.  No one can afford this to fail, least of all David Cameron!:

"EDF is committed to securing our Energy Future by helping bridge the potential energy gap through investment in an energy mix that balances the needs of low-carbon emissions, security of supply, and affordability.

Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. EDF Energy owns and operates eight of the UK's ten nuclear power stations and has plans to expand two of these sites, Hinkley Point and Sizewell, by building four new nuclear reactors."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474

So, stop panicking, although that seems to be a favourite past time on the OOF nowadays!

Panicking? I couldn't give a flying **** 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

No....they're not. Not unless the government can guarantee the price they'll get per unit generated.

Yes they are!  It may be behind the scenes stuff as I have stated before but both Hitachi and EDF are working  towards building the new nuclear power stations, although we all recognise it is never a simple process.  Below is an assortment of indications of the progress going on.  No one can afford this to fail, least of all David Cameron!:

"EDF is committed to securing our Energy Future by helping bridge the potential energy gap through investment in an energy mix that balances the needs of low-carbon emissions, security of supply, and affordability.

Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. EDF Energy owns and operates eight of the UK's ten nuclear power stations and has plans to expand two of these sites, Hinkley Point and Sizewell, by building four new nuclear reactors."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/30/hitachi-next-generation-british-nuclear-plants

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/energy/hitachi-starts-uk-nuclear-reactor-assessment/8641187.article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474

So, stop panicking, although that seems to be a favourite past time on the OOF nowadays!

Panicking? I couldn't give a flying ****

Thank goodness for that Steve!  You had me worried!  Normal service is resumed then; well for at least two OOF members!

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think that just to simply dismiss coal as old fashioned and dirty is crazy!    It seems that there is plenty of the stuff and in Britain the coal is of very good quality!   

What we do need to do though is to work out new ways of using it, so that it is a cleaner energy source!   

Whether that means extracting gas from it, pulverizing it and burning the dust, or other methods, I don't know, but I'm sure that there are clever folk out there who are working on it! 

[albitz]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html

cough,cough.

[Rods2]

Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Exactly!  Coal was never clean and never will be!

If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child.

I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel.

[Vamps]

Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Exactly!  Coal was never clean and never will be!

If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child.

I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel.

When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have......

[STMO123]

It's no good, Mike. She's said all she's saying on the subject.

[tunnie]

Care factor? Zero!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Exactly!  Coal was never clean and never will be!

If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child.

I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel.

When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have......

Obviously you are being sarcastic! So here is an answer for you:

I have seen a documentary on one and heard from residents who live near them and others who fear planned additions.  Plus I know coal as well as anyone and know how coal dust feels, smells and tastes, in addition to experiencing streets with coal fires on and trains covered in soot.  I also know what happens when it is transported by lorry or even train considerable distances. That is enough for me, so why continue an argument for an outdated fuel?  Why not oil, gas and nuclear?  But, no of course, some on here want to destroy the countryside and environment for the sake of pushing the coal argument.  Wonderful!

As said I rest my argument on all that I have stated already in this thread, as frankly this thread like all the others so often on this subject goes around and around.  Let's move on shall we,  as frankly no one on here is going to make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. We all have, and are, entitled to our opinions

[Vamps]

Coal powered power stations are a major emitter of nuclear particles which are abundant in coal. Thorium and Uranium 235 at about 1.3ppm and 3.2ppm respectively, so they release about 100 time more radio active particles into the environment than a nuclear power station. Coal fired power stations also produce nitrous oxide, sulfur, which when mixed with water produces acid rain, so they are not a clear source of power if you live in the vicinity or down wind of them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Exactly!  Coal was never clean and never will be!

If some on here are so keen on coal then go down the mines and mine the stuff. Even with open cast mines you will be subject to clouds of coal dust, and you will go around your town coughing up your lungs as so many not too old men did when I was a child.

I have said all I will on this subject in this thread, apart from reinforce my belief that nuclear is the way to go for our future energy needs before we invent something else for the 21st century and not rely on an outdated 19th century fuel.

When have you been to an open cast mine Lizzie?..........and I mean exact time and date, just in case you actually have......

Obviously you are being sarcastic! So here is an answer for you:

I have seen a documentary on one and heard from residents who live near them and others who fear planned additions.  Plus I know coal as well as anyone and know how coal dust feels, smells and tastes, in addition to experiencing streets with coal fires on and trains covered in soot.  I also know what happens when it is transported by lorry or even train considerable distances. That is enough for me, so why continue an argument for an outdated fuel?  Why not oil, gas and nuclear?  But, no of course, some on here want to destroy the countryside and environment for the sake of pushing the coal argument.  Wonderful!

As said I rest my argument on all that I have stated already in this thread, as frankly this thread like all the others so often on this subject goes around and around.  Let's move on shall we,  as frankly no one on here is going to make a blind bit of difference to the outcome. We all have, and are, entitled to our opinions

 

[albitz]

I worked for 9 years in a foundry and 20 years in a concrete factory.Both were dirty filthy dusty noisy etc.Were I a bit younger & fitter and the money ws good,going down a mine woulnt worry me in the slightest. I long ago accepted I was too stupid to do a clever job,so dirty physical stuff was always the first option.
Nuclear power stations will take many years to build,burning coal in the interim period would give us cheaper energy and stop us being held over a barrell by the Ruskys,French or anyone else.

[Sir Tigger KC]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html

cough,cough.

Sorry Albs I meant to reference your link!  (Cough!  )

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think that people should be a little more open minded and have a little more faith in human ingenuity.    Just because the way coal has been used in the past, dosn't mean that it can't be used in a different way in the future.    I have faith that they'll find a way to use coal cleanly and safely.  There's too much of the stuff down there to leave it be... 

But if we're going to rush to nuclear, have we worked out a sensible, sustainable and clean way of dealing with the nuclear waste? 

I remain deeply unconvinced on nuclear mainly for this reason, but also if there is an incident such as Chernobyl the results are catastrophic rather than merely disastrous... 

[Jimbob]

Run Coal and Nuclear power stations together.

As the coal comes out the ground, replace it with nuclear waste.

Job done.

Next problem?