• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Uranium or wind? (1 Viewer)

Otto McDiesel

Well-known member
This is from Yahoo News

After nearly two decades, Europe's antinuclear tide is showing signs of turning.
For the first time in 15 years, a European country has begun construction of a nuclear reactor, and six more are likely to be built in the next decade. Other countries are revising plans to phase out their nuclear programs. And this week's brief but brutal drop in Europe's supplies of crucial Russian gas has only served to fuel the trend.
"People are saying 'let's take a second look' at nuclear power," says William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency. "Rising oil prices means nuclear is becoming more economically attractive, and gas prices are a second kick in the pants."
To reduce its dependence on oil and gas imports, Europe needs to "look at nuclear power and at renewable energy,"

European Union Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said Wednesday.
Nuclear power plants remain unpopular with a majority of Europeans, who are worried about what happens to the radioactive waste. Industry officials, however, are playing on the public's competing worries about the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Nuclear plants, they point out, emit practically no CO2.
"Nuclear is the only game in town if you are serious about cutting greenhouse gases" as the European Union has pledged to do under the Kyoto Protocol, argues Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group.
With the legacy of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and rising environmental concerns clouding the nuclear horizon, EU nations stopped building nuclear plants for 15 years. But last yearFinland ended that streak by starting construction of a third-generation pressurized water reactor, designed by the French company Areva. It's to come on-line in 2009.
The French state-owned power generating company, Électricité de France, has won government approval to build a similar plant in France and chosen the site. In addition,

President Jacques Chirac announced Thursday, France will complete a pilot plant by 2020 that will produce less waste and burn more efficiently.
In eastern Europe the Bulgarian government is expected to award a contract this month for the construction of two units, Romania has restarted building a power station that was mothballed 15 years ago, and the Czech Republic's energy plan foresees the construction of two more nuclear plants by the end of the decade.
The Swiss parliament last year ended Switzerland's moratorium on building nuclear power plants and extended the operating lifetime of the country's five existing units, and the British government has promised an energy review this year that many analysts expect to favor nuclear. The review "will include, specifically, the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations," said British Prime Minister

Tony Blair in a recent speech.
The question of nuclear power has resurfaced even in countries that have abandoned - or pledged to abandon - it. In Italy, which closed its four power stations after a 1987 referendum, Industry Minister Claudio Scajola said this week that "the development of nuclear technologies remains an important element for Italy's energy policy."
Sweden has dropped plans to close all its nuclear plants by 2010, and Belgium's intention to start phasing out nuclear power in 2015 has run up against a finding by the Federal Planning Bureau that nuclear power is the best way for the country to meet its Kyoto commitments to cut back on greenhouse gases.
In Germany, meanwhile, conservatives are taking the opportunity offered by this week's gas scare to challenge the 2020 deadline for an end to nuclear energy that the previous government imposed at the insistence of the Green Party.
In negotiations to form her government last year, Chancellor Angela Merkel was unable to persuade her Social Democrat coalition partners to drop the deadline. But supporters of nuclear energy are unlikely to give up, suggests Hermann Ott, director of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
"It will be a constant fight for the next 20 years," predicts Mr. Ott. "Renewable energy has the potential to replace existing fossil fuel supplies....But if that does not happen fast enough, it is likely that the life of the nuclear reactors will be extended."
Not that many Germans would be happy with that. Only 38 percent of them are in favor of nuclear power, according to a European Union opinion poll last June which also found that across the EU, 55 percent of citizens oppose nuclear energy.
If the nuclear industry is to overcome this hostility, says the IEA's Mr. Ramsay, "it will have to demonstrate that it can handle nuclear waste."
Over the past couple of years, nuclear supporters have sought to deflect attention away from the problem of nuclear waste by highlighting the problems associated with fossil fuels, most notably greenhouse-gas emissions. They have enjoyed some success: 62 per cent of respondents in the 2005 EU poll agreed that nuclear power was advantageous in terms of cutting greenhouse gases - up from just 41 percent four years earlier.
As European policymakers begin to reconsider the nuclear option "it is Kyoto and the need to reduce emissions that is the driver," says Patrick Heren, founder of Heren Energy Ltd, which publishes which reports on the power markets.
Antinuclear activists insist that nuclear power is as potentially dangerous as ever, that nobody has yet found a safe way to dispose of highly radioactive waste, and that uranium deposits are too small to ensure long-term fuel supplies to nuclear plants. European governments would be much better advised to invest more heavily in wind and solar power, they argue.
For most of the past two decades, antinuclear ecologists have had the argument pretty much all their way in Europe. Today, acknowledges Sven Teske, energy expert for Greenpeace, "there is more of a debate."
For Mr. Heren, who also opposes the expansion of nuclear energy, the signs are obvious. "Quite clearly," he says, "the wind is blowing in favor of nuclear across Europe."
p>• Finland began construction on a nuclear reactor last year.
• France has given approval for a similar one and has plans for another.
• Bulgaria is expected to award a contract this month for building two units.
• Romania has resumed building a power station after a 15-year lull.
• The Czech Republic has plans to build two more nuclear plants by the end of the decade.
• Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, and Germany are all reconsidering previous plans to cap or phase out nuclear programs.
• Andreas Tzortzis contributed to this report from Berlin.
 
I don't think that is the choice Otto-and we know it now.

In the first flush of the panic over the Gazprom gas shut off to Ukraine, our largest UK electricity generator said it planned to fire up a partly used facility in readiness. The plant in question uses oil.!!
Countries like Denmark & Germany with relatively high wind components in their generation mix rely on balancing up with Norwegian hydro-& French nuclear facilities!
In UK we don't have that possibility. How can we close down the 20% of total electricity output currently produced by nuclear? What are we going to replace it with?-gas through a pipeline from some far away country run by a dictator ? Wind?-It's not going to happen-not even in my worst windmill nightmare!
Clean Coal?-that seems to be a taboo subject.
So yes I can see Blair reversing our current nuclear policy, and no doubt the Green Fundamentalists will be on the streets telling us all he is wrong.

Colin
 
I've said all along on Bird Forum in various threads that have sprung up regarding global warming, windfarms etc. Sooner or later we will have no option but to turn to nuclear for the mainstay of our power needs, windfarms don't cut it, they destroy too much natural habitat, produce poor amounts of sporadic electricity and would cover vast areas of land in order to produce a fraction of what's required nationally! Hydro is useful but cannot supply the whole countries needs on it's own, but coupled with nuclear it would probably be enough. At present there appears to be no other viable power producing plant available which does not produce large amounts of CO2. Wave energy, which on face value should be able to produce unlimited amounts of power all round the country, still has many problems to iron out before it becomes commercially viable if ever! Other systems such as super capacitor storage at present are only really useful as emergency back-up to safety systems, hospitals etc.

nirofo.
 
Last edited:
We'll i've been in the shadow of the Cernobil when it happened, but i still think that as long as we keep it safe and dispose of it safely uranium is the only clean way to go.
Even hydro is too damn disturbing for wetlands and wildlife.
 
Climate summit challenges Kyoto's approach
Six nations, responsible for 40 percent of global greenhouse gases, meet Wednesday.
By Janaki Kremmer | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – The inaugural two-day summit of what many see as an American-led alternative to the Kyoto climate treaty convenes Wednesday in Sydney.
Formed this past July, the new bloc brings together the US, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. These six nations are responsible for more than 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, which many scientists say cause global warming.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emissions targets for nations, the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate aims to reduce emissions voluntarily through the transfer of emerging technologies - including "clean coal," burial of carbon dioxide, and next-generation nuclear power - from industrialized nations to the developing world.
The pact's advocates argue it is a more realistic approach than Kyoto, and commits many of the major nations not yet bound by Kyoto quotas to at least the principle of reducing emissions. The effectiveness of this effort, however, may ride on whether the high-tech systems can be developed fast enough and made commercially enticing for businesses not otherwise compelled to adopt greener methods.
Don Henry, the executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation in Melbourne, says that a pact based on voluntary action has no teeth. "We have realized after 50 years of tackling the pollution problem that to be [effective] we need laws, not just voluntary agreements."
Experts say that most technology transfers under consideration are not yet commercially viable, and will require millions of dollars in subsidies or investment. Some are still in the research phase. This first meeting will be an attempt by all the six countries to come up with plans and ideas that can be put in motion.
During the meeting, Australia is expected to announce a $75 million contribution to a fund to help develop clean technology in China and India.
"While Kyoto puddles on nicely, the real reductions will come from technology," Australia's Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, told the Sydney Morning Herald. "This is not a diplomatic love-in. It's a hard-edged business plan with targets and reporting duties."
But Mr. Macfarlane indicated that no specific timetable would be used under the new plan.
Ian Campbell, Australia's environmental minister, told reporters in Perth recently that, "We're going to have a 40 percent increase in emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, while the world needs a 50 percent reduction. We've got to find something that works better."
In that search for something better, a number of technologies are likely to be pushed at this week's meeting - many of which play to Australia's economic strengths.
New tech: 'safer' fission, 'clean' coal
Among them is a new generation of safer nuclear reactors that incorporate more safety systems that kick in automatically, relying less on human intervention to avert disasters. Australia, a major supplier of uranium, stands to benefit from rising global interest in nuclear energy, which does not produce the large amounts of greenhouse gases generated by fossil fuels.
Anoner of the new initiatives on the table is a US government "clean coal" project called Future Gen. It aims to develop coal-fired power stations that emit no carbon dioxide. This would include gasifying the coal before burning it, and capturing and storing the CO2 produced.
Though the technology could reduce emissions, critics believe that it could not be scaled up fast enough to halt climate change. It would still benefit the coal industries. Australia exports $14.7 billion in coal, up from $9.5 billion just four years ago.
"Even if it failed to reach the targets 20 or 30 years from now, the coal industry would still make a profit," says Colin Butler, environment expert at the Australian National University in Canberra.
Don Henry adds that without targets and national legislation, the new pact would disadvantage progressive companies as no one else would bear the costs.
"Also, voluntary methods rely on public subsidies - taxpayers will pay a bomb rather than the polluters," he adds.
Many scientists say the emission of CO2 and five other gases are responsible for rising temperatures on the earth. The average global temperature rose around one degree centigrade in the 20th century.
Some projections suggest that Australia's annual temperature could rise between one and six degrees centigrade by 2070. A recent government report says it may already be too late to save some of the country's environmental landmarks such as the Great Barrier Reef, from the effects of the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Both the US and Australia had earlier refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it cost jobs - about 5 million in the US alone. They also said that it was too lenient on developing nations such as China and India.
Neither China nor India are targets bound by Kyoto to cut greenhouse gases during the agreement's first stage, set to end in 2012. It was agreed that the emerging Asian powers needed economic space to grow, and that those nations most responsible for the current level of pollution - the developed nations - should shoulder the initial burden.
Pact has brought businesses along
While businesses in the US and Australia have been split in recent years over the Kyoto Protocol, the new pact has brought more businesses along. Gerry Hueston, the president of the oil group BP and a senior member of the Business Council of Australia, has asked fellow council members to adopt plans to cut greenhouse gases. This week will bring to the table many industry representatives from companies such as Exxon Mobil and the mining firm Rio Tinto.
But some experts here say that both Australia and the US are playing the politics of divide and rule in an effort to weaken Kyoto and take along some of the key polluters such as India and China.
With the first stage of Kyoto coming to an end in 2012, and with only 20 percent of emission reduction covered by 2020, the European Union had been working hard to get agreement from the Group of 77 developing nations for future actions to balance the pressure on the rest of the developed world.
"I don't believe that India and China are about to leave Kyoto, but maybe the long-term hope is that they will," says Colin Butler of the Australian National University.
US says group won't undermine Kyoto
The US and Australia deny that they are trying to undermine the Kyoto accord, insisting instead that the new grouping is meant to compliment it.
Mr. Henry says that Kyoto for all its problems has a fairness mechanism built into it and a majority of the developing countries that are a part of it are benefiting from the market-based mechanisms.
One of India's foremost environmentalists, Sunita Narain, says that India acquiesced to this new group meeting in Sydney because it is vulnerable to global warming. "This country's majority subsists at the margins of survival; any variation in climate can throw India off that edge."
Other than the introduction of the pact in Laos last year and the release of a vision statement, there has been little in the way of detail about the agreement.
"We welcome the initiative, but we have no idea how the architecture of the agreement will work," Mark O' Neill head of the Australian Coal Association, said recently.
Mr. Campbell warned against expecting the first summit to produce a "silver bullet" to the climate change problem.
"Ultimately the test of the success of this partnership will be over a number of years," Campbell told ABC radio
 
Tyke said:
...and no doubt the Green Fundamentalists will be on the streets telling us all he is wrong.

Colin
And the truth hurts, doesn't it!

Some of us have short memories. Too many, I fear.
 
scampo said:
And the truth hurts, doesn't it!

Some of us have short memories. Too many, I fear.

Yes-when it challenges cherished beliefs.What truth did you refer to ?
Which memories do you fear?
 
Tyke said:
Yes-when it challenges cherished beliefs.What truth did you refer to ?
Which memories do you fear?
Oh... the truths the "green fundamentalists" will be telling... and the memories of Three-mile Island and Chernobyl.

Ionising radiation...

Cancer...

Isotopes that last in the topsoil for millennia...

The Irish Sea poisoned...

So many memories.

And life is to be cherished, not memories.
 
scampo said:
Oh... the truths the "green fundamentalists" will be telling... and the memories of Three-mile Island and Chernobyl.

Ionising radiation...

Cancer...

Isotopes that last in the topsoil for millennia...

The Irish Sea poisoned...

So many memories.

And life is to be cherished, not memories.

Thanks-thought so but didn't want to presume.
Yes it's worrying certainly-but so is the looming energy crisis.
Just being against Nuclear power generation doesn't get us very far does it.
What are we to replace our Nuclear Plants with?...after which should we proceed with taking out the coal plants, and if so what do we replace them with?
If the answer to all this is Yes-Gas, then you must accept the risks inherant in a fuel which , by 2020 will constitute 80% or so of our total generation mix, and be largely imported.

The other pressing question-fossil fuel replacements to reduce greenhouse gasses-presents the same dilemma for you. If you remove the present 20%nuclear component of our generation mix -how do you replace it without increasing fossil fuel use ?

Replacing-& indeed increasing the nuclear component in our generation mix appears to avoid reliance on imported energy , whilst reducing fossil fuel use.

So what are the risks-bearing in mind there is no risk free solution?

Well all I try to do is look at the arguments.These are the things which have seemed relevant to me:-
* The actual death toll from Chernobyl & Three Mile Island .
* The modern technology which will be used now-including the encouraging emergence of Pebble Bed technology which builds safety factors in to the fuel format.
*The actual experience & safety record of other countries-like France which is 70% nuclear.
* The incidence of countries -like Finland -who are committed to new nuclear build-their rational for doing so & their approach to waste disposal.
*The thoughts of James Lovelock.

It's all very difficult-but there is a Government Energy Review pending-& not before time! We will all need to try & approach the issue with as little emotive baggage as we can manage!

Colin
 
Tyke said:
Thanks-thought so but didn't want to presume.
Yes it's worrying certainly-but so is the looming energy crisis.
Just being against Nuclear power generation doesn't get us very far does it.
What are we to replace our Nuclear Plants with?...after which should we proceed with taking out the coal plants, and if so what do we replace them with?
If the answer to all this is Yes-Gas, then you must accept the risks inherant in a fuel which , by 2020 will constitute 80% or so of our total generation mix, and be largely imported.

The other pressing question-fossil fuel replacements to reduce greenhouse gasses-presents the same dilemma for you. If you remove the present 20%nuclear component of our generation mix -how do you replace it without increasing fossil fuel use ?

Replacing-& indeed increasing the nuclear component in our generation mix appears to avoid reliance on imported energy , whilst reducing fossil fuel use.

So what are the risks-bearing in mind there is no risk free solution?

Well all I try to do is look at the arguments.These are the things which have seemed relevant to me:-
* The actual death toll from Chernobyl & Three Mile Island .
* The modern technology which will be used now-including the encouraging emergence of Pebble Bed technology which builds safety factors in to the fuel format.
*The actual experience & safety record of other countries-like France which is 70% nuclear.
* The incidence of countries -like Finland -who are committed to new nuclear build-their rational for doing so & their approach to waste disposal.
*The thoughts of James Lovelock.

It's all very difficult-but there is a Government Energy Review pending-& not before time! We will all need to try & approach the issue with as little emotive baggage as we can manage!

Colin
But the truth might be very different; we'll never know the true morbidity nor probably mortality caused by the Chernobyl disaster; or from our own Irish Sea emissions. What we do know is that those who have been and are being affected include innocent children.

What we also know is that we don't know who to trust. We know, too, that cancer rates worldwide are spiralling and no one knows quite why. For sure, anyone touched by cancer would want to rid the world as far as possible of this evil. Ionising radiation does not only affect those who choose to work with it - it attacks indiscriminately all within its grasp.

It's the sheer scale of the possible problem in both time and place that has always - lifelong - been my fear. My background is scientific so I am not ignorant of the objective aspects of nuclear energy. No - we need to think hard before we commit to travelling further down this potentially disastrous path.

The people of Sweden are a well-educated folk, worldy wise, too. They gave it the thumbs down in the past; I dare say they will again. We will not be given the opportunity. Our decision will be made by died-in-the-wool paid-up capitalist politicians.

I'd rather us all take a step to one side and genuinely look at ways to cut energy use. Could we do that? Hmmm... I do think so.

In the past year, this town where I live decided to put traffic calming on a long nearby road. In the process they ripped up all the existing street lamps and replaced them with new ones - half as tall, much brighter and half as many again in number. The speed ramps were placed on T junctions thus needing 66% more raw materials... The street is bright enough - night long - to read a newspaper by.

Do you know, if people parked their cars legally on that road instead of illegally parking them half or fully up on where people are supposed to walk - the pavement, there would have been no need whatever for "traffic calming": you can't speed down a road with cars parked along its length.

Yes - we can cut energy use: quite easily and quite dramatically. If we really want to.

Things could be so very different. We are all being led astray by those in power and who daren't face up to the facts of spiralling energy use; the capitalistic tendencies of the western world are not unrestrainable.
 
Last edited:
London Birder said:
let's face it people, we're doooooooooooooooooooomed ...


Now, anyone for a Cuppa Soup?
I doubt that. We've been around a v-e-r-y long time. By the way, do you know how many "food miles" the ingredients in that innocent seeming cup-a-soup (and its massively over elaborate packaging) have travelled?
 
Last edited:
we're doomed I tell you, the Earth cannot stand up to the forces set into action during the eventual collapse of the sun...

beef or tomato?
 
Otto McDiesel said:
No, we are not doomed. Short of nuclear war, we can fix all of it.
I doubt we can, Otto; but they can; if they really wanted to. But when the status quo provided the very conditions under which your wealth and power arose, who in power is likely to want to change anything at all...?
 
"Our decision will be made by died-in-the-wool paid-up capitalist politicians."

Ah...so that's the problem!
What sort of politician would you prefer to take the decision then?
That nice Mr Putin?-or the Central Planning Committee that built the load of junk called Chernobyl -or the architect of the Five Year Plan for Cotton production which desicated the Aral Sea?

I'm just going to wait & see what is proposed & try to make sense of it.

Colin
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top