OT Nuclear power

[Steve Firth]

Lie.

[philipuk]

o lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded wit h goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing nu mber of producers.

We seem to be rushing headlong into total dependance on gas. We need coal to bridge the gap between now and when we get new nuke plants built. Time for Harry's friends to get all their objections in.

Philip

[harry]

Well fusion might. But not the cold sort. And not in our lifetimes.

[harry]

Oh, more details then?

[The Natural Philosopher]

cold fusion wouldn't generate enough heat to be useful anyway :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

its well known that many solutions exist. What there isn't a solution to, is people who wont accept any of the solutions, on principle :-)

[Nightjar]

On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote: ...

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

[ARW]

"Our lifetimes"?

You a lot older than me:-)

[Tim Streater]

No harry, it was solved 20 years ago and the solution has been in use (in the UK) these 20 years. As I posted back in late Jan / early Feb. Do keep up.

[Tim Streater]

I refer you to the podcast of "The Life Scientific" from some time in Jan, where this issue was dealt with. A R4 program, which I referred to at the time. Do keep up.

[harry]

If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now. Everything's simple to the simple minded.

[harry]

Yes, I recall some drivel.

The true facts are here. Nothing has been done.

_Kingdom Notice that the taxpayer is going to have to fund all this.

And here:-

More or less the same story

[The Natural Philosopher]

It has been solved harry.

As I said, the problem is that people like you choose not to believe that it has.

[Nightjar]

I rather doubt there is any solution to the problem of people, like you, who refuse to believe the facts.

As for nuclear waste, we have had the technology to recycle 95% of it, including all the high level waste, for more than half a century. It just happens to be cheaper to store it safely instead.

Colin Bignell

[harry]

Another one in Lala land.

Notice who's paying. The taxpayer. And this is a tiny fraction of what's to come.

[harry]

Oh and some MEP is a nuclear expert?

[Nightjar]

As we would have if the plant had not been privatised. Essentially that is a story about a government project that is over time and over budget, which is hardly unusual.

This is the result of Britain wanting to have nuclear weapons and building the facilities to provide the fuel without any regard for anything, bar meeting the deadline for demonstrating that they could build an H-bomb.

It is in no way an indicator of what will happen in future with nuclear power. All the clean up costs are included in the calculations for that and are a major reason that nuclear power comes out at around the same cost as coal power, although still half the cost of onshore wind and one third the cost of offshore wind.

As I said, the only problem about nuclear waste is people like you who think there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, but he talks to people who are, and listens.

And is far more an expert than the links you have posted - to lefty newspapers.

[Tim Streater]

Here's a clue, harry. That relates to nuclear *bomb* cleanup, which we'll have to pay for WHETHER OR NOT we build new nuclear power stations.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And let's face it, what better way to get rid of otherwise unwanted plutonium than burning it in a reactor and getting terawatt hours of power out of it?