Our dependence on electricity

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
I suppose the whole Nuclear/coal/oil/gas debate on this is a decoy...The reason we use all these methods is IIRC to produce steam to turn turbines...Therefore the argument is going to be which is the safest and cleanest way to produce steam...All except water turbines that is;)
 

bb07

Native
Feb 21, 2010
1,322
1
Rupert's Land
There are no easy solutions, that is certain. Worldwide electrical demand will only increase. The only way it can be otherwise is for an event to occur which would drastically reduce the overall population. Quite simply, there are too many of us, but understandably, none of us wish to volunteer to be the first in line for the reduction.:rolleyes:

Regarding nuclear: Proponents of nuclear power say it's safe. I disagree. It may be reasonably safe but it is definitely not without it's hazards. Touted as a clean source of energy (compared to coal) it is not without it's share of harmful effects or pollution. Uranium mining is itself a contentious issue, along with the problem of what to do with the spent fuel? Nothing is truly clean or green. It all requires resources expended to produce alternate resources, in this case being electricity.

In the future though, I truly believe that the world will simply have no choice but to turn to nuclear power to supply demand. Like it or not, sadly, I don't think we have a choice.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
Very true. Even being born is not without it's hazards:lmao:

Yep, one in four pregnancies fail at some point...

10633340095_bc8e73fdc7.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

And sadly even at 40 weeks it goes wrong sometimes...This is my daughters grave. She would have been 23 now.

But there are good times as well...

My eldest daughters graduation.

9253406399_1ccd49787a.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

And my youngest daughter at her school presentation night.

9317644030_ebdfa241ce.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 

bb07

Native
Feb 21, 2010
1,322
1
Rupert's Land
wingstoo, you have my most sincere condolences. My comment was meant in a light hearted manner, without a thought to anyone actually being affected. Sometimes joking is in poor taste, my apologies:eek:
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
wingstoo, you have my most sincere condolences. My comment was meant in a light hearted manner, without a thought to anyone actually being affected. Sometimes joking is in poor taste, my apologies:eek:

No worries bb07, we all say things that on reflection we shouldn't have...

Strange how it may seem a lot of good came about because of our loss.

This is a small corner of a special childrens burial section of our local cemetery we had created after our loss.

10633962154_1fff6cee2d.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

And my eldest daughter works on the BNFL site for WS Atkins the civil engineer company, as an assistant costs analyst for the decommissioning project she lives in Whitehaven, just a few miles up the coast from the plant.
 
Last edited:

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
28
70
south wales
No worries bb07, we all say things that on reflection we shouldn't have...

Strange how it may seem a lot of good came about because of our loss.

This is a small corner of a special childrens burial section of our local cemetery we had created after our loss.

10633962154_1fff6cee2d.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

And my eldest daughter works on the BNFL site for WS Atkins the civil engineer company, as an assistant costs analyst for the decommissioning project she lives in Whitehaven, just a few miles up the coast from the plant.

A good outcome born from a tragedy.
 

Hagrid

Tenderfoot
May 23, 2013
51
0
North Devon
If the power goes off panic follows hence my support for reliable nuclear power; I ain't giving up my toys;)

you might not have a choice! whatcha gonna do once the power goes off? you cant rely on the govt, they'll be too busy looking after number 1!!
 
Jul 30, 2012
3,570
225
westmidlands
The question (within the context of this thread) is, "Are nuclear reactors safe?" To answer that question accurately, all nuclear reactors have to be accessed for their failure rates. Their location is irrelevant.

saw on the news about thorium nuclear power, so I did a bit of reading about it. Looks to make uranium nuclear power a bloody outrage, we had test reactors in the 60's but didn't develop them. Litttle waste, no meltdowns, waste quickly becomes safe, chenobyl wouldn't have existed, and the uranium from the 60's would be safe. What have they precicely been playing about at? Waste untouchable for 100,000 years ? Meltdowns and radiation poisoming ? I always had my alarm bell ringing when they talked about nuclear plants and their waste. Fucushima will cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, and unlivable for a good few years, chenobyl virtually glows at night.
 
Nov 29, 2004
7,808
26
Scotland
saw on the news about thorium nuclear power, so I did a bit of reading about it. Looks to make uranium nuclear power a bloody outrage, we had test reactors in the 60's but didn't develop them. Litttle waste, no meltdowns, waste quickly becomes safe, chenobyl wouldn't have existed, and the uranium from the 60's would be safe. What have they precicely been playing about at? Waste untouchable for 100,000 years ? Meltdowns and radiation poisoming ? I always had my alarm bell ringing when they talked about nuclear plants and their waste. Fucushima will cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, and unlivable for a good few years, chenobyl virtually glows at night.

I am given to believe that Thorium reactors could not produce the necessary materials for nuclear weapons, thus not of much use to the powers that were in the fifties through seventies.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
saw on the news about thorium nuclear power, so I did a bit of reading about it. Looks to make uranium nuclear power a bloody outrage, we had test reactors in the 60's but didn't develop them. Litttle waste, no meltdowns, waste quickly becomes safe, chenobyl wouldn't have existed, and the uranium from the 60's would be safe. What have they precicely been playing about at? Waste untouchable for 100,000 years ? Meltdowns and radiation poisoming ? I always had my alarm bell ringing when they talked about nuclear plants and their waste. Fucushima will cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, and unlivable for a good few years, chenobyl virtually glows at night.

So do you have another source that actually works? And doesn't cause global warming? Please don't say hydro, cause most environmentalists also oppose damning rivers and the ensuing ecological damage.
 
Jul 30, 2012
3,570
225
westmidlands
So do you have another source that actually works? And doesn't cause global warming? Please don't say hydro, cause most environmentalists also oppose damning rivers and the ensuing ecological damage.

thorium nuclear, even helps dispose of plutonium. If you told aliens that you where operating uranium fission plants, creating lethal waste and nuclear meltdowns on the face of your planet, they wouldn't believe you. I'd be happy with thorium plants, but france, a country that produces alot of nuclear energy, now has a very big problem with waste and the cost. Burn coal rather than long lived radiation. I bet japan doesn't think nucular (< G.W.Bushism!) is cheap any more, and after 100,000 years of production and storage it won't be cheap to our kids. (Neptunium 2 million years!)

www.english.rfi.fr/economy/20120712-france-nuclear-waste-stocks-set-double-2030

www.extremetech.com/extreme/160131-...rovide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy

as an alternative geothermal must be able to go along way, kenya in the rift valley produces loads, like iceland, I'm sure iceland could power most of europe and scicily and greece could do the rest. The us is hardly lacking in volcanism just like south america and japan. but thorium looks to be a goer, or just burn coal.

Edit:

actually they are already thinking of powering europe from iceland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
 
Last edited:

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
"Chernobyl actually glows"?

Funny that lots of people have moved back there then..........................

extract from Russia Today http://englishrussia.com/2013/04/26/chernobyl-today/4/ "These people already know which places are safe and which are better to avoid. And they do not need dosimeters. By the way, most of the places in Chernobyl have lower background radiation than Kiev."
 
Last edited:
Jul 30, 2012
3,570
225
westmidlands
"Chernobyl actually glows"?

Funny that lots of people have moved back there then..........................

extract from Russia Today http://englishrussia.com/2013/04/26/chernobyl-today/4/ "These people already know which places are safe and which are better to avoid. And they do not need dosimeters. By the way, most of the places in Chernobyl have lower background radiation than Kiev."

johnmcenroe.jpg
you cannot be serious

pripyat is the name of the ghost town, chernobyl the powerplant, the wind usually blows towards Kiev , lucky it wasnt that day, and the ?danube? flows through kiev.

www.chernobylwel.com/blog/new-sarcophagus-over-reactor-4/


edit:

did read your link, don't know whether it was the line "heavily controlled" or "best to view from a distance as it may contain something more lethal" that made me think that even though the Town of Chernobyl is 9 miles away it's still not free from the reactors influence 27 years later. There actually people who live full time in the exclusion zone for life and are fine, usually older people, and they lived there before 1986. And you can go for tours round pripyat, but you just cant move there from the uk.

Also a bit closer to home:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-24754181
 
Last edited:

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
Ah - did someone tread on your "Chernobyl glows" comment with a fact or two?!


As background radiation in Chernobyl is lower than Kiev, does that mean Kiev glows twice as much? Lucky that no-one lives anywhere near Kiev then.................. :)
 
Jul 30, 2012
3,570
225
westmidlands
Ah - did someone tread on your "Chernobyl glows" comment with a fact or two?!


As background radiation in Chernobyl is lower than Kiev, does that mean Kiev glows twice as much? Lucky that no-one lives anywhere near Kiev then.................. :)

well alot of peoples lives are still messed up as result.
 

Attachments

  • cartoons.jpg
    cartoons.jpg
    97.6 KB · Views: 12

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
......as an alternative geothermal must be able to go along way, kenya in the rift valley produces loads, like iceland, I'm sure iceland could power most of europe and scicily and greece could do the rest. The us is hardly lacking in volcanism just like south america and japan. but thorium looks to be a goer, or just burn coal.

Edit:

actually they are already thinking of powering europe from iceland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Geothermal has some promise; just how much remains to be seen. Coal is a non-starter from an environmental point of view. Not only does it pollute the air in ways we've knowm for quite a while, it's one of the major contributor's to global warming. That said, I expect demand will cause it to be used for a long time to come.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE