>> On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>>>
>>>
>>>>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>>>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>>
>>>>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for
>>>>> new power
>>>>> stations.
>>>
>>>> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
>>>> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
>>>> stations.
>>>
>>> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future
>>> targets.
>>> There are several other technologies that can be used to meet
>>> current standards that are well proven, from simple measures like
>>> improving the thermal efficiency of the generating plant to modern
>>> answers like co-firing
>>> biomass. All are relatively expensive, but the cost will be passed
>>> onto the
>>> consumer.
>>>
>> This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
>> gains but it doesn't solve the problem.
>
> Drax, which is already a high performing station, is set to achieve a
> 20%% reduction in CO2 emissions by co-firing biomass and 40%% overall,
> with all technological advances currently planned. That is hardly
> tinkering at the edges.
>
>>>> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
>>>> some cases uneconomic.
>>>
>>> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>>>
>> Becuase its obvious?
>
> It hasn't been obvious to you in the past.
>
>>>> Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
>>>
>>> It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a
>>> cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island,
>>> the containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At
>>> Chernobyl, it was the lack of similar containment procedures that
>>> caused the problems. Windscale was the result of weapons research,
>>> not nuclear generation. While
>>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs
>>> are very low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate
>>> electricity. The only reason we don't have a lot more of it is the
>>> similarly ill-informed protesters of an earlier era.
>>>
>> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
>> obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.
>
> An area that Britain has a great deal of experience in. However, a
> properly planned expansion of nuclear power would include the
> provision of at least one fast consumer reactor or hybrid reactor,
> which would greatly reduce the problem by transmuting the long
> half-life high level waste into short-lived radioactives.
>
>> Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.
>
> It still works out cheapest overall.
>
>> ... Unless people like you
>> can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
>> precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
>> given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
>> pollution.
>
> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for
> anything to be. However, there are many well-proven methods for
> assessing risk and it is possible to reduce risk to levels so low
> that they become insignificant. Do you worry about being struck by
> lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average of five people every year
> died due to being struck by lighting, which implies the number struck
> would have been 50-100. The number of people who have died due to a
> nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same period - nil.
>
In which case, shouldn't lightning be made illegal?
