Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Cowboy of Love
Joined
·
8,096 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just been watching a depressing programme about climate change and also the North West Enquirer has been banging on about nuclear power the last couple of weeks.

There is no argument really that CO2 emissions need to be cut and nuclear power can and does play a part in that.

Of course i know you lot arent a bunch of opinionated gobshites so will have nothing to say on this matter but be interested to know what you all think.

Until b4mmy and his mates can develop trans warp coils and get energy from dilithium crystals it seems we have consider nuclear do we not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
We already import tons of nuclear generated electricity from France. However we need to see if nuclear power produces less carbon emissions. The power stations are extremely costly to build and uranium is only found in certain places and is very carbon expensive to extract. Reprocessing is also a costly process.

The jury is out, I need somebody to explain the whole process involved before I make my own judgement.

There's more to it than a big concrete power station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,068 Posts
The Longford said:
Just been watching a depressing programme about climate change and also the North West Enquirer has been banging on about nuclear power the last couple of weeks.

There is no argument really that CO2 emissions need to be cut and nuclear power can and does play a part in that.

Of course i know you lot arent a bunch of opinionated gobshites so will have nothing to say on this matter but be interested to know what you all think.

Until b4mmy and his mates can develop trans warp coils and get energy from dilithium crystals it seems we have consider nuclear do we not?

Yes it was rather depressing wasn't it?

China's building a fossil fuel power plant every week for the next 7 years. Correct me if im wrong, it was something along those lines. Thats shocking!
 

·
Less is more.
Joined
·
6,213 Posts
Rusholme Ruffian said:
It's highly unlikely there will be any nuclear power stations built in Manchester. I think Longford was asking more of a general question. There are risks with any refineries oil, gas etc. We've had nuclear power in his country for years now with few negative incidents I can recall. As long as it's produced under strict safety conditions I see no reason why we shouldn't produce more of it, it's got to be better than plundering the planets natural resources and fucking up the environment for future generations.
 

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
You might be referring to dilithium crystals but its an easy mistake to make.

I am working on a recyclable energy plant that will provide 95mw, building materials, liquid ethanol, recycle electronic parts...., include a science park, incubator units, research facilities and utilise low cost multi-modal transport. Amongst all this it has other benefits:
• Developing Markets – increasing levels of recycling and reducing the need
for landfill and incineration
• Job Creation – new and sustainable employment opportunities
• New Skills Base – creating and expanding skills within the workforce
• Inward Investment – attracting wealth to the region
• Education – providing opportunities for schools and colleges
• Research and Development – establishing a centre of excellence for a 21st century industry
• Environment - reducing the production of greenhouse gases and pollution
• Quality Design – providing a high quality working environment
• Resource Efficiency – planning the efficient use of energy, water and
natural resources
• Sustainable Transport – maximising the use of rail and water and reducing the number of lorries on the road.

It will also mean that waste destined for landfill... where it would ultimately produce carbon emissions, will in fact be used to create sustainable energy, jobs, research into clean energy, and materials. All out of shite. No uranium required.

So why has Blair commissioned a new nuclear reactor when he can have some of these. Admittedly a nuclear plant will produce 350mw, but it also produces WASTE, and its extremely expensive.

Why not commission 4 SRRP's instead? No more landfill sites, and save the planet? Why indeed.... preposterous.

http://www.peel.co.uk/peelholdings/property/incemarshes.pdf
 

·
Cowboy of Love
Joined
·
8,096 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Get your point Ensign b4mmy but nuclear can be just one of the meats in the energy stew.

I get the tree huggers point about nuclear but i dont think we should rule it out completely. Its still a very young science and if we press ahead with it we can sort out many of the 'issues' i'm sure.
Cant we fire the waste into the sun (in a photon torpedo?) or something?
 

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
The Longford said:
Get your point Ensign b4mmy but nuclear can be just one of the meats in the energy stew.
SRRP is the future. There is no argument against it. It effectively ends landfill and provides energy and materials in return. Nuclear is dirty, dangerous, and PRODUCES the worst possible waste known to mankind. I think there is a mindset that puts Nuclear on a 'future' pedastal because of the science. Its actually outdated and cancerous. I dont see a rush to build coal fired power stations... not because coal is running out, but because its bloody filthy.
 

·
Cowboy of Love
Joined
·
8,096 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Never had you down as a lentil knitter b11mmy but you make a very convincing argument - this SRRP stuff does seem to make sense doesnt it?
You have to remember though that i love all that brave new world post war modernist idealism shit and nuclear power stations fit right in to that and i'm ashamed to admit that they sort of excite me a bit - all that raw energy.
Terrible basis for an ecological argument i know but nuclear power stations are kinda cool arent they (especially at night!)?
 

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
The only cool thing about nuclear power is that it produces a by product that can create those big ****-off mushroom shaped clouds. But I think we have photographed them to death by now. Are we not past that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I am 100% convinced that nuclear fission is the only way forward. Those who moan and complain can just shut up really because if we didn't consume so much then the cleaner alternatives like b4mmy mentions as well as wind/solar/tidal would provide sustainable solutions rather than mere energy on the side.

Give it 40 years and we'll have fusion going which is as clean as can be.

On a side note- i think more needs to be done to convince people of the merits and necessity of nuclear power and to dispell the lack of understanding regarding the fact that power plants and bombs do not have anything to do with eachother.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I was lucky enough to work constructing the last at Sizewell B.
Can't wait for C,D & E at Leiston,Suffolk.
30 tower cranes within a radius of 150 metres!
 

·
In The Ghetto
Joined
·
531 Posts
b4mmy said:
You might be referring to dilithium crystals but its an easy mistake to make.

I am working on a recyclable energy plant that will provide 95mw, building materials, liquid ethanol, recycle electronic parts...., include a science park, incubator units, research facilities and utilise low cost multi-modal transport. Amongst all this it has other benefits:
• Developing Markets – increasing levels of recycling and reducing the need
for landfill and incineration
• Job Creation – new and sustainable employment opportunities
• New Skills Base – creating and expanding skills within the workforce
• Inward Investment – attracting wealth to the region
• Education – providing opportunities for schools and colleges
• Research and Development – establishing a centre of excellence for a 21st century industry
• Environment - reducing the production of greenhouse gases and pollution
• Quality Design – providing a high quality working environment
• Resource Efficiency – planning the efficient use of energy, water and
natural resources
• Sustainable Transport – maximising the use of rail and water and reducing the number of lorries on the road.

It will also mean that waste destined for landfill... where it would ultimately produce carbon emissions, will in fact be used to create sustainable energy, jobs, research into clean energy, and materials. All out of shite. No uranium required.

So why has Blair commissioned a new nuclear reactor when he can have some of these. Admittedly a nuclear plant will produce 350mw, but it also produces WASTE, and its extremely expensive.

Why not commission 4 SRRP's instead? No more landfill sites, and save the planet? Why indeed.... preposterous.

http://www.peel.co.uk/peelholdings/property/incemarshes.pdf
Is that the one that was mentioned in the Evening News sometime last year, it looked quite impressive to me from the render that they printed, where exactly is it proposed to be built, seem to remember the article just saying is was to be built somewhere in the North West.

I'm not opposed to Nuclear power, but schemes like this seem to make alot of sense as they kill two birds with one stone, tackling the landfill/waste proble and the energy problem at the same time.


**Just noticed the link, don't think its the same scheme unless its changed considerably, the one in the MEN looked very futuristic, but its not how it looks on schemes like this I suppose, its what they are doing.
 

·
LocksRocks
Joined
·
313 Posts
I really think Nuclear energy is the only option at the moment unless we continue a reliance on natural gas. There is not enough drive for sustainable energy as like most things in this country people don’t think long term and with 40 or 50 years worth of left fossil fuels they will stick with what they have got.

I believe in cutting carbon emissions but also retaining the skills and knowledge in the nuclear industry. The number of nuclear power stations around the world is going to increase regardless of what the UK does. After all if the current situation continues we would disband are nuclear industry then buy additional power from France generated at Gravelines 6 reactor only about 40 miles from the UK anyway.

I think it would be a 40 year stop gap, in which time real focus and greater technology would be directed toward renewable energy sources, while there is still fossil fuels in abundance generating methods won’t really change.
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top