Only 10-20 years ago the whole world saw nuclear power stations poisoning communities and is very expensive......and began closing them down.... noticing how today, british gas workers suddenly decide to go on strike for xmas the same week as blair decides he wants 12 more power stations, is this not a fix? How prompted are worker strikes anyway?
if at all, did Thatcher cheat her way through reforms? by deminishing the unions who may have just put up a last public show before decline, (perhaps all controlled by the same illuminati)/ if i ruled all of the religions, banks and governments, i may just be able to control the unions also...just a thought...
is nuclear power really needed, or is it a cover story to psyphon off more public money into black ops?
After all.. all economists knew in the mid 1980's that the now developing countries will grow very well. I was in beijing at a reception meeting where China signed massive huge deals with america to buy American Pylon technology, american electricity production technology and wheat etc etc. a time when i saw beijing already well on the growth path with many buildings being build 24/7 day and night....so the E-con-monists must have known at the close of the nuclear industry, that we would be in this so called unstable energy future......so why bring nuclear energy back?
perhaps these days, people care less about things than the freedom fighters of the 70's and 80's..I mean the artists and activists like Ckapton and the many others who cried for REVOLUTION which is shyed upon by todays artists.......I can only see booty grabbing and arse showing music to favour the young minds.........i blame it on the poisons they put in foods and the dumbing down techniques that have been ELf perfected..... a culture of non activists, which includes most art forms in comparison to the 70's heh?....in comparison to the 80's even......we are pretty dull without these forums hey?
and what do forums do?
Lobby congress... if nobody shouts, nothing changes...
Full Version: Nuclear Power
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
If it is'nt a cospiracy, then do you have a solution?
Don't most unions that strike plan to do so when the strike would be most effective? The people who provide the heating fuel go on strike at X-mas. Isn't it cold around that time of year in the U.K.?
yeah we power ous on for winter and shut down for summer, central heating bills ffs. But i beleive Halburton those world class arm dealers are replacing, well to be more clear their effectively leasing us a replacement to our defunct trident nuclear systems, and im pretty sure theyll be involved with the contracts to construct new nuclear bomb factories too....err power sations, yeah power stations THATS WHAT THEY ARE, of course.
the best solution i'd say to sstart trainin local communities in guerilla warfare and exsplosives, in secret then everyone should NOT go to their work monday morning, declare Blair and the labour goverment enemies of the people, begin taking over radio stations, television stations, blowing railway lines then finallymarch on parliment, blowing it to smithereens and have every labour, conservative MP with their backs up against the wall[also priests, ministers and clerics, we'll turn the centers of worship into whore houses and casinos]
the best solution i'd say to sstart trainin local communities in guerilla warfare and exsplosives, in secret then everyone should NOT go to their work monday morning, declare Blair and the labour goverment enemies of the people, begin taking over radio stations, television stations, blowing railway lines then finallymarch on parliment, blowing it to smithereens and have every labour, conservative MP with their backs up against the wall[also priests, ministers and clerics, we'll turn the centers of worship into whore houses and casinos]
QUOTE
is nuclear power really needed, or is it a cover story to psyphon off more public money into black ops?
Yes, nuclear power is needed.
One fossil fuel is predicted to have run out in another 40-60 years. I think it is natural gas.
We need an alternative, nuclear power is the only alternative that could possibly give us enough energy to meet demands.
Unless you know of any other technologies that produce energy without fossil fuels actually being the fuel and that have been researched and developed to a high extent?
There is no conspiracy here.
NO CONSPIRACY???, i hope ur joking buddy.
like wind power and solar power?, or the fact that effective hydrogen power cells have been around since the 80's but the patents were bought out by people like BP who dont want them made. Even powdered metal gives of far greater combustion levels than petrol. Nuclear power is frightning is in no one needed what so ever.
like wind power and solar power?, or the fact that effective hydrogen power cells have been around since the 80's but the patents were bought out by people like BP who dont want them made. Even powdered metal gives of far greater combustion levels than petrol. Nuclear power is frightning is in no one needed what so ever.
QUOTE
like wind power
Dependent on wind. Not everywhere in the world has enough wind to make wind generators effective. They won't work everywhere.
A nuclear power station would be cheaper to run and would produce much, much, much, much, much, much, much more energy than a wind farm.
Wind power cannot ever power a nation such as England.
QUOTE
solar power
Lol, this has had so little research into it is not even worth thinking about till some serious research into it goes foward.
I think at the moment we recieve 16 times more energy than we need from the sun, if we could harness it.
We can't, the main problems being very poor technology for solar power and the fact that solar energy can't be stored for more than four hours, or something ridiculous like that.
Solar power is not an option, maybe after fifty years of well funded research it will be.
then u should actually research the state of our current level in those fields its actually very advanced, scotland[i live there btw] alone has enough free energy to supply britain more than twice over for its needs, so why dont we?, oh thats right oil comapnies wouldnt make money, ahhhhhh. Solar power is also an option, you can store it for as long as you like dependent on your battery, in places such as sinai theyd make extremely good places for solar technology, thier already building solar panels in huge amounts in sizes of sqaure miles in desert areas already, the technology is there and again is extremely advanced, New Scientist has a lot of information regarding this look it up.
also nuclear bomb factories are not much cheaper to run they are insanely exspensive to run, largely due to the cost of getting rid of the waste, which we still cannot do safely, even a nuclear plant as it is runing generates a dangerous amount of radiation as the technology we have is not sufficient to prevent this in the amount we produce. So no, nuclear facilities are not good. Chernobel srprings to mind.
also nuclear bomb factories are not much cheaper to run they are insanely exspensive to run, largely due to the cost of getting rid of the waste, which we still cannot do safely, even a nuclear plant as it is runing generates a dangerous amount of radiation as the technology we have is not sufficient to prevent this in the amount we produce. So no, nuclear facilities are not good. Chernobel srprings to mind.
QUOTE
scotland[i live there btw] alone has enough free energy to supply britain more than twice over for its needs
Energy made via?
QUOTE
Solar power is also an option, you can store it for as long as you like dependent on your battery
You can't store solar power for longer than four hours, roughly, when talking about a national grid. The only thing that matters.
QUOTE
the technology is there and again is extremely advanced
No it isn't...
Feel free to provide some evidence though.
QUOTE
also nuclear bomb factories are not much cheaper to run they are insanely exspensive to run
Well my point went straight over your head.
For the amount of energy they create, they are more cost and power efficient than wind or solar power generators.
in scotland?, wind and and off shore that is a fact however provided by the national energy commision, published in the guardian about 7-8 months ago i think roughly. Well yes the grid is pretty important, but regardless we couldnt have solar energy here anyway, but in a sunny country you wouldnt have to be connected to a national grid if u were utilising the solar energy yourself. But as to its half life, where did you find that and why is storing solar energy any different from other energy storage?, it is dependent on the battery no?. go to either new scientist as i explaind earlier or go to google and type solar power, youll have hundreds of campanies that fit a vast array of solar panels, but i will admit im not an electrical engineer so i could actualy discern wither solar power is advanced or not
However the cost of disposing of nuclear waste in britain a year is 50 billion pounds. The price of the energy is and your right cheap buy comparisin 2.26 pence per kWh (including building and other capital costs). where as gas and coal have risen over to one pence more. Coal is also an alternative but as u know maggy done us in on that one. Nuclear power though as u keep insisting is not cheaper, and i find ur cheap shots at of ideas going over peopels heads frankly rather amusing tbh if that makes u feel better go for it, but anyway nuclear power makes little of our energy supply[but it costs so much], in 2004 nuclear plants generated 19% of UK electricity (74 billion kWh), or 21% according to DTI[http://www.dti.gov.uk]. There are 23 reactors totalling 11,852 MWe capacity IT IS NOT CHEAPER.
However the cost of disposing of nuclear waste in britain a year is 50 billion pounds. The price of the energy is and your right cheap buy comparisin 2.26 pence per kWh (including building and other capital costs). where as gas and coal have risen over to one pence more. Coal is also an alternative but as u know maggy done us in on that one. Nuclear power though as u keep insisting is not cheaper, and i find ur cheap shots at of ideas going over peopels heads frankly rather amusing tbh if that makes u feel better go for it, but anyway nuclear power makes little of our energy supply[but it costs so much], in 2004 nuclear plants generated 19% of UK electricity (74 billion kWh), or 21% according to DTI[http://www.dti.gov.uk]. There are 23 reactors totalling 11,852 MWe capacity IT IS NOT CHEAPER.
QUOTE
in scotland?, wind and and off shore that is a fact however provided by the national energy commision, published in the guardian about 7-8 months ago i think roughly
Ok then, provide the information that wind power gives enough power in Scotland alone to power the whole of England twice over.
I highly doubt this, but would welcome any proof.
QUOTE
But as to its half life, where did you find that and why is storing solar energy any different from other energy storage?,
I am not a physicist so I do know not. I was taught it in school and have seen it on Horizon or something similar.
QUOTE
youll have hundreds of campanies that fit a vast array of solar panels
I don't doubt that, but there is no escaping the fact they have not been researched at all when compared to the amount of research gone into nuclear power and they are no where near as efficent, (possibly) yet.
QUOTE
However the cost of disposing of nuclear waste in britain a year is 50 billion pounds
Yes, but with the amount of energy it produces, its low CO2 levels and expense, that is acceptable.
QUOTE
Coal is also an alternative
No, it isn't.
QUOTE
There are 23 reactors totalling 11,852 MWe capacity IT IS NOT CHEAPER.
Are you listening to anything I have said?
Nuclear power is more cost effective due to the amount of energy it produces and the price it takes to get that energy. Far more efficient and cost efficient than any other other non fossil fuel.
QUOTE
Take wind energy. Wind is obviously stuff that doesn’t contain a lot of energy -- just compare slamming your head into a bit of wind with slamming it into a concrete wall. And what’s more: to build wind mills, you’ll have to weld steel, drive all kinds of stuff and engineers around in trucks and cars, build factories and make thousands of components. In the end, it costs more energy (oil) to actually build a windmill, than a windmill will ever generate during its entire lifetime!
QUOTE
As said above, windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!
More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!
The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.
The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")
More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!
The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.
The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")
No wind power for us.
Source
QUOTE(PLO @ Nov 30 2005, 07:33 PM) [snapback]955739[/snapback]
then u should actually research the state of our current level in those fields its actually very advanced, scotland[i live there btw] alone has enough free energy to supply britain more than twice over for its needs, so why dont we?
Well this is what I found off of a very reliable site... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2001/12/762
QUOTE
The findings of a renewables resource study, commissioned by the Executive, show that Scotland has a potential renewable energy resource in excess of 60 gigawatts (GW). A great majority of this is made up of wind, both onshore and offshore, as well as wave and tidal energy.
Mr Finnie said:
"This hugely significant study outlines the breathtaking scale of Scotland's renewable energy potential and vindicates our strongly held belief that we are ideally placed to benefit from the sustainable energy revolution.
"The scale of this potential is illustrated by one stunning statistic: there is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over. In all, the total resource amounts to 75% of the total UK existing generating capacity.
Mr Finnie said:
"This hugely significant study outlines the breathtaking scale of Scotland's renewable energy potential and vindicates our strongly held belief that we are ideally placed to benefit from the sustainable energy revolution.
"The scale of this potential is illustrated by one stunning statistic: there is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over. In all, the total resource amounts to 75% of the total UK existing generating capacity.
So hardly "enough to power the UK twice over" at all, not by a long chalk. Enough to satisfy scottish peak winter demands twice over... that is a very different thing.
BUT unless I am reading that wrong, the energy output is 75% of the UK's generating capacity... and that is HUGE.
Personally, with that information I see no need whatsoever for nuclear energy to have to be implemented... with some extra expenditure and long-term planning by the government the UK could clearly be 100% powered by reliable wind energy within a relatively short space of time, certainly before natural resources are exhausted. All it would take is planning and large intital expenditure.
However, I cannot deny a lot of companies would likely have a lot to lose from such implementation, and I believe that a person who thinks that holds no influence in the decisions made is a tad naieve. In my own opiion the government isn't evil, but it will always have vested interests in keeping huge corporations and the economy happy, even if that conflicts with what is best for us.
Yes, we need more nuclear power, it is safe, reliable, clean and cheap.
But we should also spend money on developing new sources of energy, solar and wind power could work in some places in the world, but they dont work everywhere. Then there is also the estethics to think about, do we really want to have hundreds of wind mills cluttering the country side or solar power stations, I know I wouldnt like the sight of them everywhere. Then there is the question of pollution, wind mills do produce pollution, not the kind of pollution you usually think about though, but noise pollution.
And of course neither solar power nor wind power works when the weather takes a turn for the worse.
I suggest we spend money on developing wave power and of course, the power of the future, fusion.
But we should also spend money on developing new sources of energy, solar and wind power could work in some places in the world, but they dont work everywhere. Then there is also the estethics to think about, do we really want to have hundreds of wind mills cluttering the country side or solar power stations, I know I wouldnt like the sight of them everywhere. Then there is the question of pollution, wind mills do produce pollution, not the kind of pollution you usually think about though, but noise pollution.
And of course neither solar power nor wind power works when the weather takes a turn for the worse.
I suggest we spend money on developing wave power and of course, the power of the future, fusion.
QUOTE(Pannkakskungen @ Dec 2 2005, 03:47 AM) [snapback]956977[/snapback]
Yes, we need more nuclear power, it is safe, reliable, clean and cheap.
Not THAT safe
"Score.
Nuclear power plants offer a limitless, steady and very reliable energy source. Ok, the downside is that every now and then, nuclear power plants tend to go kaboom, like they did in Harrisburg and Chernobyl. And then, there's the waste: radioactive mud, not to be touched for several hundreds of years. No one really knows where to put that. But perhaps, we're going to have to take problems like these for granted."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.