Wales to England bridge

[All Systems Go]

I saw on the news a few months ago that there were proposals to build a bridge from the south coast of Wales to England.
I was supposed to create a giant lake (I forget the correct name atm) where there would be luxury houses on little islands and under the bridge there would be a energy generator using the water.

I can't find anything. Does anyone else know anything about it?

[Deffeh]

search for news stories posted around 1/4/2005, i think it was then

[Apothos]

Were you confusing it with the Morcambe Bay bridge? Sounds like a very similar proposal.

[Mitc]

You mean the tidal barrage which has been suggested to create an electricity generating sea water lake in the Bristol channel. It would be built from Lavernock point in Wales over to Brean Down in England. Over 12 miles long with a road on top .... I don't remember seing anything about islands with houses on though.

Taking advantage of the second highest tidal range on earth (up to 14m) the barrage would generate 5% of the electricity needs of the UK effectively for 'free' once the £6 billion building cost have been covered.

Of course, this will never be built because the entire area will be invaded by protestors and assorted nimby's as soon as any real interest is shown by the people who would finance its construction.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Mitc

Of course, this will never be built because the entire area will be invaded by protestors and assorted nimby's as soon as any real interest is shown by the people who would finance its construction.

Well, that and the fact its one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well, that and the fact its one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Why is it a stupid idea?

I've not looked in to it so excuse me if i'm overlooking something obvious but taking advantage of an obvious renewable energy source seems like a good idea rather than relying on oil thats running out and increasing in price or gas from the Russians.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JC

Why is it a stupid idea?

I've not looked in to it so excuse me if i'm overlooking something obvious but taking advantage of an obvious renewable energy source seems like a good idea rather than relying on oil thats running out and increasing in price or gas from the Russians.

6 billion? Do you not realise how much money that is?

If the government was wanting to spend a fantasyland amount of money on energy sources, which it obviously shouldnt be doing anyway, then building a few new nuclear powerstations would be a more sensible idea that a bridge across the ocean.

[Gimmick]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well, that and the fact its one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

I think it sounds fantastic, being self sufficient in energy.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

6 billion? Do you not realise how much money that is?

If the government was wanting to spend a fantasyland amount of money on energy sources, which it obviously shouldnt be doing anyway, then building a few new nuclear powerstations would be a more sensible idea that a bridge across the ocean.

Ah i see. I thought you were meaning the idea itself was stupid rather than the amount it would cost. I agree 6 billion is a ridiculous amount.

[Phang]

a friend of mine's dad works at the OU and is often a Radio 4/etc talking head about renewable energy. He's saying that if there was any need for the bridge, it would just be a bad call, and as it is, its a stupid waste of money and that research into and construction of tidal stream turbines would produce a far larger amount of electricity, far quicker, for far less money, with far less pollution in the building of them.

edit: and nod, i checked with him. a tidal barrage would produce 3-4 times as much power as a nuclear power station, but would do so indefinitely without fuel - rather than for 30 years with a risk of killing everything. this is a much better idea than nuclear power, but there are better ideas which are being overlooked. (and nuclear power stations are only anywhere near as cost-effective when built in a large number, meaning greater capital outlay anyway.)

[meglamaniac]

I still favour wind farms either on or off shore. Frankly Mr Businessman-with-house-in-the-country, I don't care about your spoilt view. The things are far from ugly architecturally, and wind is one thing this country has a lot of.

I'd like to think that a more long-term goal is that the Iter project suceeds (although the possibility of spectacular failure wiping France off the map is tempting) and then we all get Mr Fusions on the back of our cars and can go time-travelling.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I still favour wind farms either on or off shore. Frankly Mr Businessman-with-house-in-the-country, I don't care about your spoilt view. The things are far from ugly architecturally, and wind is one thing this country has a lot of.

I'd like to think that a more long-term goal is that the Iter project suceeds (although the possibility of spectacular failure wiping France off the map is tempting) and then we all get Mr Fusions on the back of our cars and can go time-travelling.

wind farms arent ideal. even in high-wind areas, onland their only real selling point is low capital requirements - they aren't especially cost-efficient for the electricty produced. offshore farms often have much higher output BUT at a higher cost. hydropower is certainly the most efficient source but there are certain limitations on the various forms- HE dams obviously require fast-flowing rivers but are cheap and effective (thus their widespread use). Tidal barrages - such as the one mentioned here - are extremely cost-effective and reliable but require high capital outlay and output is, of course, intermittent due to tides. Tidal stream turbines are expected to be low-outlay, cost-effective, clean, constant sources of power, but they are an infant technology and at present there are no full-size turbines in production.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Localisation of power generation should be the future, solar heating and maybe a small wind turbine could generate most of a households electricity and hot water.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Phang

a tidal barrage would produce 3-4 times as much power as a nuclear power station, but would do so indefinitely without fuel - rather than for 30 years with a risk of killing everything.

I dont think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with nuclear power. Quite frankly, all this hype over meldowns (or even more rediculous) nuclear explosions due to power generation is just that - hype. People are exposed to far much more raditation via just background radiation (especially those loving in areas heavy in granite), than emitted from nuclear power stations. The use of radiation in a medical context is enormous in comparison, though granted this is (typically) for a limited duration.

In my opinion, nuclear energy should be pursued wherever the marginal benefits of doing so exceed the costs. Similarly, all types on energy sources should be pursued in a similar fashion. To make a comparison between MB and MC, however, you need to standardise what counts as benefits and what counts as costs.

Continutiy of flow, reliability and dependence of energy souces have to be considered; eg Solar energy at night tends to be less effective than during the day, and as such can be operating at less than capacity for ~50% of the time. This has to be considered in any study. Similarly, Nuclear (and Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro et al) are not limited by the time of day, the prevailing weather or so on.

Costs should include everything from obtaining the resource (in the case of Coal, Natural Gas, Uranium etc), through processing and refinement (especially in the case of Uranium), through energy production (and associated costs thereof, namely pollution), waste disposal and storage (especially in the case of spent nuclear fuel). Additionally, fixed costs such as infrastructure to facilitate all of the above, safety measures and whatnot should also be included. What should not be included are things like "Government Subsidies" that have been already expended and thus are Sunk Costs which are not relevent to the decision regarding the costs of power production. It really irks me when people include those costs into the decision process.

As an aside, Costs and other considerations regarding Safety must clearly include the whole process, from beginning to end, in order to be meaningful in any degree. Thus, saying Nuclear power is unsafe is in my opinion a horrendous miscarriage of justice - Coal mining is extremely dangerous with thousands of people dying every year in coal-related accidents. Granted, most of these are in China, however didnt 20 or so American Coalminers die recently in an accident? 20 people is more people than have died die to Nuclear Power related activity since its inception if you except Chernobyl, and those 20 died in one day. Similarly, Gas powered stations around the world have unfortunate explosions and leaks and so on all the time. Nuclear power is so much safer throughout - however there is the tiny likelihood of it failing, which wont lead to a Chernobyl type explosion in the west because our reactors are different. But if something, somehow did actually go wrong, then the total cost of damage (granted, prolly quite high) would have to be multiplied by the probability of that happening (which is effectively 0), and included as part of the Costs and considered with equal weight to everything else that constitutes the costs of nuclear power.

Having said all that, Nuclear power should be, imo, subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as every other source of energy generation. Even a moment's dispassionate and a-political look at nuclear energy can see obvious areas of economic gain. Areas such as continuty of flow are strongly in Nuclear Power's favour. Other areas, such as Storage of Expended Waste, are obviously strongly against.

Personally, i dont imagine Nuclear Power to be economically viable due to the cost of enrichment and accumulation of post generation costs, however the overall viablility of Nuclear Power generation must be considered empirically, otherwise the comparison has little meaning and should be dismissed.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Personally, i dont imagine Nuclear Power to be economically viable due to the cost of enrichment and accumulation of post generation costs, however the overall viablility of Nuclear Power generation must be considered empirically, otherwise the comparison has little meaning and should be dismissed.

It has and it isnt.

They wont be active until the mid-term, whereas more energy is needed in the short term. Plus even with government aid nuclear power still isn't as cost-effective as other sources, such as zero loss coal plants.

Also about the solar energy thing, it makes less power at night, but there's less demand at night.

Also I dont think you considered the fallout from Chernobyl in your 'risk assessment' which not only has killed more than 20 people, has caused loss of quality of life to many others.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Cannon_Fodder

They wont be active until the mid-term, whereas more energy is needed in the short term.

These factors are true - it takes a while longer for nuclear power stations to become operation compared to other types of station; perhaps due to the stringent safety requirements that have to be met. Time of implementation would obviously be a factor in all comparison studies and is another facet not in favour of nuclear power. Similarly, reduced emissions (particularly during the energy production stage) is a benefit.

Plus even with government aid nuclear power still isn't as cost-effective as other sources, such as zero loss coal plants.

I would hesitate before commenting on the cost effectiveness of various types and forms of energy production, unless you are quoting a source that has compared both (or all) sources from beginning through to the end using methods that assess the costs and benefits of production equally. Having said that disclaimer, common sense application of Opportunity Cost would suggest that if x is more efficient than y, but z is more efficient than both (given the same assumptions and basis of comparison), then z should be selected. If nuclear power is z, then there is nothing wrong with it being adopted. If nuclear power is either x or y then it should not be pursued in favour of z.

Also about the solar energy thing, it makes less power at night, but there's less demand at night.

However, demand is still greater than zero at night, whereas energy due to solar production would be close to zero (moonburn, anyone?). However, that wasnt the point of my argument - the point was that rewnewable sources of energy tend to be cyclical in the production of energy; Solar is day/night and could cover. Wind is due to prevailing wind, direction and strength (incl too strong making them havign to turn off). Tidal is obviously due to cycles of the moon and whatnot. Even Hydro electricity can be cyclical - times of drought could cause disruption in the supply of water to the resiviours. Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas et al do not suffer from these problems. They do suffer from other problems - availability (and more important, distribution) of key resources for example.

Also I dont think you considered the fallout from Chernobyl in your 'risk assessment' which not only has killed more than 20 people, has caused loss of quality of life to many others.

I did and i didnt consider it. Aside from the fact that a Chernobyl type explosion wouldnt happen in the west due to the use of different types of reactors, putting an exact number of casualties directly related to the incident is difficult to precisely ascertain - did the Chernobyl-related limp of an old man cause him to get run over by a car as he couldnt move fast enough across the street, or was a lack of poor judgement on the behalf of the man the cause, or the lack of driving skill and/or judgement of the driver the cause? Whilst this is a theoretical and fanciful example, some methods could attribute that particular death to the Chernobyl incident, where others wouldnt. There have been many studies based on the casulties throughout Europe due to increased radiation levels, most of which disagree with eachother as they employ different methods. Having said that, considerable damage was done and i admit that is true. Additionally, i admit that the cost of cleaning up the incident was also high. Which is why i said later that the probability of the incident and "the total cost of damage (granted, prolly quite high)" must be included in any comparison.

However, and this is largely my point - you are focusing on one incident regarding nuclear power, and seemingly dismissive of other accidents in other types of power generation. A quick look at this wikipedia article; Casualties of Energy, shows Chernobyl as 31+ killed - i imagine this would mainly be the heroic voluteers who were sent to their deaths in order to contain the initial explosion. However, Hydro Electric dam failures accounted for 3776+ deaths, Coal at 2723 deaths (mostly mine related), 1415 LPG deaths, 493 Gas deaths, 1775 Oil deaths and 508 combined LPG/Gas/Oil deaths due to an explosion at a combined facility. All of those were from 1979 - the last ~25 years. In such light, nuclear power compared very favourably, whereas thought-to-be-safe sources such as Hydro Power killed far more people; however you never hear of fears of the Dams busting (in comparison to Chernobyl), do you?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

however you never hear of fears of the Dams busting (in comparison to Chernobyl), do you?

yes. thing is, most cases where there are HE deaths come from incidental facilities - an essential dam with generators shoved in it (oh, and tidal barrages carry no risk on account of how the movement of water through the barrage occurs exactly as it would were the barrage not there - there's no dam to burst).

Nuclear power is nowhere near as dangerous as it is frequently made out to be. That doesn't mean it's safe. The radiation emitted by a plant can be significant (sup Sellafield), the risks associated with meltdown/explosion cannot be overlooked, and they are, after all, OVERWHELMINGLY EXPENSIVE.

And the mine comparison is a strawman anyway. Mining is an intensely dangerous activity, especially in LEDCs without rigorous safety standards, and this has been one of the reasons for the shift to alternative fuels.



Nuclear is not the worst option. A switch to nuclear energy would be preferable to maintaining the status quo. However, there are so many better options it's not funny.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Phang

Nuclear power is nowhere near as dangerous as it is frequently made out to be. That doesn't mean it's safe.

Well, you are correct insofar as safe meaning that it doesnt kill anyone. However, being safer than everything else in my opinion is pretty close to calling it a safe source of energy. Particularly in the West.

The radiation emitted by a plant can be significant (sup Sellafield), the risks associated with meltdown/explosion cannot be overlooked, and they are, after all, OVERWHELMINGLY EXPENSIVE.

Radiation emitted by plants is almost always less than the background radiation unless it is during an incident. According to this list, there have been quite a few nuclear power related incidents, some (NOT ALL) of which resulted in radiation spillage to the immediate area. In virtually every case of those, the radiation exposure has been so small to be insigificant - although detectable - to people. The Three Mile Island incident report says that at most one person might die due to ill effects, and this is the second most major nuclear incident in the 50 year history of nuclear power. So yes, radiation emitted by a plant can be significant enough to be detected, but very rarely does it result in any harm at all, let alone "significant" harm to actual people.

The risks of meltdown cannot be overlooked as you say. But they must be looked at in a sober way. As the probability of it happening is pretty close to zero, it should be given an appropriate level of consideration as any event that has a probability of nearly zero.

The cost of setting up Nuclear power stations and/or the enrichment facilities is not very relevent.

Why? because it is only one factor of the whole process, one cost amongst many that must be considered. Ultimately, the point of the excercise is to determine economic viability of nuclear power. If these costs make is less efficient than other sources, then it should not be pursued. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then it should proceed. This is regardless of whether the whole operation costs $10k or $10bn.

And the mine comparison is a strawman anyway. Mining is an intensely dangerous activity, especially in LEDCs without rigorous safety standards, and this has been one of the reasons for the shift to alternative fuels.

Why is the mine comparison a strawman?

Are you saying that it does not make sense to look at the energy argument from start to finish and make a dispassionate determination based on empirical evidence?

A switch to nuclear energy would be preferable to maintaining the status quo. However, there are so many better options it's not funny.

Why is maintaining the status quo not preferable to going all nuclear, assuming that nuclear is more expensive than other sources of energy such as the existing coal/LNG/oil plants?

What are all of these "so many" better options? Why, if they are so much better, are they not being implemented?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

The cost of setting up Nuclear power stations and/or the enrichment facilities is not very relevent.

Why? because it is only one factor of the whole process, one cost amongst many that must be considered. Ultimately, the point of the excercise is to determine economic viability of nuclear power. If these costs make is less efficient than other sources, then it should not be pursued. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then it should proceed. This is regardless of whether the whole operation costs $10k or $10bn.

what I meant was "but its moot anyway because nuclear power stations are a very long way from being cost-effective because invariably the costs creep up after a few years because of all the corners that had to be cut to make the project look remotely cost-effective in the first place".

Why is the mine comparison a strawman?

Are you saying that it does not make sense to look at the energy argument from start to finish and make a dispassionate determination based on empirical evidence?

if i'm saying "no mines and no nuclear power" and you say "whats wrong with nuclear power its better than mines" then there is a flaw in your argument, viz, i don't consider either option acceptable.

Why is maintaining the status quo not preferable to going all nuclear, assuming that nuclear is more expensive than other sources of energy such as the existing coal/LNG/oil plants?

because the status quo is going to bankrupt us and then drown us because there isnt enough of it and what there is is destroying the planet.

What are all of these "so many" better options? Why, if they are so much better, are they not being implemented?

vested interests.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

As an aside, Costs and other considerations regarding Safety must clearly include the whole process, from beginning to end, in order to be meaningful in any degree. Thus, saying Nuclear power is unsafe is in my opinion a horrendous miscarriage of justice - Coal mining is extremely dangerous with thousands of people dying every year in coal-related accidents. Granted, most of these are in China, however didnt 20 or so American Coalminers die recently in an accident? 20 people is more people than have died die to Nuclear Power related activity since its inception if you except Chernobyl, and those 20 died in one day. Similarly, Gas powered stations around the world have unfortunate explosions and leaks and so on all the time. Nuclear power is so much safer throughout - however there is the tiny likelihood of it failing, which wont lead to a Chernobyl type explosion in the west because our reactors are different. But if something, somehow did actually go wrong, then the total cost of damage (granted, prolly quite high) would have to be multiplied by the probability of that happening (which is effectively 0), and included as part of the Costs and considered with equal weight to everything else that constitutes the costs of nuclear power.

Deaths from cancer due to the radiation fallout from chenobyl are "quite high" (as in in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands high).

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Dace

Deaths from cancer due to the radiation fallout from chenobyl are "quite high" (as in in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands high).

Thus, aside from the fact that Soviet-era Chernobyl reactor is fundamentally different in design to western reactors, what numbers you cite clearly depends on who you choose to believe.

In that same article, this is said in the opening paragraph.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). [5]

Indeed, the article goes on to say;

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2% increase in cancer rates in much of the population which was exposed to the 5–12 (depending on source) EBq of radioactive contamination released from the reactor. An additional ten people have already died of cancer as a result of the accident.

The mission statement of the IAEA is as follows; "It seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes."

The mission statement of the WHO is as follows; "a coordinating authority on international public health," further, "[the mission is] the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health".

Back to the article;

Originally Posted by wikipedia

For its part, Greenpeace estimates a total death toll of 93,000 but cites in their report “The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.” [6].

The mission statement of Greenpeace is as follows; "Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force solutions for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity."


Thus, you have one organisation innately familiar with nuclear energy and power generation and one organisation whose purpose is to help people "attain the highest possible levels of health", reporting 56 direct deaths due to Chernobyl, and mentioning an increased risk to affected people. They said that as many as 9000 people will die of cancers of the 6.6 million most highly effected. That does not mean that all 9000 will die from cancer solely because of the Chernobyl incident.

On the other hand, you have an organisation that promotes itself on the use of confrontation to "expose" global environmental problems. An organisation that does not specialise in the nuclear field to the extent that the IAEA does, and who faces a conflict of interest as Greenpeace's funding required donations from individuals, individuals who respond to hype and sensationalised reporting of events. Clearly, their report should not be dismissed out of hand, and comparison of their scientific methods would be interesting. However, i find it strange that Greenpeace's report cites a figure ten times higher than the IAEA/WHO's "as many as 9000", but goes on to say that it could rise to over twenty times as many people. Clearly, there is something fundamentally different here, and personally i choose to tend to believe the IAEA and the WHO over Greenpeace, however you are able to believe what you want.

I didnt actually know how many people were killed in the Chernobyl incident untill starting this line of thought in this thread. Nevertheless, i quoted articles and sources throughout, so if there was any error in "my" numbers of fatalities, then these errors are either widespread, systemic or commonly available information. Wikipedia contradicting itself doesnt really help.

Besides, all this is hypothetical anyway - Chernobyl reactors were fundamentally different to those used in the West, and thus far less useful as a basis of comparison.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Besides, all this is hypothetical anyway - Chernobyl reactors were fundamentally different to those used in the West, and thus far less useful as a basis of comparison.

there were more than two studies mentioned dude, and that's a dramatically slanted reading youve got going on.

but yor last point there is the biggest strawman. Whether a nuclear incident is less likely with Western reactors (something which I am taking on faith is true to the extent that you suppose although there have certainly been issues with waste leaks as well as increased reportage of Leukemia and NHL around Sellafield to name just one), the point is that should a nuclear incident occur, it poses an overwhelming threat to human life. This is not the case with hydropower.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Phang

there were more than two studies mentioned dude, and that's a dramatically slanted reading youve got going on.

Slanted because i'm not quoting the maximum casulties? Slanted because i am not quoting the minimum casualties? Slanted because i am being dispassionate? If you have a quick glance at this part of the article, it cites two causes - initially operator error, and later fundamental flaws in the reactor. It explains those problems fairly simply, but you get the point. Additionally, an experiment was being run at or near the same time as the explosion, and not during normal electrical generation activity.

Still, as i have mentioned throughout my discussion, i am not saying that there is anything intrinsically wrong with nuclear power, nor is it flawless. Indeed This Article describes incidents involving the civilian use of nuclear energy.

Whilst it may sound like it, i am not defending nuclear power. Or rather, i am not defending nuclear power any more or less than i would any other source of energy. What i am defending, is a sober and dispassionate view of comparing all types of energy sources, from beginning (ie mining the key resources) to the end (storage of expended fuel) of the energy life cycle, tallying up the costs, tallying up the benefits, and then making a determination as to what is economically viable or not. As cold as it might sound, the cost of loosing 9000 (or 200 000, pah) lives is just one extra cost which can be expressed in dollar (or pounds, euros etc) form; insurance companies do it all the time.

What irks me is when people tout just one aspect of a source of power (eg, Chernobyl), especially when its reoccurance is negligble at best due to the aforementioned reasons. Making points like this in a vaccuum is pretty pointless - so what if 200 000 people died? How many people have died and continue to die due to atmospheric pollution directly caused by power generation in the last 200 years since the industrial revolution? How many were lost in the Coal industry since its inception? How many people are killed by Hydro Dam failures, whether ancilliary or not, over a similar timeframe? How many people have died due to war, disease and car accidents?

Even if you did know all that, it would only be one aspect of the whole system. Like i have said before, losses from the whole process must be considered to have meaning.

but yor last point there is the biggest strawman. Whether a nuclear incident is less likely with Western reactors (something which I am taking on faith is true to the extent that you suppose although there have certainly been issues with waste leaks as well as increased reportage of Leukemia and NHL around Sellafield to name just one), the point is that should a nuclear incident occur, it poses an overwhelming threat to human life. This is not the case with hydropower.

Firstly, i am not familiar with Sellafield, however this aforementioned article says that radioactive spillage was eventually detected at a reprocessing facility. Again, looking at this in a vacuum is utterly meaningless. It must be considered as part of the whole energy cycle; it is just one more cost at the post production stage - no different to any other cost.

As for posing an overwhelming thread to human life, the Sun exploding poses an overwhelming threat to human life. The Sun is used for power generation, among other things. The Sun is certain to explode. The probability of it exploding tomorrow is quite small - effectively 0. Do people run around fretting that the Sun is going to explode? Not really (not sane ones, at least). Nuclear power stations are not certain to explode. They are used for power generation, among other things. The probability of it exploding is quite small - effectively 0. Do people run around fretting that Nuclear Power Stations are going to explode? All the time. Does this happen for Gas, Coal, LPG, Gas, Hydopower even though they have been proven to cause severe loss of life on a recurring basis? No. Does this irk me? Yes. Why? because its not applying the same rules to everything over the whole process, and thus making comparison useless.

Call me naive if you want, but quite frankly i care not. Comparisons in a vaccuum are nigh on useless, so saying otherwise is folly.

As for Hydropower, that source of energy has a much different set of problems associated with it. Major problems as outlined in the Tasmanian Dams Case and similarly with the Three Gorges Dam was the significant destruction of flaura and fauna in the areas that would have to be flooded by the provision of a Dam. The disruption and economic cost of moving millions of people out of areas that would become flooded, particularly those who were moved to less-than-ideal or equal areas in terms of agricultural suitability of land. These are just other costs that must be considered in a Cost/Benefit analysis. They are different to Nuclear power, but nothing else. Whether it is economically viable or not depends on each specific instance, just like Nuclear power. Just like Gas, Geothermal or Solar power. Just like every other source of power.

I think its pretty clear now that each type of power generation has different areas in which they excel, and where they lag behind other sources of power. Nevertheless, if nuclear power is economically viable, then it should be implemented, just like every other type of energy generation.

Besides, i didnt think that Hydro power had the sheer capacity to be more than a few minor % of total energy production. At least without flooding large areas of the country. Obviously, this depends on the region and country, but still.

[Phang]

you're saying "yes the risk of massive loss of life needs to be considered but it wouldnt happen". "look at these near misses!" say I. "I don't see corpses," say you. when you say the chance of an explosion is "effectively 0" you are implying that the chance of an incident in a mine/on a dam/wherever is much higher. it isn't. meltdown is unlikely and catastrophic, mining collapse is infinitesmally more likely and low-risk. particularly in the West. and, for the dozenth time, i'm opposed to energy generation sources that carry a significant potential for loss of life. you also miss the fact that your "one nuclear death versus three thousand minng deaths" figure is wrong and that the WHO/IAEA figure puts the likely casualty rate much higher. "as many as 9000 people out of 7 million" does not mean "9000 people are at risk", it means "this proportion is about right".

secondly, your hydropower figures deal with stupid projects. the Three Gorges Dam is a crazily planned and executed operation. Even then though, all by itself it takes care of a significant part of the energy needs of China. China. 3-10% of China's power needs is a lot of power. Further, I was referring to tidal barrages/tidal stream turbines, which are purposefully risk free creations as the movement of water is in no way affected by them.

(also, please stop talking about Cost/Benefit Analyses. It's a given. Weighing up a decision before making it is not something that was invented by economic buzzwords and I see no reason to pander to that idea.)

It's hard to deal with your post in order because quite frankly the stupid loops back in on itself. I'm really trying not to flame here but when you say things like "i am being dispassionate" and then post hundreds of words of factually flawed, insular tripe the temptation is overwhelming.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Phang

i'm opposed to energy generation sources that carry a significant potential for loss of life

Wind turbines kill lots of birds. Their death is rarely painless. For their sakes I hope you're opposed to wind power.

If a hydroelectric dam collapses, tens of thousands of people can die. That's little different from the numbers above relating to nuclear disasters.

The production of solar cells creates a large number of pollutants, leading to increased global warming which could kill us all.


So, taking your moral view, is there any type of energy generation which you do support?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

Wind turbines kill lots of birds. Their death is rarely painless. For their sakes I hope you're opposed to wind power.

I think you can probably assume he was talking about human life.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by furball

If a hydroelectric dam collapses, tens of thousands of people can die. That's little different from the numbers above relating to nuclear disasters.

where this is the case, either the generation of power is a secondary attribute, or has the secondary attribute of, building a resevoir/controlling floods/whatever. In the forms of hydropower I keep recommending THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

The production of solar cells creates a large number of pollutants, leading to increased global warming which could kill us all.

I don't have reliable data, but I assume fossil fuel sources have rather more significant CO2/greenhouse gas emissions.

So, taking your moral view, is there any type of energy generation which you do support?

Tidal power

[furball]

Originally Posted by Phang

Tidal power

Sucks to be a country without access to the sea.

For us, it'd require major changes to our coastline which would interfere with shipping. In today's modern age, by the way, is it sensible to put all of our power generation off-shore? Osama would no doubt approve though.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by furball

In today's modern age, by the way, is it sensible to put all of our power generation off-shore? Osama would no doubt approve though.

I haven't been this entertained in weeks

[Phang]

Originally Posted by furball

Sucks to be a country without access to the sea.

For us, it'd require major changes to our coastline which would interfere with shipping. In today's modern age, by the way, is it sensible to put all of our power generation off-shore? Osama would no doubt approve though.

Tidal stream turbines (those things I keep talking about) wouldn't interfere. Hooray!

Don't get the Osama reference.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Don't get the Osama reference.

I think he might be referring to the possibility that energy installations might suffer a terrorist attack. Incidentally that something which worries some people about nuclear power.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Phang

Don't get the Osama reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Anything approachable by water is intrinsically vunerable to attack. I believe that we will come under increasing threat of attack in the next few decades from jihadist groups as those currently affected by our (and America's) occupation of the Middle East. A country like Indonesia could easily turn to fundamentalism as the twenty-first century unfolds. With their modern technology and resources we'd be in a world of shit.

The security question really must be considered. Putting all of our power generation off-shore isn't something I think is a good idea.

[JonnyBGood]

How exactly does tidal power work? I have this conception of a giant number of offshore power generators and an onshore controlling station. If this is remotely accurate I can't imagine taking out a few of those power generators would do anything meaningful.

I think you've overstating the difference in danger between tidal power and any other forms. It's not like exactly the same argument couldn't be applied to oil tankers or offshore drilling platforms in the north sea and has anyone else seen that advertisement where the airliner crashes into sellafield or is that just an irish thing?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

How exactly does tidal power work? I have this conception of a giant number of offshore power generators and an onshore controlling station. If this is remotely accurate I can't imagine taking out a few of those power generators would do anything meaningful.

I think you've overstating the difference in danger between tidal power and any other forms. It's not like exactly the same argument couldn't be applied to oil tankers or offshore drilling platforms in the north sea and has anyone else seen that advertisement where the airliner crashes into sellafield or is that just an irish thing?

tidal power is currently best effected with barrages such as the proposed bridge. these are huge generators of power but cost a ****ing lot to start, plus are tide-dependent. they are vunerable to impact although the loss of life should be minimal - people on the boat might be in trouble but not people on land nearby. then there are the tidal stream generators i espouse. your image is correct for these. they are an infant technology, but the prototypes have been hugely successful thus far. they are some way underwater, usually the sea bed, and have a low capital cost. there are no risks at all associated with these.

the third option is wave power, which either uses seafloor or surface-based generators. these are a constant source of power BUT seafloor prototypes have been dogged by failures and oversights. surface-based generators could potentially have collision issues and are not especially efficient converters for practical reasons (so that they dont get ****ed up by strong storms).

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

has anyone else seen that advertisement where the airliner crashes into sellafield or is that just an irish thing?

It was linked in a thread a little while ago, a greenpeace thing on their website, absolute hilarity it was.

[Phang]

Open University Man speaks!

Originally Posted by email

1. The Chernobyl RBMK reactor design was actually thought to be quite a clever design from the safety point of view when they were looked at (before the accident) by the UK's then (very very pro-nuclear) Chief Scientific Advisor Lord (Walter) Marshall. This is because each fuel element was separately enclosed in a sealed tube (the Soviets seemed to like fancy plumbing), whereas Western PWR type reactors just have one steel containment vessel for the whole thing. So its lots of eggs in lots of basket, versus one big egg in one basket. BUT the staff at Chernobyl tried to check whether the system was as safe as they thought by seeing what happened if they cut off the cooling system. To do this they had to disable a whole series of safety interlocks- it took them days. Sadly they didn't realise that , under the conditions they had created, the reactor would suddenly overheat and given that the automatic shut down system was off- the rest is history.

2. WHO has now withdrawn its 9000 deaths estimate and says its more like 16,000. A recent independent assessment of deaths in TORCH (The Other Chernobyl Report) says 30-40k. Many hundreds of thousands more will suffer serious illness.

3. The Severn Tidal Barrage would cost £10- 15 billion for a 8,600 megawatt capacity plant (depending on interest rates during the approx 7 year construction period ). It would generate power for around 100 years before needing upgrading and maybe then indefinitely. But given the cyclic nature of tides it would not be able to deliver power all the time. On average it would only be equivalent to about 2-3 nuclear plants (of 1,300 MW each) which would cost around £10 billion to build in total, plus maybe a further £2bn for the fuel production over their lifetimes (uranium reserves will get scarcer, so costs will rise ) and waste disposal (somewhere as yet unknown- for 100,000 years) plus eventual plant decommissioning (after say 40 years). The current nuclear clean up bill (for the existing plants) is £70 billion. NB: lots of uranium miners die from radiation sickness.

4. Tidal current turbines are in effect wind turbines under water - and water is 800 times the density of air, so you get a lot more power. They are also much more environmentally attractive than barrages since they are freestanding- you do not have to build damns across estuaries. And they are easier to finance, since you can install them one at a time when you have the money - whereas you can't build half a barrage. There is a 300kW prototype working well off the N coast of Devon at Lynmouth. Next there is to be a 1MW unit in N Ireland followed by 10MW tidal farms off Wales and Devon; See www.marineturbines.com
The UN HQ in New York City is planning to get some of its power from devices like this in the east river. The Palace of Westminster is also considering the same using the Thames!

[Mitc]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Can I vote for a Hadrian style wall between England and Wales, only much taller and better guarded. You can use the resulting indignation from the Welsh as a source of energy.

Any more of that and the North Wales police will be around to sort you out.