Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sellafield Clean-Up Cost Reaches £67.5Bn, Says Report


interestrateripoff

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Because it's the most subsidized form of electricity on the planet as you full well know. I've already explained this to you in detail in previous threads. So why are you continuing to post this crap when you know its a load of 100% crap?

http://timeforchange...nergy-pros-cons

excluding the fact that any other electricity kills much more people per generated TWh than nuclear; but it does not fit your green propaganda

http://www.edouardstenger.com/2011/03/25/a-look-at-deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source/

death-rate-per-TWh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

A hydrogen storage plant would still be much safer than a nuclear reactor in the event of an explosion.

Ironically both Chernobyl and Fukushima seem to have been essentially hydrogen explosions.

Hydrogen is also not that volatile in liquid form. We have no problems storing liquefied natural gas, so I don't assume the issues of storing large quantities of liquid hydrogen are insurmountable.

I think you are confusing your gases.

Hydrogen storage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

I know we go round in circles on this on a regular basis, but if you have tidal, wind, solar, pump storage, the smart grid to exchange that with europe, plus shale gas and a big pile of coal, does that add up to enough contingency to rule out nuclear ?

In the past I haven't been particularly negative on nuclear because I believe in energy diversification, but 65 billion quid is a lot of money by anyones standards.

perhaps you missed some basic facts:

a/ consumer electricity price per consumed kWh: 18p

b/ 2GW nuclear power station with 2 reactors working for 40 years; 90% of the time; saving 1p from each generated kWh for the decomissioning = £6.3 billions

c/ green solar and wind subsidy per generated kWh: 10p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

I know we go round in circles on this on a regular basis, but if you have tidal, wind, solar, pump storage, the smart grid to exchange that with europe, plus shale gas and a big pile of coal, does that add up to enough contingency to rule out nuclear ?

Bumping this question, interested in the views of those who know more, people often compare one with the other but what about nuclear vs all of the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Interesting if a bit lengthy.

If I get my own gaff definilty the coal fire or the wood burning stove is in order.

That would certainly be a good idea. Gas prices at the moment are somewhat uncertain. Rises seem very likely as the North Sea runs down further, and competition for LNG shipments increases. However, if shale gas development takes off, and is economically viable, then this could trigger a dramatic drop in pricing. Unfortuntately, the estimates of cost and total economically recoverable reserves are highly variable, and no sensible long-term policy could be drawn at this stage.

Personally, I think that gas is too valuable a commodity to burn for heat or electricity. It's a valuable industrial feedstock, and is easily convertible to liquid fuels for vehicles, or used directly as CNG or LNG in heavy road vehicles/trains; fuel options for which are generally very limited.

I think we need to develop long-term sustainable electricity from a variety of sources and migrate as much infrastructure as possible to electrical energy. I would strongly discourage gas central heating, and require electric heat pumps (properly sized and installed, not undersized and inappropriately installed as is common in the UK at present) for heating . Similarly, I would discourage gas-fired electricity generation and instead restrict gas-fired generation only to "peaking" plants strictly limited in operational hours (e.g. to 750 hours per year) or in new power plants which combine gas with stored energy (e.g. compressed air energy storage, which uses compressed air to assist gas-fired turbines - although this design of plant is considered speculative at present).

Nuclear may have a role to play, but it would need a clear plan for:

1. Waste disposal

2. Decommissioning.

3. A guarantee that sufficient fuel will be available to meet the plants requirements for their design lifetime.

The big problems with current nuclear decommissioning are that none of these factors were considered. When the first nuclear power-stations were built, the attitude to 1 was "We knew there would be waste, in the form of spent fuel. We didn't know what we would do with it, other than store it. It was a small enough amount that it wouldn't matter for many years."

Similarly the attitude to 2 was "The plants were designed to be assembled. Certain parts were considered irreplaceable as they would be contaminated during use and would be impossible to remove. We never considered how the plant was to be decommissioned at the end of life. It was left as a problem to be solved while the plants were operating"

Indeed, the problem was worse than that, not only were early generation plants not designed to be decommissioned, but the plant designers and their contractors often made ad hoc changes during construction, details of which were either lost, or not documented on the blue prints. The big problem for the decommissioning workers is that they frequently find that the plant equipment does not match the blueprints they are working from, or that parts of the building have been re-purposed and their contamination status is unknown, and the effect of changes they make in one area may have unpredictable effects elsewhere.

It should not be forgotten that most of the decommissioning bill is actually for military weapon production, or early research. It's difficult to know how much is which. In the US, the total amount of military nuclear waste exceeds the civilian amount 10 fold. At least there, there is a clear separation between civilian and military work. In the UK, much of the research and military work was done at Sellafield. Indeed, the early Magnox power reactors were designed primarily as weapons producers, but the engineers realised that they produced so much heat during operation, that they could basically install a turbine and generator between the reactor and the cooling towers and get electricity as a by-product.

The magnox reactors, however, as first generation (essentially weapons plants) were not designed for cheap or sustainable operation. As the technology was largely unknown they were absurdly over-engineered and, uniquely, were completely passively and inherently safe. Their fuel was so dilute, their power output so low and the core made of highly thermally conductive graphite that a meltdown, even if the operators made the opposite decisions to those needed, would be highly improbable, and by some calculations, impossible. There was no water, so no risk of steam explosion, and no risk of hydrogen release. The disadvantage was crude fuel construction, the uranium oxide was encased in magnesium (hence the name). This casing had a life-time of about 1 year, before it would fail, spilling the now intensely radioactive fuel material. The fuel had to be reprocessed at Sellafield immediately after use - which was not considered a problem as plutonium production was the primary aim. It was a HUGE problem when the political decision was made to run the magnox plants flat out during the miners strike, exceeding the reprocessing capacity at Sellafield. The excess used fuel went off, the casings split and massive,barely remedial contamination was the result.

In comparison, a modern plant produces around about 0.5 - 1% of the total volume of highly radioactive waste per unit of electricity produced, compared to a magnox reactor. Modern fuel construction is resistant to corrosion, and can safely be stored wet or dry for many decades with no degradation. The disadvantage of the more concentrated, more heavily burned fuel, is much more intense radioactivity and much more heat production. Magnox fuel would not melt or combust under essentially any forseeable operational or accident conditions. Modern high-burnup PWR/BWR fuel will melt or ignite within seconds if not water cooled continually for at least 3 years following removal from the reactor. If you let the water run down, not only do you get a fuel fire, but you get hydrogen production.

The decommissioning costs for new reactor designed are expected to be hugely lower than for current generation plants, especially in the UK - where the magnox and AGR plants which comprised the majority of the fleet were unique in the world. These designs chose simplicity of construction and maximum passive safety, at the cost of huge waste production. Modern plants are much more compact for the same energy (or in practice are a similar size for 5-10x the power output). Additionally, the UK had a rather haphazard way of building the plants, with each plant being built by a different contractor who was given a basic "reference" design that documented the nuclear components in details, but the contractor was responsible for designing and building the rest of the plant around it. Not only were no "lessons learned" during construction, but a number of the contractors simply were not capable of building the plants. Most dramatically, the first AGR contract awarded was won by an engineering firm who had no experience of major projects and who put in the tender rather flippantly. Senior managers were rather shocked to be awarded it, but having got that far, didn't want to lose face by pulling out. Unsurprisingly, the construction was completely shambolic, taking 18 years, rather than the planned 6. Not only did the contractor not take the construction seriously, the scrutiny by government given to the individual bids must have been rather lacking to award what must have plainly been an absurd tender.

I would support a new nuclear build, but it would require

1) an operational permanent waste disposal site, capable to storing all waste produced during the lifetime of the planned plants.

2) A ring-fenced decommissioining fund, set at an appropriate contributory rate, with mandatory top-ups in the event of lower than expected investment performance or expectations that costs were increasing. The would be no draw-down facility, or option to reduce contributions, so that there should be no possibility of shortfall. Also, there should be no way for central government just to steal the funds (as happened with the current decommissioning funds, which were taken by government and used for general spending, leaving an unfunded liability).

3. There should be maximum standardization of plants, so that the maximum experience in operation, maintenance and decommissioning can be obtained .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

The video Blue Peter posted has some interesting info re nuclear build.

In many ways nuclear is a big tragedy. We learnt how to build it, but took into no account how we were going to decommission. Now we are learning how we should have built it and how to clear up the problems. At that point we lose interest after all the know how on how to do it correctly has been gained.

The expertise we must be gaining in this area is immense if we are spending 70 billion on it. Hopefully this will come in handy helping the french decomission theirs.

That would certainly be a good idea. Gas prices at the moment are somewhat uncertain. Rises seem very likely as the North Sea runs down further, and competition for LNG shipments increases. However, if shale gas development takes off, and is economically viable, then this could trigger a dramatic drop in pricing. Unfortuntately, the estimates of cost and total economically recoverable reserves are highly variable, and no sensible long-term policy could be drawn at this stage.

Personally, I think that gas is too valuable a commodity to burn for heat or electricity. It's a valuable industrial feedstock, and is easily convertible to liquid fuels for vehicles, or used directly as CNG or LNG in heavy road vehicles/trains; fuel options for which are generally very limited.

I think we need to develop long-term sustainable electricity from a variety of sources and migrate as much infrastructure as possible to electrical energy. I would strongly discourage gas central heating, and require electric heat pumps (properly sized and installed, not undersized and inappropriately installed as is common in the UK at present) for heating . Similarly, I would discourage gas-fired electricity generation and instead restrict gas-fired generation only to "peaking" plants strictly limited in operational hours (e.g. to 750 hours per year) or in new power plants which combine gas with stored energy (e.g. compressed air energy storage, which uses compressed air to assist gas-fired turbines - although this design of plant is considered speculative at present).

Nuclear may have a role to play, but it would need a clear plan for:

1. Waste disposal

2. Decommissioning.

3. A guarantee that sufficient fuel will be available to meet the plants requirements for their design lifetime.

The big problems with current nuclear decommissioning are that none of these factors were considered. When the first nuclear power-stations were built, the attitude to 1 was "We knew there would be waste, in the form of spent fuel. We didn't know what we would do with it, other than store it. It was a small enough amount that it wouldn't matter for many years."

Similarly the attitude to 2 was "The plants were designed to be assembled. Certain parts were considered irreplaceable as they would be contaminated during use and would be impossible to remove. We never considered how the plant was to be decommissioned at the end of life. It was left as a problem to be solved while the plants were operating"

Indeed, the problem was worse than that, not only were early generation plants not designed to be decommissioned, but the plant designers and their contractors often made ad hoc changes during construction, details of which were either lost, or not documented on the blue prints. The big problem for the decommissioning workers is that they frequently find that the plant equipment does not match the blueprints they are working from, or that parts of the building have been re-purposed and their contamination status is unknown, and the effect of changes they make in one area may have unpredictable effects elsewhere.

It should not be forgotten that most of the decommissioning bill is actually for military weapon production, or early research. It's difficult to know how much is which. In the US, the total amount of military nuclear waste exceeds the civilian amount 10 fold. At least there, there is a clear separation between civilian and military work. In the UK, much of the research and military work was done at Sellafield. Indeed, the early Magnox power reactors were designed primarily as weapons producers, but the engineers realised that they produced so much heat during operation, that they could basically install a turbine and generator between the reactor and the cooling towers and get electricity as a by-product.

The magnox reactors, however, as first generation (essentially weapons plants) were not designed for cheap or sustainable operation. As the technology was largely unknown they were absurdly over-engineered and, uniquely, were completely passively and inherently safe. Their fuel was so dilute, their power output so low and the core made of highly thermally conductive graphite that a meltdown, even if the operators made the opposite decisions to those needed, would be highly improbable, and by some calculations, impossible. There was no water, so no risk of steam explosion, and no risk of hydrogen release. The disadvantage was crude fuel construction, the uranium oxide was encased in magnesium (hence the name). This casing had a life-time of about 1 year, before it would fail, spilling the now intensely radioactive fuel material. The fuel had to be reprocessed at Sellafield immediately after use - which was not considered a problem as plutonium production was the primary aim. It was a HUGE problem when the political decision was made to run the magnox plants flat out during the miners strike, exceeding the reprocessing capacity at Sellafield. The excess used fuel went off, the casings split and massive,barely remedial contamination was the result.

In comparison, a modern plant produces around about 0.5 - 1% of the total volume of highly radioactive waste per unit of electricity produced, compared to a magnox reactor. Modern fuel construction is resistant to corrosion, and can safely be stored wet or dry for many decades with no degradation. The disadvantage of the more concentrated, more heavily burned fuel, is much more intense radioactivity and much more heat production. Magnox fuel would not melt or combust under essentially any forseeable operational or accident conditions. Modern high-burnup PWR/BWR fuel will melt or ignite within seconds if not water cooled continually for at least 3 years following removal from the reactor. If you let the water run down, not only do you get a fuel fire, but you get hydrogen production.

The decommissioning costs for new reactor designed are expected to be hugely lower than for current generation plants, especially in the UK - where the magnox and AGR plants which comprised the majority of the fleet were unique in the world. These designs chose simplicity of construction and maximum passive safety, at the cost of huge waste production. Modern plants are much more compact for the same energy (or in practice are a similar size for 5-10x the power output). Additionally, the UK had a rather haphazard way of building the plants, with each plant being built by a different contractor who was given a basic "reference" design that documented the nuclear components in details, but the contractor was responsible for designing and building the rest of the plant around it. Not only were no "lessons learned" during construction, but a number of the contractors simply were not capable of building the plants. Most dramatically, the first AGR contract awarded was won by an engineering firm who had no experience of major projects and who put in the tender rather flippantly. Senior managers were rather shocked to be awarded it, but having got that far, didn't want to lose face by pulling out. Unsurprisingly, the construction was completely shambolic, taking 18 years, rather than the planned 6. Not only did the contractor not take the construction seriously, the scrutiny by government given to the individual bids must have been rather lacking to award what must have plainly been an absurd tender.

I would support a new nuclear build, but it would require

1) an operational permanent waste disposal site, capable to storing all waste produced during the lifetime of the planned plants.

2) A ring-fenced decommissioining fund, set at an appropriate contributory rate, with mandatory top-ups in the event of lower than expected investment performance or expectations that costs were increasing. The would be no draw-down facility, or option to reduce contributions, so that there should be no possibility of shortfall. Also, there should be no way for central government just to steal the funds (as happened with the current decommissioning funds, which were taken by government and used for general spending, leaving an unfunded liability).

3. There should be maximum standardization of plants, so that the maximum experience in operation, maintenance and decommissioning can be obtained .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

The usual misinformation about the cost of cleaning up Sellafield ...

The total figure of £67.5Bn is un-discounted. The government 'spends' £1.5Bn each year on Sellafield from one department but the 'income' from commercial activities at Sellafield goes to a different department. There is indeed an annual deficit which is born by the taxpayer but the annual shortfall is why BNFL was wound up.

///

Also, the failure of the UK to build an underground repository means the cost of surface storage of radioactive waste at Sellafield for an indefinite time has to be met by the UK taxpayer.

Very interesting.

And yet they propose to build underground storage for C02, because it's such a danger to mankind.

Edited by tinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

excluding the fact that any other electricity kills much more people per generated TWh than nuclear; but it does not fit your green propaganda

http://www.edouardstenger.com/2011/03/25/a-look-at-deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source/

death-rate-per-TWh.png

Except what you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted (Nor is it correct because in no way does that table count the 10's of thousands with dramatically shortened life-spans arising from Chernobyl).

But back to costs. We all know that fossil fuel industries compensate for accidents. Here's an example for you -

DAWES, W.Va.—Two days after an explosion ripped through a Massey Energy Co. coal mine, with rescuers continuing their search for survivors, the company's board convened by phone.

They agreed that it was unlikely any of the 29 workers had survived. Then they decided to make a settlement offer of $3 million to each deceased miner's family to help them financially and head off a wave of litigation, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630712613602920.html

So where is the nuclear power industries 400 bn in liability insurance? Come on where is it, post me some links.

Edited by alexw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Ironically both Chernobyl and Fukushima seem to have been essentially hydrogen explosions.

I think you are confusing your gases.

I did think Hydrogen was generally stored in liquid form, but I am wrong. However, it does not mean that Hydrogen storage is not feasible.

However, the concerns with Chernobyl and Fukushima were not Hydrogen explosions, but the radioactive material that could leak because explosions damaged critical parts of the reactors - as I'm sure you well know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Just for Damik's edification. Here's some info on chernobyl cancer deaths. You'll note this does not cover other health affects such as deformities, cesium linked heart disease, immune system disorders, etc. The total health affects are horrific.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

There is a lot of confusion about how many excess cancer deaths will likely result from the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. There are two main sources of confusion: information that is confusing—and in some cases misleading—put out by authoritative sources, and large inherent uncertainties in estimates of the effects of the accident. Because of these inherent uncertainties, it is perhaps most appropriate to only cite order-of-magnitude results: the numbers of excess cancers and cancer deaths worldwide will be in the tens of thousands.

However, based on the data given below, 53,000 and 27,000 are reasonable estimates of the number of excess cancers and cancer deaths that will be attributable to the accident, excluding thyroid cancers. (The 95% confidence levels are 27,000 to 108,000 cancers and 12,000 to 57,000 deaths.) In addition, as of 2005, some 6,000 thyroid cancers and 15 thyroid cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl. That number will grow with time.

Much lower numbers of cancers and deaths are often cited, but these are misleading because they only apply to those populations with the highest radiation exposures, and don’t take into account the larger numbers of people who were exposed to less radiation.

One authoritative but misleading report on the consequences of Chernobyl is Chernobyl´s legacy: Health, environmental and socio-economic impacts, released by the UN-sponsored Chernobyl Forum (September 5, 2005).

Because of the 2005 report, people frequently cite “4,000” as the number of eventual excess cancer fatalities. However, by limiting its analysis to people with the greatest exposure to released radiation, the report seriously underestimates the number of cancers and cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl. The effects of the radiation were not limited to the “contaminated” areas but would be felt in Europe and beyond.
The current understanding of the relationship of cancer to radiation is that the risk of solid cancers increases linearly with dose and that there is no safe amount of radiation. This understanding is represented by the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) model of cancer. For leukemia, a blood cancer, a linear-quadratic model is generally used.

We can estimate the number of additional cancer deaths using data from several publications of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which give estimates of the radiation exposure from the accident. Unfortunately, the information is not all available in one publication.

For gamma and beta radiation, which are of interest here, 1 Sv = 1Gray (Gy). Assuming an equal number of males and females, we see that the expected incidence and mortality of solid cancers and leukemia are 0.1135 cancer cases and 0.057 cancer deaths per Sv. The 95% uncertainty intervals are (0.057, 0.2325) for cancer cases and (0.0265, 0.122) for cancer deaths per Sv.

For example, for a collective dose of 465,000 person-Sv, the expected number of cancer cases would be 53,000, of which some 27,000 would result in death. If we apply the lower and upper confidence bounds, we find a range of 27,000 to 108,000 excess cancer cases, of which 12,000 to 57,000 would be fatal.

Edited by alexw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I did think Hydrogen was generally stored in liquid form, but I am wrong. However, it does not mean that Hydrogen storage is not feasible.
Even liquid hydrogen turns to gas if you stop compressing it. Anything is possible, the question is can it be done safely for less than the cost of a suitable alternative. In reality, hydrogen, with all current technologies, it's not. By the time a better method of storing hydrogen if found, we will probably have figured out fusion reactors.
However, the concerns with Chernobyl and Fukushima were not Hydrogen explosions, but the radioactive material that could leak because explosions damaged critical parts of the reactors - as I'm sure you well know.
Fukushima was most certainly a Hydrogen explosion. I'm pretty sure Chernobyl was too. The water in the reactor was turned into hydrogen by the heat, then it exploded. In Chernobyl it fired the graphite rods out of the reactor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414

The big problems with current nuclear decommissioning are that none of these factors were considered. When the first nuclear power-stations were built, the attitude to 1 was "We knew there would be waste, in the form of spent fuel. We didn't know what we would do with it, other than store it. It was a small enough amount that it wouldn't matter for many years."

Interesting post. The quoted point is, IMO, a lesson for people who advocate carrying on merrily and claiming that by the time something becomes a problem we'll have technology developed to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
The exploitable resource is about 15GW. At 25% capacity that ain't going to run the UK at current demand levels.

I suspect you are thinking of JUST the previously proposed Severn/Bristol channel plan.

There are plenty of other places they could be put, and the Bristol Channel one could even be put further out.

They would be MASSIVE projects, but look at what the Dutch managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

Just for Damik's edification. Here's some info on chernobyl cancer deaths. You'll note this does not cover other health affects such as deformities, cesium linked heart disease, immune system disorders, etc. The total health affects are horrific.

Ok. How does this compare to other energy sources, and how does it compare to a lack of energy?

Numbers without context mean precisely zip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

I suspect you are thinking of JUST the previously proposed Severn/Bristol channel plan.

There are plenty of other places they could be put, and the Bristol Channel one could even be put further out.

They would be MASSIVE projects, but look at what the Dutch managed.

I am talking about exploitable resource (as oppossed to total resource) which is generally taken as locations with an average tidal stream above 4kts. Bristol channel is from recollection 8.6GW. Other sites include the Menai straights, Mersey, Wyre estuaries and the Pentland Firth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

Ok. How does this compare to other energy sources, and how does it compare to a lack of energy?

Numbers without context mean precisely zip.

I think the point Alex is making is that Damik's data relates solely to occupational injury data. Once you factor in indirect health effects then nuclear looks less favourable. That said coal is far far worse than nuclear in that regard.Personally I'd swap the Worlds coal fired power stations for well run nuclear ones.

However in Damik World I suspect he has the firm belief that no one has even died as a result of radiation exposure from nuclear power generation yet millions die from WInd turbine syndrome every year......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

I think the point Alex is making is that Damik's data relates solely to occupational injury data. Once you factor in indirect health effects then nuclear looks less favourable. That said coal is far far worse than nuclear in that regard.Personally I'd swap the Worlds coal fired power stations for well run nuclear ones.

However in Damik World I suspect he has the firm belief that no one has even died as a result of radiation exposure from nuclear power generation yet millions die from WInd turbine syndrome every year......

Kurt, I am providing referenced materials. You just your opinions. Please share with us some reasonably sourced information, which proves me wrong. Your problem is that you can not ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Just for Damik's edification. Here's some info on chernobyl cancer deaths. You'll note this does not cover other health affects such as deformities, cesium linked heart disease, immune system disorders, etc. The total health affects are horrific.

http://allthingsnucl...-cause-updated/

Chernobyl was a military design, producing military plutonium and the accident happened, when executing a military exercise. After the party member ordered to switch off 6 safety systems. One using the pliers.

And here is a more reliable resource about the Chernobyl deaths: World Health Organisation:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

I am talking about exploitable resource (as oppossed to total resource) which is generally taken as locations with an average tidal stream above 4kts. Bristol channel is from recollection 8.6GW. Other sites include the Menai straights, Mersey, Wyre estuaries and the Pentland Firth.

Only problem is that the tidal energy has a relatively low density so you will need a single turbine for each 10/25MWs. This is the simple reason, why nobody does it across the world in the large scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
Only problem is that the tidal energy has a relatively low density so you will need a single turbine for each 10/25MWs. This is the simple reason, why nobody does it across the world in the large scale.

No the reason they don't do it is it requires MASSIVE up front investment, and the green campaigners always block it because it will affect wildlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

Except what you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted (Nor is it correct because in no way does that table count the 10's of thousands with dramatically shortened life-spans arising from Chernobyl).

that Kirk Sorenson documentary said a little radiation is good for you.

Who knows, maybe the Pripyat inhabitants will benefit from unusal longevity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

Kurt, I am providing referenced materials. You just your opinions. Please share with us some reasonably sourced information, which proves me wrong. Your problem is that you can not ...

The point is that deaths associated with wind power and solar are almost exclusively occupational and thus easy to measure and monitor. Guy falls off wind turbine whilst cleaning the blades it is an occupational accident so in most countries gets reported and features in statistics. But that is as far as it goes because unless you believe in wind turbine syndrome (along with pixies, unicorns, and the tooth fairy). In contrast most of the likely victims of Chernobyl are non occupational - ie the people exposed to varying levels of radiation in the region and suffer ill health or prematurely mortality due to that exposure. These do not appear in any occupational injury / ill health data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information