Looks like the UK is serious about nuclear

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You are wrong as Solar can supply Baseload energy!

No you can't (exclamation mark).
Just because a group of people that are promoting solar energy says so, does not mean it is true. Even with molten salt, you have limited back up, and a spell of poor weather and dark nights will soon use up such reserves. You are still at the mercy of mother nature, and as a result need different technology to provide baseload supply.

PS.You might want to use quotes such as: [quote] to make it easier to differentiate between texts.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Wobs

PS.You might want to use quotes

Or, if you press the little button that says 'quote' on it in the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote from, it will automatically write the computer code that tells the system to display it as a quote. You can use the preview button to check that the quote bit has worked in the way that you want before you submit the post

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

As for efficiency not being relevant to the conversation I would have to say that's false.

Energy efficiency is for the very purpose of those countries addicted to Nuclear Energy to become less addicted...

No. All energy sources have a econominc and environmental cost, so no matter what you use you should consider energy efficiency, so therefore it isn't relevant when considering which source to use. You should be trying cut your useage no matter what source you have.

[Wobs]

Wobs wrote:

Because we rather like being alive. But seriously, you really need to consider that our demand for energy on tap is not just some greedy evil habit, but a means to live a quality life. A means to look after the vulnerable, to support an economy that, on the whole, is successful and has brought health and prosperity to millions. To ignore nuclear will be to put all that in jeapody for no good reason. It is an irrational fear that is holding society back.

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

He thinks if we don't go Nuclear we are all going to die: How can you call that a good post?

Learn to read.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

The gap between rich and poor is forever increasing, the sky is about to fall on our heads because of it and you say I am irrational.

Say no more.

As you must respect women, dope and cigarettes so you must also respect the environment in which you live: it's as simple and unscary as that: DON'T GO NUCLEAR just so you can walk around town and say NUCLEAR every so often because it's pointless.

Given that I can live without those three, I don't see your point, other than we can't live without the environment, which nuclear energy will not destroy, and there's not a scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise.
There's nothing to be scared of, but if you are, I'm sure there's therapy for you somewhere.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by spadlet

I notice Deathridesahorse that you live in Australia so you will have different solar conditions to the UK. I would be very interested to see any studies you know of that display the potential of solar electricity to provide baseload solar electricity in Australia. It certainly appears to be one of the most promising forms of renewable energy generation for the country.

In the UK we are not as fortunate with our solar resources. Technologies such as solar collectors have not exhibited the same potential as in countries such as Australia. From what little I know this appears to be the combination of a different average lattitude, a lower surface area and an increase in cloud cover. The cloud cover issue is rather important in the UK because it means that a significant proportion of the sunlight reaching solar pannels (thermal or photovoltaic) is diffuse radiation and thus can be from any direction. As solar collectors concentrate the solar energy comming from a limited range of directions they would be excluding a significant ammount of the solar resource in the UK.

So in this country we currently appear to be limited to solar electricity generation as and when the sun is shining. The magnintude of the generation will also be affected by cloud cover. The range of potential cloud cover in an area appears to be predictable, so a range of the potential ammounts of electriciy/heat energy that can be obtained should be reliable. However the exact cloud cover at any single time is not as predictable. This limits the ability of solar technologies to deliver a secure base load electricity supply in the UK.

Australia a hot spot for solar energy - SBS World News Australia

(If it can't be done here it can't be done anywhere on earth!!!)


The government who got the boot last year has totally flipped and is now calling for Australia to become a "solar continent".

Coalition calls for 'solar continent' | The Australian

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

No. All energy sources have a econominc and environmental cost, so no matter what you use you should consider energy efficiency, so therefore it isn't relevant when considering which source to use. You should be trying cut your useage no matter what source you have.

Nuclear Energy has the biggest of all potential costs.

I sometimes wonder if 9-11 was engineered to resemble a potential Nuclear Catastrophe and as Power Supplies are generally targeted in times of war I'm sure I'm not alone...

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Say no more.



Given that I can live without those three, I don't see your point, other than we can't live without the environment, which nuclear energy will not destroy, and there's not a scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise.
There's nothing to be scared of, but if you are, I'm sure there's therapy for you somewhere.

One question: why isn't Yucca Mountain going ahead?

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by spadlet

I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies of the uranium (and any other fuels they are considering to power the nuclear power plants) resources in the world? I had heard that if a lot of countries decided to invest in nuclear power, fuel could become a bone of contention. I have no idea how accurate that statement is though.

It would seem to me that no one knows...

Hang on: We should ask to interview someone who would know this one fact and ask them for "the definitive answer".

Who's with me?

Who would we have to interview to get this definitive answer?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

One question: why isn't Yucca Mountain going ahead?

Largely: politics