Nuclear Power

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Why on earth do you view everything through a filter of paranioa?

Possibly because politicians and the nuclear industry have been economical with the truth on many occasions.

[Lateralthinking1]

I hate to do this, but in fairness I should mention that the marked decline in the energy used by industry (42%, from 89.0 to 46.9 million tonnes oil equivalent) is a major factor and it dwarfs the changes in any other sector. What has actually happened is that with the decline of our manufacturing base, especially in heavy industry, and our reliance on imports we have effectively exported the energy consumption for that manufacture. (Nevertheless, in 2009 our consumption of primary energy was more or less at 1970 levels.)

We have squandered the oil we did have. We are now squandering the savings we could have enjoyed from reductions in oil use in the industry sector. However, David King has spotted a "window of opportunity". Great. It involves transporting, storing and using plutonium all around the country and still producing more as a by-product. Some window!

johnb - I appreciate your comments. The statistics are genuinely helpful and not just to provide support to one-way arguments. But I note that you and Frances have not commented on the strengths of thorium in the days since Calum posted the original articles. If it on paper makes me begin to question my anti-nuclear position, does it also reveal that the pro-nuclear lobby is not actually pro-nuclear but pro uranium and plutonium fueled nuclear power. If so, all the stuff about climate change concerns is a total red herring and Japan has let the genie of hoodwinking out of the bottle.

As for the Government could be interested if it went beyond R & D, how wonderful! It sticks a billion pounds of taxpayers money into MOX and still it is a basket case. Never mind, it says. Keep chucking money at it. But for thorium - "oh, it might be interested one day maybe if it pays for itself"! Quote "IT DOES NOT EXIST". No. Neither does the GDF due to come on line in 2075, nor several of the techniques proposed for plutonium and AGF disposal. Nor do the new nuclear plants and not for a decade or two. China doesn't seem to find this a problem.

Eine - Population, yes, but we could do so much more here in Britain I feel before lecturing everyone else.

[Frances_iom]

.
Would it also be fair to say that British politicians prefer to (a) deceive the public year after year and (b) place the public at unnecessary and increasing risk essentially (a) to save money (b) maintain one of the biggest weapons capabilities in the world and (c) have undue room for control on the internal affairs of other countries in North Africa and the Middle East?

my understanding is that Thorium needs a starter - usually a plutonium source to effectively kick start release of neutrons - the reaction actually makes plutonium but not as 'nice' an isotope mix as can be obtained from those of the old Calder Hall type reactors - however if you want to live with your own plutonium scare stories then Thorium reactors would appear to produce the necessary dirty bomb (probably more easily). The cold war was a fact of life - crazy but shows how the mutual mistrust was (& still is) such a key factor in many things - Eisenhower warned against the growth of the US military/industrial/govermental mix - today's NeoCons.
We threw away much of the benefit of North sea oil (which could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Norway) hence we, but the USA even more, need cheap oil - that and the uncritical support of the rogue state of Israel are the major causes of today's tension in middle East.
However I suspect that there are unforseen costs of such thorium reactors - you need to weigh hyped accounts by those who are seeking capital.
Industrial energy consumption has declined in UK due to almost complete shift of heavy industry to China etc plus the advent of more sophisticated control both in industry and offices eg I wrote software many years ago to control lights in large open plan offices - the energy savings were significant as turning off lights unwanted by those working under them saved on cooling and due to peak tariffing the savings paid for equipment in a year.

As mentioned before population control is voluntarily obtained by education but is long term - short term approaches tend to be somewhat bloody affairs.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As mentioned before population control is voluntarily obtained by education but is long term - short term approaches tend to be somewhat bloody affairs.

But until it is recognised that having large families is socially inacceptable, the problem will not go away. And when resources become scarce, as they undoubtedly will, social unrest will follow, and some will say "we had no way of forseeing this", whilst others will say "I told you so".

[Lateralthinking1]

my understanding is that Thorium needs a starter - usually a plutonium source to effectively kick start release of neutrons - the reaction actually makes plutonium but not as 'nice' an isotope mix as can be obtained from those of the old Calder Hall type reactors - however if you want to live with your own plutonium scare stories then Thorium reactors would appear to produce the necessary dirty bomb (probably more easily). The cold war was a fact of life - crazy but shows how the mutual mistrust was (& still is) such a key factor in many things - Eisenhower warned against the growth of the US military/industrial/govermental mix - today's NeoCons.
We threw away much of the benefit of North sea oil (which could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Norway) hence we, but the USA even more, need cheap oil - that and the uncritical support of the rogue state of Israel are the major causes of today's tension in middle East.
However I suspect that there are unforseen costs of such thorium reactors - you need to weigh hyped accounts by those who are seeking capital.
Industrial energy consumption has declined in UK due to almost complete shift of heavy industry to China etc plus the advent of more sophisticated control both in industry and offices eg I wrote software many years ago to control lights in large open plan offices - the energy savings were significant as turning off lights unwanted by those working under them saved on cooling and due to peak tariffing the savings paid for equipment in a year.

As mentioned before population control is voluntarily obtained by education but is long term - short term approaches tend to be somewhat bloody affairs.

Yes, well, there is quite a lot of sense in some of that. The Cold War was indeed a fact of life. The Eisenhower perspective is interesting to note. I will have to dig out the biography of him I have.

Seeing that 25% of the increase of vehicles after 1985 was in the US, I might differ on the notion of need.

I applaud you on your actions to improve efficiency. Huge amounts more could be done less elaborately by changes in behaviour in homes and offices.

My understanding of the "Dirty Bomb" is that its impacts have been over-emphasised. Would you not agree that everything grinding to a temporary halt is likely to be its greatest impact? Not that it shouldn't be avoided at all cost - I don't see how transporting and storing materials around the country could reduce accessibility to them.

I agree that we need to be wary of newspaper reports about thorium. Obviously it would make a big difference if it requires a plutonium source to kick start the release of neutrons. I am not sure though that I am wholly convinced by that yet.

[Flosshilde]

But until it is recognised that having large families is socially inacceptable

Unfortunately in some places having a large family is still economically neccessary. I'm not persuaded of the arguments about large families. Perhaps where child mortality is low, or family members aren't expected to support elderly parents, or aren't needed to work on the land, then large families aren't 'neccessary'. But there are plenty of places where those conditions still exist, & they aren't the places, or people, that are using energy excessively. Excessive use tends to be in areas where families are small, where there is a large proportion of the population living in single-person households, where requirements of daily life can't be found within walking distance, & where people travel long distances to work.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Unfortunately in some places having a large family is still economically neccessary. I'm not persuaded of the arguments about large families. Perhaps where child mortality is low, or family members aren't expected to support elderly parents, or aren't needed to work on the land, then large families aren't 'neccessary'. But there are plenty of places where those conditions still exist, & they aren't the places, or people, that are using energy excessively. .

Quite true, and the situation is made worse in many countries by the desire to have sons rather than daughters. However, this is like pyramid selling and only goes to defer the problem for future generations to sort out.

[Flosshilde]

I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to pyramid selling, & it does seem as if you are blaming people who are not using energy supplies excessively for problems created by those who are. The answer surely is not to tell people that they shouldn't have large families, but create the conditions where it is not economically neccessary - it will, of course, take rather longer to change cultural pressures. At the same time, change conditions & ideas in those energy-wasteful places so that the demands they make are reduced.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Pyramid selling? I admit I didn't make this very clear. The demogrphic problem of having to support older people relies very much on having more younger people to support them. Challenging this concept hurts, but change needs to be built into societies, because constant expansion of populations is unsustainable.

People in less well-off countries do aspire to our standard of living - and why shouldn't they? When they achieve this, they will consume more energy, just as we do. I recall someone saying many years ago that China and India could each support a billion poor people, but could never support a billion rich people.

[Flosshilde]

"People in less well-off countries do aspire to our standard of living - and why shouldn't they? " well, perhaps because it's wasteful of the Earth's resources. The issue should be that we shouldn't aspire to our standard of living.

"China and India could each support a billion poor people, but could never support a billion rich people." It could equally well be said that Europe & Northern America can't support the standard of living of their current populations. It isn't a matter of having smaller families - most families are small. The answer for us is fewer families, consuming less.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree with you on both points, Flosshilde. My point about India and China is that we cannot expect them to consume less than we do. But your solution is the right one.
(I don't quite see what you mean about "fewer families". You can't magic families away, but people can be encouraged to have fewer children.)

[Flosshilde]

I mean that it's 'families' (for want of a better word, & I would use it, in this instance, to include single people living on their own) that are the consumers. Families in the West have been getting smaller (ie fewer children) but energy consumption has increased. Small families do not neccessarily consume fewer resources - 10 people living on their own will consume more energy than 10 people living together. They would probably consume more food living on their own (more waste, for example, especially as foodstuff in supermarkets is packaged in multiples). The way we live needs to change.

I suppose that if you have fewer children, then fewer families will inevitably be the result (when those few children marry/start families of their own).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I suppose that if you have fewer children, then fewer families will inevitably be the result (when those few children marry/start families of their own).

This is the solution - the reverse pyramid.

[Frances_iom]

The answer for us is fewer families, consuming less.

The catholic church is somewhat short of vocations to fill the various monasteries - convents are also seriously underwomanned - sounds as if you have the perfect secular reason to consider a life of abstinence and contemplation.

[MrGongGong]

actually
lower birth rates mean more energy consumption (in the world as it is )
so its a bit of a red herring really
the countries who consume most seem to have the lowest number of children per head