Thorium nuclear energy?

[Frances_iom]

It is time that governments stopped threatening us with the kind of scenario that you(probably quite rightly) suggest, and started investing in clean, safe, affordable power.
They choose not to.
In the meantime, carbon capture coal is an option.Fukushima was pretty ugly.

clean, safe, affordable - select any 2 having all 3 is I suspect a pipedream tho depends much on your definition of safe, clean + affordable

remind me of how many die in coal extraction (look at eg China) + used to die before clean air acts from domestic burning thereof + also coal burning releases more radiation than does nuclear power - 30,000 + died in Japan from the quake etc so far no death attributed to radiation tho admit will cost time + money clean up after the 2nd or 3rd largest quake on record + probably the worst tsnami - personally I see little alternative to nuclear in long run if we want to keep current consumption levels in West and allow all other nations to have same standard of living

Carbon capture might well work but no commercially viable large scale scheme appaers to be feasible in short term

[Serial_Apologist]

clean, safe, affordable - select any 2 having all 3 is I suspect a pipedream tho depends much on your definition of safe, clean + affordable

remind me of how many die in coal extraction (look at eg China) + used to die before clean air acts from domestic burning thereof + also coal burning releases more radiation than does nuclear power - 30,000 + died in Japan from the quake etc so far no death attributed to radiation tho admit will cost time + money clean up after the 2nd or 3rd largest quake on record + probably the worst tsnami - personally I see little alternative to nuclear in long run if we want to keep current consumption levels in West and allow all other nations to have same standard of living

Carbon capture might well work but no commercially viable large scale scheme appaers to be feasible in short term

I agree, albeit with some misgivings, after Jim Lovelock gave nuclear power the seal of approval, pointing out the problem of disposal to have been greatly reduced since the waste can be compressed into small packages for burying. I still do worry about uranium availability, however; how reliable will be the sourcing?

[teamsaint]

coal mining is very much safer if properly regulated.

I am certainly not suggesting that coal is anything more than a stop gap........and the same ought to be true of current nuclear energy technology, which by any common sense judgement is an utterly insane way of producing energy.

If our governments put 10% of the effort and money that they put into fighting wars for oil rich countries into genuinely trying to exploit the untapped energy sources in the world, out energy problems would soon be over.Scientists can do this for us, i have no doubt.

There is little political will to change things.........expensive, dirty energy is a very useful tool for control.

[Frances_iom]

...If our governments put 10% of the effort and money that they put into fighting wars for oil rich countries into genuinely trying to exploit the untapped energy sources in the world, out energy problems would soon be over. Scientists can do this for us, i have no doubt. ...

as I said unusable hot air abounds - a significant problem with most schemes is simple Thermodynamics - efficiency of key importance except for politically driven schemes (such as most wind power) - my own blame for the forthcoming problems is the unholy combination of Thaterite economics and the tree-huggers of Metroland who prevent more modern nuclear installations and destroyed the industrial base on which we could build.

[Lateralthinking1]

as I said unusable hot air abounds - a significant problem with most schemes is simple Thermodynamics - efficiency of key importance except for politically driven schemes (such as most wind power) - my own blame for the forthcoming problems is the unholy combination of Thaterite economics and the tree-huggers of Metroland who prevent more modern nuclear installations and destroyed the industrial base on which we could build.

Which of the two were responsible for the IOM's current reliance on gas and oil or its aim of generating the equivalent of its total energy demand from renewables by 2020?

(I suppose one of the things I can't appreciate fully is the excitement that there must have been about nuclear energy in its beginnings. It must have been an inspiring area in which to be involved and of course it continues on.)

[Frances_iom]

Which of the two were responsible for the IOM's current reliance on gas and oil or its aim of generating the equivalent of its total energy demand from renewables by 2020?

the Island has its own breed of politicians - but intelligence is not usually seen as important in granny farming - the only renewable energy on Island is peat(dig your own), wood chippings etc from government woods (and here the last minister did something to help by using these to fuel a number of new gov buildings including the St Johns hq just across road from sawmills) + an incinerator. However we are lumbered with a very expensive (+ illegally funded) gas fed power station powered by a link to main gas pipeline from Scotland to Ireland , a useful DC power link to UK grid and possibly some future investment in wave or tidal power - windpower has significant problems in that no obvious storage mechanism.

[teamsaint]

the Island has its own breed of politicians - but intelligence is not usually seen as important in granny farming - the only renewable energy on Island is peat(dig your own), wood chippings etc from government woods (and here the last minister did something to help by using these to fuel a number of new gov buildings including the St Johns hq just across road from sawmills) + an incinerator. However we are lumbered with a very expensive (+ illegally funded) gas fed power station powered by a link to main gas pipeline from Scotland to Ireland , a useful DC power link to UK grid and possibly some future investment in wave or tidal power - windpower has significant problems in that no obvious storage mechanism.

as a matter of interest, is there Fracking going on in your neck of the woods?

[Frances_iom]

as a matter of interest, is there Fracking going on in your neck of the woods?

no if you look at pp373/376 of vol 1 "the evolution of the natural landscape" of A new history of IoM Liverpool univ press 2006 the reasons for absence of gas + oil is put down to a fault line, uplift and erosion of the mudstone that provides the trap to keep the gas etc in the Morcambe bay field within Manx waters- possibly a small but uncommercial bit exists in Manx waters but so far all attempts to locate manx oil have failed - however I'm no geologist so suggest you try this ref or more detailed papers

[Serial_Apologist]

no if you look at pp373/376 of vol 1 "the evolution of the natural landscape" of A new history of IoM Liverpool univ press 2006 the reasons for absence of gas + oil is put down to a fault line, uplift and erosion of the mudstone that provides the trap to keep the gas etc in the Morcambe bay field within Manx waters- possibly a small but uncommercial bit exists in Manx waters but so far all attempts to locate manx oil have failed - however I'm no geologist so suggest you try this ref or more detailed papers

Am I right in understanding that fracking has been implicated in earth tremors in various parts of the world?

[teamsaint]

Am I right in understanding that fracking has been implicated in earth tremors in various parts of the world?

yes. Including the UK.

not the best idea ever.

[Lateralthinking1]

yes. Including the UK. not the best idea ever.

It is now a Wealdwide issue - http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/comm...tion_1_3536048

[teamsaint]

It is now a Wealdwide issue - http://www.midsussextimes.co.uk/comm...tion_1_3536048

if its not already obvious what a calamity fracking is, the idea that it could be happening on the South Downs brings it well and truly home.

Greed and stupidity.

[Bryn]

... coal burning releases more radiation than does nuclear power ...

An argument (a very good argument) I first read in a copy of Beijing Review, back in the late '70s or early '80s.

[Frances_iom]

yes. Including the UK.

not the best idea ever.

the tremors have been very small and highly localised - possibly more due to poor technique than an inherent problem - catch is that people want undisturbed nature yet cheap + abundant energy - I cannot see undisturbed nature winning - London + south was very happy to see coal being produced cheaply and didn't care one bit about the environmental cost in the coal producing areas - personally I regret Scotland didnt get independence when there was still much oil - S E England would be a very different place.

[Lateralthinking1]

the tremors have been very small and highly localised - possibly more due to poor technique than an inherent problem - catch is that people want undisturbed nature yet cheap + abundant energy - I cannot see undisturbed nature winning - London + south was very happy to see coal being produced cheaply and didn't care one bit about the environmental cost in the coal producing areas - personally I regret Scotland didnt get independence when there was still much oil - S E England would be a very different place.

Noted but there were smogs in London in the 1950s. Isn't a big part of this issue that environmentalism only really began in the early 1970s and was largely dismissed for a quarter of a century?

I bought Jonathon Porritt's book "Seeing Green" in early 1982. From memory, it had a lot of crucial things to say about the need for immediate research and future investment. The intellectual response then was that it was the talk of unwashed Young Liberals who wore open toed sandals and probably ate too many nut burgers.

(London Smog - December 1952 - 12,000 deaths - http://www.world-weather-travellers-...ndon-smog.html)