Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Surprise surprise 15:41 - Jul 3 with 1440 viewsNogginthenog

http://news.sky.com/story/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-hit-by-cost-over-run-and

Beggars blief that we cant build this ourselves, after all we were one of the forerunners in the development of nuclear power.
0
Surprise surprise on 16:31 - Jul 3 with 1398 viewsPegojack

Another Tory stitch up.
0
Surprise surprise on 17:17 - Jul 3 with 1374 viewsJango

Shelve the thing all together and get the coal power stations back up and running again.
1
Surprise surprise on 17:55 - Jul 3 with 1345 viewsjackharris

Surprise surprise on 17:17 - Jul 3 by Jango

Shelve the thing all together and get the coal power stations back up and running again.


Still Billions and Billions of tonnes of very good Antracite underneath Wales.
Or Tidal Power.

Very proud to be voted Planet Swans Poster of the Year 2017 by my fellow posters. Especially on a site that nearly had 20 million impressions last year.
Poll: What is your favourite Knock?

0
Surprise surprise on 23:47 - Jul 3 with 1294 viewsyescomeon

Solar and Wind far more cost effective than nuclear or coal. UK has the problem of being too small for all the people living on it to generate all our energy this way but we have probably the biggest tidal resource in the world and a wave resource not to be sniffed at either.

Upthecity!

0
Surprise surprise on 23:51 - Jul 3 with 1291 viewsHighjack

Fusion power is the future. Near unlimited, pollution free, waste free power, yet in this country we spend around a pound per person a year researching it. Simply because it's not as profitable as oil.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: Should Dippy Drakeford do us all a massive favour and just bog off?

0
Surprise surprise on 00:19 - Jul 4 with 1276 viewsyescomeon

Surprise surprise on 23:51 - Jul 3 by Highjack

Fusion power is the future. Near unlimited, pollution free, waste free power, yet in this country we spend around a pound per person a year researching it. Simply because it's not as profitable as oil.


Fusion seems to be forever 50 years away. The UK will be staying in Euratom regardless of what happens with brexit (not much of a suprise as we have to maintain nuclear reactors if we want to keep a nuclear arsenal, the only reason hinckley is going ahead) I assume fusion research falls under that.

Upthecity!

0
Surprise surprise on 11:21 - Jul 4 with 1197 viewsHighjack

Surprise surprise on 00:19 - Jul 4 by yescomeon

Fusion seems to be forever 50 years away. The UK will be staying in Euratom regardless of what happens with brexit (not much of a suprise as we have to maintain nuclear reactors if we want to keep a nuclear arsenal, the only reason hinckley is going ahead) I assume fusion research falls under that.


It's always fifty years away because we are not funding it's research. It is being deliberately surpressed. Oil and gas has a value because they are finite resources that the lesser that is available or when the demand is bigger the higher the price is. Unlimited energy using the most abundant element in the universe doesn't have the same supply and demand issues around it.

If we were genuinely serious about reversing climate change and making this world carbon free we would be throwing billions into this technology. It is potentially unlimited energy creation with no waste whatsoever. But we aren't serious about it because Governments are still driven by the black stuff, and lots of money can be made through taxing motorists and others who are so evilly destroying the planet with their pollution.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: Should Dippy Drakeford do us all a massive favour and just bog off?

0
Surprise surprise on 12:47 - Jul 4 with 1140 viewsyescomeon

Surprise surprise on 11:21 - Jul 4 by Highjack

It's always fifty years away because we are not funding it's research. It is being deliberately surpressed. Oil and gas has a value because they are finite resources that the lesser that is available or when the demand is bigger the higher the price is. Unlimited energy using the most abundant element in the universe doesn't have the same supply and demand issues around it.

If we were genuinely serious about reversing climate change and making this world carbon free we would be throwing billions into this technology. It is potentially unlimited energy creation with no waste whatsoever. But we aren't serious about it because Governments are still driven by the black stuff, and lots of money can be made through taxing motorists and others who are so evilly destroying the planet with their pollution.


We can do fusion now, what we can't do is get more energy out of the reaction than it takes to maintain it. It's a massively complex science/engineering problem, like the large hadron collidre to the power of the sending a man to the moon. Perhaps if we threw everything at it we could crack it in the next 50 years, but what's the point. There is a perfectly good natural fusion reactor currently offering us for all intents and purposes unlimited free energy (the sun). This gives us solar, wind, wave and along with the moon tides.

I don't think it is some big oil conspiracy, just market pragmatism. Fossil fuels used to be the cheapest way to generate electricity, now renewables are. Fusion is an interesting scientific problem, and if we are going to undertake interstellar spaceflight then it will be something we will need. But we will be able to get by just fine down here on Earth with "just" renewables and fission reactors.

Upthecity!

0
Login to get fewer ads

Surprise surprise on 14:26 - Jul 4 with 1093 viewsNogginthenog

We keep adding to the population though at a rate of knots and every gadget we use requires ever more amounts of electricity.

I think we need to bukld more fision reactors but not get ripped off by foreign companies when we are quite capable of building them ourselves.
0
Surprise surprise on 15:06 - Jul 4 with 1079 viewsyescomeon

Surprise surprise on 14:26 - Jul 4 by Nogginthenog

We keep adding to the population though at a rate of knots and every gadget we use requires ever more amounts of electricity.

I think we need to bukld more fision reactors but not get ripped off by foreign companies when we are quite capable of building them ourselves.


I completely agree on your second point we could an if we insist on fission reactors, then absolutely should be building these ourselves. It money flowing out of the economy.

There is a guy at the university I'm based at, Mike Berners-Lee. I've seen him present here a few times and he is really interesting to listen to. One of the points he makes is that whenever a new source of energy becomes available it never replaces old sources, it just adds to the energy usage. So the more energy we generate, the more energy we use. Something like that. The talks I've seen him give are based on his book "The Burning Question". I've never read it but I'm familiar with the content and message from hearing him talk, it should be an interesting read for anyone interested.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Burning_Question.html?id=r3MLmwEACAAJ

Upthecity!

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024