|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 22:26:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 22:40:55 GMT 1
World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements 1 April 2011 (corrected 13/4) www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlit's interesting to see comparisons of countries by billions of kWh... and the amount of Uranium required. StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 2, 2011 12:46:56 GMT 1
Stuart
Interesting links. A couple of telling points (for me) from the links were:
1) The fact that the reactor shutdown in Germany means that EON are putting the case "for a multi-billion euro compensation deal. " to their government. As an aside, it would seem that not only is Germany likely to import power from France (nuclear generated) but also from Poland (coal generated). IMO, not only is this a hollow victory for the "Greens" it also borders on the hypocritical.
2) As we struggle to build one new coal fired power station (China = 2 per week), I am awaiting the onslaught of the "Green" brigade- following their success in Germany- against building new nuclear stations here (China = 52 planned and 115 proposed)
P
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 2, 2011 17:49:34 GMT 1
Since we don't have proportional representation, principled, I don't think the greens are able to exert the parliamentary pressure here that they can in Germany. They are however VERY well-ensconced in the highly undemocratic elite scientific bureaucracy and supposedly "learned" societies here.
It is quite mind-boggling to me how they have subverted both normal common sense and the normal scientific method.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 2, 2011 21:41:05 GMT 1
Natural... "Abstract Uranium contains only one naturally occurring isotope, 235U, which will sustain a nuclear chain reaction using normal water to moderate and reflect neutrons. At present, this isotope is present in low abundance (0.72%), requiring enrichment to 3% or greater for effective use in commercial nuclear reactors. Two billion years ago, however, the natural abundance of 235U was approximately 3%. Evidence indicates that a rich uranium deposit in Gabon, West Africa achieved nuclear criticality and operated for tens of thousands of years or longer. Comparing the geometric and nuclear characteristics of the Gabon reactor with those of modern, artificial nuclear reactors supports this possibility. An examination of rare earth elements and 235U abundance in the rocks that comprise the reactor zone confirm that a nuclear reactor did operate at this site about 2 billion year ago (Ga), using surface and ground waters to moderate and reflect fission neutrons in order to sustain the chain reaction. Finally, it is apparent that 239Pu was produced in measurable quantities, suggesting that uranium is not the heaviest naturally occurring element known." www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdfand unnatural... "Plowshare Program Introduction The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), now the Department of Energy (DOE), established the Plowshare Program as a research and development activity to explore the technical and economic feasibility of using nuclear explosives for industrial applications." www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf [hi-light and enter to new browser page, anon FTP, this site won't allow] StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 2, 2011 22:02:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 2, 2011 22:25:35 GMT 1
P
"Germany likely to import power from France (nuclear generated)"
They already have a reciprocal agreement, Germany supplies in summer to allow French to undertake maintenance of reactors, Vick verky Winter.
StuartG
around 75% of France is nuclear.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 5, 2011 0:05:55 GMT 1
'French Greens demand nuclear halt to back Socialists' 04 Jun 2011 19:41 www.trust.org/alertnet/news/french-greens-demand-nuclear-halt-to-back-socialists---- "France's 58 nuclear reactors, operated by state-controlled utility EDF, produce around 80 percent of its electricity." and they produce quite a bit of ours... On Your fuel bill, on the right hand side somewhere it might say who Your Electricity distributor:EDF Energy, fore Hamlet... that's mine. That's not, neccessarily who demands payment. Mine's not EDF but Eon, so where's my money going, take a look... greenelectricityblog.co.uk/2009/07/uk-consumers-who-owns-your-energy/ the Jermins, so I pay a German company, who in turn pays a French company for electricity generated [mainly] in this country " n January 2009, EDF Energy acquired British Energy. As a consequence we now own the fleet of 8 nuclear power stations, including Hinkley Point and Sizewell, as well as the land on which British Energy was planning to build new nuclear power stations. All of the comapny's English sites have been nominated by EDF Energy as potential development sites in the Government’s Strategic Siting Assessment process. " www.edfenergy.com/careers/who-we-are/our-business/nuclear-new-build.shtmlThat's the nuclear, " EDF Energy Customers (trading as EDF Energy) is wholly owned by the French state-owned EDF SA[3] and was formed in 2002 following the acquisition and mergers of SEEBOARD (formerly South Eastern Electricity Board), London Energy (formerly the London Electricity Board), SWEB Energy and two coal-fired power stations and a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDF_Energy#Electricity_generationStuartG |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2011 6:30:08 GMT 1
My energy company is also EDF, stu. I think it is preferable to others because of its promotion of nuclear generation. Vive l'Energie de France! A little area of sanity in the electricity business.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 8, 2011 11:06:42 GMT 1
"U.S. plans to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear facilities: Ahmadinejad" www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242059"“My stance toward slandering and creating commotion (against the government) is silence,” he said. " Yeah, Cheers, StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 11, 2011 9:02:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 11, 2011 10:37:55 GMT 1
Looking over the 'web, it seems that earless rabbits are not unknown in the past, and not resulting from 'radiation'. Some research done in France, on naturally occuring radiation, seems to suggest that rabbits can be affected initially then after 6-9 months their bodies seem to accomodate mild doses. Rabbits can also loose their ears if 'overgroomed', not that seems to apply in this case.
'ear 'ear!!
StuartG
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 12, 2011 9:42:50 GMT 1
"Nuclear study professor gets OBE from Queen after Government dismiss work" www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/06/12/nuclear-study-professor-gets-obe-from-queen-after-government-dismiss-work-115875-23195476/Here's another of a 'scientist against the tide' as discussed here radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=gensci&thread=953&post=12028 it also points up the MoD will not willingly help someone to a decent death whilst wasting billions on good practical ideas mucked up by bad management and political inconsistency. The findings... www.llrc.org/epidemiology/subtopic/nzvetsrept.pdfStuartG ps. and this is some of the tide He swam against... Abstract from BMJ... "Abstract Objective—To study the health of Royal New Zealand Navy personnel who participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United Kingdom at Malden Island and Christmas Island in 1957 and 1958. Design—Blinded, controlled follow up of up to 30 years. Setting—New Zealand. Subjects—528 Men known to have participated in the tests and a control group of 1504 men who were in the Royal New Zealand Navy during the same period but did not participate in the tests. Main outcome measures—Mortality and incidence of cancer. Results—Follow up for the period 1957-87 was 94% complete in test participants and 91% complete in the controls. There were 70 deaths among test participants and 179 deaths among controls, yielding a relative risk of 1.08 (90% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.38, p=0.29). The relative risk of death from causes other than cancer was 0.96 (0.71 to 1.29, p=0.59) whereas the relative risk of death from cancer was 1.38 (0.90 to 2.10, p=0.09) and of the incidence of cancer was 1.12 (0.78 to 1.60, p=0.29). For cancers other than haematological malignancies the relative risk was 1.14 (0.69 to 1.83, p=0.31) for mortality and 1.01 (0.67 to 1.50, p=0.48) for incidence. There were seven deaths from haematological cancers among test participants (relative risk 3.25, 90% confidence interval 1.12 to 9.64, p=0.02), including four leukaemias (5.58, 1.04 to 41.6, p=0.03). The relative risk for incidence of haematological cancers was 1.94 (0.74 to 4.84, p=0.10) and that for leukaemia was 5.51 (1.03 to 41.1, p=0.03). There were no cases of multiple myeloma in the test participants during the follow up period, but the expected number was only 0.3. Conclusions—Although the numbers are small, the findings for leukaemia are similar to those for British participants in the nuclear weapons test programme. Some leukaemias, and possibly some other haematological cancers, may have resulted from participation in this programme. There is little evidence of an increased risk for non-haematological cancers, and there is no evidence of an increased risk for causes of death other than cancer. " www.jstor.org/pss/29707752The piece where they say "Although the numbers are small, the findings for leukaemia are similar to those for British participants in the nuclear weapons test programme." That sounds ambigious, or is it just me? nucleartestshame.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/irony-in-queens-birthday-honours/ |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 14, 2011 23:12:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 21, 2011 9:49:37 GMT 1
|
|
