PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Short films /web project about nuclear power
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vickilesley



Joined: 24 Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:37 pm    Post subject: Short films /web project about nuclear power Reply with quote

I'm an independent film maker currently working on a film/online project all about nuclear power. As well as 13 planned short films, the project's website contains a broad selection of other nuclear-power related material including music, movies, art and news stories.

I'd love people to check it out and let me know what they think of it - and what other sections I might usefully add, if any.

The idea of the project is to explore the subject from more of a personal and cultural angle than a scientific or technical one, and above all, to promote debate and greater awareness about the many issues surrounding the subject.

www.tennerfilms.com

Thanks very much and look forward to hearing what you think!

Vicki Lesley
Tenner Films
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Vicki

You're missing.......

1) http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html

2) http://www.stormsmith.nl/
_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Vicki and welcome.

Some scary stuff on there. None of it is exactly surprising or new; the con that is nuclear has been well-known for decades by those prepared to be honest.

You're up against some powerful and ruthless resources though; good luck and keep us informed.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The government is proposing to use existing reactor sites for new nuclear power stations. All but two of these sites are susceptible to sea level rise of less than 7m and some of them to less than 5 metres. Try this site http://flood.firetree.net/.

Given that our scientists are now talking about not being able to avoid 2 deg C of warming, and we are losing the Arctic Ice Cap already, it is highly probable that we will lose the Greenland Ice Cap which would cause 5 metres of sea level rise. We would also probably lose some of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which would add considerably to this sea level rise.

In view of this, and the time, energy and cost it takes to decommission a nuclear power station, we should be engaging in a rapid program of decommissioning our present sites immediately. We should not be contemplating using those sites again but should, if we require nuclear energy, be looking for new sites not susceptible to long term sea level rise using a worst case scenario. i.e. a sea level rise of about 100 metres.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bandidoz wrote:
Hi Vicki

You're missing.......

1) http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html

2) http://www.stormsmith.nl/


I have pointed out elsewhere on these pages that the analysis of nuclear power done by Storm and Smith is seriously flawed. From another post of mine
Quote:
I have just read one of the Leeuwen's papers, the one analysing energy and CO2 budgets for nuclear power.

His analysis is extremely torturous, but I believe it is also very seriously flawed. There are several quite simple errors.

1)
He double counts the on-site, operational power consumption (or house load) for a nuclear plant when he is determining lifetime energy budget. The quoted load factors for existing and planned nuclear plants are based on NET energy production, never GROSS energy production. He bases his output energy budget calculation for a 1,000 MW plant on the assumption that the output figure is GROSS output, but this is never the case. All load factor reports are NET. The difference between the two calculations gives Leeuwen a result pessimised by nearly 25 %.
2)
He states a decommissioning cost of 100 billion euros for the 14 UK domestic nuclear plants. This is not the case. The sum quoted is for the decommissioning of ALL the UK's nuclear sites including all the nuclear research facilities back to pre-war days, the maintenance facilities for the UK's weapons programme , and other miscellaneous sites. The cost of decommissioning the magnox nuclear stations is in actuality about 1 billion euros each. Remember, these plants were not designed with any forethought given to decommissioning. And it should also be remembered that the huge cost figure quoted is that without any form of discounted cash flow applied. That is not how project costs are usually assessed or presented.
3)
He states an energy budget for decommissioning that is equivalent to running a conventional plant of 50 MW rated capacity for 100 years. This is ludicrous.
4)
He states a design life of 40 years. The French nuclear power stations, now approaching 40 years old, are undergoing refurbishment work to run them through another 20 years. The design life of the next generation of nuclear stations is 60 years.

That's just what I picked out in a brief reading. It does not give me much faith in Leeuwen's claims.

(And incidentally, Windscale was NOT a power plant, it was a facility simply to enrich uranium, produce plutonium, for bombs)


If you want balanced coverage, I suggest you do some filming in France - very enjoyable, and of course 85 % nuclear and nearly the cheapest electricity in Europe.

As for concerns about sea level rise, even the worst projections of the IPCC suggest that the next century will see a modest change from present rates of rise and produce a change of less than 1 metre. I don't think our nukes need worry on that score.

You may also want to consider that since the 80s the total number of people killed in the wind industry (>80) exceeds the number of people killed in the same period in the nuclear industry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
You may also want to consider that since the 80s the total number of people killed in the wind industry (>80) exceeds the number of people killed in the same period in the nuclear industry.


It would only take one Chernobyl .......
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . . but then Chernobyl killed less than 80 people (UNHO)

Quote:
The accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosisc. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident. Nineteen more subsequently died between 1987 and 2004 but their deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to radiation exposured. Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
. . . but then Chernobyl killed less than 80 people (UNHO)


It's simply impossible to be so absolutest about Chernobyl. We don't and never well know accurately how many people died and are still yet to die, as a result of the accident.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, but Chernobyl has been the subject of intense international scrutiny ever since the accident occurred - probably more so than any other disaster. The degree of uncertainty is therefore not high.

As for the wind energy business, we also have reasonably accurate accident and fatality figures, and from these we know that both are occurring at increasing rates.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is still land in this country where food can't be grown because of contamination from Chernobyl. In certain areas all sheep have to have their radioactivity levels checked before they can enter the food chain. If we had a domestic accident we could lose vast areas of food production land. With global shortages looming the consequences could be dire.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
As for the wind energy business, we also have reasonably accurate accident and fatality figures, and from these we know that both are occurring at increasing rates.


The consequences of an accident on a wind farm would be confined to a radius of a few hundred metres. The consequences of an accident in a nuclear reactor would not be confined to a radius of a few hundred miles. More than a slight difference in risk,
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which is why nuclear reactors have rigorously designed and monitored safety systems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Which is why nuclear reactors have rigorously designed and monitored safety systems.

Designed, built, managed and maintained by humans who are perfect and never make mistakes.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
There is still land in this country where food can't be grown because of contamination from Chernobyl. In certain areas all sheep have to have their radioactivity levels checked before they can enter the food chain. If we had a domestic accident we could lose vast areas of food production land. With global shortages looming the consequences could be dire.
The areas 'affected' are now very small, and we have no information as to whether these sites were 'contaminated' before Chernobyl; certainly, the radiation behaviour at these sites is abnormal and it's becoming more difficult to blame Chernobyl for the results seen. The economic impact is now insignificant, and has been so for decades.

Just because something has a high hazard rating does not mean that it must be avoided at all costs. We regularly pack over 400 people into an aeroplane confident in the knowledge that they are certainly safer travelling by that means than by car. We've done that by learning the lessons from previous accidents. Just as we've done with other industrial disasters, such as Piper Alpha, Flixborough, and also Chenobyl. You cannot live without exposure to risk on almost a routine basis.

The wind industry does not seem to have addressed it's safety record, probably because the accidents are so thinly spread and occur at a low rate, rather like farming accidents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnB wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
Which is why nuclear reactors have rigorously designed and monitored safety systems.

Designed, built, managed and maintained by humans who are perfect and never make mistakes.
And why not, that is what is meant by intrinsically safe?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group