watching the BBC 1 news at 1.00 they had a a report about how windmills etc are taking are the stuff genated by fossil fuels.
Great I thought, That should stuff all those who dont windmills and are in favour of the coal mines though they dont say it.
Maltby slag heap is getting bigger.* A few year back they an appeal cos of the 33 windmills planned at Harthill.
You can see them from Maltby. All 3 of them.

Next I looked at the ITV news. Same report but they added, "and nuclear power stations."
Oh yes!!! Windmills and nuclear powers stations.
If you dont want windmills, you can have nuclear powers station instead.



* We have a coal mine and the refuse is called, "slag."
You cant do anything we it except build mountain next the the pit.

Malby Pit.

This or some windmills?

OR Nuclear Power station instead.


They sould build were they old coal fired power station were on the banks of the river Trent.


My big brother will be pleased cos that what his does.

Unfortunately so long as the Nuclear power station or coal-fired power station isn't in the 'back yard' of whoever it is complaining, they seem quite happy about it. Same old same old I'm afraid.

If I could I'd move to Scotland where I believe the devolved government have stated there will be no new nuclear, and where wind farms don't seem to get the same nimby treatment as they do down here. The county where I live (Wiltshire) has no significant wind generators at all. It also houses some of the most affluent people in the country. 'nuff said.

Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in N. Wales was decommissioned in 1991. Since then it has cost around a million pounds a week to decommission and dismantle. Every week!!!Hasn't generated a watt.This is forecast to continue until at least 2023.
It was probably also contributary to the Radioceasium pollution of the hill land to it's east resulting in the restriction of sheep movements for 20 years and a considerable drain on the public purse supporting the effected farmers. This was blamed upon Chernobl but the affected area is all just down wind of Trawsfynydd.

Openness about these costs need to be in the public domain for a good decision to be made about our generating future.

Yes - very odd that the areas of the UK worst affected by Chernobyl were adjacent to UK nuclear installations - the SW Lake District (near Calder Hall (or whatever they are calling it today to try and make people forget about previous disasters)) was also badly 'affected'.

John Turvey

Well I was in the Lakes shortly after Chernobyl blew and it peed down on us. My waterproof was so Radioactive* I threw it away.

*I had it checked by our friendly Physics department.

"I thought of that while riding my bike." --Albert Einstein, on the Theory of Relativity

2007 ICE QNT
2008 Hase Kettwiesel AL27
2011 Catrike Trail.
1951 Engine in need of partial rebuild.

Strange that the water didn't run off your waterproof I thought that was it's function. Did you just have a physics department handy or do you work for the nuclear industry?
If the problem was entirely Chernobl how come other areas with acid soils and that were subject (supposedly?) to the rain didn't suffer?

It was a cheap 'waterproof' and yes I had a Physics department, and a friend in it to hand. IIRC the level was a goodly chunk over background. I threw out shoes, trousers and a hat all of which had got wet.

I know we, in the North East didn't get rain that weekend but being the Lake District we got caught in several very heavy showers.

"I thought of that while riding my bike." --Albert Einstein, on the Theory of Relativity

2007 ICE QNT
2008 Hase Kettwiesel AL27
2011 Catrike Trail.
1951 Engine in need of partial rebuild.

Whilst your at the York Rally I suggest that all those who don't like windmills area generator for electrictity ride as far as the first coal fired power station,

Watch,
Listen.


You dont like windmill's instead of that.

DRAX, I suspect.

Peter Pedant says that "windmills" are used for grinding corn, whereas "wind turbines" are used for generating electricity !!

We were in York a couple of weeks ago. I climbed the two hundred and something steps to the top of York Minster and admired the view - which included at least three power stations on the horizon, one of which was presumably Drax. It will be nice to see the back of them if we can do it but part of me thinks that actually while there's still coal to be gotten out of the ground somebody might as well make use of it. If we use it up slowly enough we can still reduce CO2 emissions.

Drax has 12 cooling towers, The other's less.


Did see can, "Question Time," on Thursday night?

It had on Griff Rhys Jones and he answered like the king. He knew what his opion was and aswered like that. The other's suggeting was humming and hahaing.

Nodody said we other the have nuclear power station on account of scaring the who vote for them, but he did.

Griff Rgys Jones doent like Windmill's* and likes the Nuclear Power Station.


* Yes I know they they are called Wind Turbine's but most people, myself including, called them Windmill's.Like on the newspaper's, telly etc. I can call it my lazy brain.

Seamus I don't think he answered like a king(I just watched it on your recommendation). I thought he was rather pedantic and also ill imformed about Japan at the close.
If nuclear is the solution then I for one do not want to subsidise it. I believe in the long term nuclear will prove to be unsustainably expensive. At least the alternative energies do not require such massive capital costs after they finish generating. The waste problem also remains.The potential for catastophic failure is another factor the alternative technolognies avoid.
So much potential in this area and so little flexable thinking.

Wghat he said about Japan was I think rubbish.

the Queen talk like that.

Nodody has died on accont of radiotian.

We need more nuclear power stations for other reasons.


Ther eis a whole branch of meedical imaging based on Molybdenum and other reactor based radioisotopes.

All the present providers such as Chalk River in Canada are 60 years old, and unless there is significant investement there is a real threat to the ability to diagnose and assess many illnesses including cancer.

Sounds like a thin reason to me. Nuclear causes cancer so you need it's by product to diagnose it.
Surely there must be another way to produce small amounts of such isotopes without involving a bl@@dy great power station.

One big objection is cost. Nuclear is just too expensive if all the factors are taken into account.
We need the truth about it's costs out in the open.

While Nuclear exposure can cause cancer many other much more common things do too.

This week it was announced that diesel fumes cause cancer. This will no doubt eventually mean limitations on diesel use, but not any time soon! Look how long we've known smoking causes cancer ans still it's legal to sell tobacco, and smoke it in public, so exposing others to your choice of cancer causing chemicals.

Frankly today without electricity generated from fossil fuels our economy would be stone dead. In the future using a variety of none fossil sources for electricity generation is a no brainer. It will give use a measure of energy security and make wars in support of 'national interest' less common. Anyone want to guess why we intervened in Lybia and Iraq and haven't in Syria???

For the shorter term, next 30-60 years, the use of nuclear is a must if we are to avoid the huge price rises for electricity generated from increasingly more expensive fossil fuels. Wind, wave and geo-thermal should all play their part too and we will still need to burn fossil fuels in order to make up the total amount of electricity needed for winter peak demand. Beyond that hopefully we will have better solutions, but they're not here now.

"I thought of that while riding my bike." --Albert Einstein, on the Theory of Relativity

2007 ICE QNT
2008 Hase Kettwiesel AL27
2011 Catrike Trail.
1951 Engine in need of partial rebuild.

I don't agree with you analysis of the economics.
Our economy is practically stone dead already. The cost of decommissioning nuclear has played and is playing it's part it that. And will continue to play it's part in dragging us down economically for decades or even centuaries to come.(see reference to Trawsfynedd (and others)above).

More investment in alternative energy would create jobs for all. There is no reason why we can't have a railway system running entirely on alternative energy sources for example. One reason we don't is that not all our lines are electrified. Poor decision making by our politicians for the last 30 or so years is responsible.
The other poor decision was to go down the nuclear route.
We are uniquely placed in these islands in having lots of different sustainable energy sources available to us. If the Germans think it's feasable then why should it not be possible here.
There is a pro nuclear agenda in the media at the moment and I for one do not swallow it. It is the agenda of big business and more globalization.

My agenda is small is beautiful. And I like my veg radiation free.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20/06/2012 10:30PM by PDQ.

And on the day the wind is not blowing???

"I thought of that while riding my bike." --Albert Einstein, on the Theory of Relativity

2007 ICE QNT
2008 Hase Kettwiesel AL27
2011 Catrike Trail.
1951 Engine in need of partial rebuild.

Margaret Thatcher is rubbing her hands topgerther cos

Maltby Pit is shutting down!!!

Too much gas and water is leaking in.

Well, I do hope they do what they supposed to do with the slag heap. Flatten it and make into a nature place with a lake on it.

Wow.

That coal comes from 1 kilo down.