The Madness.....................and how to stop it ;)
Remember how I said that lots of the information in the Low Carbon Plan was very vague, and all the details are in separate papers? Well as I started out with Nuclear I decided to go and check out the White Paper on Nuclear Power, Jan 2008. This in itself led to many other documents which I have yet to wade through!
So, what did I find?
Deep Geological burial of legacy (already existing) and new nuclear waste has already been approved and possible sites (not named) are being looked into. In the meantime:
"The design of new stores will allow for a period of interim storage of at least 100 years to cover uncertainties associated with the implementation of a geological repository. The replacement of stores will be avoided wherever possible, but the NDA will ensure that it's strategy allows for a safe and secure storage of the waste contained within them for a period of at least 100 years."
So what are the possible uncertainties?
As part of its conclusions:
"The Government expects that applications to build new nuclear power stations will focus on areas in the vicinity of existing nuclear facilities. However, we do not consider it is necessary to put in place additional restrictions or conditions before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations."
and, "We are taking steps to facilitate nuclear new build as outlined in this White Paper. In addition we are setting up the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board (NLFAB), putting in place measures to ensure that the effectiveness of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is further enhanced, and reforming the planning system."
So, with uncertainties about a geological repository, they intend to go ahead anyway. Changes to the planning laws which have already been passed mean that even if people protest, the government can over-rule local objections 'in the national interest'.
It is true I have never been a fan of nuclear..............not because the power systems are a problem, but because the waste is nasty. Waste treatment really doesn't exist, currently all spent fuel is stored at Cellafield, awaiting a technological solution. Instead of trying to find a way to make it inert, they want to bury it deep underground where, sooner or later the crust will move or an earthquake will happen. According to the British Geological Survey website there have been 10 earthquakes in the last 30 days alone. We get 200 to 300 earthquakes every year, some tiny, some which cause structural damage and wake us in the middle of the night.
The big quake in February 2008, around 5 on the scale, was caused by a two INCH slip in the rock below us. On the surface this was enough to put a crack in the front of the house I was living in that you could see through, almost rattled my monitor off my desk and left my ears ringing for 15 minutes! When an earthquake triggers, it doesn't just affect one area, the shockwaves travel out in a sphere from the epicentre, and where they reach the surface they can do massive damage, but what happens underground? Well it really depends on the geology of the area. Mexico City is built on top of a drained lake, compacted (and not so compacted) silts. When an earthquake goes off here it sets up harmonic tremors and the ground literally turns to a quicksand-like substance and the process is called liquefaction. In very brittle rock, the shockwaves can rip open a fault, either on the surface or underground, like undoing a zip, with the shock traveling down it in a linear series of quakes as with the San Andreas fault. Many small quakes, although not apparently violently destructive, can have small knock on effects which one day weaken the local system to the point of sudden destructive collapse.
If our planet can do this to its hardest rocks and minerals, what is it going to do to a man-made structure-however well designed? This may take time, but radioactive waste is radioactive for up to 100,000 years. I am no Einstein.......but I think I have more chance of winning the lottery than we do of guaranteeing the safety of a nuclear repository for that length of time. Or don't the powers that be expect humans to survive, so it won't matter?
HERE'S HOW WE STOP THE MADNESS
The Government will not sink billions of pounds of public money into something which is obviously not needed, it would be an election loser of the highest order. The only way to stop this is to get off-grid as fast as possible. NO DEMAND = NO NUCLEAR.
Try some of these ideas on for size, or come up with your own idea ;)
Every small saving we make as individual households adds together to tackle a problem percieved by the public...........just look at what happened with the mobile phone directory lol
Go on, give it a try :D
ttfn
So, what did I find?
Deep Geological burial of legacy (already existing) and new nuclear waste has already been approved and possible sites (not named) are being looked into. In the meantime:
"The design of new stores will allow for a period of interim storage of at least 100 years to cover uncertainties associated with the implementation of a geological repository. The replacement of stores will be avoided wherever possible, but the NDA will ensure that it's strategy allows for a safe and secure storage of the waste contained within them for a period of at least 100 years."
So what are the possible uncertainties?
As part of its conclusions:
"The Government expects that applications to build new nuclear power stations will focus on areas in the vicinity of existing nuclear facilities. However, we do not consider it is necessary to put in place additional restrictions or conditions before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations."
and, "We are taking steps to facilitate nuclear new build as outlined in this White Paper. In addition we are setting up the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board (NLFAB), putting in place measures to ensure that the effectiveness of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is further enhanced, and reforming the planning system."
So, with uncertainties about a geological repository, they intend to go ahead anyway. Changes to the planning laws which have already been passed mean that even if people protest, the government can over-rule local objections 'in the national interest'.
It is true I have never been a fan of nuclear..............not because the power systems are a problem, but because the waste is nasty. Waste treatment really doesn't exist, currently all spent fuel is stored at Cellafield, awaiting a technological solution. Instead of trying to find a way to make it inert, they want to bury it deep underground where, sooner or later the crust will move or an earthquake will happen. According to the British Geological Survey website there have been 10 earthquakes in the last 30 days alone. We get 200 to 300 earthquakes every year, some tiny, some which cause structural damage and wake us in the middle of the night.
The big quake in February 2008, around 5 on the scale, was caused by a two INCH slip in the rock below us. On the surface this was enough to put a crack in the front of the house I was living in that you could see through, almost rattled my monitor off my desk and left my ears ringing for 15 minutes! When an earthquake triggers, it doesn't just affect one area, the shockwaves travel out in a sphere from the epicentre, and where they reach the surface they can do massive damage, but what happens underground? Well it really depends on the geology of the area. Mexico City is built on top of a drained lake, compacted (and not so compacted) silts. When an earthquake goes off here it sets up harmonic tremors and the ground literally turns to a quicksand-like substance and the process is called liquefaction. In very brittle rock, the shockwaves can rip open a fault, either on the surface or underground, like undoing a zip, with the shock traveling down it in a linear series of quakes as with the San Andreas fault. Many small quakes, although not apparently violently destructive, can have small knock on effects which one day weaken the local system to the point of sudden destructive collapse.
If our planet can do this to its hardest rocks and minerals, what is it going to do to a man-made structure-however well designed? This may take time, but radioactive waste is radioactive for up to 100,000 years. I am no Einstein.......but I think I have more chance of winning the lottery than we do of guaranteeing the safety of a nuclear repository for that length of time. Or don't the powers that be expect humans to survive, so it won't matter?
HERE'S HOW WE STOP THE MADNESS
The Government will not sink billions of pounds of public money into something which is obviously not needed, it would be an election loser of the highest order. The only way to stop this is to get off-grid as fast as possible. NO DEMAND = NO NUCLEAR.
Try some of these ideas on for size, or come up with your own idea ;)
- get a wind turbine
- fit solar water panels
- fit solar photo voltaics
- fit a heat exchanger
- build a passive solar eco-house
- go live in a yurt
- (insert own choice here, suggestions in comments pls)
Every small saving we make as individual households adds together to tackle a problem percieved by the public...........just look at what happened with the mobile phone directory lol
Go on, give it a try :D
ttfn