Radiation Tax proposed to protect DNA ?

Radiation Tax proposed to protect DNA ?

www.indymedia.org.uk

the UK will consider a carbon tax to increase the price of electricity and make nuclear more cost effective.

Radiation Free Lakeland object to this outrageous and unjust tax favouring the very industry that first blew a hole in the ozone layer. A carbon tax amounts to higher tax bills to pay for nuclear which is at the top of the industrial polluters food chain. Last year Sellafield ( no longer producing electricity) quadrupled it emissions of HFC's

(visit the link for the full news article)

More money we have to give up.

This isn't about protecting DNA it is about protecting the nuclear industry. Seems like they are bribing the people so that can build the nuclear developments. And still like the article says, nuclear power is not replacing fossil fuels. Just taking away our need for renewable energy.
At a time when it is known that all the electricity in the world can be generated from renewable energy.

-Crap

www.indymedia.org.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Total life cycle GHG emissions per megawatt hour from Nuclear energy are comparable to wind and usually favorable to solar.

As far as carbon tax, plenty of countries that hate nuclear power, Germany for example, is proposing carbon tax and is phasing out nuclear energy. (It has nothing to do with Nuclear power).

A radiation tax would also help Nuclear, since coal emits far more radiation.

And as far as Nuclear not displacing coal - pure crap - Nuclear is the only thing that can replace coal. Nuclear is not designed to replace or even compete with renewables.

France, 75% nuclear, emits far less Co2 per capita than Denmark that is often cited as an example of "green energy", despite the cost of electricity in France being significantly lower.

[edit on 29/10/2009 by C0bzz]

Renewable energy, such as geothermal, tidal and wave can make the same amount of energy as coal so why aren't we using these.
Or does nuclear make more energy than all of them?

-Crap

[edit on 29/10/2009 by Craplegend]

[edit on 29/10/2009 by Craplegend]

My understanding with geothermal is that it is not suitable for all areas, and also cannot generate large amounts of electricity like Nuclear / Coal can. Most forms of electricity generation that take energy from the environment, like solar and wind, have low power densities which means a large, open, space is required, and then they also have the limitation of being intermittent because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

For example, to get the power of one nuclear power plant, a few hundred square miles of wind turbines would be required, that is, of course, for something that cannot even provide power all the time, and also due to engineering reasons, is limited to a maximum of 20% of total power generation because it has difficulty integrating with the grid. That's where Nuclear comes in because it is extremely reliable at providing a base load - like coal - and that's where renewables simply cannot compete because. simply put, they cannot provide reliable power, nor can they generate lots of it.

It's also how some renewable proponents suggest Nuclear energy is super expensive and requires subsidies, then turn around and suggest that we blow billions of dollars on their own pet project renewable power that is usually far more expensive on a per megawatt hour basis. Also renewables would also benefit from the carbon tax just as much as Nuclear would.

In one state of Australia alone, we have 4000 megawatts of coal power plants being proposed. That's around the equivalent of 12,000 of the largest wind turbines, which would require 264,000 acres of land or over a thousand square kilometers of non-stop wind turbines, for something that cannot even produce power the whole time. It's a joke stating that renewables can replace these coal plants. The only thing that can is Nuclear or gas. Also, the proposed plants are under the category, "BASE LOAD POWER GENERATION", something that most renewable cannot do anyway.

I was having a rather amusing discussion (in real life) about the energy crisis. It was rather amusing. I stated that renewables are useless since they cannot replace coal. They suggested energy storage. My reply - "and how much does that cost?" Their reply... "cost doesn't matter". Among other statements they made were, renewables supply 75% of Europes power (WRONG), Australia is the worst country per capita CO2 (WRONG), and also apparently nuclear control rods make more energy than nuclear creates (WRONG). Absolute joke - these same people failed high school physcs. Honestly most of these people have no bearing on reality and are in their little dreamland.

[edit on 29/10/2009 by C0bzz]

Zeitgeist: Addendum
video.google.com...#

Claims that
"an MIT report on geothermal energy fount that 13,000ZJ of power are currently available in the earth. with the possibility of 2,000ZJ being easily tapable with improved technology, The earth only uses 0.5ZJ per year" The earths heat is constantly renewed so technically this energy is "limetless"

-Crap

The geothermal resource is characterized by one of the largest technical potentials amongst all renewable energy sources, as well as true base load capability, simple and mature technology, low environmental impact, and near-competitive cost between 6 and 8 US¢/kWh. It is therefore surprising that growth rates of geothermal deployment have only been moderate – an average of 4% over the past decade. The only barrier appears to be the upfront uncertainties about the generating capacity of geothermal fields, which only reduce whilst the field is commercially exploited, thus often requiring a step-wise and drawn out development approach in order to avoid mismatches between field and power plant capacities, as well as to minimize the risk to investors.

aua.org.au...

That's what the University of Sydney thinks.

The largest geothermal field in the world is The Geysers with a generating capacity of 750MW. Your average Nuclear Reactor ranges from 1000 - 1600MW.

Geothermal is fantastic though...

[edit on 29/10/2009 by C0bzz]

ah well like i said. With the right technological advances.

And which one of these costs more to make?
And i heard there was some sort of dangers in nuclear?

-Crap

[edit on 29/10/2009 by Craplegend]

Nuclear energy (when done right) is a good thing. It's obviously more economical at this point than what we call renewable, since entire countries run on it.

As others pointed out, radioactive emissions from nuclear stations are far less than those of coal-fired. In addition to radioactive sulphur, coal-fired station also release poison such as mercury in large quantities.

Both the University of Sydney, and the Institute for Energy Research, rank Geothermal as being more expensive than Nuclear.

aua.org.au...

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org...


On safety please go to my posts on this thread, and also this link.

And also please remember it is physically impossible for future reactors (2020 - 2030 implementation) to melt down. Basically, neutrons have to be slowed down to hit an atom, this is done through moderation. At high temperatures most substances do not moderate very well. So as the reactor gets hotter the reaction shuts down. This was validated in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment.

[edit on 31/10/2009 by C0bzz]

ok thankyou for clearing that up

-Crap