Jump to content

How the **** can we still be in drought?


dune

Recommended Posts

It's not that simple though. If there was a leak of radiation...

 

Who cares, it's literally a drop in the ocean. In fact i'd dump it in trenches and let it gradually seep out. Nuclear waste came from the environment in the first place just like oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that simple though. If there was a leak of radiation...

 

The problem with renewables regarding Tidal/wind etc is the fact that your relying on uncontroleable factors, not only that but generally speaking it creates dirty power (no im not explaining) and so you have to spend on infrastructure to convert it back.

 

The waste also isnt as bad as the tree huggers make out, and Chernobyl was more to do with them getting more out of the plant then was safe.

 

Its also raining again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with renewables regarding Tidal/wind etc is the fact that your relying on uncontroleable factors, not only that but generally speaking it creates dirty power (no im not explaining) and so you have to spend on infrastructure to convert it back.

 

The waste also isnt as bad as the tree huggers make out, and Chernobyl was more to do with them getting more out of the plant then was safe.

 

Its also raining again

 

Do you have something to back up this statement that isn't as bad as 'tree huggers'(whoever they are) say?! Gamma radiation is very dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pro nuclear.

the hissy fits people go on about nuclear power is way OTT.

 

I collect more radiation on a day out in cornwall than i do on a day at sea on a sub

 

I agree with you that is safer than people say, and low level radiation is fine. But the waste that comes out of nuclear reactors is not safe unless dealt with properly and it certainly isn't safe to just be chucked in the ocean, which is why it was banned I assume. But thorium based nuclear power needs to be looked into, because it sidesteps this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is crossing the road.

you know how much Gamma radiation I have been exposed to...?

not one mS

 

I don't doubt that, but if the radioactive material leaked beyond the lead(is it lead on your sub?) you have to stop it leaking, it would be a different matter. I'm just saying we need to be careful and not just chuck it in the sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young andy I don't think you appreciate the vastness of the oceans and how a miniscule amount of radioactive material that is allowed to seep out won't make an iota of difference.

 

I was wondering when the age related comments would come back again.

 

Of course small amount of radiation don't matter, but there are reasons why ocean based dumping is banned. Tbh, I don't even know why we are arguing. We both support nuclear energy in principle... you are just perhaps more gung-ho about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that is safer than people say, and low level radiation is fine. But the waste that comes out of nuclear reactors is not safe unless dealt with properly and it certainly isn't safe to just be chucked in the ocean, which is why it was banned I assume. But thorium based nuclear power needs to be looked into, because it sidesteps this issue.

 

It was banned because of idiotic tree huggers. It's the safest way to go. Far better to return a natural element back whence it came than to store it up in what is essentially landfill sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that is safer than people say, and low level radiation is fine. But the waste that comes out of nuclear reactors is not safe unless dealt with properly and it certainly isn't safe to just be chucked in the ocean, which is why it was banned I assume. But thorium based nuclear power needs to be looked into, because it sidesteps this issue.

the "waste" can be used to make nuclear weapons....yeah, so no need to chuck it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be impressive if some of those who started by trying to be snide and making weak, disparaging comments would actually give saintandy a little credit on this thread for working hard to give well reasoned and mature responses in the face of some quite petty point scoring.

If he were older you'd have less trouble seeing this. Try to put the age snobbery aside and give credit where it's due. I have no idea if he's right but he's argued it well and supported his own comments. It'd be nice to see for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be impressive if some of those who started by trying to be snide and making weak, disparaging comments would actually give saintandy a little credit on this thread for working hard to give well reasoned and mature responses in the face of some quite petty point scoring.

If he were older you'd have less trouble seeing this. Try to put the age snobbery aside and give credit where it's due. I have no idea if he's right but he's argued it well and supported his own comments. It'd be nice to see for a change.

 

Anyone can argue a point, but the point is that he is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With rivers across the midlands and south bursting their banks.

 

You need the reseviors to be full and alos remember that the water tables in the UK are feeding 60-70m people.

 

I live in the driest capital city of one of the criest countires in the world and we are not currently in drought. This is inpart due to the milder and wetter than usual summers and wetter than usual winter's we've had over the past couple of years but the biggest thing we have goign for us is that we are only feeding 1m people. We are also very water wise here. Most properties have a rain****er tank that is used to either service the washing machines, toilets or to water the gardens.

 

Although the UK has much more rain it is not 60/70 times more and in addition there is more wastage by the public because of the perception that water shortages in the UK are not an issue because of the amount of rain you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear is not the way - too expensive to build and decommission, and disposal of the waste is an aspect which has never been resolved properly. Finland is building the world's first deep underground storage at the moment. Wave and tidal power has to be the way for the UK - just think how much energy can be harvested when the tide comes in? Back to nuclear - we will solely be beholding to the French Govt. if we head down this route. EDF and AREVA are French state-owned companies. Would you want to be at the mercy of people like Sarkozy? Anyway, nuclear power was only a spin-off from the development of nuclear weapons. It is bloody dangerous and the industry is packed with boffins who have no common sense. At Fukushima, the standby generators were below or at sea level - just like in every other nuclear plant. The plants are only as safe as their weakest link. Water - the poster above is right - you can create a national grid, but the private (foreign) companies won't pay for it. People have been piping water huge distances since the dawn of time....the Romans....the Yanks (Las Vegas anyone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last two years we've had a deficit of 19 inches of rain, so technically a drought unlike 76 for example. April gave us 2 inches above average rainfall so were still short by quite some margin dune.

 

Bexy, I don't buy the underinvestment, the leakage figures are lower now than forma long time although still unacceptable.

 

We run out of water as we're wasteful end of. The uk is semi arid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer is that the privatisation of the water companies has resulted in massive under-investment in infrastructure to make sure the shareholders get their dividends instead, and as a result the water networks in the UK lose millions of gallons of water every day through leaks that the companies can't be bothered/afford to fix.

 

This.

 

A country like the UK should never face water shortages, even going through periods with lower than average rainfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it, we get plenty of rain and we lose plenty through leaks so somewhere along the line is mis-management of our water resources. There have been lots of suggestions for a kind of national water grid, mabe using the canals, and I have been told that part of the delay over the high-speed rail route is because the plan is to include a water feed of some sort into the project. No pumping need because it's north to south and so downhill all the way! (only joking - don't bother).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any organisation provides capacity based on expected demand. They then provide a bit of reserve capacity to cope with peaks in demand or unexpected reductions in supply. Most times that reserve capacity will be enough but once in a while you will get a freak series of events which mean that reserve capacity is used up. You can either pay extra to plug leaks / build reservoirs / pipelines etc which might only be needed once every 50 years or you take the lower cost and manage demand during those rare once in a generation periods. Not sure what the fuss is about tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can argue a point, but the point is that he is wrong.

 

Like I said, it was irrelevant who is right or wrong. In fact it's not a black and white issue, so there is no right or wrong per se. my point was that "young" Andy was managing to discuss the subject in by far the more mature manner, whereas you and some others were resorting to snide remarks and petty point scoring. He has both conceded points and supported his own argument. You don't manage to give credit where it's due and it weakens your position.

 

You and others infer that Andy takes up a position of a know-it-all, but that could equally be applied to you and age is no excuse, there's always somebody older and more experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe not you Timothy.

 

Im not sure why you like to address me as Timothy - that makes two, you and my mum. Whilst I can see the 'old woman' connections Im not sure what you get out of it. Perhaps you find it amusing or think that it bugs me. However since your name of Tristram is funnier, that explanation doesnt work either. Odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really? ;-)

 

Yep. He has a long and venerable history of running a Saints forum where he banned everybody who disagreed with him and when he was the only one left took to arguing with himself in different parts of the threads. Tres droll :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. He has a long and venerable history of running a Saints forum where he banned everybody who disagreed with him and when he was the only one left took to arguing with himself in different parts of the threads. Tres droll :)

Good forum that was.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...