It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

uk nuclear reactors get go ahead

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
uk nuclear reactors have been approved by 16 european commissioners ,the plant will have two nuclear reactors and will be located at hinkley point in sommerset..
uk nuclear reactor's

ok so where is the logic here with fukushima still leaking into the pacific ,also check the location of this new plant ,they are placing these reactors next to the sea exactly like fukushima,have we not learnt lessons from the worlds worst ongoing nuclear disaster .
should nuclear reactors be a national vote of the british people instead of european commissioners????????????.

queen shuns nuclear energy to power windsor castle with a Archimedes' screw -updated with modern tech queens archimedes screw -hydro electric turbine so the queen her self does not use nuclear power and also has access to nuclear bunkers.

how can our politicians green light this ,i say again fukushima is still leaking ,this confirms to me the state of mental health in our politicians.

as the uk is a small island a nuclear accident here would be devastating ,this is complete insanity at the highest level .





posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Yup, it is pure insanity. Most things of this world are. Why we allow drooling morons to "DECIDE" what to do for EVERYONE, is beyond me. I'm all for military dictatorships. Screw this democrazy thing.

Nuclear reactors are extremely complex systems. You can only hope that the people running it have a solid understanding of their jobs. That said, nuclear reactors are the most efficient form of energy production to date.

Until they have to be refurbished. Then the cats outta the bag and everyone is billions in debt.

Too bad they put the kibosh to Tesla all those years ago.
edit on thpamWed, 08 Oct 2014 06:28:46 -0500k1410America/Chicago0828 by Sparkymedic because: more thoughts



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
They probably did the math and decided it was better to sanction Russia and seen that oil and gas was not in the cards so what you going to do . Wind and solar wont do the trick . a reply to: stuthealien



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Fukushima is not the norm - it is an exception. There is 435 nuclear reactors around the world. So far, only Fukushima seem to have an operation problem. I'm not that pessimist. Nuclear can solve the energy crisis, and stop this CO2 madness which we are sending into the atmosphere. All humans have to do is to learn how to use it properly - the tech is still young.

Nuclear is currently the most efficient way to transform mass into energy. The next best thing is antimatter but we aren't there yet. Unless you have a better idea, I think that nuclear can give a mighty kick in the but of oil industries. But of course, there are a few media who like to obsess on Tchernobyl and Fukushima so that the World never reaches total independence from oil.


edit on 8-10-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne i disagree with your statements ,the queens turbine is on a small inland river without the incredible power of the sea,the uk is surrounded by the sea on all sides,my house backs on to the sea and the tide speed at its lowest in summer is 5 knots increasing during storms, high winds ,and in the winter months this is far faster than the thames speed in windsor ,i have lived in both places and have seen the power of the river there it is rather weak in comparison i can assure you.
we really can power the uk with green technology but they choose to ignore the facts.
nuclear power creates waste to ,where do you suppose we store it???????????????.
if your promoting nuclear power what are you motives??????????????

also chernobyl has ongoing problems and might well release more it will need to have 600 million replacement shelter
chernobyl crumbling

do not try to decieve or hide facts about the nuclear industry ,next shill please



edit on 8-10-2014 by stuthealien because: chernobyl



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
The use of oil and fossil fuels is not going to go away .It costs a lot of money that poorer countries don't have to develop it and some of the big boys are not comfortable with some of the countries that can (think Iran) . I think the Thorium type should be a standard model the big boys could share with the rest of the world to keep every one safe no matter which side of the debate they are on .imo a reply to: swanne



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Hm, thorium? Thanks for the info, I'll check it out.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I have nothing against Nuclear but uranium is so 20th century and essentially what is causing trouble at fukushima (leaking into the ocean).
The Thorium reactors are here and should be the ones and only reactors we build in europe imo

more info:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien
Not forgetting the ideological public (bad) vs private (always brilliantly excellant) nonsense :
1. The owners of the plant are guaranteed a minimum price per unit at double the current rate
( I thought the point about "private" was to drive prices down)
2. The owners do not have to de-commission the plant that will up to the government ie OUR TAXES.
3. The owners are French.

I have nothing against the French but it is bad enough that our taxes are being used to subsidise this nonsense and thus hand our taxes over to rich business owners but they are the french rich ! So what little money that does circulate (as opposed to locked away in an offshore bank) will circulate through the french economy.

Our government know what they are doing with YOUR money so please folks wake up before the election in 2015!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

It seems they haven't learned enough on what the damages would occur if they go ahead of putting an nuclear plant in Britain.




should nuclear reactors be a national vote of the british people instead of european commissioners?

Do you think a vote in the parliament would even matter? if anything they would just vote Yea For it.



how can our politicians green light this

Either they driven by greed or there's more to it.




i say again fukushima is still leaking ,this confirms to me the state of mental health in our politicians

I agree with you there as for the the state of mental health in our politicians in both countries can i ask a question to everyone that might read this?

As for the state of mental health in our politicians what is driving them to do these? lust? greed? or arent they human at all to share our compassion and feelings on certain issues?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: stuthealien

Fukushima is not the norm - it is an exception. There is 435 nuclear reactors around the world. So far, only Fukushima seem to have an operation problem. I'm not that pessimist. Nuclear can solve the energy crisis, and stop this CO2 madness which we are sending into the atmosphere. All humans have to do is to learn how to use it properly - the tech is still young.

Nuclear is currently the most efficient way to transform mass into energy. The next best thing is antimatter but we aren't there yet. Unless you have a better idea, I think that nuclear can give a mighty kick in the but of oil industries. But of course, there are a few media who like to obsess on Tchernobyl and Fukushima so that the World never reaches total independence from oil.


Green technologies do work and they are cost effective and they can be made to meet the uneven energy demand BUT governments choose to ignore this path. The reason is simple : control.

A big f-off power plant keeps control in a few places. Green , alternate technologies allow people to be self sufficent and that takes control away from central government.

If they invested in alternate technologies to replace the ageing power plants at the rate required the cost of that technology would plummet. This would then drive up the demand for household generation and that is a step too far. I mean come on wake up : why do they want "smart" meters in all homes? By no stretch of anybody's imagination who knows anything about energy flow can that smart meter tell someone who monitors their usage anything more than they already know. But according to the blurb out there "it can inform you your fridge is using too much", what absolute BS. Do the electrons have a label on them as they return from the appliance !

Smart meters are control. Central power plants are control. Alternate energies are freedom.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: stuthealien

Yup, it is pure insanity. Most things of this world are. Why we allow drooling morons to "DECIDE" what to do for EVERYONE, is beyond me. I'm all for military dictatorships. Screw this democrazy thing.

What and have a drooling moron with a gun in control of our lives! At least with Westminster we have the opportunity to remove them. The problem is not the morons at Westeminster but the morons who keep voting for them and the morons who decide to not vote at all.

If people voted for alternate candidates things would change. Just look at Scotland how the vote there scared the big three witless!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Here is one of the best vids I have come across
a reply to: swanne



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Welcome Terreforming for the fourth dimensional Reptoids, only I'm sure they don't call it "Terre" forming.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: stuthealien

Fukushima is not the norm - it is an exception. There is 435 nuclear reactors around the world. So far, only Fukushima seem to have an operation problem. I'm not that pessimist. Nuclear can solve the energy crisis, and stop this CO2 madness which we are sending into the atmosphere. All humans have to do is to learn how to use it properly - the tech is still young.

Nuclear is currently the most efficient way to transform mass into energy. The next best thing is antimatter but we aren't there yet. Unless you have a better idea, I think that nuclear can give a mighty kick in the but of oil industries. But of course, there are a few media who like to obsess on Tchernobyl and Fukushima so that the World never reaches total independence from oil.



I have a better idea, the sun.

The sun gives the earth more than 10,000 times the energy per year than we currently use. It's free, unlimited and clean. The tech exists to utilise it but it is not freely accessible to the general public.

and why?

Because at the moment, governments and corporations are making billions in profit from the sale of oil and gas to the general population. We have become reliant on it. We need it and they have it.

When that runs out these people wont just stop making all that money and lose their positions of power. They wont! But how can they make money from something we all receive for free? (The Sun), they cant!

So they need to switch to another source that only they can provide us with. This is where nuclear comes in. It will replace oil and gas as it is already starting to and energy companies can keep us all reliant on this source of energy and hold us over a barrel.

Our leaders and these corporations don't care about the planet. They don't care about you or me or the environment or the creatures that inhabit it. They care about wealth and power. Nuclear fuel will provide them with both. But it is not clean!

What will we do with all the nuclear waste that wont disappear for thousands of years? What about when something goes wrong? Nobody can live near Fukushima or Chernobyl for god knows how many years. And if we are to believe the climate scientists who insist on there being much more dangerous weather much more often in the future the nuclear plants are going to take a beating. Which means so will we.

Solar energy is the only way our civilisation can progress efficiently and peacefully. Solar energy is the only way we can have a healthy future and until man kind decides to harness its power to its full potential we will be stuck in a war ridden, dirty inequality rut!

If we believe our current leaders will lead us down the right path we will all end up dead. People need to take back the reins.


edit on 2639Wednesday392014-10-08T07:39:26-05:003926 10 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
They're an island. Tide and wave power is all they need. Oh, and some hydrogen fuel for vehicles and methane from city sewage. Voila.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Just been on the Radio4 news, so no links as yet, that Austria is against the UK (Or any country) Government giving a subsidy for Nuclear Power! So are a bit against this plant going ahead.

I am not 100% certain, but I thought the location chosen already had a nuclear power plant in use there.

Re another posters comment on Solar power, what do you do when the sun don't shine, and in the UK that can be for weeks at a time? Certainly for the area I am in, we have not seen much of the golden globe for the past 2 or 3 days, but we do have rather a lot of water from the sky, maybe we should look at a waterwheel in the sky? Ha ha.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'm not sure the worry here is flooding really, generally the risk of severe flooding in UK is small and even if a nuclear reactor is flooded it should just lead it to being temporarily shut down until it's over like the Salem and Oyster Creek reactors after Hurricane Sandy. The risk of another Fukushima is very low.

Economically though the UK has a pretty shoddy history regarding the use of nuclear reactors, often finding that they have been "hopelessly uneconomic", using government subsidies to fund them, and leading to inflated electricity bills for the consumer. With many projects the costs were massively underestimated and the plants churned out far less power than originally thought.

Given that a few years ago politicians were saying subsidies wouldn't be necessary to fund future Nuclear Power, I believe the statement that 'state aid would remain "proportionate to the objective pursued, avoiding any undue distortions of competition"' is purely political tosh.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: dowot
Re another posters comment on Solar power, what do you do when the sun don't shine, and in the UK that can be for weeks at a time? Certainly for the area I am in, we have not seen much of the golden globe for the past 2 or 3 days, but we do have rather a lot of water from the sky, maybe we should look at a waterwheel in the sky? Ha ha.


Part of the problem is so many people think our capabilities are limited to what we actually already use. It's not. The tech we have around us is the tech we are allowed to have.

Google the term "Space based solar power" or "Space solar power".

I'll do it for you: lmgtfy.com...

The sun is always shining above the clouds. And the amount of energy that reaches earth constantly from the sun is staggering. Space based solar power is a concept dating back to the 70s and its just one method of solving our problems. Not just stepping in the right direction but actually solving.

The solar panels you see today turn about 15% of the light the sun sends our way into electricity and yes, are impeded by the clouds, or the night time.

But thinking that we can't rely on the sun for our energy because of clouds is naive to the extreme!

And what about the rest of the heat we receive?


Physicists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) are working on a device that would harvest energy from Earth's infrared emissions into outer space.

Heated by the sun, our planet is warm compared to the frigid vacuum beyond. Thanks to recent technological advances, the researchers say, that heat imbalance could soon be transformed into direct-current (DC) power, taking advantage of a vast and untapped energy source.


All that heat everyone keeps saying is attributing to climate change can be used as an energy source.

The sun is the only thing we can actually rely on for the next few billion years.

A nuclear future is a bad idea



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: stuthealien

3. The owners are French.

I have nothing against the French but it is bad enough that our taxes are being used to subsidise this nonsense and thus hand our taxes over to rich business owners but they are the french rich ! So what little money that does circulate (as opposed to locked away in an offshore bank) will circulate through the french economy.

Our government know what they are doing with YOUR money so please folks wake up before the election in 2015!



As much as you may like to whine about the French, it's an undisputed fact that they're the world's nuclear power experts. France gets 73% of its electrical power from nuclear reactors, and you don't hear anything about those blowing up.

As for Fukushima? That was idiotic planning, not a flaw in nuclear energy. What moron puts a reactor in an active earthquake zone next to the sea?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join