The 2005 general election is nearly upon us. Which way will you vote, and you reasons why. Here is a brief list of the potential contestants, please add your own.


More tax!
Less tax!
Dont know!
Death to all infidels!
Who gives a shit?

The great pretender.

StarFrog,

You are wrong!

Proton beams are no more risky than electricity, you just need to stay out of their way. They can cause damage & so can electricity.

They do not contaminate anything.

Proton beams & other plasma beams are used in industry already.

Plasma leaks have taken place at the reactor at Culham, they dont even rate a mention on TV news because people dont stand near the reactor when it is operating & the damaged equipment is just replaced so that they can continue with experiments.


Fission is dangerous because of unavoidable contamination & waste & bomb making.

Fusion with Deuterium & Helium3 does not cause any contamination or waste & can't be stolen to make an atom bomb.

Other forms of Fusion cause minor contamination of the reactor walls.

If you bomb a Fusion reactor, you will destroy the building, there is not enough energy in the reactor to do anything else & there would be no contamination of large areas of the country.

All the factories to produce all the parts & materials over the building period of a the current form of Nuclear Station have to be included in the energy calculations for building one.

Steel & cement are just 2 examples of the enormous energy hungry ingredients involved.



The government keeps on handing over more & more of our taxes to bail out British Energy which runs the current Fission Power Stations.
It still keeps going bust.

The government hands over another half Billion & another half Billion & another half Billion & so it goes on.

Even with all that, British Energy still cant make a profit.
This shows that Nuclear Fission cannot give us the energy we want, all we can do is dangerously try to get back some of the energy that went into building these things.

We must develop Fusion.

apple - Perhaps I should have started by stating that I am all in favour of nuclear fusion. I agree that it is the cleaner technology of the two nuclear powers. But (without the risk of being too pedantic) I felt that I had to correct some of your post.

For a start, the fusion reaction that you have been talking about is NOT the reaction commonly used in attempting fusion. The most attempted reaction is to fuse deuterium with tritium to form helium-4 and a NEUTRON - not a proton.

Now a neutron has no electrical charge, but is emitted from the reaction with considerable energy and considerable momentum which can be delivered to anything in its path. Indeed, this is the basis of the neutron bomb.

The neutron bomb is a small hydrogen bomb. The neutron bomb differs from standard nuclear weapons insofar as its primary lethal effects come from the radiation damage caused by the neutrons it emits. It is also known as an enhanced-radiation weapon (ERW).

The augmented radiation effects mean that blast and heat effects are reduced so that physical structures including houses and industrial installations, are less affected. Because neutron radiation effects drop off very rapidly with distance, there is a sharper distinction between areas of high lethality and areas with minimal radiation doses.

This was desired by the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since they have to be prepared to fight in densely populated areas; any tactical nuclear explosion will endanger civilian lives and property.

The fusion neutron bomb is more destructive than the atomic fission bomb.

Protons can contaminate. Protons are used in linear acclerators to produce more exotic nuclear particles. Put simply, they have the power to change the structure of matter. In human terms, this can mean mutation.

Arguments about power requirements to provide the steel and cement to build a reactor are the same for building a hospital. So that's not really a valid point, is it.

Oh, and British Energy are also involved in the UK's fusion program.

By the way, my background is nuclear physics.

LOL

Starfrog,

Yes, any high speed particles can cause mutation but why would you be standing in their way?

Charged particles are stopped by air, plasma beams in industry HAVE TO be operated in a vacuum.

You can burn through concrete with a plasma beam but only if you place it right up close.

There is no way a plasma leak from a fusion reactor would have enough energy to get out of the building.

Yes, the most commonly attempted experimental reaction of projects in the 80s was to fuse deuterium with tritium. But at Culham most of the experiments up to 1990 were with Deuterium only because there is a minor amount of radioactivity from Tritium & the Neutrons from the reaction do cause minor of contamination of the reactor walls. PLUS a higher temperature is required.

I already said that other forms of Fusion cause minor contamination of the reactor walls.

The form that I mainly spoke about goes straight to electricity & does not lose energy in steam turbines & generators.

Deuterium & Helium3 require an even higher temp but the good thing is that containment is slightly easier because only charged particles are involved.

There is no way that protons from a fusion reactor can contaminate because light element fusion only requires energies in the 15 to 250 KeV range depending on the type of Fusion.
Whereas particle accelerators require energies in the many MeV to many GeV range & upwards to produce exotic particles.

The fusion reaction time for the D-He3 reaction becomes significant at a temperature of about 10 KeV, and peaks about about 200 KeV. So a 100 KeV (or so) reactor looks about optimum.

Having or stealing hydrogen won't help terrorists make a fusion bomb because you can't make a fusion bomb without a fission bomb as a trigger but you should know that already.

You say that your background is nuclear physics.

Well SO IS MINE!

You say that you are in favour of Fusion so lets hear you campaign for it instead of raising red herrings like the neutron bomb.

Oh dear.


The boffins are reaching for thier nuclear handbags.......:-)


However, a straight question which one of you boffins might be able to answer.

Instead of the huge nuc power stations that we have at the moment, why not have smaller easier to maintain (i imagine) nuc reactors? I am thinking along the lines of nuc sub reactors. They appear to be very powerfull for their size. The yanks sub reactors appear to be very safe too, not needing powerfull pumps to cool/control the reactors.....just a thought.


Fusion seems a long way off, even if the pols could get thier heads together. Whereas, energy is needed now.

apple

I do apoligise for getting you so wound up. I am not raising red herrings (as you put it). But then again, what is the purpose of your posting a short essay on nuclear power when there is no apparent relevance to this with regard to the election? If no parties have brought it up in their manifestos, why bother to mention it?

If your background is nuclear physics then why do you say the following.

You state: "Charged particles are stopped by air" - where on earth do you get that idea from? Yes, some are. Alpha particles will be stopped in about 8cm of air. But if all charged particles were stopped by air then presumably no ionized particles from space would enter our atmosphere (those poor physicists trying to detect neutrinos 1000's of meters below ground ought to give up)? And what about lightning? Beta and gamma radiation? The list goes on.

You said: "You can burn through concrete with a plasma beam but only if you place it right up close." I suggest you take a look at some industrial processes that use electroplasma etching/cutting. And lasers, for that matter, can cut through concrete and steel from quite some distance.

EDIT: "Plasma beams HAVE to work in a vacuum"- Nonsense. Again, look at industrial processes involving plasma etching. You don't keep putting the workpiece in a vacuum chamber. Arc-welding, for example, is a form of plasma beam. How many welders have to enter a vacuum chamber to work?

Research at Culham: I will bow to your knoledge that earlier reserch involved fusing deuterium with helium3, but from 1997 until the end of the JET project the research has involved attempting to fuse deuterium with tritium. In fact, nearly all new fusion projects are pursuing this route. Now why do you think they changed? May I be so humble to suggest that the deuterium-helium3 method was unpracticable. So if we were to have commercial fusion reactors it is apparent that they would use the deuterium-tritium reaction with the associated release of high energy neutrons.

Don't get me wrong, apple. I'm not trying to knock fusion as a viable energy source. I agree with you that it is inherently safer than fision. I believe though that we are unlikely to see fusion reactors in this country for quite some time - not until the public are made more aware of the science. Therefore it is always important that any information we disseminate is factualy correct.


MaxK - small nuclear plants would seem a good suggestion, but has always been thwarted by the NIMBY argument.

MaxK,

You suggest having mini Fission reactors.
ie. With Uranium235 or Plutonium.

The problems that I have already talked about dont get better with small ones, they get worse.

I suppose you want to have large numbers of small ones to make up for the fact that they are small

Apart from anything else:

What a wonderful choice of targets you are providing for terrorists to contaminate areas the size of cities by bombing the reactors or flying planes into them.

A large increase in the number of targets for them.

You would also give them thousands more places to steal radioactive material from to make an Atomic Bomb or a Contamination Bomb.

Fusion does not have this problem.

You said, Energy is needed now.
Im glad to see that you recognise that the energy problem is urgent.

There is NOTHING ELSE that is MORE URGENT.

Starfrog,

Im sorry if you felt my comments about what you said were a little too strong but I had just discovered that my car battery had failed so I was feeling a bit impatient & disgruntled.

Why did I raise this issue?

As I said when I first mentioned this, the MOST Important issue is not being discussed.

The Energy issue is more important than ANYTHING else.

The other reason is that Ive got cancer & it gives me a new perspective on life. It makes me want to speak out. After all, Ive got nothing to lose by doing so. Looking back over the years, I should have spoken out on a lot of things but didnt.


Re your last message. There you go again!

I shouldnt have to explain these things to YOU, with your background!
I cant believe that your physics & applied physics knowledge is that rusty.

Perhaps you are just winding me up with all the deliberately incorrect things & red herrings that you raise.

I think that you have abandoned logic in favour of entertainment.

You ARE just trying to wind me up.

apple.


With all due respect, I dont think you are looking at this energy/nuc problem with a clear mindset.

You are still in the "huge facility" school of nuclear engineering.

I am talking about small reactors that can be easily guarded, they dont need to be above ground for that matter. The nucs used for subs are not huge, they do not present a large target, they could even be buried...some target eh?...but they would certainly require guarding, but that cost is pennies compared with the power output.

The security issue is not an issue at all, just put someone who is competant in charge. Take my word for it.


BTW, I am sorry you are not well.

All over now-not the result I wanted but we'll do better next time! There's a big black cloud looming-take cover everyone. I have really enjoyed the discussions all. cheers MP

Not the result I wanted either, funny fact is the Tories polled more votes overall than labour, yet we did not get the sort of seats we should have .
Have labour learned something from mugabe, along the lines of you might not want us but whatever we can do to make you have us.

Dont bank on pr anytime soon, but perhaps the tories will look at it in a different light now.

Talk of the devil.....


Secret papers reveal new nuclear building plan

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer


The government's strategy to kick-start a huge nuclear power station building programme is revealed today in confidential Whitehall documents seen by The Observer.
In a 46-paragraph briefing note for incoming ministers, Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the new Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry, warns that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost green energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently. It advises that 'it is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament'.

The document points to the key role new nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide, would play in tackling carbon emissions. It states: 'We now have 12 nuclear stations providing 20 per cent of our electricity carbon-free. By 2020 this will fall to three stations and 7 per cent as stations are retired.'

It also points to the increased risk of an electricity supply shortage after 2008, when a number of nuclear plants are due to close, and warns of a growing reliance on imported gas supplies.

It continues: 'Extending the lives of nuclear stations and/or new build could strengthen the generating sector's contribution to CO2 reductions, by 2020 and beyond.'

But it adds that to avoid a very steep drop in nuclear output a decision is needed quickly, because it takes a decade to get stations operational. There are also obstacles that would need to be overcome in building a new generation of plants, including gaining public acceptance and dealing with nuclear waste.

The department paper is revealed as the nuclear industry gears up for a major lobbying push for new stations. The Nuclear Industry Association has been pressing on the government the need for 10 new stations to combat climate change, arguing that a large-scale building programme is the only economic way of financing them.

UK companies such as Amec and Westinghouse, the power station construction arm of state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) - along with foreign companies such as Aveva and Bechtel of the US, have also urged the case in Whitehall.

The Whitehall briefing, a 'first day' options paper prepared for the new Secretary of State, Alan Johnson, states that the government is widely expected to 'come off the fence' on nuclear energy and advises that it should work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury and Number 10 to 'be on the front foot', making a statement on energy policy and its impact on climate change before the summer recess.

MacNaughton warns that '(carbon dioxide) emissions have been rising in recent years. We look to be falling well short of the goal to cut them by 20 per cent by 2010, absent (of) new measures'. Two of the reasons are 'falling nuclear generation' and 'weaker than predicted impact of some policy measures'.

Key among these is the attempt to boost renewable forms of energy - such as wind farms, solar power and crop-burning stations - by forcing electricity suppliers to source 10 per cent of their supplies from these sources by 2010. The paper admits 7 to 8 per cent is more likely.

MacNaughton also admits that the government's stance on the nuclear issue in the last parliament 'to keep the option open' without encouraging it 'was a compromise, endorsed by the PM, between ministers for and against'.

Now she says: 'The case for looking at the nuclear question again quickly is that, if we want to avoid a very sharp fall in nuclear's contribution to energy supplies (some fall is already certain and has begun), we should need to act soon given the long lead times (10 years) in getting a new nuclear station up and running.'

However, she lists a series of issues that need to be addressed:

'How might new stations be financed?

What kind of government support might be necessary for new build to take place?

How far would new build be consistent with our market framework for energy?

How best to secure public acceptance?

How far would we need to resolve the long outstanding issue of finding a final depository for high level nuclear waste, as a pre-condition for progressing new build?'

The previous compromise was hammered out in a 2003 white paper, Our Energy Future - creating a low-carbon economy. This was the result of a bitter Whitehall battle between pro-nuclear elements in the then Department of Trade and Industry headed by the Energy Minister Brian Wilson and in Downing Street, and a determinedly anti-nuclear group headed by Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett.

The new Energy Minister is advised to take a robust line with Defra, not only over nuclear power, but on the amount of carbon dioxide industry is allowed to emit under European regulations. DPEI's wants a higher cap than Defra, arguing that too stringent restrictions will harm productivity.

Defra is heading the government's Climate Change Programme Review, which has a crucial role in placing the issue at the top of the agenda for the UK's presidency of the G8 this year. But MacNaughton notes: 'Because Mrs Beckett opposes nuclear new build, the review has not so far considered whether nuclear should contribute to cutting emissions.'

Resistance from Defra, where Beckett remains Secretary of State, is likely to remain strong, as she is known to be particularly concerned that no decision has yet been reached on how to store Britain's stockpile of radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1479279,00.html

I just joined this site. What an interesting mesage board.
I am not too proud to say that it has changed the way that I look at some things.
Mr caveman2 said that the torys got more votes than the reds.
Mr caveman2 are you LIEING???? Arre you a politician???
Are you a tory loser by any chance??? A fully paid up member of the losing tory party???
All the TV & papers say that Labour got 35.2% & Torys got 32.3%.
BUT SERIUSLY
YOU COULD BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Blair is such a scumbag that he might have fiddled a lot of those 6million postal votes!!!!

I voted green.
I was tempted to vote ukip but they are such a bunch of fashist scumbags as well. Some of there members come from the BNP.

What a rubbish tory campaign.
They used what they call dog whistle issues to attract votes.
If you treat people like dogs some of them will come when you call but a lot will turn round and bite you for treating them like idiots.

Only one in 5 of the population voted red--the tory got 60000 votes more than labour but Tony still won more seats. I can only guess some constituencies are much bigger than others!

Shag, I am sure the other parties missed you voting for them.

I say Prescott for Prime Minister, now would'nt that be fun.

apple
If you think I am going to plough through pages of diatribe to see if you have insulted me, think again.
If you HAVE insulted me, be happy.
I would hate to have to listen to all you putative Fidel Castros'. Be honest,
you do go on a bit. As for Scotland having PR - that's news to me.
Have a nice day.

standber,

not an insult, an accusation

click here to find out

& as for Castro, socialism/communism is illogical.

apple

& as for Castro, socialism/communism is illogical.

Disagree: They are very logical and the height of aspiration for humans.
Trouble is, people spoil it. Greed, corruption, power and fear are the cancers
that destroy the lofty ideals and concepts of communism.
Castro has been just about the best of all at the attempts to make it work. And the populace can't wait for him to croak.

Always have and always will vote Tory............I know where I stand with them. ALL (with few execptions)politicians lie. I just happen to think that Tories lie the least.