Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whether or not that was true in the past, it's not reasonable to assume that these concerns continue to be valid.


Good for China - thorium and molten salt reactors.


Whatever happens, we mustn't allow outdated concerns and prejudice hold back the work we need to do to find solutions.

Thorium-based molten salt reactor system


One needs a good grasp of nuclear physics to separate the potential benefits from the nuclear industry?s self-serving hype and misinformation.


The underlying principle was developed at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. In the fifty years since, as far as is known from information in the public domain, no practical commercial design, let alone a working reactor, has been developed.


Despite vociferous claims to the contrary, if those reactors had been built at Fukushima Daiichi, there is a high probability that their entire nuclear cores would have become dispersed throughout the Pacific Ocean following the T?hoku earthquake of 11th March.

The lack of development in the 1960s is widely attributed to the attractive secondary benefits of uranium based nuclear processes in the creation of weapons.


As a dedicated consipracist I don't know why you wouldn't support that interpretation HAL9000?


More rationally, an oil rich 1960s USA obsessed with communism and unfamiliar with the 21st century issues of peak oil and environmentalism had no real incentive to develop 'clean nuclear' and government funding was limited.


On the 'vociferous claims' you refer to I'd need to see sources and qualification on both sides. You do have a track record of using the ramblings of socially disadvantaged paranoiacs on the lecture circuit as if they were 'trustworthy'?

This is one of my favourite quotes:


?The reactor has an amazing safety feature,? said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert. ?If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,? he said.

-- Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium (Contains similarly quotes from other 'experts'.)


This regarding China's nuclear plans in general: Leading physicist calls China's nuclear programme 'rash and unsafe'


You do have a track record ...


Can you back that up with an example or is this just you being you again?

Okay, done that.


The first is predictably evangelical and OTT, the second refers to uranium based nuclear power, not thorium.


The Chinese have to buy their uranium from Australia, with a very weak trading record. The anxiety is predictable, but not relevant to thorium.


It's important that we get away from just 'nuclear is bad', to recognising that there are different processes and fuels. 'Wind' isn't the same as 'Gas' even though it sounds similar.

Never mind the German mind-control cultists, if it were in my power, I would gift to you a subtle sense of humour and an internally fitted E-meter that vibrates whenever your plonker is pulled.


Alas, all I can do is wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Hilarious and Preposterous New Year :)

I was under the impression it was India leading the way with thorium, it has abundant supplies and, due to the non proliferation treaty, uranium has historically been in short supply.


Coincidentally I was reading about India's plans on this site recently and have just looked up China's. What struck me was looking at where the technology is coming from, the Chinese are mostly buying from the USA (Westinghouse) and France (Areva), India from Russia. The Canadians are heavily involved in thorium research, but UK plc? Nowhere to be seen.

  • 10 months later...

and this...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848


US industry is becoming competitive again due to significantly reduced energy bills

US households getting a nice boost to incomes as shale gas reduces the average household bill by 20%

US will have less and less interest in the Middle East...this could be dangerous or good


...it's a game changer

alternatively, a man alone ;-)


I'm neutral on the subject btw - I'm not necessarily convinced by the doommongers but nor am I persuaded by evangelists.


Reaping the benefit of a power-source in a short term (historically speaking) appears to only have upsides - history says there will be "issues"


file me under "cautiously appreciative" on this one

This might give you a less gushing overview than the IEA one (they have been caught out several times before massaging and manipulating their figures)

http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/185311

The Klondike-like rush to shale gas has led to oversupply and significant decrease in price, which ironically makes the expensive process less economic. Investors are worried... The USA's sluggish economy has also helped consumers with their energy prices.


Shale gas was not a new technology but became economic due to the large oil price increases of 2006-08. It remains to be seen whether it's a long-term alternative to either coal or oil. If the USA wants to get back to a world of steady long-term growth, it won't become self-sufficient in energy - a situation that ironically can only likely happen with long-term economic stagnation and decline.


Not a game changer IMHO.

  • 3 months later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21453393


- US manufacturing renassance on cheap fuel is alraedy happening and their competitivenss will incraese as some competitors look to more expensive renewables

- further massive destibilastion in OPEC as social contract breaks down as autocratic paternalism ceases to work as business model based on high oil prices collapse


I keep telling ya

  • 5 months later...

I think 'destroys argument' is rather hyperbolic, but some good points well said.

My main issue is that it so fundamentally detracts from any efforts to do anything about carbon reduction.

It's spectacularly expensive in carbon to produce, leave alone the fact that we suddenly have hundreds of years more reserves of carbon fuel, the impending peak of which was doing much to focus attention on alternatives.


This without the more conventional environmental damage it wreaks http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water

That,s just an emotive piece EP, not science or anything, I thought you believed in good science. Are all communities in the US anti franking, running out of water, jumping up and down in anger at their 20pc reduction in energy bills etc. Renewables are expensive,w ay over subsidised and years away from making a significant dent in our energy consumption gas and fracked oil are far better Environmentally than coal fired electricity...the debate lacks any rationality in most of them their circles that I get in trouble for going on about :) just FRACKING= BAD end of....sigh

what quids said.


govt's own target for 20% renewables by 2020 (which won't be met) leaves 80% to find from non-renewables which if we are not going to get by going down nuclear route leaves oil, gas or coal. and that's leaving aside the imbalance we get from wind (too much).

polla2256 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've made my mind up - fracking is not the future.

> It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked for

> HS2 into fusion.


Glad yuo've made your mind up. How? I'm still trying to find objective evidence on which to base a decision. The former Government Chief Scientist David King has dismissed most of the concerns cited as irrational. Others tell me I'll be able to light the gas coming from my cold water tap. What is truth?

This is a quote from the Guardian article in EP's link:


But Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, argues fracking is not the only reason Texas is going dry ? and nor is the drought. The latest shocks to the water system come after decades of overuse by ranchers, cotton farmers, and fast-growing thirsty cities.


"We have large urban centres sucking water out of west Texas to put on their lands. We have a huge agricultural community, and now we have fracking which is also using water," she said. And then there is climate change.


West Texas has a long history of recurring drought, but under climate change, the south-west has been experiencing record-breaking heatwaves, further drying out the soil and speeding the evaporation of water in lakes and reservoirs. Underground aquifers failed to regenerate. "What happens is that climate change comes on top and in many cases it can be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, but the camel is already overloaded," said Hayhoe.


The point about fracking is that the rational evidence suggests not that there are no drawbacks/negative effects, but that those that can be accurately measured e.g. chemical use are not particularly severe for what is, after all, an industrial process, and those that are reliant on risk analysis e.g. do not represent signficant risks. The economic argument in favour is unanswerable, at least in the short - medium term.


However, the argument is not just about science or economics but also politics, which is perfectly appropriate (science and economics might support eugenics, but most people don't).


The political argument against (at least insofar as it's not based on pretend science) is, as EP said, this:


"My main issue is that it so fundamentally detracts from any efforts to do anything about carbon reduction.", or to put it another way, cheaper fossil fuels lessen the incentives to seek (non-polluting) alternatives.


I can see the argument, but I'm not persuaded, for two reasons. Firstly, stopping fracking will mean more energy from dirtier and more expensive fossil fuels for a long time to come - a big loss for an uncertain future pay off. Secondly, the incentive for greater overall fuel efficiency will never go away (at least in a competitive market) and tbh I think market driven mechanisms are the only means by which human energy use is going to fundamentally change.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> polla2256 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I've made my mind up - fracking is not the

> future.

> > It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> > Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked

> for

> > HS2 into fusion.

>

> Glad yuo've made your mind up. How? I'm still

> trying to find objective evidence on which to base

> a decision. The former Government Chief Scientist

> David King has dismissed most of the concerns

> cited as irrational. Others tell me I'll be able

> to light the gas coming from my cold water tap.

> What is truth?


I'd take Sir David King's word over the reactionary opposition from those with vested interests anyday.


(Mind you, the Chief Scientist was always extremely pro-nuclear. Anything we do now in that respect is probably a bit 'too little, too late').

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...