# Nuclear power generation



## cuchuflete

In the thread about the Kyoto Protocol there were a number of references to Nuclear power as a source of electricity.  Some people, myself included, think this is a good idea.  Others were opposed.

What do you think, and what reasons do you have to share?


Thanks,
Cuchuflete


----------



## abc

I'm still nervous about the widespread use of Nuclear power.  Are we educated and responsible enough to mushroom these powerful, useful, and yet very destructive forces?


----------



## LadyBlakeney

I am not an expert, but I have the notion of nuclear power being unviable in the long-long term due to the long life and contaminating power of nuclear waste. At least that is how I understood the matter when I visited a nuclear power plant near Madrid, back in the nineties.

I still have my ecological hopes placed in the "cold fusion" of hydrogen basis as a source of energy. Perhaps someone can help me to update my views over this subject. As many of you may have noticed, I am jack of all trades and master of none!


----------



## Fernando

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> I am not an expert, but I have the notion of nuclear power being unviable in the long-long term due to the long life and contaminating power of nuclear waste. At least that is how I understood the matter when I visited a nuclear power plant near Madrid, back in the nineties.
> 
> I still have my ecological hopes placed in the "cold fusion" of hydrogen basis as a source of energy. Perhaps someone can help me to update my views over this subject. As many of you may have noticed, I am jack of all trades and master of none!



As far as I know:

1) Nuclear power is viable. Nevertheless you are right: the more nuclear power the more nuclear waste. You can have it in salt mines for long periods but, of course, in the long-long run this could be uneconomical. Anyway long - long run means 300 years or so (quite long).

2) Cold fusion is not a solution. None has arrived close to achieve a cold fusion. Only 'hot' fusion is a possibility. Scientists use to say that they will develop it in 30 years or so.


----------



## alc112

Están hablando de energía nuclear, ¿no?'
Mi opinión
I know it can be used as a combustible for ships and spaceships. It'll be great if it's also used for cars, so we don't use petrol and can save money. Nowadays, the petrol is very expensive. Plus, you won't have to buy the energy very often because, as far as i remember, that energy will run out of your car in years.
I say Only for cars, (space)ships, not for electricity.

Please correct my mistakes, I'm sure there are lots.


----------



## LadyBlakeney

alc112 said:
			
		

> Están hablando de energía nuclear, ¿no?'
> Mi opinión
> I know it can be used as a combustible for ships and spaceships. It'll be great if it's also used for cars, so we don't use petrol and can save money. Nowadays, the petrol is very expensive. Plus, you won't have to buy the energy very often because, as far as i remember, that energy will run out of your car in years.
> I say Only for cars, (space)ships, not for electricity.
> 
> Please correct my mistakes, I'm sure there are lots.



Well, as I said I am not an expert on the subject but I don't think I'd be comfortable driving with a disc of enriched uranium in front of my knees! Call me *doom*sayer...(my little tribute to Gotita).


----------



## alc112

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Well, as I said I am not an expert on the subject but I don't think I'd be comfortable driving with a disc of enriched uranium in front of my knees! Call me downsayer...(my little tribute to Gotita).


 
Yes, you're right
But if we would use it, the expert could invent something smaller you wouldn't realize in your car


----------



## gotitadeleche

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Well, as I said I am not an expert on the subject but I don't think I'd be comfortable driving with a disc of enriched uranium in front of my knees! Call me downsayer...(my little tribute to Gotita).



LadyB,
That's *doom*sayer. I hope I didn't write it wrong in the other thread!!


----------



## LadyBlakeney

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> LadyB,
> That's *doom*sayer. I hope I didn't write it wrong in the other thread!!


Thank you, Gotita, I corrected it. This single neuron of mine is not what it used to be...


----------



## cuchuflete

Well here is a quick reply from a single neurona:

I'm not convinced that nuclear power generation is unsafe. Chernobyl was not the result of nuclear power. That catastophe was the result of human errors and, perhaps, bad design. The same was true at Three Mile Island.

France gets a very large portion of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and safely.

Storage of reactor fuel is certainly as issue.  It involves risk.  Burning petroleum and coal do not present the risk of problems, they present obvious problems!  

There is a nuclear power plant about 4 miles from my house. It is now decommissioned...which is bureaucratic jargon for out of use. It worked for many years with no problems. The fuel is still at the plant site. I don't believe it presents a risk to me or my neighbors. Now that the nuclear plant is no longer in use, the electricity it used to generate is being made by burning hydrocarbons, which pollutes the air.


----------



## Fernando

In the 80s the Spanish government decided to get rid of our nuclear facilities, while France, as Cuchuflete has pointed out invested on in nuclear. As a result electricty in Spain is far more expensive than in France.


----------



## valerie

My opinion (or doubts) on the subject.

- Nuclear power is much '*cleaner*' on the short term than oil. 
- It is also much more *available* (have you seen that oil reserves (or was it production) may reach its maximum within 15 years, and then decline?).

but:
- it requires a lot of *super security measures*, which we are not sure to be able to maintain  (Tchernobil was basically an economical problem, they did not have the means, financial means, to renew and secure it): financial resources, human resources, training and engineering...
Example of security process: In France, the persons who do the maintenance of the radioactive parts of the plants are registrered, their radioactive exposure is measured, and the staffing of the maintenance teams are done according to the accumulated exposure, implying that some persons can not work anymore after some years.

- the question of *waste* and what we are leaving to our children

- the *health impact * question. In France, there is no information (that I know) on the subject, as the nuclear lobby is so strong (Did you know that the nuclear emission of Tchernobyl did not dare cross the French border? at least it was the official position, till it was recognised a lie THIS year). In Spain, everybody knows that in the surrounding of Tarragona, near Vandellos, the percentage of cancers of all type is much higher than normal


By the way, I have just got this number, from an article about the European Commission and the nuclear security: *La producción de electricidad nuclear representa un 32 % aproximadamente de la producción total de electricidad en la Unión Europea ampliada*. The nuclear electricity production represents aproximately 32 % of the total power production in the European Union (25 countries). Amazing isn't it?


----------



## cuchuflete

valerie said:
			
		

> My opinion (or doubts) on the subject.
> 
> - Nuclear power is much '*cleaner*' on the short term than oil.
> - It is also much more *available* (have you seen that oil reserves (or was it production) may reach its maximum within 15 years, and then decline?).
> 
> but:
> - it requires a lot of *super security measures*, which we are not sure to be able to maintain (Tchernobil was basically an economical problem, they did not have the means, financial means, to renew and secure it): financial resources, human resources, training and engineering...
> Example of security process: In France, the persons who do the maintenance of the radioactive parts of the plants are registrered, their radioactive exposure is measured, and the staffing of the maintenance teams are done according to the accumulated exposure, implying that some persons can not work anymore after some years.
> 
> - the question of *waste* and what we are leaving to our children
> 
> - the *health impact * question. In France, there is no information (that I know) on the subject, as the nuclear lobby is so strong (Did you know that the nuclear emission of Tchernobyl did not dare cross the French border? at least it was the official position, till it was recognised a lie THIS year). In Spain, everybody knows that in the surrounding of Tarragona, near Vandellos, the percentage of cancers of all type is much higher than normal
> 
> 
> By the way, I have just got this number, from an article about the European Commission and the nuclear security: *La producción de electricidad nuclear representa un 32 % aproximadamente de la producción total de electricidad en la Unión Europea ampliada*. The nuclear electricity production represents aproximately 32 % of the total power production in the European Union (25 countries). Amazing isn't it?



Thanks very much. I share your views about the cleanliness, and I also share your concerns. I would just note that the hydrocarbon pollution we generate with coal and petroleum plants also has implications for our children.

I believe that in contrast to the 32% of electrical production in the EU coming from nuclear sources, in the U.S. it is approximately 20%. Here, no new nuclear energy plant has been built in about 30 years.

un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

Cuchu, where does the waste from US go to? Would you like to have that waste 4 miles from your home?


----------



## cuchuflete

Silvia,

There is a waste storage facility in Utah, and I believe there are others in underpopulated parts of the country.

I don't understand your question.  The waste *is* 4 miles from my home.  When the plant was active, there was equally radioactive fuel at the same distance.  If properly cared for, this is not a danger or a problem.  The presence of the used fuel does not bother me.  I am a lot more troubled by the air pollution created hundreds of miles to the west of me, in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  The prevailing winds carry it here, where it causes acid rain, and is in the air I breathe.
Solar power is not economically very attractive, and may not even be broadly feasible,  in this latitude and climate, so we depend on electricity generated by hydropower, and by burning carbon-based fuels.  I find nuclear power generation a better option.


----------



## te gato

Mmmm..I'm split on this..
Yes it is cleaner..but it is still 'People' running the Nuclear Power Plants..and people make mistakes..and with the ever growing population more power will be needed and therefore more Nuclear waste will be produced..
Here we are now trying 'Wind' generated power..and it is working quite well..no waste..and no chance of a melt-down..and the wind is a constant..
What they do is place a lot of Wind Turbines on a hill and let them go..and now more and more Private Ranches are going this way as well..
Maybe one day we will be charged an arm and a leg for 'wind power'...

te gato


----------



## mjscott

I live 4 miles from nuclear waste. Ralph Nader (a well-known environmental activist) came here and ran a community forum. There were so many PhDs and reasonably knowledgeable people in the audience, that his rhetoric could not take a foothold. The forum later aired on PBS and called "Do I LOOK like I want to live in Danger?" --or some other similar name.

No. No one wants danger for themselves, their children or their grandchildren. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed through a breeder reactor and re-designed into medical isotopes. A date with medical isotopes is no one's outpatient dream date, but still helpful and necessary in early detection of many diseases.

mjscott

PS--People from other parts of the country ask if our wildlife glow in the dark, and whether white-tailed deer in the area have three heads or not. I have taken recently to swimming in the Columbia River and have found fresh clams in it--six inches in length. A friend of my husband's, who reveres his hunting dogs above all else, told me to feed them to my husband first. If he doesn't die, feed them to our dogs. If they don't die, I could consider that they're safe for me to eat.

Black lung is no joke. Neither were the times in England and Early America when the air pollution was so thick that you couldn't see the light of day. A popping fireplace with enough aroma to make me dream warm dreams is about all the hydrocarbons I want to burn. Ugly pollution is ugly. Count me in for nuclear fuel, if they can ever decide what 10,000 years of protection means (talk about code-switching!)


----------



## Sev

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> France gets a very large portion of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and safely.


First of all thanks Cuchu, you've always got so interesting topics.

In France nuclear power is not that safe. There were small accidents in the last decades, but they did not lead to contamination, and lobbies tried to hide the accidents. It means for me that it is not as safe as it looks. I'm sorry I don't have a source now, I'll try to find you that for next time I'll be there (next Monday probably)



> In the 80s the Spanish government decided to get rid of our nuclear facilities, while France, as Cuchuflete has pointed out invested on in nuclear. As a result electricty in Spain is far more expensive than in France.


Well, that is not really true, because the cost of nuclear power doesn't include the "disassembly" of plants. Which is a HUGE cost. And in France, they don't really know how they are going to cope with that. A long time ago, they decided to spare money dedicated to this purpose, but now they've spent almost all of it !! There are very intersting articles about that in one french magazine "Sciences et Vie" I've read, with many figures and details from official sources. I'll find the referrence for you.

And then the huge problem is WASTE of course. Maybe it's gonna be safe for one or two hundreds of years, and then ? There are radioactive elements that are still dangerous for more than one thousand of years !! Well, be happy, we will be dead in 1 hundred of years, our children will cope, won't they ? For ;e it's not a solution.

I have tons of things to say about that topic but unfortunately not the time.
So, I'll just say I'm french and totally against (lot of work to do in my country, plus my father works for EDF, Electricite de France!), and I try to do my best to promote renewable energies and spare of energy too.

Severine.


----------



## Silvia

As long as it is not on a large scale, it might be "fine"... but guess if EVERY country relied on nuclear power, even third and fourth world. And everyone kept their waste under their own carpet. I'm totally against. Besides, it has been proven in history that we know of damages long after they have been done, for so many reasons I won't list. I can't see any damage right now is not a good reason to state there is no damage.


----------



## Fernando

"Well, that is not really true, because the cost of nuclear power doesn't include the "disassembly" of plants. Which is a HUGE cost. And in France, they don't really know how they are going to cope with that. A long time ago, they decided to spare money dedicated to this purpose, but now they've spent almost all of it !! There are very intersting articles about that in one french magazine "Sciences et Vie" I've read, with many figures and details from official sources. I'll find the referrence for you."

Please.

When accounting the costs, disasembly costs must be considered. I don't know if these costs have been understimated in the French case. Anyway, 

1) France is one of the more nuclear-concentrated energy producer in the world (30-40%?)

2) EDF has more employees than any other European company.

3) EDF is incoming money.

I see a relationship. In any comparative measure I read, nuclear power is the cheapest except when compared with hydro-electric production (which is limited).


----------



## winnie

Every substance which undergoes to nuclear fission by means of neutrons absorption would be theoretically suitable for nuclear combustible.

The state of the art technology utilizes Uranium 235 (or U-235) which is only 0.72% of natural Uranium. According to a *plodding and expensive* industrial process U-235 concentration is risen up to 3-4% (enriched Uranium). That material is put in the nuclear reactor, mainly natural *water* type, in order to be bombed by neutrons.

One of the major by-product of that nuclear reaction is Plutonium which in part is used with U-235 in the so called auto-feed reactors. The main part of Pu created unfortunately is used *to produce thermonuclear bombs*!!!



Some facts on Plutonium: it is a radioactive silvery metal. Its most important isotope is Plutonium 239 (or Pu-239). The decaying time of Pu-239 is 24400 years! This means that if you have 1 gram (0.0352736 oz) of Pu-239 it takes 24400 years to become 0.5 gram and 97600 to have a concentration of 0.0625 gram (round 0.0088 oz)!! Pu is not only strong radioactive, it’s also one of *the most powerful poison*. 

One gram of Pu deadly pollutes a surface of 500 square meters (0.1235522 acres). To breath only very few amounts pf Pu (say milligrams) will lead to sure death by lung cancer.



Now those are facts! What I am scared of, it is that there is absolutely no technology which is total error proof and to make an error in the nuclear field will yield a disaster. Furthermore even if things are going ever all right, a nuclear plant pollutes. Like i just wrote, water is used in huge quantity to cool down the nuclear process and this water (We strongly hope without nuclear spillages!) leaves the plant at a higher temperature. The effect is (on long term) an increasing in the overall water temperature which jeopardizes life in rivers and seas.

Another important fact is that we can’t predict earthquakes, floods and other natural calamity. A plant which is theoretically safe would be not so safe after all!

Nuclear waste disposal and increasing quantity of nuclear nuclides for military use are other two huge problems and in the end it is not so true that electricity made from nuclear is cheaper then the one made from oil.

The costs for building and dismissing a nuclear plant are tenfold more expensive then the ones for an oil plant.



So in MHO, nuclear is not the way to produce energy. First of all we must consider that we waste a lot of energy. Think only for a moment how much electricity we waste in air conditioning! On the other side in winter time we spend a lot of electricity/oil to warm up our houses. Renewable energy like timber, photovoltaic cells, wind generated power etc. may give us a help in reducing power demand, we all have only to change our behaviour a bit, it is not so hard to do. For our grandchildren sake think of it!


----------



## Fernando

Why do you think air conditioning is a waste of energy?


----------



## cuchuflete

I heat my home in the winter...and even Spring nights when it gets below 0, with a renewable fuel: wood.  The combustion creates air pollution as well as ash, which I use as fertilizer.  My alternative is an oil furnace, whose combustion creates air pollution.

Solar power is not a reasonable alternative in this climate.  

I am left considering possibilities based on an interrelated combination of factors:
-cleanliness 
-efficiency
-cost
-renewable energy source
-risks

The 'right' answer is elusive.  Whatever energy source one prefers, conservation is a fine idea.


----------



## winnie

Fernando said:
			
		

> Why do you think air conditioning is a waste of energy?


 
when you want to decrease temperature from, say, 30 °C to 20 °C you don't waste the same energy in lowing down from 30 °C to 25 °C.
to set the thermostat well below the external temperature (about 10 °C or more) means to spend an energy surplus that is not necessary to 'feel better'. in fact what makes we bother it's not the very temperature but rather better the humidity so the important point is to lower humidity.

i said that air conditioning is a waste for another reason also: we transform a 'noble' energy (electricity) in a poor energy (heat) according to 3rd thermodynamic principle we degrade energy and arise entropy!!!


----------



## valerie

te gato said:
			
		

> Here we are now trying 'Wind' generated power..



These last years, there has been a campaign in France to promote wind power, where municipalities (basically rural ones) could make some business letting install wind generators on their land. There were a lot of discussion with ecologists, because strong oposition came from the fact that the generators change the landscape, produce the so-called 'visual contamination' and may be a repulsive to turism.

Anyway there is no possibility that wind power be more than relatively marginal in the total power demand.

In Spain (in some parts at least) there are fiscal incentives to the instalation of solar power on the roof of the houses, to produce hot water. This is a nice initiative, but again, nothing to compare with the overall demand of energy.


----------



## winnie

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I heat my home in the winter...and even Spring nights when it gets below 0, with a renewable fuel: wood. The combustion creates air pollution as well as ash, which I use as fertilizer. My alternative is an oil furnace, whose combustion creates air pollution.
> 
> Solar power is not a reasonable alternative in this climate.
> 
> I am left considering possibilities based on an interrelated combination of factors:
> -cleanliness
> -efficiency
> -cost
> -renewable energy source
> -risks
> 
> The 'right' answer is elusive. Whatever energy source one prefers, conservation is a fine idea.


 
it seems to me that risks associated to nuclear are well higher then what we can bear, i prefer a less confortable living then not living at all.


----------



## Fernando

winnie said:
			
		

> when you want to decrease temperature from, say, 30 °C to 20 °C you don't waste the same energy in lowing down from 30 °C to 25 °C.
> to set the thermostat well below the external temperature (about 10 °C or more) means to spend an energy surplus that is not necessary to 'feel better'. in fact what makes we bother it's not the very temperature but rather better the humidity so the important point is to lower humidity.
> 
> i said that air conditioning is a waste for another reason also: we transform a 'noble' energy (electricity) in a poor energy (heat) according to 3rd thermodynamic principle we degrade energy and arise entropy!!!



I strongly disagree. In Madrid we 'enjoy' maximum temperatures over 40 in august (with low humidity).

We begin with over 30 degrees maximums from May and stay there till september. Please, do not tell me that releasing me from a 3-months hell is a waste of energy.


----------



## winnie

Fernando said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree. In Madrid we 'enjoy' maximum temperatures over 40 in august (with low humidity).
> 
> We begin with over 30 degrees maximums from May and stay there till september. Please, do not tell me that releasing me from a 3-months hell is a waste of energy.


 
yes in a personal view you are perfectly right. unfortunately what is worth for some people is not worth for a major part or for the world in its totality. think a moment about big countries like China or India. when those peoples will have the same western opportunities do you think the earth will stand the impact? and we don't have any rights to impede those peoples to 'stay better'. the only answer is: we have to start to waste less no matter if our lives become a little worst.


----------



## winnie

valerie said:
			
		

> In Spain (in some parts at least) there are fiscal incentives to the instalation of solar power on the roof of the houses, to produce hot water. This is a nice initiative, but again, nothing to compare with the overall demand of energy.


 
solar panels are only a partial answer, they are very useful to produce hot water at a reasonable cost. photovoltaic cells do even better! (more espensive though) one may illuminate his/her house with 14 V DC halogen spots. halogen spots are more durable then normal bulb lights give a better light then them and to have the same radiant power you need fewer of them.

i absolutely agree with you on what you say about the overall demand of energy, but if every people would tray to economize energy renouncing a little bit of his/her comfort maybe our planet should be a better place to live.

am i idealistic? am i living under a rock? maybe!


----------



## gotitadeleche

te gato said:
			
		

> Yes it is cleaner..but it is still 'People' running the Nuclear Power Plants..and people make mistakes..and with the ever growing population more power will be needed and therefore more Nuclear waste will be produced..
> 
> te gato



This is also my concern. My ex-husband worked on power plants, some of them nuclear. I know what those guys are like, many of them showing up onthe job Monday morning hung  over from the weekend drinking binge. The welded joints in the pipes are critical, and these are the men we are relying on to do them properly. Also, my brother-in-law worked on a nuclear plant. I heard his stories about safety rules being blatantly ignored---men wearing their work clothing out in public without decontaminating it, etc. My brother-in-law finally quit his job there when he suffered a radiation burn on his forhead.
 I just think it is far too dangerous and I want to have the waste storage problem solved before we go into it full steam.


----------



## Fernando

winnie said:
			
		

> think a moment about big countries like China or India. when those peoples will have the same western opportunities do you think the earth will stand the impact? and we don't have any rights to impede those peoples to 'stay better'. the only answer is: we have to start to waste less no matter if our lives become a little worst.



You are right in one sense: if the 3rd world increases its living standards at 1st world ones current energy avilability is not enough. Anyway, do not focus on air coinditioning. This is true for cars, city lights and so on.

Believe if I tell you that I prefer to get rid of a expensive car to hold my AC.


----------



## winnie

Fernando said:
			
		

> You are right in one sense: if the 3rd world increases its living standards at 1st world ones current energy avilability is not enough. Anyway, do not focus on air coinditioning. This is true for cars, city lights and so on.
> 
> Believe if I tell you that I prefer to get rid of a expensive car to hold my AC.


 
Fernando i'm not taking a crusade against air conditioning! it was only an example! i agree with you: cars are a big trouble too! funny thing is the more we have the more industry want we have...


----------



## valerie

Some facts here, about energy production:

- in 2000, the US produce 3800 TWh, when UK produces 349 TWh, France 513 KWh, and Canada 580 KWh. There is not much relation between population and power production

- The main source of the power produced was:
* oil, gaz and coal in the US (70%) and in the UK (75%)
* Nuclear power in France (77%)
* Water power in Canada (60 %)

http://www.fsg.ulaval.ca/opus/scphys4/complements/france.shtml

I'll look for some information about power usage and power usage efficiency later on


----------



## Fernando

valerie said:
			
		

> Some facts here, about energy production:
> 
> - in 2000, the US produce 3800 TWh, when UK produces 349 TWh, France 513 KWh, and Canada 580 KWh. There is not much relation between population and power production
> 
> http://www.fsg.ulaval.ca/opus/scphys4/complements/france.shtml
> 
> I'll look for some information about power usage and power usage efficiency later on



Valerie, consumption would be more useful than production.

With your data, Canada would be very inefficient (the same production than France with 1/2 unhabitants. They possibly sell energy to US and waste a lot warming this cold country.

About US it is quite inefficient by any standard.


----------



## valerie

On energy in general, and oil in particular, last week issue of the economist published a interesting review. Especially there was an article on oil alternatives, with some development on biofuels, natural gaz, hydrogen,etc..

Also some numbers on world wide energy sources, so that we get an idea on the current place of 'alternative energies'


----------



## valerie

Another data from this study (I hope The Economist will be happy with the free add, and will not be bothered by the quote)

This illustrates the energy consumption efficiency, through a ratio: energy consumed to GDP.


----------



## Fernando

Very good data. The most worrying fact is the importance of Biomasa. That means that a good portion of makind simply burns the forest when needs energy.


----------



## valerie

Well, wood is a renewable energy, if managed correctly. My grand fathers used only wood to  warm their house, and they grew their own trees, to cut them when needed (20 years cycle, at least). They did not trow away anything that could be burnt.

Apart from that, Biomasa may also include the biofuel used in Brasil. It is ethanol, made of domestic sugar cane, and used to power cars. It is aparently quite significant in the overall energy consumption


----------



## Fernando

valerie said:
			
		

> Well, wood is a renewable energy, if managed correctly. My grand fathers used only wood to  warm their house, and they grew their own trees, to cut them when needed (20 years cycle, at least). They did not trow away anything that could be burnt.
> 
> Apart from that, Biomasa may also include the biofuel used in Brasil. It is ethanol, made of domestic sugar cane, and used to power cars. It is aparently quite significant in the overall energy consumption



I am afraid not everyone manages their wood with the same care as your parents.  

About ethanol, I have heard that Brazil gave up much of its efforts to promote it.


----------



## germinal

Fernando said:
			
		

> I am afraid not everyone manages their wood with the same care as your parents.
> 
> About ethanol, I have heard that Brazil gave up much of its efforts to promote it.


 

Ethanol is also produced in Australia from sugar cane and, I believe it has the backing of the government, although I have heard that there are some problems with it as it can harm engines.

An interesting development is the re-cycling of used cooking oil to fuel diesel engines and considering the amount of oil used for cooking throughout the world it must make a very useful contribution if applied globally.

On nuclear power, in Britain there is presently an urgent debate on whether to build new nuclear power stations (probably the 'pebble-bed' type) to bridge the gap which is forecast by the experts (amongst whom my nephew) between the de-commissioning of the present nuclear power stations and the coming on stream of more environmentally friendly sources of energy.   Nuclear fusion is one of the great hopes but wind and wave power are also included. There is even talk of compelling people to insulate buildings to a very high standard, which would make enormous energy savings but that would be politically difficult to say the least. 

Got to go now - I have to get the patio heater out.  Germinal.


----------

