porterclough said

500 years or so at current usage levels.

I kind of took it that this thread was about increasing usage?

To clarify that is 500 years at current use according to the Nuclear Authorities who admit that 75% of this is not actually found at present let alone extracted.

porterclugh – IIRC we have debated this before 🙂 The irish sea is a radioactive soup IMO. many many kilos of plutonium, local beaches have been closed 'cos of the radioactivity. Its a mess.

I thought the supply of uranium was decades left not centuries.

A nuke has to have a small conventional power station on site I thought

In the end it comes down to a faith argument. You either believe that the next generation of nuclear stations will be safe and reliable or you don't. I look to the history of nuclear power and I see accidents, pollution and expensive unreliable power generation. Others look to recent reactors in france and other countries and see cheap reliable and safe.

Ernie said:

How much of the world's energy needs is currently been provided by nuclear energy ? 15% ?

I think you will find that is 15% of the world's electricity NOT 15% of the world's energy

Can't remember the figures but nuclear contribution to world energy is much lower than 15%

Yes. Anyone in the no camp should turn their computers off now to save a bit of energy. 8)

Mat – I agree it's not a reasoned argument – but it's Sunday night and if this thread isn't regarded as a troll, then it should be. I'm merely making more fuel available.

Junkyard – Half-life is a term that is normally associated with radioactive decay, but you can use it for anything that will diminish (assuming you don't create more) over time. I agree CO2 has no half-life in the sense of radioactive decay. However overtime it will be absorbed by plants and removed from the atmosphere. Therefore you can ascribe a length of time before half of it has been removed from the atmosphere (a half-life). Unfortunately (or fortunately to some extent – life without CO2 at all would not last long) at the same time we are pumping it out – probably (OK definitely) faster than it is absorbed so the levels rise. Apologies if that's a little patronising – it did seem that way when I read it back – but you get the idea that you can ascribe something equivalent to a half-life to CO2.

IIRC the amount of extractable uranium left in the ground wouldn't meet our current energy needs, let alone the projected growth.

I'm all for nuclear power but it's best viewed as an interim solution until fusion becomes viable.

Nuclear power in partnership with solar/wind/tidal and renewable biofuels seems to be the only option for us in the medium term. The opportunity to take the long term view on this is fast passing us by, given that the price of oil is realistically only ever going to increase and some creditable sources suggest OPECs declared oil reserves are wildly overstated.

I think you will find that is 15% of the world's electricity NOT 15% of the world's energy

Indeed. IIRC the ratio in the UK is 2:1. Hence why to reduce our carbon based energy use by 20% we have to reduce our carbon based electricity use by 40% (assuming no reduction in carbon in general energy use eg transportation).

It's also why interest in electric vehicles is so high.

Someone mentioned using hydrogen for energy storage – I wish you luck. That stuff is ridiculously difficult to contain. Doing it on a mass scale, even more so.

I'm all for nuclear power but it's best viewed as an interim solution until fusion becomes viable.

Fusion is also nuclear. I think you mean you're all for fission until fusion is available.

….but nuclear contribution to world energy is much lower than 15%

Yes I suspect it is. Which makes the claim that there is only "500 years or so at current usage levels" even more worrying.

If we are going to do nuclear, then we should do it properly and really get rid of all of the gas powered stations and just keep a few (converted to clean) coal stations and renewables. No point in doing half a job…

I'd like one of those power packs they had in Ghostbusters.

"Don't cross the streams!"

However overtime it will be absorbed by plants and removed from the atmosphere

In this example C02 will be altered but we will still have the same amount of Carbon and oxygen as before just in different places. Carbon or oxygen cycle for example. With a half-life we genuinely have less of it half in fact it has changed at a molecular/atomic level via the release of atoms and some other complicated stuff I dont fully comprehend. I have never heard it meant in the sense you have used it. C02 sat on the side in a jar will do nothing will it. It has no half life.
I see what you are getting at but it is not accurate to describe that process as a half life – it more like how fast the carbon cycle works which is not the same thing.

Someone mentioned using hydrogen for energy storage – I wish you luck. That stuff is ridiculously difficult to contain. Doing it on a mass scale, even more so.

Me – absolutely. However I believe its a good thing to look at and possible to find technological solutions.

One of the Scottish islands has a small wind generator / hydrogen extractor / generator set up. So the wind turbine generates electricty which is used on the idland. Any surplus is used to electrolyse water to get hydrogen. When there is no wind hydrogen is burnt to generate electricity.

I don't know how successful it has been and its very small scale but its one way round the problem of intermittent generation that bedevils wind power normally.

Hydrogen for cars and so on is a whole 'nother level of complexity with storage and delivery but not insoluble I bet.

Totally. Beats wasting money on windmills & other eco nonsense.

Latest idea is to reuse the Thorium reactor idea from the 60's, waste products very much cleaner than Uranium, no plutonium. The technology was dropped because no weapons grade fissile material was produced. Unfortunately India has most of the supply but it is much more abundant than Uranium

Don't see any other viable option at the moment. As usual David Mackay has some sensible stuff to say on the issue backed up by some numbers and facts that are a lot more plausible than some of the ones being quoted on here – link. Those who think it's too dangerous may want to look at the death per GWy figures (we're very poor at assessing the risks of something we don't know much about).

Unless you don't mind all the lights, computers, heating, medical equipment going off, then yes.

Never understood why not Thorium as its 4x as common as Uranium. Anyone know?

Oooh have you seen the design of the pebble bed reactor – it's a load of balls.

Oh its to do will making weapon grade intermediates..

Actually I thought that fast breeder reactors would allow us to extract vastly more energy from the original fuel.

"terrorist threat – imagine flying a plane into one of them"

Oh they do, and missiles and all sort of stuff. That big concrete block on the outside does the job.

There's been some good results recently with fusion reactors. I'd like to see those succeed.

To me it seems like the obvious answer, in the short-medium term. Renewables aren't ready, biofuels are fundamentally flawed… I'm not saying it's a good option but it seems to be the best of the ones we have.

Good link Rio

Yay for me

Rusty Spanner – Member

John, if you're dyslexic, then I apologise wholeheartedly.

If not, then I rest my case.

yes im i am dyslexic

CO2 doesnt matter btw….what we make doesnt really make much difference…so if we buy uranium…it doesnt cost us much CO2…it costs other countries CO2 and that doesnt really matter because compared to china india and america we dont make any CO2…

and think of the costs of digging up coal and transporting that if u think uranium is the only expensive thing to mine…

In that case I reiterate my apology.
It was a crass and stupid way to attempt to illustrate a point regarding human fallibility.

Partner's daughter is dyslexic – she's explained to me recently that pedantic idiots discourage her from posting on forums.

My new years resolution was to stop being such a pedant.
I've failed, but on the bright side this resolution lasted longer than any others I've made over the years.

making weapon grade intermediates..

You say that like it's a bad thing!

The nuclear deterrent – the longest period of peace in European history

Aye right, If it wasn't for Britains nukes, you would all be speakin' Russian now, just like the Norwegians, Andorrans and Portugese.

the longest period of peace in European history

So when was the former Yugoslavia moved out of Europe then ?

Never mind about Turkey and Greece being at war over Cyprus, despite both being members of nuclear armed NATO.

Norwegians, and Portugese

NATO members, reliant on the NATO deterrent! Andorra has its own defence pledge agreements with France and Spain

Yugoslavia

– Civil disturbance, within national borders.

being at war over Cyprus

– nope, legally mandated intervention in a civil disturbance under the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Falklands? Invasion of Kuwait?

Oh, they're in Europe now are they?

None of the limited conflicts within Europe since 1945 have threatened to spread to other countries or descend into widespread regional war – compare and contrast that with the first half of the century, or the century before, or the one before that, oh, or the one before that, and the one before that repeatedly…

Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe – entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!

Civil disturbance

LOL ! The wars in former Yugoslavia such as Bosnian War, weren't wars ….. but "civil disturbances" !

And the attack and invasion of Cyprus by 30,000 Turkish troops was also just a "civil disturbance" ! 😀

.

most peaceful period in the history of Europe – entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!

So presumably you would support Iran if it wished to acquire nuclear weapons ? In fact, you would want to encourage all Middle Eastern countries to have nuclear weapons – and finally bring peace to that troubled region.

Actually the "most peaceful period in the history of Europe" is down two things. Firstly the horrors of global war is still on living people's memories, and secondly, that institution which your guru Dan Hannan despises so much – the EEC/EU.

France and Germany knew that they must never go to war again, and they realised that the best way to ensure this was through an interdependency, this was the thinking when they agreed to the Coal and Steel Community,.

Back on track Yes for Nuclear Power.

We need to remember to separate several things here

Claims of pollution in the Irish Sea are aimed at Sellafield – A Nuclear Fuel RECYCLING Plant with historic NON Power generating assets. Yes there were 5 civil power generating reactors on site but these could not have contributed to this. I have read the reports and looked at the numbers and still quite happily swam in the Irish sea.

We do have a long term waste storage strategy

Civil Nuclear power has operated safely without indecent in the UK for over 50 years.

Bring it on

Z11 said:

Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe – entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!

I notice you demand a different level of proof in some arguments than in others.

Yugoslavia

– Civil disturbance, within national borders.

Ah, yes. So that'll be why that nice Mr Blair and that equally nice Mr Clinton resorted to carpet bombing the 'civil disturbance'. Zulu Eleven? Zulu second eleven more like.

We do have a long term waste storage strategy

Do you know what that actually entails though?

I have also spoken to someone who works at Sellafield and some of the stories of safety blunders are scary.

Tbh, I'd follow the Germans – who tend to be better at building things than us (yeah, gross generalisation, i know) – are phasing out their reactors due to the incidence of cancer clusters round power stations. (some details here: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/nuclear+cancer+risk+doubled/1300847 )

Without doubt, this has been the least bloody, least tumultuous and most peaceful period in the history of Europe – entirely down to the nuclear deterrent!

Or possibly European countries having a particular common interest which is not being invaded by the Russians and as a result formed the EEC and now the EU? You know invasion does have a galvanising effect on Countries.

Tbh, I'd follow the Germans – who tend to be better at building things than us (yeah, gross generalisation, i know) – are phasing out their reactors due to the incidence of cancer clusters round power stations.

But they are increasingly dependant on Russia for energy. Not very bright when it comes to energy security.