[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

just pointing out that fervent anti nuclear protesters tend not to have a particularly realistic appraisal of the risks

Of course some would say exactly the same concerning the fervent pro-nuclear lobby.

If you read my own posts Ernie - you'll see......

Well you've spotted the weakness in my argument ratty - I can't deny that.

The pollution from Chernobyl still means some UK farms are unable to sell teh sheep as they are not safe to eat.

the pollution from Fukishima has reached the UK

Interestingly about 95% of all of the Iodine 131 released from Fukishima has now degraded into Xenon.

the risk from nuclear is so much higher. a really serious accident would dwarf all deaths from conventional generation and nuclear will not reduce this anyway by a significant amount as nuclear will only replace a small amount of the energy used worldwide as you won't share it with some countries

Really? From an acute perspective, if the TGD went, that would be pretty catastrophic compared to the worst a nuclear reactor could manage. Oh, it's probably safe for now, but what might happen if it were to suffer an unexpectedly large quake?

From a chronic perspective, millions, if not billions are expected to suffer as a result of AGW, either to extreme weather and sea level rise directly, or from famine and draught as a result of changed weather patterns.

If you pay any of these suggestions any credence, you'll see they easily dwarf the estimates of deaths from an also extremely unlikely nuclear disaster which makes Chernobyl look small.

EDIT: Doh! just realised I pasted the wrong qu in - got to head out now - will try again if I'm more awake later...

Looks like a biased source

As for the Greenpeace link, I didn't make it to the second page, what with all the usual hyperbole about the dangers of nuclear and unrealistic stuff about renewables similar to those you always use. All became clear about where you get your source material - remember Greenpeace is a political, not a scientific organisation.

draught as a result of changed weather patterns

😆

Japan upgraded its month-old nuclear emergency to a maximum seven on an international scale of atomic crises Tuesday, placing it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster a quarter-century ago.

The reassessment to a "major accident" with "widespread health and environmental effects" was based on the total radiation released, which officials said was one-tenth of the 1986 accident in the then Soviet Union.

However, an official for operator Tokyo Electrical Power Co. (TEPCO) said that "the radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl", media reports said.

.... although I thought most of the radiation from the Fukushima plant was iodine which decays very rapidly into xenon, ejected when the hydrogen in the containment buildings exploded.

At Chernobyl, the core itself blew up, which has not happened at Fukushima and isn't going to.

We shouldn't forget that the number of people killed by the Fukushima plant's radioactivity so far (as opposed to being drowned or having a crane fall on them) is zero.

The argument for banning nuclear power is really an ideological one - safety is just a convenient cover to attack it with. Otherwise there would be lots of other things that would have already been banned. Cycling for example.

oldnpastit - Member

At Chernobyl, the core itself blew up, which has not happened at Fukushima and isn't going to.

right - clairvoyant now are we?

At the beginning of this episode all the pro nukes were saying the containment was safe. Well its breached and core material is escaping.

If the reactors are so safe why not build them in cities?

the anti nuke argument is based on two things they cannot contribute significantly to a reduction in CO2 gas emmissions worldwide and the are inherently dangerous. Minimal utility thus the risk outweighs the utility.
cycling does not contaminate huge areas of ground for generations

placing it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster a quarter-century ago.

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHH!

I've been trying to avoid this as it's my job, but you're a complete idiot if you think that fukishima is as bad as chernobyl. The only reason that they're both sevens is that there's no higher catergory to put chernobyl in!

At chernobyl a CORE ACTUALLY EXPLODED, scattering chunks of highly radioactive material over a wide area, and the remaining material inside the reactor burned fiercely, pushing a plume of radioacive material into the stratosphere (iirc). Nobody in the west knew until radiaion alarms at a plant in scandanavia were triggered to such an extent that they thought they had a leak!

And breathe!!!!

Some articles here charting the progress of the problems at Fukushima, and debunking most of the media scaremongering and bullshit flinging.

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/[/url]

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/fukushima_panic_breaks_completely_free_of_facts/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/fukushima_panic_breaks_completely_free_of_facts/[/url]

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/[/url]

As for wind power, utter joke. Unviable economically, environmentally unjustifiable, and terribly inefficient.

Recent UK wind power efficiency report

[url= http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf ]http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf[/url]

clairvoyant now are we?

If the reactors are so safe why not build them in cities?

the anti nuke argument is based on two things

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt. Both of these things have been shown to be lies. Core material is escaping into the ecosphere

We have shown beyond all doubt that uranium reactors can never be more than a few % of the worlds energy usage thus cannot contribute significantly to the reduction in CO2 - and that they cannot get on line quickly enough anyway whereas renewables can be a larger % and can be on line more quickly

Once again the actual facts show how ridiculous and thin the case for uranium cycle nukes is and the hysteria with which anyone who makes an anti nuclear case is treated shows how desperate the pro nukes are.

f the anti nuclear case is based on half truth and lies the pro nuclear case is based on deliberate sytemic lying and falsification of the evidence as proven time and time again.

upgraded its month-old nuclear emergency to a maximum seven

the pro nuclear case is based on deliberate sytemic lying and falsification of the evidence

Well, not really. I haven't even been watching the coverage of Fukushima.

I don't believe a track record NECESSARILY dictates future performance.

Zulu-11 - you'll see that the main sources I've referred to are the WHO and UNSCEAR - though obviously they're just part of the global conspiracy lead by the NWO and the Bilderbergers

They are not without bias. Don't you read other posts ? Let me recap for you.....

The IEAE exists to "promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies" so has an inherent pro nuclear bias. The WHO cannot publish research not approved by the IEAE (So inherits the same bias).

Where in the thread did you quote UNSCEAR? As far as I can see you only mention them [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/beginners-guide-to-nuclear-power-stations/page/16#post-2455442 ]here[/url], where you flippantly dismissed their research.

More on the upgrading of the incident [url= http://newsthump.com/2011/04/13/twitter-upgrades-fukushima-power-plant-crisis-from-omg-to-omfg/ ]here[/url]

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt.

You were? By whom? I wasn't.

A Chernobyl-style incident was, and continues to be, unlikely.

The contrast between those who use hysterical language vs those who use reasoned argument is exaggerated when discussing any emotive topic. You have been shown using hysterical and exaggerated remarks yourself. Best not to throw stones in a glass house.

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt.

Project managers fib, so the whole technology should be binned...?

Project managers fib, so the whole technology should be binned...?

More likely that (if) they deliberately fibbed to limit the effect of panic and allow an orderly, and therefore safer, evacuation of the area.

Yes, especially given the hysterical way people respond to anything with the word 'nuclear' in it.

Gonfishin - you really believe that? 🙄

Well, I'm off for a swim. Anyone care to join me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

Gonfishin - you really believe that?

No, what I actually believe is that they gave out the best information that they had available to them at the time which was then updated as better information became avaiable. What I certainly do not believe is that there was some sort of high level conspiracy to deliberatel withold information.

Obviously that's not ideal but i think you need to be a bit more factual with your statements.

Well, I'm off for a swim. Anyone care to join me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards
br />

I'm not sure I'd want to swim in the Sellafield ponds themselves but I do take the occassional dip in the sea off West Cumbria.

Anyone who thinks Sellafield is the most dangerous place in Europe clearly hasn't been out in Warrington on a Friday night.

😆

I'm almost getting bored of correcting TJ's [s]lies[/s] factual mistakes. Has anybody been keeping count?

We have shown beyond all doubt that uranium reactors can never be more than a few % of the worlds energy usage thus cannot contribute significantly to the reduction in CO2 - and that they cannot get on line quickly enough anyway whereas renewables can be a larger % and can be on line more quickly

Recent UK wind power efficiency report

JMT.ORG "http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf"

You are joking, right? Have you read it? Its hilarious, from cover to cover, from the "assumptions" they are 'tackling' to the 'consultant' they've used, who is actually just an anti wind farm campaigner (check out his hilarious visualisation work at http://www.syvisuals.co.uk/)

JMT have made themselves look pretty stupid by doing that report.

TJ's Posts are not factual mistakes or lies. He is looking at the whole planet not some rainly little island with only 60 or so million people living on it. Renewable potoential is enormous and won't run out. Nuclear is limited by the amount of uranium which wil soon run out if you up world consumption to what a few "trustworthy" countries consume.

There is enough renewable energy for the whole planet, why use more polluting alternatives? An intelligent humanity would use its fossil fuels sparingly and in applications such as plastics, pharma, concrete and steel production where alternatives are so much more complicated to use.

There is enough renewable energy for the whole planet

Overall, perhaps. However getting it to where demand is is very difficult.

That Muir report is highly misleading. Some of the quotes are gems.

[i]In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output
the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there.[/i]

Read up about Spanish wind power then read the Muir report. The Spanish have already achieved what Muir claim is impossible.

TJ's Posts are not factual mistakes or lies

psycorp - Member

As for wind power, utter joke. Unviable economically, environmentally unjustifiable, and terribly inefficient.

😕 well that must make nuclear energy a pretty big joke too then....... I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single example anyway in the world of the nuclear industry standing on its own two feet.

Everywhere, it has needed public money to fund it - whether it's to build the power stations or/and deal with nuclear waste.

Nuclear energy is, according to the strict rules of the market, completely non-viable economically, and therefore "terribly inefficient".

You can argue whether it is 'environmentally justifiable'. Although I think you might struggle a bit if you are pitting it against wind power.

Aracer - one last correction of your factual inaccuracies - we cannot get 16 GW of new nukes online in 7.5 years - you even contradict yourself on this. 15 years you admit to build sizewell b on this very thread. Look to the new reactors worldwide - 10 years is the very minimum. You might get one new reactor in ten years - you will not get 9

sizewell was 7.5 years in building [i]once all the politicking was done[/i] The 16 GW of new reactors don't even have sites chosen yet let alone planning or contractors or contracts signed.

We have also shown beyond all doubt that new nuclear cannot make any significant reduction in CO2. You will not let the technology be shared, it is only a few % of the worlds energy consumption.;

Wheras renewables are coming on line much more quickly and can be a much larger % of the planets energy consumption.

BTW - I did not say tht renewables create less CO2 in the building of them.

And yes - nuclear needs massive government subsidies to be built. And it is unreliable - this is a fact looking tat the historical record.

That would not only mean realistic prospects of low-to-zero carbon emissions: it would also mean no need to much care about the opinions of various unsavoury regimes around the world, or to funnel revenue to them to spend on weapons. Cheap nuclear energy would hugely boost economic performance. It would also offer effectively unlimited fresh water supplies, and realistic options for space travel beyond low Earth orbit.

Now that has to be a Joke ! 😀

You might get one new reactor in ten years - you will not get 9

Do they have to be built consecutively?

We have also shown beyond all doubt that new nuclear cannot make any significant reduction in CO2

Did we? Did I miss that bit?

Yes we did.

The logic is thus. nuclear only supplies less than 20 % of the worlds elecricity ie less than 5% of the world energy usage. It is not CO2 zero - large amounts are released during the building phase especially so less than 5% reeduction in CO2 if we double he number of reactors. We won't share the tech with some countries and some countries won't have them and there is only 85 years worth of ore left at current consupmtion - so double the number of rectors and we oly have 40 odd years of fuel and less than 5% reduction in CO2 .

It would also offer effectively unlimited fresh water supplies, and realistic options for space travel beyond low Earth orbit.

Now that has to be a Joke !

Well I've seen small modular reactors proposed to power desalination plants but I think space travel is a bit optimistic!

So nuclear cannot make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 output - and if you accept that we cannot afford to do both nuclear and renewables seriously ( as the historical record shows) then actully going down the nuclear road will give a lessor reduction in CO2 than alternative methods

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So, there's a nearly 5% reduction in CO2 then in your scenario?

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So if you build nukes you can't insulate houses?

If we max out reactor building (which no one is proposing) - best case scenario and it will take longer than 10 years to get that as most of the CO2 from rectors is released in the building of them.

Whereas efficiency and renewables have a greater capacity to reduce CO2 output for the same money spent

molgrips - Member
The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So if you build nukes you can't insulate houses?

yes - we have a finite pot of money to spend and nukes are very very expensive. Over the past few decades efficiency and renewables have ahd a tiny fraction of the investment. continue to waste moneyu on nuclear and wehave no money for reneawables and efficiency

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

Fact or 'TJ Fact'?

I'm uncertain as to whether or not nuclear will always need massive subsidies. Seems a bit strange to me.

Are you saying every nuke worldwide is simply a govt pawn in a weapons programme?

I'm uncertain as to whether or not nuclear will always need massive subsidies. Seems a bit strange to me.

Look at the costs involved and it becomes less strange, even for one power station.

The cost of decomissioning is largely an unknown, look at Dounreay for example ( http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/dounreay/) which frequently goes up by hundreds of millions of taxpayer £'s, then look at the number of sites waiting decommissioning now and in the future, its just crazy money ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority#Costs)

Everywhere, it has needed public money to fund it - whether it's to build the power stations or/and deal with nuclear waste.

Well, however unwittingly Ernie, you've finally added something of use to this discussion. Now then, lets investigate [b]why[/b] nuclear power has needed public funding....

Could it, perhaps, be that conventional fossil fuel power doesn't as yet need to pay for the majority of its waste in any shape or form?

Nah, that would be silly....

And Edukator, I and several others have been discussing the whole world here. The UK is a convenient case study as it is a situation with which we are all familiar, but if you're saying renewables can power the whole world, thank goodness you actually have no political influence in this matter.

Finally - TJ: your question about why should the UK have nuclear power if we don't allow other 'risky' nations to. Well, I don't think it needs saying that [b]in the wrong hands[/b] fissile materiel is pretty dangerous stuff. The key to that last sentence is the [b]in the wrong hands[/b] bit. If as a result of this rational thought you then somehow come to the conclusion that because Iran probably shouldn't have a civilian nuclear programme, then neither should the UK, then good for you. I believe the saying is something like cutting your nose off despite your face.

If you're happy to discount the 20GW a new fleet of nuclear power stations would bring to the UK (and also the GHG emissions from their conventional equivalents), why bother faffing with renewables either? Lets just build a few new gas stations and use less. Result. GHG below 1990 levels and no windmills cluttering up the place.

OR

We use our brains, and whilst aiming for efficiencies, build a sustainable mix of renewables, storage and nuclear.

I'm pretty sure the people of Bangladesh couldn't give two figs about Fukushima, but I know for a fact they'll be cursing BAU as their country disappears.

its just crazy money

Even compared to something as comparatively trivial as a few banks going bust and a few very rich people becoming less rich? Amazing what governments can find money for when it suits them...

Got a cost analysis of a nuke vs a coal?

Surely nukes must be profitable somewhere? What about France?

Got a cost analysis of a nuke vs a coal?

Not at work ATM so no easy access to journals, but I'm sure there will be economic modelling covering various carbon prices and break-even of renewables and nuclear vs fossil. If not, I might change fields and write something myself!

Cos if France has 50% or 75% or whatever nukes, that's well beyond what was needed for a cold war weapons programme...

its 20 GW of new nuclear in the UK now is it? I thought it was 16GW

Remember thats to replace the aging reactors so its not all extrea capacity and again you misrepresent totally numerous factors

Nuclear is more expensive even without the cost of the waste. We have to pay extra for it and then we have to pay to deal with the waste on top.

Please tell me where the money is going to come from to develop renewables and efficiency if we spend the huge sums the new nukes require?

As regards sharing the nuclear power - that is not the question I asked.

Nuclear is more expensive even without the cost of the waste

Time for some numbers on this.

As regards sharing the nuclear power - that is not the question I asked.

You said it was hypocritical that the UK could have nukes and Afganistan et al can't. You then qualified your stance by stating that if nuclear isn't globally suitable then it;s not worth doing. I may have paraphrased, but this is the interpretation I and others took. Stop wriggling and deal with the correct answers you receive. You're not Nick Clegg are you?

Remember thats to replace the aging reactors so its not all extrea capacity and again you misrepresent totally numerous factors

Sadly, your tone is taking this back to a pointless slanging match again. Re-read what I've quoted there and see how stupid it looks. By definition, replacing nuclear plants that likely would have been replaced by coal / gas as a result of a hysterical knee-jerk in response to Japan would increase CO2. Replacing them instead with nuclear eliminates this. Replacing ageing Coal and gas with nuclear would reduce CO2 further.

Please tell me where the money is going to come from to develop renewables and efficiency if we spend the huge sums the new nukes require?

I would suggest your MP might be able to furnish you with a better answer, seeing as he's the one who will make policy etc.

But, if you make fossil-based generators actually pay for their emissions, I think you might find that alternative energy sources suddenly become more viable. Anyway, as I mentioned a minute ago, if the government can find £150bn to save a couple of banks, you would have thought that energy security issues might attract their attention. Nope. Probably not.

Lets face it, these 1100 posts are all just hyperbole between a few more or less informed internet geeks. None of this will change policy, as currently, coal and gas are artificially cheap by a huge margin as they don;t have to pay for their waste. Until that changes, not a great deal will happen in any country.

Interestingly, there's a carbon-pricing debate raging here in Oz at the moment. They keep getting guests on from the UK, urging for such a scheme in the UK to level the playing field a little towards nuclear and renewables. If fossil fuel burners paid for their waste, there would be much less need for subsidies for either renewables or nuclear.

If we max out reactor building (which no one is proposing) - best case scenario and it will take longer than 10 years to get that as most of the CO2 from rectors is released in the building of them.

Whereas efficiency and renewables have a greater capacity to reduce CO2 output for the same money spent

if the government can find £150bn to save [s]a couple of banks[/s] the economy

FTFY. Don't be flippant.

Zokes - go back and read what I wrote.

I am not the one talking this back to a slanging match.

You cannot answer the question so you attack the questioner. Druidh was right - the pro nukes will refuse to answer as you have shown.

Nuclear power generators don't pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

Molgrips - I would suggest an energy shortage would make a few banks pale into insignificance when it comes to the economy needing saving. Try not to be so condescending in future...

the pro nukes will refuse to answer as you have shown.

It is a stupid question. What does it matter whether Iran has nuclear power? And why does it affect whether the UK should? If you could clarify these inadequacies in your question, perhaps it could be answered. Similarly Iran can't do hydro - does that mean we shouldn't be able to, lest we be seen to be hypocritical?

Nuclear power generators don't pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

So like fossil fuel then?

Zokes - you claim it is imperative that the UK has a new generation of nuclear power stations. This is despite the fact that ( amongst other drawbacks)it is expensive and we have no way of dealing with the waste. However you will refuse to allow other countries to share this technology. so if it is so imperative that we have it how can you justify denying it to to other countries? Its a global issue its either necessary for all or its not necessary for any. After all unless it is adopted across the globe then new nuclear will have an infinitesimal impact on global warming.

So you want us to spend huge sums of money on a technology that has major drawbacks,no significant advantages and will make no significant reduction in global warming.

Teh sums involved make the 150 bn figure you quote look like small change

So like fossil fuel then

It is a stupid question. What does it matter whether Iran has nuclear power? And why does it affect whether the UK should?

TandemJeremy - Member

Nuclear power generators don't pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

thanks to our grandparents, we already have this responsibility. we didn't ask for it, but there it is, like a poo on the carpet. there's no point shouting at the dog, or chaining him up outside, there's still a poo on the carpet.

Even if/when we all decide to agree with you and never build another nuclear power station.

whatever we decide to do with the nuclear waste we already have, it won't cost much more to dispose of a bit extra.

if/when we end up burying it a few miles underground, most of the cost will be rung up by establishing the process, and building the tunnel to get down there.

An extra tomb or 3 won't add much more to the bill.

ELEVENUNDRED!

Ah, bugger... 🙁

sorry Elf'!

🙂

French tax payers paid for French nuclear infrastructure and EDF has creamed a profit off it since. I suspect the tax payer will pick up the tab for much of the aftermath. Electricity here is silly cheap; I paid on only 250e last year for 2200kWh including standing charges. Not much incentive to economise then but that didn't stop me spending a few hours getting rid of a thermal bridge between the floor and the wall. In Germany they pay roughly double.

Some simple measures would result in energy saving. Zero VAT on all insulating materials, triple glazing, heat pumps and anything else that will reduce energy use. Changes to building regulations are needed, obligatory triple glazing of windows, R10 minimum for all walls and the floor in new houses and to get a permit for renovation. An obligatory standard for rented accomodation below which it would be illegal to rent out. A high tax on empty property forcing landlords to invest or sell up. Lots more ideas but I'll let you digest those.

bigjim - Member

The cost of decomissioning is largely an unknown, look at Dounreay for example ... which frequently goes up by hundreds of millions of taxpayer £'s, then look at the number of sites waiting decommissioning now and in the future, its just crazy money...

Dounreay is a bad example to use for estimating costs of decommissioning.

my friend's father helped design/build it, and he admits that they built it with no idea or thought about taking it apart again.

consequently, it's a bit tricky.

Try not to be so condescending in future...

I will if you don't say silly things. You know damn well that the bank bailout was extremely important, if morally repugnant and regrettable.

how can you justify denying it to to other countries?

Other countries have a) nutjobs in charge and b) different renewable potential.

EDF has creamed a profit off it since

Electricity here is silly cheap

Hmm, sounds like nuclear could be profitable then, especially if any govt subsidies could be met by retail price increases. Silly cheap energy does no-one any good.

Some simple measures would result in energy saving. Zero VAT on all insulating materials.....*snip*

Absolutely. These things are a no brainer. All carrot no stick makes good policy.

Well, however unwittingly Ernie, you've finally added something of use to this discussion.

Well it was completely unintentional, I can assure you - I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it.

But I will certainly be more careful in the future.........I much rather leave the useful contributions to those who believe they can move the immovable.

I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it

Is that [i]neccessarily[/i] the case though?

Can nuclear be made economical?

Can nuclear be made economical?

Well as I said, I'm fairly certain no country anywhere has yet managed to do that. Apart from anything else it's all the shit it leaves behind I believe.

Mind you, I'm not that bothered about what the market says - and I'm happy to use public money to support something worthwhile, specially when it concerns the environment. So nuclear energy being uneconomical is hardly likely to sway me in any direction.

It must be a problem for Tories though.

Except of course, we know that for all their lecturing about the "market always knows best" they don't actually believe all that bollox - they just can't admit it.

Can nuclear be made economical?

Wind/solar power is only economical because of huge subsidies via carbon levies.

(Although Ernie's argument applies equally here as well).

I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a budget of £2billion per year for the next 25 years. Spread over the electricity the nuclear industry has supplied over the last 25 years gives a subsidy of 2.3p per kWh. A hefty subsidy to be sure but pales into comparison to the 7p per kWh subsidy currently given to offshore wind.

Actually civilian nuclear subsidy is less than that because a lot of the nuclear subsidy goes to the clean up of material left by the military nuclear programme.

You might get one new reactor in ten years - you will not get 9

sizewell was 7.5 years in building once all the politicking was done

And it is unreliable

Can nuclear be made economical?

well as you noted it is dangerous in the wrong hands. Some people take this to mean humans you just take dangerous to mean humans I dont trust for political reasons.

[i]Nuclear power isn't actually dangerous even in the wrong hands,[/i]

So when some guy from the party told an operator in the Ukraine to do something daft and he did it, it wasn't dangerous in the wrong hands?

You have a point, Edu. So we should worry about nuclear in the hands of those who already have it, and whatever we do won't make any difference to? Though I'm surprised to see that even you need a bit of revision on what actually happened 25 years ago.

I don't need to revise that's exactly what happened. The superiors told the operators to overide and ignore a series of safety measures (something daft) and the operators did so, with the consequences we all know.

"Some guy from the party"? The people making the decisions were also rather more directly involved in pushing buttons than you suggest, hence paid the ultimate price.

The strange thing is "some guy from the party" would actually seem to support my position!

They were all in the party. You can try to rewrite history or have your own fantasy opinion if you want but that's what happened. The order to carry out the experiment on back up power systems came from above (the party) and to comply with the order the operators ignored safety procedures.

You'll argue black is white won't you, Aracer.

The order to carry out the experiment on back up power systems came from above

You'll argue black is white won't you, Aracer.

3mile island? This sort of stupidity is not the preserve of the USSR