[Closed] George Monbiot on nuclear

We supply 'bits' for Nuclear power stations and looking at the tenders flying round the office in the last year there are going to be new plants built.

Good, I was seriously beginning to worry that this countries energy policy was being driven by badly researched Guardian opinion pieces and Daily Mail-esque "we're all going to glow in the dark" hysteria. Maybe there is some hope after all. I bet most of the work and profits go to overseas companies though.

Nee nukes? Ordering parts before planning has been granted or contracts signed?

here is an interesting bet - Scotland is going down a very different path in major investment in renewable and there will be no new nukes in Scotland. England is going for nukes not renewable. ( neither is going for conservation in any meaningful manner)

Which way will the electricity be flowing across the border in ten years? 20? I bet Scotland is supplying England significant amounts of electricity in ten years

STW runaway thread powers entire city shock !!
rabid posters to be harnessed for future projects 🙂

For God's sake TJ we're not trying to argue you down, we're trying to help you understand.

We need energy reduction AND nuclear, in my view. Simple.

why?

We don't just need to reduce CO2 emissions, we need to get them as close to zero as possible. We might be able to meet those from renewbales, but why not work on nuclear as a solution?

And yes I know you've posted up your answer to this before, but I don't consider your answer satisfactory.

Which way will the electricity be flowing across the border in ten years? 20? I bet Scotland is supplying England significant amounts of electricity in ten years

In 20 years the financial system will have gone into meltdown and we'll be bartering with chickens so the the whole arguments irelavent.

My moneys on Salmond not being in charge in 20 years and Scotland building nuclear power stations allong with the rest of the world, wither that or it'll join the arc of prosperity with Iceland and Ireland and be bartering potatoes for haggis.

Most of the new plants will be built 'next to existing ones by the look of it, havent read much of the above but if nuclear waste is your deal check this out....(probably seen it anyway)

there was a programme about it few months back on TV, one part of it was discussing what 'signage' they would have outside once it was finally sealed from the outside world.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo#Onkalo_waste_repository ]WASTE[/url]

After the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act[22] was amended in 1994 to specify that all nuclear waste produced in Finland must be disposed of in Finland, Olkiluoto was selected in 2000 as the site for a (very) long-term underground storage facility for Finland's spent nuclear fuel.

The facility, named "Onkalo" ("cave" or "cavity")[23] is being built in the granite bedrock a few miles from the Olkiluoto power plants. The municipality of Eurajoki issued a building permit for the facility in August 2003 and excavation began in 2004.[24]

The plans for the facility consist of four phases:[citation needed]

Phase 1 (2004–09) will focus on excavation of the large access tunnel to the facility, spiraling downward to a depth of 420 metres (1,380 ft).
Phase 2 (2009–11) will continue the excavation to a final depth of 520 metres (1,710 ft). The characteristics of the bedrock will be studied in order to adapt the layout of the repository.
Around 2012, Posiva Oy, the agency responsible for the facility's construction, plans to submit an application for a license to construct the repository and any adaptations it requires. This is expected to take up to three years.[citation needed]
Phase 3, the construction of the repository, is expected to begin about 2015.
Phase 4, the encapsulation and burial of areas filled with spent fuel, is projected to begin in 2020.

molgrips - Member

For God's sake TJ we're not trying to argue you down, we're trying to help you understand.

How patronising!

From my point of view its you that does not understand. I do understand that there is not enough nuclear fuel to power the world and that the nuclear powers will not share the tech. I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale.

I do understand that there is not enough nuclear fuel to power the world

Yeah but the point is that with different tech (ie not cold-war tech) we could change that.

And I don't see anything wrong with trying.

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale

Does that necessarily mean they never could? (note don't answer that, it needs a scientist involved in the research, not a nurse or a computer programmer)

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale.

Nor has wave power, but you have faith in that.

I undersatnd that fast breeders and thorium have never produced a stable electricity supply on a commercial scale

I refer the honourable gentleman back to where we answered this a few pages back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

There probably does exist enough potential across Europe to meet demand through renewables alone. (Scotland, Norway, Denmark - wind, Spain and Greece solar. Tidal has a a lot of potential too)

Trouble is this would require serious cross goverment co-operation and huge infrastructure projects not just to generate the power but to distribute it as well. Pan European intergration on this scale doesn't exactly have a brilliant track record. Also politically would the UK government be happy with having to rely on sunshine in Greece to guarantee power to the houses in the Home Counties when its a calm day in the Highlands?

Also what about China, India, Brazil etc. Do we just say sorry lads the the party's over you can't have any cheap energy. I abso-fricken-lutley guarantee they will be using nuclear. So we can either embrace it as a technology and work on better more effecient reactor tech for ourselves and potentially to export to massive new markets. Or we ignore it and stand by the technological sidelines - again

Nuclear energy must be great. The Iranians are hell-bent on developing it. And they've got ****-loads of oil and natural gas!

richmtb - where is the fuel for this massive expansion of nuclear going to come from?

We could of course instead become world leaders in renewables if we put all that money and R&D effort into it

richmtb - where is the fuel for this massive expansion of nuclear going to come from?

Isn't the whole point of IBR/FBR and many other similar reactor designs that they use the 99.2% of the fuel that previous generation reactors didnt use, thus providing 99x more energy and solving the waste problem.

As for becoming a leader in renewables, whenever a developing coutnry builds a renewable project (I'm thinking 3 Gorges Dam etc) we decry them for killing millions of inocent lesser spotted rarified dung beatles. Theres not much we can do to make renewables more efficient, the best we can do is build loads of them, and that takes, time, money and countryside.

We could of course instead become world leaders in renewables if we put all that money and R&D effort into it

Why are they mutually exclusive?

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels? especially as you can't rely on a steady stream of decommissioned warheads any more?

Oh I did - last time we had this discussion.

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it'll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol...

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels?

For which reactor design?

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it'll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol...

Yes because energy poverty is a great idea. Hypothermia anyone?

Did anyone say that you need to use a lot of carbon fuel to extract mine and refine your nuclear fuels? especially as you can't rely on a steady stream of decommissioned warheads any more?

Physics fail? In general the reactors convert uranium to plutonium, plutonium being used in warheads.

If there realy was more energy used getting uranium out of the ground and into a reactor than it produced in the reactor we'd just fuel the power stations with diesel!

And the whole point of FBR over erlier genration reactors is they use the WASTE from the firt gen much more efficienctly so require NO NEW FUEL.

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

thats easy for you to say

you have now changed tack on each successive page of this thread.

seek help.

Me?

How have I changed tack?

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

A brief summary purleez Uncle Jezza.....

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

Yes, but we generaly hate it. The news last month was full of stories about how energy tarrifs were overly complicated, can't see increacing that complexity making any new friends.

Agree with you on principle though as the current system of chageing X for the first few units then Y for the rest (where X>Y) is a regressive system, even if it does accurately reflect the energy suppliers costs.

binners - domestic consumers as consumption rises so does the price.

Its very simple to make mechanisms to prevent fuel poverty while penalising excessive consumption

And what is "excessive consumption"? Should we make electric trains go slower or do we put up rail fares? What about an aluminium smelter - do we put up the price of metals or do we just import from countries with more enlightened energy policies? What about other manufacturers - again, maybe we import from other countries as ours get uncompetitive? Can't see any of this leading to much of a future for this country.

Rio - DOMESTIC! that bit of discussion was about fuel poverty

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries - energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take - the companies that are more fuel efficient will have a significant advantage

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries - energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take - the companies that are more fuel efficient will have a significant advantage

Yes, but on the assumption that an aluminuum smelter has already made their process as efficient as possible, they're going to build their new plant in a country with a cheep reliable source of energy. At the moment UK renewables provide neither of those.

I'll have to pull you up on that one tinas - many aluminium smelters are located right next to hydroelectric dams for cost reasons - renewability is a side-effect here of course. Especially in developing countries afaik.

EDIT: although re-reading, I think I see your point as being slightly different to what I thought.

I'll accept that, and ammend it to UK renewables (as we AFAIK dont have any big hydro plants?).

Dinorwig excepted (which doesnt count)

Am I right in thinking I'm detecting a fair bit of this kind of thinking driving certain behaviours on here...? 😉

[IMG] [/IMG]

for commercial the same pressures will be on all countries - energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take

So while we're getting all touchy-feely about wind farms, tidal etc, the Chinese are telling the environment to **** right off! and building loads of coal fired power stations, supplied by open cast mining!

And this has no bearing on prices, or commercial competitiveness on which particular planet Uncle Jez?

Rio - DOMESTIC

The original point was that expensive energy will reduce demand; my point (possibly not well made) is that there is a limit to how far that will take you.

energy is going to be more expensive no matter what line we take

Not true - we can go on lobbing cheap coal into power stations for the foreseeable future if we want. A policy of expensive energy is a decision that someone has taken, and it is one that may well be reversed by popular demand when people understand the consequences - after all, people are not typically good at taking the long term view when it comes to impact them.

[img] [/img]

FIFY

Physics fail? In general the reactors convert uranium to plutonium, plutonium being used in warheads.

I'm sure I saw a stat that 16% of worldwide nuclear fuel in one recent year was from decommissioned weapons. As this is the internet and not a dissertation I'm not going to cite it.

If there really was more energy used getting uranium out of the ground and into a reactor than it produced in the reactor we'd just fuel the power stations with diesel!

Well there's obviously not more, but the nuclear industry still emits a lot of CO2, 30% comes to mind... the cost of the carbon fuels in the mining regions may not be the same as here in the UK.... Oh and the cash crop was traditionally weapons grade material with energy being a happy by-product.

If we allow the wholesale cost of electricity to rise naturally it'll reduce consumption. I reckon this has already happened with Petrol...

Yes because energy poverty is a great idea. Hypothermia anyone?

Well deaths from hypothermia are part of the mechanism of reducing demand... No, obviously not. But I guess this is why the 60's futurists wanted grannies to live in tower blocks instead of bungalows.

The hazards of typing in yellow on white are massively under represented in the public's perception.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

I'll accept that, and ammend it to UK renewables (as we AFAIK dont have any big hydro plants?).

There is a fair bit of hydro in scotland both straight hydro and pumped storage

why does Dinorwig not count?

I find this hilarious. The second time this has been posted by pro nuclear folks on here who would normally decry Monbiot.

If the pro-nuclear folk would normally decry Monbiot because he used to be anti-nuclear (and used TJ style dodgy arguments), then it what way is that not consistent?

Personally though, I've had to totally change my thinking having read that article. If George thinks nuclear is a good thing, then clearly I was wrong all along and it's a load of rubbish. That's a far easier paradigm shift than to assume he's talking sense.

Monbiot is [s]far more reasoned, balanced and pragmatic than most[/s] a massive arsehat.

TFIFY

Like it aracer

Blimey. First two posts on this thread summed it up for me.

why does Dinorwig not count?

First two posts on this thread summed it up for me.

Don't be coming around here with that kind of heresy! All threads on here are ultimately a repeat of the diametrically opposed positions stated in the opening posts, repeated ad nauseum with increasing venom. Does that make all the following pages of nonsensical vitriol any less valid? [b]Does it?!![/b]

Oh.... erm.... actually..... hang on a minute......

There is a fair bit of hydro in scotland both straight hydro and pumped storage

why does Dinorwig not count?

What 5thElephant said, it's not generating anything.

Are there any actual power station sized renewable energy sources in the UK. Let's say for the sake of argument that a powerstation has to be 500MW to count (so a quater the size of a conventional fossil fuel fired station).

Hoover dam = renewable energy
3 Gorges dam = renewable energy
Anything less is a token jesture really, every little helps, but we need big projects if we're to replace (or mitigate the lack of through energy conservation) the entire fossil fuel and nuclear power geenrating capacity.

Manly small - but the total is significant - local power generation is good as it reduces transmission losses a list of scottish wind farms as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Scotland#Conventional_hydro-electric

Wait a couple of years and the tidal will be up there as well as will the wave

Pump storage is good as it can smooth peaks and troughs in demand and is almost essential alongside nukes as they are not responsive

320 mw windfarm