[Closed] Hinkley C - do you have a view?

Rio - but the facts and figures do not support what you say. Thats the problem. Predictions into the future about nuclear power stations have been proven to be wrong so many times. "electricity to cheap to meter"

Teh past record is not good. Inefficient, expensive, unreliable and dangerous. that is a simple fact.

You believe the future projections. I don't

You believe the future projections. I don't

I think you'd better get into politics then and start wining hearts and minds if you don't want this to happen - the two page straw poll above suggests you're in a minority, and so probably won't get too many votes from the STW constituency.

Clear majority north of the border - both amongst the public and the politicos. I thought south of the border public opinion was against them despite the lobbying from the industry PR flaks

there will be no new nukes built north of the border. There is no need for them

TJ - "energy too cheap to meter" was a stupid statement made for publicity and to maintain research funding in the early days of nuclear power; it has no more validity than the predictions of nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners and does not support the argument that predictions about nuclear power stations have been proven wrong so many times.

That's fine then - lets clip the grid cables just before the border and see how much acid rain and sulphur dioxide sells for on the open market vs the import cost of coal and/or carbon capture.

I have a finger on the pulse of a few colleagues and friends in the green energy sector building tidal and wind generation capacity and even they accept the need for the next round of nuclear and then see what happens.

"Inefficient, expensive, unreliable and dangerous"

These are all relative terms, not absolutes. Anything involving large amounts of energy is dangerous, especially the bloody turbines. Expensive, yes; not sure I agree inefficient, unreliable or dangerous. Surveying the UK's nuclear energy record, please can you cite evidence to support these scary words?

Don't think you can cite the Winscale accident as that was a post-war pile for weapons-grade plutonium production.

Even so Rio - the history of nuclear power in the UK is hardly full of shining glories is it? Unreliable, expensive, dangerous is a reasonable summary of the past performance.

Look at data on Hunterston B for example. Just reached 70% of output. thats as good as it has ever got. IIRC -most of the time it has run at 50 odd % and at times less.

Hinkley running at well below rated capacity as it is damaged internatlly

Windscale / Sellafield - a lot of the pollution comes from reprocessing and storage of waste.

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/692045

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/secret-documents-reveal-government-inspectors-fears-over-defective-nuclear-reactors

Clear majority north of the border - both amongst the public and the politicos

This intrigued me, but the mearest-waft-at-google suggests the picture is mixed depending on the phrasing of the question....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4774536.stm

"Respondents were also asked if they would support or oppose new nuclear power stations if they helped Scotland to avoid becoming dependent on imported energy.

The study found 54% were in favour of nuclear and 34% were against."

.....and even then there is the (perhaps, not unbiased) statement that

"The Scottish First Minister, was also warned the lights could go out north of the Border unless electricity generated from nuclear sources is imported from England. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/5163756/Cross-border-row-rages-over-SNP-blocking-new-nuclear-power-stations.html

Completely in favour, nuclear has its downsides like everything else?

My Dad's worked on the A station for over 30 years and for the company all his working life and I did a placement jollying around the Engineering department one summer so you could claim I am brainwashed.

If i'm answering the question; "how would you like to live next to it?" i'd say quite a lot as in reality that would mean at the closest I would live in Stogursey or Stockland but probably Nether Stowey, or Holford and riding the Q's from there is much better than road riding to them or driving and I wouldn't have to live in Bridgwater.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale etc provide an unneccessary distraction and weak ammunition for the Nimbys. Although Chernobyl was pretty unpleasant there were unique factors that contributed to the aftermath for example nukes built next to / within towns as they liked to use the superheated steam to heat homes and superheated steam can only be efficiently piped two miles or something.

The lights need to stay on and while Clement Atlees prediction that nuclear would gives us power too cheap to meter now seems a bit wide of the mark its really quite good.

The whole storage issue is an odd one that along with most things is heavily effected by funding, they were going to build an intermediate level waste store at Hinkley A to store waste on site. This was the three box plan I think, leaving just the two reactor buildings and the ILW after decommissioning was complete. There was not enough money so decommissioning slowed down with areas of the site mothballed until theres more money I think. Regardless we have Sellafield now so why not continue to use it.

I've just realised i'm jabbering excessively, sorry!!

Some odd decisions with nuclear have been made over the years, I think in Austria there is a plant called Zwentendorf which has never been turned on because after it was built there was a referendum and the country said they would never want nuke.

Clean coal expensive is way too expensive (as in this capture the gas and pump it into old oil wells in the north sea) and living in China now I spend every day realising how terrible conventional coal and in general poor air quality is.

Making the severn estuary a pond was a pretty stupid hugely expensive idea and after years of deliberation is finally off the table.

Trying to win the moral victory is ridiculous, if a French nuke went boom we'd lose out anyway given how close they are and countries like China and India have been playing with nukes for years and if the attitudes to H&S on the street are even similar to that of those when building running their nukes they are the real ones at risk.
That said India built one at Taripur which from the breaking of soil to achieving criticality only took three year; mightily impressive. Perhaps the Indians should come and build ours, or not!!

Hinkley running at well below rated capacity as it is damaged internatlly

Dibbs - it is damaged internally - no dispute

This analysis from the independednt shows just how bad the sate of the reactors is and how unreliable they have been

Both reactors at nearby Hinkley Point B and at Hunterston B on the west coast of Scotland are running at 70 per cent power, at inspectors' insistence, after developing cracks in the graphite core of their reactors. In the worst-case scenario, the cracked graphite bricks could break up and distort the nuclear core, trapping the highly radioactive fuel, which could overheat and melt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/power-cuts-feared-in-uk-nuclear-plants-crisis-951810.html

Bristol biker - how biased a question is that? Ridiculous.

Two of the 10 have been idle for almost a year, with both reactors out of action due to corrosion. Another two have had one of their reactors closed down for months. And yet another two are having to run both their reactors at less than three-quarters of their normal power for safety reasons.

And even that is not the end of it. Of the four that are still in good working condition, one is due to shut down permanently in two years' time, a second is partially closed for routine maintenance, and a third is facing safety questions following the discovery of flaws in similar reactors in Japan.

The Hinkley and Hunterston power reductions are due to boiler limitations not reactor core limitations, don't believe everything you read TJ.

Dibbs your sources for that? Conmsidering that it has been widely reported that the cracks have led to the need to reduce output - not one source but many .

Bristol biker - how biased a question is that? Ridiculous

Let's put it another way: 'Put your sensible head on for moment and take you're head out your arse - do you want to watch X-factor on saturday night or sit in the dark around a camp fire because there's no leccy?'

This is actually what the average Joe cares about on the street and when you phrase the question in such terms then the moral case melts like ice cream in a freezer without power. As has been mentioned above several times any politician is committing political suicide to suggest the lights will go out and as there is no plausable alternative that offers the energy density in the short term that the private sector is prepared to invest in then this is direction we will end up goign for the medium term..... and yes, we will have to worry about waste later on.

Even if the question is phrased in less stark terms, coal is still below nuclear as the prefferred solution.

bristolbiker - but that is ridiculous. We can meet our energy needs without nukes. To ignore the waste probloem is absurd.

Private companiews will not build new nukes without massive subsifdy and without the government taking responsibiluty for waste and decommisioning

You are simply being absurd

I don't believe we can, certainly not for the next 25 years. This is what I hear from people in the industry. We will simply have to disagree on this.

Private companiews will not build new nukes without massive subsifdy and without the government taking responsibiluty for waste and decommisioning

Yes - you are completely correct, and those are framing terms of the next generation of reactor licenses. Such is the political demand for new power.

TJ-And no station has been decommissioned yet

With Berkeley and Oldbury just down the Severn from me, you could say I've lived in the shadow of these things all my life.
In reality are renewable electricity sources out there ready to go that can supply a country with the population and density of the UK?
Obviously, renewables are the long term target, but what about the immediate future? Power cuts are a very serious reality in this country because every time the issue raises it head, the powers that be get scared and have refused to push the button for new electricity sources, by whatever means of generation.
I could well be wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that Drax (coal fired) was the largest single emitter of CO2 in western Europe? According to Wiki, it certainly is the largest in the UK, and with recent renovations its actually the most efficient!
Thinking about TJs comments about the efficiency of the nuke plants made me think. Again, only on some memory so probably wrong, I do have a recollection about most of our plants being designed built with a 25year service life, most of them now operating well beyond that due to demand. So whats the youngest nuke power station in the UK? How does it stack up to what we know now about nuclear generation?
BTW I'm for it. I don't see we have a choice as yet.

remember the industry has a built in bias in favour of large capital intensive projects. Insulation houses does not do their profits any good

OIf course wwe can meet our energy needs without nukes - its quicker to opena caol mine and build a coal powered station than a nuke FFS. WE could have a huge pelarmis fleet in action in a few years.

energy efficiency could reduce consumption by 25% easily.

While Berkeley may not yet be fully decommissioned, its well on its way. Obviously full cost won't be known till its completed.

My point is made.

TJ: I would not dare to contradict Dibbs in these matters.

But this remark about the design of "C" on the link you posted I find very interesting:

According to calculations by EDF and Areva, the reactor’s RIP (Instant Return to Power) control mode and the control rod cluster configuration can induce a rod ejection accident during low-power operation, and lead to the rupture of the control rod drive casing. This rupture would cause the coolant to leak outside the nuclear reactor vessel. Such a loss of coolant accident (LOCA - a very serious type of nuclear accident) would damage a large number of fuel rods by heating fuel pellets and claddings, and thus cause the release of highly radioactive steam into the containment. So there is a great risk of a criticality accident resulting in an explosion, the reactor power being increased in an extremely brutal way. Following the ejection of control rod clusters during low-power operation, the reactor emergency shutdown may fail. Whatever the configuration of the control rod clusters, a rod ejection accident induces a high rate of broken fuel rods and therefore a high risk of a criticality accident.

So the RIP (how apt) is a cr@p design feature, and inherently unsafe. Is it true or just noise? Who knows!? Normally, the engineering process would design this sort of weakness out. Perhaps it already has.

remember the industry has a built in bias in favour of large capital intensive projects. Insulation houses does not do their profits any good

Insulating houses has minimal impact - our demand, esp in industry is increasing faster than we can save from domestic reductions alone.

OIf course wwe can meet our energy needs without nukes - its quicker to opena caol mine and build a coal powered station than a nuke FFS. WE could have a huge pelarmis fleet in action in a few years.

That survey I referrenced above shows coal has a worse public relations problem than nuclear. 15% would go nuclear, 6% coal IIRC. You appear to be in a minority of wanting Drax-size sites springing up again. Putting some numbers against this, I can go out tommorow and buy the hardware for a gas fired turn-key power station for around £20m to output 60/100MW. A typical sub-sea turbine will generate 1MW (some of the time) for over £1M and the offshore instalation fees are crippling (I know, I've spent an evening in a pub with a guy who's done it crying into his beer how much this costs). The current subsidy on 'renewable' tarrifs means they are subsidused to the tune of 50% to make it even worth the while of companies to build these machines, and there won't be the critical mass for years in these industries for that to go away. We need high energy density installations to take us through that period - and the people would appear to want nuclear before coal.

WE could have a huge pelarmis fleet in action in a few years

I expect you mean Pelamis. It's true that we possibly could and maybe we should if the costs of the steel and the offshore cables work out and we can solve the storage problem, but the numbers don't stack up as a replacement for nuclear. Also remember that these sorts of technologies have a long history of failing to live up to their expectations. Anyone for a Salter's Duck?

bristolbiker - energy efficiency is a huge range of measures - insulation is one of them and yes they would save 25% if done properly

However capitalism does not push people to consume less. NO profit in it.

I did not at any point argue for new Drax stations. I argue for a range of things from insulating houses to local CHP plants, to wave energy to local thermal stores.

When you start attacking me, inventing things I say to support your argument I know that you have lost and its time for me to leave the debate. I should have followed Zokes example ages ago.

buzz-lightyear
I merely asked Dibbs for his sources seeing as he contradicts many reports in quality newspapers I am interested to know why he is so sure they have got it wrong

As haakon_haakonsson has already pointed out, if anyone wants to form an opinion formed on 'science' then try reading "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by David MacKay.

In summary all the options are sh1t, but nuclear is the least sh1t one for now, but long term we may be screwed. Unless Fusion is sorted out.

PS. The guy has even put it online for free... http://www.withouthotair.com/

TJ - Dibbs is probably better informed than most of us on the subject.

Rio - you really should know better. You know that salters duck was discredited on the back of some very dodgy numbers and pelamis has a functioning station off the Portuguese coast.

Hinkley B - output 860Mw, even if thats 100%, it means its putting out 602Mw at 70%.
http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=89

Pelamis Aegir project - output up to 20Mw, thats with 26 Pelamis generators.
http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/aegir-shetland

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewable energy, its definitely the future. I just don't think its ready yet. I don't disagree that building nuke power plants is environmentally unfriendly, but I'm interested to know what the cost (cash and to the environment) of building enough Pelamis generators to equal the power output of one new nuke station?

Let's just say that I'm probably the only person on this site that's been inside the Hinkley pressure vessels with the inspection teams.

PeteG55, 860Mw is the 70% figure, we used to generate around 1200Mw.

TJ - even so, the numbers don't add up [i]even if you could extract 100% of the energy from the waves[/i], never mind the environmental effects that would have.

Dibbs - fair enough but why was it so widely reported that the cracks in the bricks was the issue? are there no cracks in the bricks? is this not an issue?

Rio - Member

TJ - even so, the numbers don't add up even if you could extract 100% of the energy from the waves, never mind the environmental effects that would have.

Pish. There is plenty of energy in the waves if we can get at it. Its low grade and hard to access but there is plenty there is we can get at it.

I have some lovely views of Hinkley stored in my head after the Steart Beach rave of 2002..

Pish

As usual I refer the hon gentleman to [url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c12/page_73.shtml ]Prof Mackay's figures[/url].

The problem with diffuse power sources is that the resource cost of harnessing them can easily exceed their value so there may be a lot of it but it's not necessarily much use, and maybe we want to use all that steel for something else. Wave power has its place, but it's not the answer to keeping the lights on.

I lived for many years about 15 miles due east of Drax, its smoke/condensation etc use to give us ace sunsets...

Two choices really; less consumption or more creation - and based upon the number of electrical devices in my house compared to my folks when I was growing up, either way we'll need more power.

So whatever you all decide is the answer to power creation, just hurry up and build it.

Rio - as I keep saying its not one tech thats the answer - wave is a part of it.

I get so frustrated with teh ridiculous assertions and the continual inventing of theings I say

Its not "nukes or the lights go out" - thats just a ridiculous stance.

The shortfall can easily be met by implementing a range of things from Ebnergy efficiency to renewables. Unfortunalty there is no money fgor big business in this so theya re against it and no political will to get there.

Those are the main stumbling blocks

I'm not disagreeing with TJ's assertion that we should also look at renewables at all scales and also a major look at lower consumptions (I wish they would turn off half/all the street lamps round here)

Frankly, we should do all of it, including nuclear for base-load. It does annoy me that it's a French company doing it tho - I'm not anti-France, I'm just pro-British!

I seem to remember a documentary a while back on the UK nuke industry. Apparently, Oldbury couldn't be run at full power due to unexpected levels of corrosion on the bolts that hold the core together.

(Personally, I would rather go to bed by candle-light than see more fission stations built...)

"I would rather go to bed by candle-light"

🙂

Candle-power Internet anyone?

...or how about photo-voltaics and batteries?

To be serious for a minute, I think TJ is correct when he says it's mostly a political problem.

I knew someone who knew about Salter's Duck. The figures were altered to make the renewable seem hopelessly inefficient and expensive and nuclear wonderfully efficient and cheap.

Funny how nuclear's costs never include decommissioning, and when you ask how much that will be, there's just a load of foot-shuffling and mumbling.

We need to use less electricity. I think it can be done, as I said above, by reducing, reusing, insulating, local generation schemes; in short, a whole raft of solutions.

This will however never happen because the whole point of being "green" is to reduce consumption and the whole thrust of what we are being urged to do now to "save our economy" is to consume.

I've been environmentally aware now for almost 40 years and I actually believe now that it's too late, and that India and China's industrialisation will cancel out anything we can do here in the UK.

My feeble attempts at recycling, cycling, watching food miles and wearing an extra jumper at home when it's cold are so ineffectual as to be risible. Still, I shall continue to do my part, it makes me feel better and I've been doing it so long it's become a habit now.

Oh, and I wasn't talking about directly bombing a nuclear station, I was thinking more of the potential for the disaffected to hijack the raw material/waste material as it travels round the country by train.

We need to use less electricity. I think it can be done, as I said above, by reducing, reusing, insulating, local generation schemes; in short, a whole raft of solutions.

You've forgotten the need to replace gas for space heating and petrol for cars. One thing you can be absolutely sure about is that even though we may use less energy due to efficiency, we will NOT use less electricity. Even things as seemingly unrelated as increased water stress have an effect - isn't there a desalination plant being built / planned for london? These need huge amounts of electricity.

Nuclear power is not a panacea - far from it. However, large scale generation needs to be carried out by something, and in a few years time we'll need to replace all the nuclear stations and most of the coal ones with something. As has already been said, we're probably just pi$$ing in the wind anyway by now. Modern society will collapse if energy shortage becomes a real issue, and unless we crack technologies like fusion and its ilk, that's ultimately where we're headed.

Ironically, it's probably the knee-jerk reaction to Chernobyl and the massive cuts in nuclear funding that it caused which have left us in this mess. Given that sooner or later us and our main gas suppliers (the Russians) will probably fall out over the lack of oil in the world, it might be a good idea not to be too reliant on them for most of our heating and electricity needs. I know we can't mine Uranium in the UK, but a lot of it comes from Australia, who I suspect (Ashes cricket aside), we'll be good friends with for some time yet...

wowo this has got lots of clever words in !!!

As a local to hinkley i think that hinkley C is the best option over the wind turbines, the only people that are really protesting the station is greenpeace, most of the 45,000 people who live withing 25 miles are really not fussed, we have grown up with the station there, people in the area know that there is no risk of any terrorist attack or huge radiation leak,

the idea about burying the waste under the quantocks is another good idea, there are alot of disused quarys around the area which could be developed into a store for them,

it is one of the biggest employers in the area and will only do more good by providing more jobs, also if they do choose to build the station they will need to put a percentage back into the local area which will hopefully improve the road structures and little rumors of a new golf course 🙂

+1 for nuclear here..

As wonderful as it would be for us to meet all our leccy needs from wind/wave/sunlight we as a nation piss energy away, and before even the most efficient renewables are going to meet the UK's energy needs we need a massive cultural change to reduce the levels of wasted electricity...

Where as I applaud all efforts to cut down the wanton destruction, pollution and rape of resources etc, in the persuit of the all mighty dollar dividend, but what i do chuckle at is mans arrogance to imagine its all down solely to our activities

Big time. elevating fear of CO2 is a-la-mode; governments can use it as a control measure, companies can use it as a short term money spinner. I've not that much of a problem with either of those in principle, its not ideal but it has the associated benefit of reduction of our reliance on fossils. Being preached to about man-made-up global warming really 'grinds my gears' though, its just a load of bollocks.

I don't believe we'll have much of a problem with fossils running out however; we'll run out of political clout (best case) or military might (worst case) well before the wells truly dry up.

Renewables, one day, will provide for us the clean infinite source of power we crave; the Earth receives 20,000 times the amount of energy from the Sun humans currently require, so we're not short of a Watt or two. But for now they can't even get close to providing for current consumption, and as Zokes points out, notions of reducing consumption are laughable (despite both consumer and industrial efforts to increase efficiency, driven by cost). Consumption is going to head skyward fairly rapidly regardless.

Fears over nuclear catastrophes and terrorism are not unfounded, but are artificially inflated as a by-product of the political and media hysteria about the issues generated to achieve disparate objectives. Nuclear waste is a problem for sure, but not insurmountable. Its a small step in innovation away from providing a the medium term ticket we desperately require, so we have to (and will) cautiously progress down the nuclear route whatever our preferences.

and as Zokes points out, notions of reducing consumption are laughable (despite both consumer and industrial efforts to increase efficiency, driven by cost). Consumption is going to head skyward fairly rapidly regardless.

this is completely ridiculous statement. Energy is cheap. There is no great drive to reduce consumption. There is no profit in reducing consumption.

Office buildings with light left on overnight, uninsulated housing, new build with low insulation values ( compared to what is possible) consumer goods that don't turn off but remain on standby, massive use of private cars etc etc. If everyone recieved say half the average energy consumption at half price and anything over that was ten times the price then we would see consumption driven down as a result of costs.

There is huge scope for massive savings in energy usage with the political will to do so.

this is completely ridiculous statement

Been happening some time already. According to the DTI, industrial and service sector (where costs are paid more attention than anywhere else) energy efficiency rose by 100% between 1970 and 2000.

The DTI also showed how in final energy terms, space and water heating accounted for 60-80% of domestic and commercial energy usage, lighting and appliances are responsible for 9%. I accept some heating is electric, but the majority of that water and space heating will be carried out by domestic and commercial boilers running on fossils.

IF we get to a point in the near future where those fossils are hard to come by and we heat by electric, no amount of energy saving would make up for the shortfall. That again isn't even to mention the 26% primary energy consumed for transport, which no doubt will have to be replaced with electric too.

Skywards I tells ye! 😀

Ben - ENERGY EFFICIENY

Saving energy in all forms from heating buildings to personal transport.

if we were serious about this energy would not be so cheap and there would be serious incentives to be energy efficient. You only have to look around our towns to see massive energy wastage. Not use - wastage

Being preached to about man-made-up global warming really 'grinds my gears' though, its just a load of bollocks

"Energy is cheap. There is no great drive to reduce consumption. There is no profit in reducing consumption"

You see this is where I agree with TJ. When energy prices go up, people will conserve it.

But I'm looking at my gas boiler and cooker and thinking: "how much longer?" before all that has to be electric.

Being preached to about man-made-up global warming really 'grinds my gears' though, its just a load of bollocks.

Really? Is it? Suppose I'd best give up my day job, and tell all my colleagues and collaborators the same 🙄 STW wisdom has spoken.

(And you wonder why people day don't believe a word spoken on the internet)

You see this is where I agree with TJ. When energy prices go up, people will conserve it.

Indeed they will, but there's only so much conservation can do without reducing numbers of users. [perhaps this is time to introduce Godwin's law]

However, as you also pointed out, your heating is currently gas - as is the majority of the UK's. Your car drives on petrol / diesel - so do most others. The bottom line is that both these forms of energy WILL run out, regardless of any mount of oil-money propaganda to deny anthropogenic climate change or peak oil. These energy forms will be replaced by something, most probably H2 - produced by electricity.

No matter how efficient we want to be, whilst energy usage could decrease massively with the correct political will, electricity demand WILL increase. I'm afraid that the only current technology not reliant on certainly polluting the entire planet is nuclear fission. No, it's not C-neutral, and no, it's not perfect. But (as I demonstrated on the last nuclear thread I posted the link to earlier - something TJ has conveniently 'forgotten' about in his misguided 'green' stance), even the old reactors are a lot more efficient than he would have us believe. That information is freely available from whatever DTI and BNFL call themselves these days.

I do have some faith (as TJ insists on calling it) that a new generation of reactors would be better, especially as the existing benchmark is startlingly high. I don't argue the outcome of a serious nuclear accident [i]could[/i] be catastrophic locally, but accelerated anthropogenically-driven climate change from a regressive step back to coal as a stop-gap to fusion and renewables that actually deliver is NIMBYism in its most extreme form. Whilst the consequences of a 2-degree [b]average[/b] increase in global temperature may not seem much in the UK, the overwhelming body of rigorously peer-reviewed scientific data points to not only a level of sea rise that would inundate many low lying areas, but changes in weather patterns could lead to food shortages for over 2 bn people. I'd wager that such a decrease in food availability may just affect the naysayers in their comfy middle-class suburban homes more than they dare realise...

Suppose I'd best give up my day job, and tell all my colleagues and [b]collaborators[/b]

The more I read these threads the more I think you are probably right on the nuclear issue- STW er persuaded by facts shocker

If sea levels rise, Hinkley A, B and C will be flooded. Worse still, I won't be able to go riding on the Quantocks without a boat.

Zokes 0- the history of nukes shows them to have run at less than 50% capacity if you include downtimes for repairs

All energy usage releases CO2. its CO2 release we need to reduce so we need to reduce energy usage.

TJ - go and rummage through that old thread and pull out the stats I posted there. You seemed to reluctantly concede to them the last time. I doubt much has changed in 9 months... I can't be bothered re-navigating the new BIS page (if that's even the correct department now) to dig out the same info.

The trouble with the 'green' movement is that it's not really that green any more - there's so much misguided rhetoric from Greenpeace, FoE etc that it makes them look as bad as any oil giant or political party ever could. Disappointing that facts get in the way of peoples' ideals sometimes...

Is nuclear power economically viable?

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sc=2057683
"Fuel is arguably the most important element in nuclear power. Achieving a steady supply at reasonable prices is crucial. Uranium’s importance lies in its cheapness; everything else about a nuclear power plant costs more than rival generating technologies. Fuel is small in mass yet allows the generation of huge quantities of power. Prices are kept competitive by strong international markets in each of the elements of the fuel cycle. While mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication have been subject to their ups and downs, fuel costs for the reactor operator have remained essentially low and relatively stable. So sound nuclear economics depends on fuel. Essentially the question is whether the low fuel cost during many years of reactor operation is sufficient to compensate for the higher capital investment costs of a nuclear unit and the accumulated interest payments during the lengthy construction period. "

Is nuclear power economically viable?

Define economics. If the true cost of C emissions was accounted for, I think we'd consider the point I assume you're making with that quote in a somewhat different light. This would also increase favourability for renewables, which is clearly (along with fusion if it can be perfected) the ultimate goal.

Energy isn't too cheap, emissions are.

Saving energy in all forms from heating buildings to personal transport

Jeremy; as per Zokes' response above, due to other fuel types needing to be replaced by electricity at some point, the reduction in use/increase in efficiency required is just unrealistic. If we forget transport for a second, just to incorporate the 60-80% space/water heating requirement would require a 4 fold increase (and that's assuming 33% of heating comes from electricity already). I'm not saying net energy consumption has to increase, but electric generation capacity will have to rise as other sources diminish.

Please explain why this is bollocks

Please show me irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic, [i]carbon driven[/i] climate change. You can't, no-one can. There are believers and sceptics alike who will tout carefully selected data sets 'proving' causation or otherwise, but ultimately as Rajendra Pachauri admitted (with reference to glacial melt) "I think the larger issue is that we really don't have enough research-based information on what is happening". That coming from a man who's organisation boldly told us the Himalayan would be gone by 2035! We're concentrating on one, minute endogenous parameter affecting global temperature. There are many other endogenous variables, and more importantly some very influential exogenous ones too; none of which are receiving the same level of attention as CO2.

In any other field of science (including the most mature subjects we believe to understand), the level of uncertainty associated to climate studies would cause far greater trepidation by the scientists concerned (see [url= http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v79/i8/e084008 ]Gravity[/url]). The IPCC and the environmental groups are politicised and incentivised by the media to hurriedly produce figures which meet an agenda; as soon as the political impetus shifts or public buy-in erodes sufficiently, the field and its Exponents will fade to obscurity in an instant.

Irrefutable – I doubt anything will ever meet that standard – see god for example no irrefutable evidence one way or the other but the observable evidence is heavily stacked to one side] Many things do not have much/any evidence to support them and you need to look at probabilities and reducing infinite error* in order to reach your view. There is a fairly large and wide based consensus form divergent areas of research

With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]

it is a fairly robust consensus - NB there a few -4- who are non -committal and the odd scientist who disagrees - there is little consensus in science - even over gravity where alternative explantions exist.
No one can provide irrefutable proof but it is a false standard to set as it allows you to "believe" in almost anything [infinite error] as you cannot prove a negative – you cannot prove invisible green fairies DONT exist in reactor cores for example – we cant see them because they are invisible -there is no evidence to support their existence so shall we agree they exist as it is not irrefutable? Better to “believe” in the things with evidence rather than dismiss everything that is not irrefutable
I suspect most people deny it because

if we want to reduce emissions, it would affect every economic activity under the sun.

.

* Bertolt Brecht’s “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error,”

Where do we get the electricity from when the nuclear power-stations are out of action for repair?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23703431-british-energy-still-a-bad-bet.do
"Multiple failures at Hunterston, Heysham and Hartlepool meant more than a quarter of the UK nuclear fleet -around 5% of the country's electricity supply - was out of action in 2008 when British Energy produced its worst-ever output of 40 terawatt hours. However, the current performance of the eight power stations is indicating the fleet could produce around 55 TWh in 2009. "

All 4 reactors at Heysham 1 & 2 are out of action today.

Apparently this is wrong - they are totally reliable according to posters above

Where do we get the electricity from when the nuclear power-stations are out of action for repair?

Gas, mostly. Where do we get our energy from when it runs out? that's >50% of the electricity, AND most space/water heating...

that is a poor reason to object to them. like not owning a bike because you need to repair it/maintain it.

Junkard - what I object to is the over optimistic estimates. We are told that the latest generation of nukes will run very reliably - when no previous one has.

Its part of the propaganda from the nuclear lobby. Nukes are unreliable, polluting and expensive.

TJ - have you found that info in the previous thread, or would you like me to read it out to you? Possibly by candle light seeing as that's what you seem to be hell bent on...

Nukes are unreliable, polluting and expensive.

Blinkered, fanatical, short sighted, and just plain wrong. By comparison to a major nuclear accident (bearing in mind there has only ever been one that caused a major release of radiation), the cost of emitting CO2 from fossil fuel is so much higher on a multitude of levels. Your somewhat naive approach that un-tested renewables will just 'take' over 30% of the electricity generation, then increase exponentially as gas and coal power stations are decomissioned is quite simply cloud cuckoo land. All that will result in is a greater reliance on a much more polluting fuel - coal. If you seriously believe the very small risk of a nuclear accident is just cause to potentially disrupt billions of peoples' lives due to changed weather patterns, rising sea levels, and failed harvests, then it really is you who has swallowed the green lobbyists propaganda. A 'cause' that unfortunately has become more idealistic than some religions in its lack of real-world reasoning, and even more self-defeating.

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/clyde-contaminated-by-radioactive-leak-from-nuclear-plant-1.1068103 ]No pollution with nuclear[/url]

Zokes - you keep claiming this and I have read your figures - and the result is that they are unreliable, polluting and expensive. Thats the historical record and the current situation. Our Nukes are running at a very reduced capacity once again..

I have not said renewable s will magically take over 30% of the generation. I have said a mix of different measures could make nukes unnecessary. Thats energy conservation in the broadest sense meaning that we could lower CO2 emmisions without needing new nukes. The numbers are out there that prove this is possible but needs to political will.

You hysterical arguing about the effects of climate change does you no favours.

Its not just the risk of the accidents - its all the rest of the pollution that nukes generate a that we have no way of dealing with. Thats a far worse legacy to leave. Nukes will not solve the CO2 emmisoins issue. Energy conservation is the only way of doing that.

Our Nukes are running at a very reduced capacity once again..

Apparently Sizewell B ran at 100% capacity in October.

http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=498

Although it was a bit unhappy before that.

edit - muddling my reactors

"the pollution that nukes generate a that we have no way of dealing with"

Well is that technically true? You see, there no way of dumping it out-of-mind, and perhaps that's what we really mean.

The technicalities of sequestering the waste in repositories don't seem impossible (unless I'm missing something). But perhaps the political problems of sequestering are all that prevents us from having a "way to deal with it".

Fears about a repository in the granite core of the Quantocks kick this into touch. Is it really so hard to imagine that this could be perfectly workable and safe? Or are we still reacting hysterically to our fears about radiation leaks and the apocalypse?

It's like the drugs debate: you can't reach the correct answer if there is hysteria about. I fear TJ, despite being a very nice man, you shut down nuclear debates with a certain hysteria and fear-mongering. Until the tone of hysteria is removed, there is no hope of a reasonable conclusion.

Trying for a balanced post on this, that being my natural reaction any conversation even if that means taking the underdogs side, only if to make sure more facts are included.

The challenge with the renewables approach is as the technologies stand today, that they need a considerable amount of surface/land area to be planted on. The better areas for constructing these renewable energy gathering plants have had considerable protest, in some cases not by the land owners but by 'interested' parties that it's ruining their views and so on. Translation they are happy to consume energy but not assist by a reduction in their outdoors visual enjoyment even if they could unglue themselves from their HD TV's to look out of the window now and then. Let the common urban Oiks breathe in the by products of energy production as they have always done in the past seems to be the answer.

It should be added that there are communities that welcome the thought of a new nuclear power station with the only protest seeming to be coming from outside of those communities, with no evidence of any abnormalities/cancer hotspots etc... yes I agree this is a different outlook/result compared to other existing locations, possibly down to management/design of the facilities located there.

One re-occuring subject/thought seems to be the reduction in power consumption though more efficient usage along with reduced transmission losses going from a small number of big massive centralised power plants to a more de-centralised model. This means that people will HAVE to have their visual enjoyment ruined by more but smaller renewable power gathering stations. Also due to the patchy nature of the kinetic/photonic energy to be gathered this means a larger geographic spread of such stations to cope with the cloud cove/wind/wave strength etc..

To me this means instead of looking out of my window and seeing three power stations, I might only see one and some of you arguing in this topic might see one where you have never seen one before in you outdoor view - tough you have to live to your principles. Hey windmills are a lot more pretty than a gas power power station.

Another fact that needs to be considered in this and only a few people have posted about it within this thread are that coal fired power stations release LOTS MORE RADIATION into the enviroment than do Nuclear power stations.

Also that there is always going to be a need for a Nuclear reactor or two for the useful by-products they produce. The vast majority of people will naturally jump to the conclusion that this means weapons material, HOWEVER there is a big challenge in producing enough Radioactive materials that are of use for medicinal purposes today.

Nukes are unreliable, polluting and expensive.

Bear in mind that SB is actually a couple of generations out of date, previous to its problem in March (a non-nuclear fault) it had been far more reliable than any other power station in the UK, conventional or nuclear, at one point managing over 3 years without a shutdown (apart from for planned maintenance) IIRC. Meanwhile in other countries - notably France - they are operating far more modern stations which are even more reliable.

Keep burying your head in the sand about not needing nuclear. I agree with you about not having the political will to reduce consumption (would be far cheaper than building another power station, yet it's a "different budget" so the money won't be spent). But even if we were state of the art on that we'd still be short of capacity in future years, as renewables aren't actually doing any more than spitting in the wind regarding providing reliable (I hesitate to use that word about wind power in the same post as using it about nuclear - reliability of wind power is a complete joke) base load generation. Assuming you don't want us to build lots of new conventional power stations, can I have your assurance that you'll switch your lights off first when the grid is short, so that those of us who can see the elephant in the room might be able to keep ours on?

Another fact that needs to be considered in this and only a few people have posted about it within this thread are that coal fired power stations release LOTS MORE RADIATION into the enviroment than do Nuclear power stations

Only thu the chimneys - once you consider the waste than this is bunkum.

I fear TJ, despite being a very nice man, you shut down nuclear debates with a certain hysteria and fear-mongering. Until the tone of hysteria is removed, there is no hope of a reasonable conclusion.

two questions for the pro nukes
1} what ate you going to do with the waste?
2} how are you going to deal with the cost and technical issues of decommissioning?

I look to the historical record and what is happening now and see unreliable, polluting and expensive nukes.

Aracer - yo claim the next generation will be better. That is a prediction not a fact and I simply do not believe the claim. Thats the claim that has been made about every generation of nukes and none of it has been true.

The challenge with the renewables approach is as the technologies stand today, that they need a considerable amount of surface/land area to be planted on.

The reason people protest isn't because these things ruin their views, but because they pointlessly ruin their views.

I still don't think I got an answer on this one..

If nuclear power is so good, are we happy that [b]all[/b] nations have it - and clean-up and store their waste?

Aracer - again you misrepresent. Localised generation can be a part of the solution. There is not one simple answer - it requires a number of things.

There are schemes proposed to allow localised energy storage. combined heat and power plants are more efficient, microgeneration, renewables, conservation and so on

This is a fundamental point that the pro nukes cannot seem to grasp. there is no one monolithic answer - it needs a range of measures. given the political will and the investment in these technologies rather than in nukes we can avoid the need for nukes.

While teh pro nukes on this thread continue with the hysterical posturings, there unrealistic dismissal of any alternative then there is no point in arguing with them

its like religious nutters - nothing will shake there faith in the nuke despite the complete lack of common sense or logic in their position

Aracer - yo claim the next generation will be better. That is a prediction not a fact and I simply do not believe the claim

druidh thats not eh only unanswered question from the pro nukes