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

So radioactive elements that are currently constantly distributed thru the atmosphere that are under no control at all are nothing to worry about, compared to waste that is under control at multiple levels that may or may not be released at some point in the future?

aracer - I did read waht you wrote. its a prediction not a fact. We don't know the performance over their lifetime of these reactors yet.

SB has not run flat out all its operational life so far

How about answering Druidhs question and mine?

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.

ISTM it's the pro-power-cut people in whom it's impossible to shake the belief that because they don't like nukes that somehow we'll be fine without them. News for you - there's no new technology anywhere near filling in the hole in our energy supply we'll have if we don't start building new stuff now, no matter how much money we throw at it.

Have to agree about the Monolithic answer, but I think we need to force people to accept alternatives as they seen hell bent on accepting nothing at all and that it's best to have a balanced approach rather than relying on one source at all.

Arrgghh - its like banging your head on a wall

Given decent energy conservation we have no need for nukes while still enabling reducing our co2 output. Nuclear is not a part of the basket there simply is no need for it.

Its impossible to have a sensible debate with the pro nuke folk.

How about answering the questions posed by Druidh and me?

its a prediction not a fact. We don't know the performance over their lifetime of these reactors yet.

I'll tell you one thing - it's a much better prediction than that we'll one day magically solve all the issues with current renewables.

Edit: I have to admit a certain admiration for your new approach to this one - did you spend lots of time thinking it up? The argument seemingly being that the only nuclear power stations we have full data for are old ones, so we should use that as a basis for determining whether nuclear is reliable, safe etc., ignoring data about newer stations as the data is incomplete. Neat.

Arrgghh - its like banging your head on a wall

Its impossible to have a sensible debate with the religiously anti nuke folk.

How about answering the questions posed by Druidh and me?

Its the lesson from history. aracer. Too many lies told by the nuclear lobby to believe them now.
How about ansewering the 3 questions?

1) if teh UK has to have than why not every country? Iran, Iraq, libya etc?

Waht is the answer to the waste?

How are you going to decommission the plants and how is this to be funded?

Too many lies told by the nuclear lobby to believe them now.

No - I simply don't believe the lobbyists of an industry that has consistently lied to us over decades and still produces propaganda now.

if teh UK has to have than why not every country? Iran, Iraq, libya etc?

Waht is the answer to the waste?

How are you going to decommission the plants and how is this to be funded?

No - I simply don't believe the lobbyists of an industry that has consistently lied to us over decades and still produces propaganda now.

My view is that the people protesting against nuclear power are also the people who'll protest against alternative methods. For example Druidh has suggested tidal power generation and I'm one totally in agreement with that suggestion. As its a regular as clockwork and we have some of the largest tidal ranges in the world, it is a successful technology thats been working for 40+ years. But we have people complaining that flooding a river will effect the birdlife in the area, well durr yes it will but they then easily forget that continual output of CO2 from Gas/Coal fired power stations will (might another discussion in itself) contribute to global warming thereby destroying the habitats of the birds. I honestly think that the Green movement has gone away from a genuine concern from the enviroment to protesting for the sake of protesting itself, if we found some way of collecting energy based on placing 100% recycled paper darts using 100% organic rubber bands into orbit to collect energy they would complain that it ruined their nightly view of Wolf359.

My view is that the people protesting against nuclear power are also the people who'll protest against alternative methods. For example Druidh has suggested tidal power generation and I'm one totally in agreement with that suggestion.

3 non answers their aracer

No plants have been decommissioned yet, no solution has been found to the waste, if nukes are essential for us to have then they must be essential for all countries.

Now when answers to those questions are available then you might have an argument but to me they are dealbreakers.

I wasn't thinking of the Severn Barrage - think sea-floor generation in the Pentland Firth, Corrievreckan etc.

And just to clarify - it's Ok for the UK to have nukes but not those dangerous arabs or whoever?

Wasn't thinking of that particular case, but yes I suppose it does make a good example, but I'm using it to show that no matter whatever you suggest people will argue against it. People have protested that windfarms off the coast of Rhyl are ruining their view FFS. But you can bet they are the same mob that are down on the island protesting about Wylfa being a site for a new station, oh I'll agree they are brave as the locals are most likely to lynch anyone who protests against it. They still want their power but without it impeding on their local space.

Fave rant of mine about it is the tinfoil hat wearing mob, that don't want any mobile phone masts near them or little Chardonay but are still happy to use mobile phones. If I was in charge I'd say fine and immediately cease their mobiles so I could devote the limited capacity in the area to people who accept things (with knowledge of the real risks)

It seems to be a sad symptom of our current society that people will protest and tie up in long litigation anything and everything WHILST still wanting to enjoy the fruits of that society as long as it does not impinge on their limited worldview.

Society involves compramise --- for example the other long thread on taxes, people have to give and take in differing amounts. So as far as electricity goes either we go for a few big plants and TJ gives a bit as there is no other way of generating such power, or do we go macro and have lots of mini different plants and TJ has to help us crack the whip over all the nimbies?

gimmie the rfle - I'll sort out the nimbies

A classic going on near me at teh moment

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Greens-open-fire-on-Leith.6620315.jp

No plants have been decommissioned yet

no solution has been found to the waste

if nukes are essential for us to have then they must be essential for all countries.

still non answers.

it's Ok for the UK to have nukes but not those dangerous arabs or whoever?

...if you mean sea floor generation, rather than Severn barrage, then I'm in full support of that. ISTM it has just about the best prospects of any current renewable scheme.

I also agree with you lot about nimbies.

We could always build some more power lines across to Iceland and tap into the Geothermal power there, but I'm sure some mad scientist would protest that the drilling there would split the world in half or summit.

still non answers.

We could always build some more power lines across to Iceland and tap into the Geothermal power there

Do we have a rough figure of what we need average/peak load at the moment is, for the sake of this consider that it wont increase due to tech improvements. Then break it down into how its produced at the moment? After all we have to a degree been discussing this from various standpoints, of how it should be produced based on a little bit of beliefs and facts we all hold, could we make it all add up??

For example how many kilowatts per hour could be produced by burning bike thieves?

Aracer - no plant has been decommissioned yet so to say " do it the usual way" is bunkum Teh plants that are partly done are magnox plants IIRC so very different

No solution has been found for the waste yet - what you quote is one idea but as you should know the very worst stuff is also thermally hot as well as radioactively hot so it needs something else doing with it first. Other scientist argue that burying it is not eh right solution. They argue for surface storage.

as for leaks - yes lots of waste has leaked from Sellafield into the irish sea and is still doing so now

To mee these both are crucial points and without answers which have not been found yet then I fail to see how you can argue for nukes.

and you have no answer to teh one about the other countries.

Its not about unwillingness to accept science. Its about knowing that there are othe answers to this - nukes are simply not needed. Plenty of good evidence on this.

No Nukes accepting that we need them for certain by-proucts of course I hope you mean?

no plant has been decommissioned yet so to say " do it the usual way" is bunkum Teh plants that are partly done are magnox plants IIRC so very different

and you have no answer to teh one about the other countries

Its about knowing that there are othe answers to this - nukes are simply not needed. Plenty of good evidence on this.

One other thing to consider is that we are all relying on continual nuclear power for our existance with no long term plan for the disposal of waste other than to throw it back on the fire.

I'm completely convinced they have good plans in place for decommissioning new plants (they are after all aware it's an issue now) - I'd go and google it, given I'm not an expert

Have a go you might be suprised how little there is out there. Its not me using my [i]usual "history" get out clause.[/i]

Its a basic problem that decommissioning is difficult, expensive and there are a lot off unknowns. No one has any real idea how to deal with teh newer plants as far as I am aware having been concentrating on the old magnox plants.

Tehre is a lot of good data out there on the idea that new nukes are unessasary

New scientist - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8810-top-uk-advisers-say-no-to-nuclear-power.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1929-uk-backs-renewable-energy-over-nuclear.html

Teh other side of the argument - it might help you see how little use nukes will be. clearly partisan - but makes a nice counterpoint to teh nuke lobby and has some decent data behind it all

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/the-case-against-nuclear-power-20080108

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

Compared to your hysteical and ultimately self defeating anti-nuclear views? 🙄

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

Well, that's OK then. I suppose distributing it throughout the environment is much better than having it all in one small, contained spot? And what about the billions of tons of CO2 emitted? How to coal/gas/oil power stations look after this hazardous and environmentally daminging waste? Oh, they don't...

You're also forgetting the huge heaps of pretty nasty contaminated waste in the form of fly and bottom ash. This has to be stored somewhere. Strange that devastating chemical wastes receive so little attention by the 'environment' lobby. Ah, that's why, it's (probably) not radioactive, so must be safe 🙄

There is not one simple answer - it requires a number of things.

At last some sense is spoken by TJ on an issue he's far too subjective and nowhere near objective enough on to really have a valid argument.

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.

Misrepresentation, I feel. But don't let the facts get in the way, eh?

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

So pretty much like the blinkered hysterical view of the antinuclear lobby then? Glad we've sorted that one.

Arrgghh - its like banging your head on a wall

Most arguments where you (TJ) have little concept of the bigger picture, and one tiny bit of idealistic rhetoric are... Bike helmets, anyone?

As for "why not let [i]other[/i] countries have them", well, they do: Iran, North Korea, China, India, ****stan. But are you seriously trying to compare the security state in Iraq to that surrounding a nuclear plant in the UK? You really have lost your marbles... It is exactly a 'non-question', and deserved the 'non-answer' it received.

Please can you now answer this. We know CO2 and other emissions (not to mention 14C and other radioisotopes) from fossil fuelled power stations are having a major effect on the environment. How much would Coal/oil/gas cost if they had to account for the true environmental cost the same way nuclear power has to go some way towards?

The bottom line is that you have a blind faith that the developed world can reduce its emissions considerably by reducing consumption. No elected government will stay elected for very long if it forces reductions in use, so there needs to be another option. The only viable one at this time that doesn't involve coal is nuclear. Renewables should have an ever-increasing role, but they will never be able to take over the majority of the work. This is especially true as we develop a greater reliance on electricity for heating and transport as gas / oil reserves dwindle. Localised generation and CHP is indeed the way forward, but you will still need big, base-load generation.

In an ideal world we'd all reduce our emissions (in which case feel free to help by turning off your PC and stopping posting non-arguments), but we don't live in an ideal world. Mine and several others well-read views on the subject are that nuclear fission, for the time being, is a vital part of the western world's energy economy in the world in which we now live.

Ultimately, there are too many people. I believe reductions in population are frowned upon somewhat though...

zokes - Member

As for "why not let other countries have them", well, they do: Iran, North Korea, China, India, ****stan. But are you seriously trying to compare the security state in Iraq to that surrounding a nuclear plant in the UK? You really have lost your marbles... It is exactly a 'non-question', and deserved the 'non-answer' it received.

OK then, with your crystal ball, please tell us what the security state of the UK, France, the USA (and other nations you'd consider to be "safe" will be in 100, 500 and 1,000 years time. Because if long term deep storage is the temporary answer, then it has to be able to cope with those sorts of questions.

Which was worse Kyshtym or Chernobyl?

At least the British nuclear industry has nothing to be embarrassed about
http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201011/106346.php

zokes - you simply continue to trot out the same nonsense refusing to listen to the arguments and presenting a stark nukes or the lights go out choice. This simply is not the case.

Energy conservation measures right across the board could have significant reductions in CO2 production. By saving CO2 production by real serious energy efficiency measure right across the UK in all sectors then reduction in C02 production targets can be met without nukes.

Even the proposed new nukes will represent a small % of the total energy consumption of the UK, Using that same money and expertise in energy conservation and other techs removes the need for nukes

There are also ways of smoothing out surges in demand at a local level. However a low tech local solution does not appeal politically so is rubbished.

England once again finds itself going against the flow of the world. Germany for example is moving away from Nukes as are many other countries.

[i]England once again finds itself going against the flow of the world. Germany for example is moving away from Nukes as are many other countries.[/i]

Times they are a changin..
[url] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/791597.stm [/url]
[url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117 [/url]

still no intention to build any more.

What happens to the millions of tonnes of waste rock (tailings) from the mining and processing of the uranium for fuel for nuclear power?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l31133483h255653/

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html

[i]still no intention to build any more.[/i]
But an acknowledgement that they need them and haven't come up with an alternative solution.

In the last 5 minutes a copy of "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" has arrived on my desk (courtesy of Amazon). I will be carefully digesting it over the next few weeks, but from a brief flick through, it looks great.

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html ]I trust this chap a helluva lot more than I trust you TJ old chap.[/url]

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources

I am less anti than when this thread started but it really comes down to whether you want to accpet this risk. I agree the risk is small but the consequnces are so great that IMHO it is better to eliminate the risk and use safer alternatives.

zokes - you simply continue to trot out the same nonsense refusing to listen to the arguments and presenting a stark nukes or the lights go out choice. This simply is not the case.

Really? Which bit of "politically impossible to enforce reductions in energy use", and the fact that a large proportion of the UK's generating capacity (nuke and coal) will be decomissioned in the next few year do you not understand? Oh, and the fact that we'll need ever increasing amounts of electricity to replace petrol and gas for transport and heating...

Energy conservation measures right across the board could have significant reductions in CO2 production. By saving CO2 production by real serious energy efficiency measure right across the UK in all sectors then reduction in C02 production targets can be met without nukes.

Indeed it could, but would you like to suggest how it would be politically viable to enforce reductions in energy use? Especially given the main reason this is needed is climate change, which you (as presumably an environmentally aware person) have already referred to as 'hysterical'.

Even the proposed new nukes will represent a small % of the total energy consumption of the UK, Using that same money and expertise in energy conservation and other techs removes the need for nukes

Ah, more faith...

England once again finds itself going against the flow of the world. Germany for example is moving away from Nukes as are many other countries.

However, China isn't, and that's more than a 6th of the world's population. No need for the melodramatics. I know there's more chance of SFB admitting he's wrong than you, but for some reason I keep rising to the bait...

Decommissioning : how much does it cost?

"We are disappointed, but not surprised, that considerable uncertainty still remains
in relation to the cost of decommissioning and clean up. The legacy of civil nuclear
liabilities has been accumulating for sixty years; some of it was created at a time of great
military urgency and when the science was less understood; and it is no fault of the
NDA that, in its short life, it has been unable to discover the exact nature and quantity
of the nuclear material on its sites. The public civil nuclear liability for waste has risen
from £48 billion in 2002, to £56 billion in 2004, to £70.2 billion in 2006. Thus the
overall quantified costs of £70.2 billion seem to us likely to rise significantly, both as
further investigative work is done at the most difficult sites within Sellafield and
Dounreay, and because the nuclear industry appears to be reluctant to continue with
reprocessing of spent fuel while this remains more expensive than buying new stocks of
uranium—with the result that much of the plutonium and uranic material mentioned
by the NDA would probably be reclassified as waste and the NDA would have to deal
with it accordingly"

zokes - the same can be said of you

You continually make assertions without anything to back them

Really? Which bit of "politically impossible to enforce reductions in energy use",

You claim - I disagree.

You continue to miss the point. if we have serious attempts in energy efficiency we can reduce the amount we use as a country. Not electricity, not gas but total energy consumption. Significant savings are possible given the political will. Merely insulating all teh houses in the Uk will save more CO2 than one nuclear power station would

Energy consumption roughly dictates CO2 output. Therefore reducing energy consumption reduces CO2 output. we can replace the electricity generating capacity with a mix of techs - some of which will create more CO2 howeve this would be less than teh decrease in CO2 from energy conservation measures. Thus the circle is squared.

Remeber nukes create a lot of CO2 as well

TJ, given that a large proportion of the population have little grasp of fossil energy actually running out, let alone a belief of anything to do with climate change; just how do you propose any government, let alone one with as tenuous a mandate to govern as the condems, go about introducing yet another stealth / green "tax"?

Or have you come up with a way of reducing energy use that would be acceptable to the public? If so, I'm sure Camoron and Salmon would love to hear it.

Again its multifactorial. Again you show your bias by the emotive " stealth taxes" conveniently forgetting that there will have to be money found for the nukes - a lot of it.

Firstly a propaganda campaign similar to the one over the nukes

secondly a push to insulate and introduce other energy saving measures

3rdly fiscal..Instead of energy being a fixed cost per unit no matter how much you use escalate it on consumption. setting it at neutral for now and ratcheting in future

So each individual gets an energy credit equivalent to half the average consumption at notional cost then energy per unit is doubled after that.., average consumption pays the same, excessive consumption pays a lot more, reducing consumption gives big savings.

Similar carrot and stick for industry.

Teh dark green solution is to go to a carbon trax based economy - everything is taxed according to teh amount of energy it consumes in manufacture and disposal

Edit - your position is effectively a defeatist one, "nothing can be done about reducing energy usage, the only answer is nukes" Its just full of fallacies the main one is it will not reduce C02 emissions significantly while crating a legacy of poisonous wastes and pollution that will last for millennia

[i]So each individual gets an energy credit equivalent to half the average consumption at notional cost then energy per unit is doubled after that.., average consumption pays the same, excessive consumption pays a lot more, reducing consumption gives big savings.[/i]

So industry and business as excessive users will face massive bills. That will make them competitive with other countries, and a real vote winner.
Ah, you say, but they could then invest in more efficient energy sources and save masses of money due to your policy of subsidising reduced levels of consumption. You then have the issue of where does business get the money from to do this, as no one is very keen to lend. And if a large majority did find some, by convincing investors that the government subsidy for reduced usage was cost effective, where would the government find the money from? It won't be from the excessive consumers, because they'e become the low consumers. Of course you could have a continuously moving average, but then investors would realise that it wouldn't be cost effective.
I think your motivations are laudable and great for a social market dictatorship, just not applicable if you have a democratically elected government.

shame you didn't bother to read what I posted. Its total energy usage

That is the ( simplified)structure for private consumers. I posted

Similar carrot and stick for industry.

Same old defeatist arguments " it won't work" "it will cost too much" conveniently ignoring the fact that the nukes will cost enormous sums - where are you going to get that money from?

Yup I read it.
'Similar' as in alike, as in not different.

Nuclear power makes me feel manly

Repeating 'Same old defeatist arguments', is like saying 'Same old defeatist arguments' when someone says the tide will come in.
Your policies won't work because you won't get a democratic mandate for them.

Well if you read it and understood the point then you would understand that overall the costs would remain the same but with a huge fiscal incentive to reduce consumption for industry as well as private consumers. Carrot AND stick.

There is no democratic mandate for new nukes

There is no democratic mandate [s]for new nukes [/s]

Does the waste heat from nuclear power stations contribute to global warming?
http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/power/nuclear-power/about-nuclear-power/how-does-it-work/nuclear-power-stations
"A basic problem with all kinds of large nuclear and fossil-fuelled power station which generate electricity from heat via the carnot cycle, is that only about one third of the power station's total heat energy can be converted into electrical energy."

Is Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants not the way forward?

Edit - your position is effectively a defeatist one, "nothing can be done about reducing energy usage, the only answer is nukes" Its just full of fallacies the main one is it will not reduce C02 emissions significantly while crating a legacy of poisonous wastes and pollution that will last for millennia

Actually, my position is more defeatist than that. Most evidence points to there being very little we can do about a 2 degree warming, which might have catastrophic consequences for even us, never mind low lying and coutries dependent on weather patterns for their food.

You could argue from that: "why more nukes then"? Because at least stabilising a global temperature rise may help somewhat. You could spend the money trying to develop renewables, but I (and most others with any knowledge in this field) seriously doubt their efficacy to support any lifestyle remotely recognisable by today's standards, taking into account both the current trend for increased energy demands, and a growing world population. IanMunroe has summed up the political aspect of it pretty well.

You keep banging on about the 'nuclear legacy of waste'. What about the legacy of fossil-based generation? For someone with obviously relatively green credentials, you seem remarkably relaxed about the issue, let alone catastrophic effect its waste products have, and will continue to have on the planet. Perhaps they should rename it like they did with NMR to MRI to stop people like you having an irrational fear of the word 'nuclear'...

I've read and understood your point TJ perfectly. Alas I can't help it if you don't understand why it won't work.
Maybe you should be talking to an electable political party and getting them on board instead?

Zokes - you keep saying nukes or renewable s - there are lots of other options as part of a mixed package of measures

Ian Munro - well as your initial post you clearly misunderstood the point. Instead you invented something I did not state and that was precisely the opposite of my point. Its a carrot and stick approach initially fiscally neutral with a slow ratchet. So no comnpetative disadvantage to anyone who is not an excessive user compared to their peers and a fiscal incentive to save energy.

Zokes - you keep saying nukes or renewable s - there are lots of other options as part of a mixed package of measures

As a direct counterpoint to your "no nukes no matter what the evidence says".

I have never once said nukes or renewables, you make that distinction. I'm merely pointing out that there is no way in the next 20 years that renewables could hope to cover the lost generation of all the nukes and most of the coal in the country. As I have also pointed out several times, electricity is actually less than 50% of the total energy useage in the UK. Given an increasing reliance on it for transport and heating, we will not have a lower requirement for electricity than we do now. Fact. Not mystic meg crystal ball, but simple, logical conclusions drawn from teh very basic facts that we know. As Ian says, I can't help it if you refuse to read them because they don't fit in with your bizarre self-defeating green 'faith'.

I think you will find that you're about the only one who is actively excluding a lower-C form of energy from the future mix.

As Ian says, if you have any bright ideas on how you'll get a growing population to use less energy voluntarily, then I'm sure (Ca)moron or Salmon will bite your hand off.

In the mean time, how about you do your own energy conservation and turn your computer off? You may as well practice what you preach, as noone else seems to be listening...

personally, yay for nukes!

mountains all over the world are stuffed full of stuff we call 'nuclear fuel' - it's largely useless, unless you're prepared to sit around for millions of years waiting for it to decay into things like lead.

(we'll all be dead by then - we're not robbing anyone of valuable lead reserves)

we can stick this fuel in a power station, and then have lot's of lovely electricity.

when we're done with the fuel, we can stick it back in a mountain. a nice safe sturdy mountain that's not on a fault line, easy.

brilliant.

tidal power is also brilliant - but unfortunately we haven't quite got it figured out just yet.

nuclear fusion will be really brilliant - but unfortunately we haven't quite got it figured out just yet.

my house is cold enough thanks, i need all the cheap energy i can get. i'm happy that Nuclear fission will be part of the mix while we wait 50/100 years for fusion to come on-stream.

as a nation, we have about 20 nuclear power stations, they provide us with about 20% of our power, and in the next 20 years we're going to retire almost all of them.

by 2030 the uk population will be 71million, that's about 10% more than now.

i bet that we're using more energy by then, not less. 1 big power station will give you about 1000 megawatts, on tap, whenever you want it. you'd need 500 of the biggest wind-turbines to match that - even when it's windy.

wind turbines are also brilliant - just like nuclear power.

Tehre is a lot of good data out there on the idea that new nukes are unessasary

+1 for nuclear power, +10 for generation being local to demand, + 100 for removing that demand through energy efficiency measures. - 1000 for building windfarms all over the highlands and - 10000 for small scale hydro wrecking our rivers.

I keep telling you - I am not suggesting that 20% of baseload comes from renewables and I never have - but you won't read what I wrote.

Energy consumption roughly dictates CO2 output. Therefore reducing energy consumption reduces CO2 output. we can replace the electricity generating capacity with a mix of techs - some of which will create more CO2 howeve this would be less than teh decrease in CO2 from energy conservation measures. Thus the circle is squared.

Teh only serious way to reduce C02 output is to reduce energy consumption. Insulating our houses, reducing waste - but you are uninterested in this and big busines certainly is as there is no profit for them

Nukes produce c02 as well.

As a direct counterpoint to your "no nukes no matter what the evidence says".

Its no nukes because the evidence does not support them and there is no solution to decommissioning and the waste

what decommissioning problems?

we are having all sorts of fun dismantling the early nuclear power stations - places like Dounreay - because they weren't built with any consideration of their end.

we're a lot wiser now.

new nuclear power stations will be built with their eventual disposal built in from the start.

30 years ago it was considered acceptable to chuck the waste down a mine-shaft. We've now got to figure out how to remove the waste without disturbing it, it's things like this that give decommissioning a bad name.

as for the waste - stick it back in a mountain - that's where it came from.

Don't have time to read through 6 pages, but did anyone mention CCS?

we haven't quite got that working yet...

(the easy method is called 'reforestation' - but we do seem to like breeding quickly and eating lots of meat - innocent trees will have to die)

we haven't quite got that working yet...

We haven't got wind, solar, wave or tidal working properly yet to meet our energy demands, so why dismiss it? And in the timescales it takes to commission and build a nuclear plant from scratch, CCS will have been sufficiently developed for roll-out.

i'm not dismissing anything.

lots of things are being researched - some will work, some won't. there's a chance that i will never be able to buy a fuel-cell car (due to expense), but i'm glad people are working on them.

stuff we're researching now won't be ready for a while - in the meantime i say we use stuff that we know works.

relying on CCS to solve our problems suggests that you're happy to burn coal while we wait for CCS to be developed, without any promise that it will work.

that's a little irresponsible isn't it?

in the meantime i say we use stuff that we know works.

Renewables can't be built at the same scale, and nuclear will take a decade before we get any power from a station, so I guess you're advocating coal and gas, same as I am? Excellent 😀

EDIT: I see you edited your post while I was typing. So what do we do, turn off all coal, gas and oil plants in the UK? Because allowing them to continue operations is not very responsible, is it?

like i said, i'm not dismissing anything.

if nuclear power is the way we're going (and it seems we are) - i don't see a problem with it.

CCS should be researched, tidal should be researched, ditto fusion, biomass, solar, geothermal, kite-power, efficiency technologies, etc.

try it all!

and i was just poking a bit of fun, it [i]is[/i] irresponsible to suggest we should carry on burning coal / oil, and ignoring nuclear power because you hope we can get CCS working.

your awareness of CCS suggests you are concerned with CO2 emissions, you suggest we carry on as normal, with our fingers crossed that the boffins can make CCS work on an industrial scale - what if we can't?

A decade for new nukes - and the rest.

ahwiles - Member

what decommissioning problems?

Well no one has decommissioned anything yet nor are their good plans to do so on even currect stations let alone any new ones.

as for the waste - stick it back in a mountain - that's where it came from.

Nope - we took out uranium. The waste is the transuranics - far far nastier stuff. Its produces heat, its highly toxic. Not remotely comparable.

Burying it any hoping it will go away is no answer

it won't be going anywhere - it'll be in a mountain.

and no, i'm not being flippant.

from sweden via the bbc:

Kai Ahlbom heads the geological research of the bedrock here (stokholm), which he thinks would be suitable for permanent storage of the world's most toxic waste.

"This rock is 1,800 million years old. Not much has happened to this bedrock during that time," Mr Ahlbom explains. He is confident this geology will not change much for at least another 100,000 years"

"We will encase the waste in 5cm-thick copper canisters, to protect against corrosion," Mr Ahlbom says.

"Then, we want to encase the cylinders in bentonite clay. It's basically like cat sand; it absorbs humidity very efficiently, and swells when wet."

After all nuclear waste has been stored, the site would be filled in, and safe enough to be left without human intervention until the radiation risk has gone, Mr Ahlbom believes.

timescales are hard to imagine, but here it is in human terms:

that rock in sweden has been stable for 24 hours - we need it to carry on doing nothing for 5 more seconds.

[url= http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/07/36089.html?c=on ]indymedia hinkley views[/url]

Its no answer. Do you actually understand what these high levcel wastes are?

You cannot just put them underground. they have to be safe for tens of thousands of years, they produce heat so need cooling, you cannot have much of them together, they need chemically transforming into forms where they can be stored

Its completely fatuous to say that this is the answer.

Edit - nicely edited after I posted.

I can find you any number of scientist who believe this is the wrong option and surface storage is a better idea.

well, people much cleverer than me have looked at the problem, and have presented their solutions - i trust them.

Other clever people have looked at this political fudge of a solution and said its far too dangerous.

Teh problem is twofold.

1) its very long timescales you are talking about
2) if something does go wrong there is no way of dealing with it

well, people much cleverer than me have looked at the problem, and have presented their solutions - i trust them.

We looked at the problem if nuclear waste when I did my undergrad degree a few years back. No site has yet to be proven conclusively to be suitable for storage of nuclear waste, and few sites in the world will ever be.

But I don't have time for this thread; got exams to revise for (to get my CCS MSc qualification)

Was there anything in the Energy Act 2008 about new nuclear power stations?