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

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

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.