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

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?

I trust this chap a helluva lot more than I trust you TJ old chap.

Oh dear, what a dreadful bit of journalism 🙁

I am not suggesting that 20% of baseload comes from renewables and I never have

nuclear power is happening, right now, all over the world, whether we like it or not.

(personally, i don't mind, all i really want is the electricity)

i just wandered off for a p155, and a thought struck me; while i'm happy that [i]we[/i] can safely store nasties in mountains, i'm not so sure i trust other countries to be quite so careful.

so, i'm really not trying to wind TJ up to the point of spontaneous combustion, but i think we should pimp out our mountains - for huge profits obviously.

aracer - indeed - thats what I have been arguing all along. I just don't believe nukes is a part of the needed package either.

I have repeatedly said what I believe the key is - energy conservation right across the spectrum of use along with a whole packet of measures to reduce consumption and smooth generation and delivery

I'd rather have power cuts than nukes, tbh.

I'll chuck in my twopenceworth..

an ex-girlfriends father was a nuclear physicist back in the first wave of nuke power.. working high up in the EU.. His people were dedicated to finding cleaner greener safer solutions and worked tirelessly towards this aim during the latter part of the last century.. eventually coming to the conclusion that nuclear is a part of the best solution..
He's a very green guy and after his retirement continued with his eco friendly work developing grey water recycling systems amongst other things.. I've always considered myself a closet eco-warrior but if this guy is happy to back new nuclear energy I'm gonna take his word for it cos his brain and those of his accociates are mahoosive and ethically sound..

that is the end of my twopenceworth

I'd rather have power cuts than nukes, tbh.

Brave thing to say. I pretty much agree but admit I am lazy and just want the power to work when I plug something in.

This does leave me very divorced from how my energy is produced though. I guess the illusion of 'the lights must stay on' is very powerful.

Personally I think we should aim for living within our current solar income, and adapt our 'needs' accordingly. Coal, Oil & Nuclear fuels are finite, so it;s fun for us while it lasts but by definition not sustainable.

Oh dear, what a dreadful bit of journalism

Have you ever heard of James Lovelock? One of the most respected environmental scientists in the world? Not a journalist, but in fact the man who started the green ball rolling.

What is your specific issue with what he has to say?

I'd rather have power cuts than nukes, tbh.

No power = no clean water. I'll take the nukes thanks.

One of the most respected environmental scientists in the world?

Want to point me in the direction of some scientific literature he has written (not his Gaia Theory book)?

Two problems I have with that article in the quick read - firstly he strongly implies that a small natural gas leak would be damaging on the scale of all the CO2 emitted from an equivalent coal station due, which is rubbish as methane (which I presume he is referring to), while has a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, has a much smaller residence time in the atmosphere (days) compared with CO2 which is present for years. Therefore its effect would be negligible, on the global scale he seems to be implying.

Secondly, he apparently advocates allowing people to get cancer from nuclear energy generation as 1/3 of people will die from cancer anyway! So if I was to murder someone, I could validly use the argument that they were going to die anyway, so what difference does it make? Rubbish.

But those are just the things which struck me, and like I said, I've got better things to do at the moment...

Want to point me in the direction of some scientific literature he has written (not his Gaia Theory book)?

[url= http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html ]Is this enough to start you off?[/url]

indeed - thats what I have been arguing all along.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/hinkley-c-do-you-have-a-view/page/5#post-2008752

I have repeatedly said what I believe the key is - energy conservation right across the spectrum of use along with a whole packet of measures to reduce consumption and smooth generation and delivery

And as anyone with half a brain has said: "If you know of politically acceptable way to enforce energy reduction, then please tell it to the political leaders so that they can".

NOONE is arguing with the fact that in an [b]ideal[/b] world, we'd consume much less energy. You seem to be the only one daft enough to think that the general public would just roll over and take it, when most don't believe the two reasons for the need. You could call my reference to stealth / green 'taxes' hysterical, but that's exactly the language the media will use. If you don't believe the power of the media, then why the hell did we end up with the Tories raping the country for their posh chums? And, if you use taxes to force energy usage down, sooner or later, energy usage will fall and so will revenue (see petrol prices and the effect any drop in usage has on the treasury for this one). Then what?

As I have said repeatedly, you're so hot on this energy saving malarkey, so do your bit. I'm fairly sure the world will carry on just fine if you turn your computer off. After all, arguing on the internet is hardly an 'essential' activity.

Again, (and I know I'm being obtuse here, but you must see the point) noone has found the answer to storage of waste generated by fossil fuels yet, and we seem to be happy using them. So the risks of the waste aren't as acute as nuclear, but the long term chronic damage is far, far worse, and all but unaccounted for in the costs of energy usage.

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.

I see you're continuing to ignore the fact that no one is proposing building 1950s technology nuclear power stations.

The Gen IV reactors are based on variants of fast breeder reactors which DON'T produce long lived transuranic waste. The waste is only dangerous for decades.

It's like saying bikes will never work off road and pointing at a Penny Farthing (apologies to any uber-niche offroaders out there ;)).

But feel free to continue to attack your straw man.

The UK has little in the way of an energy strategy apart from sticking its head in the sand and pretending that we are not going to face a huge strategic problem in the medium to long term.

North Sea oil and gas is quickly running out, the coal mines are mostly gone yet we need to keep the lights on in this country.

Our capability to produce goods that other countries want to buy has been greatly reduced over the years.

We are now in the situation that we are running out of energy and need to import more, yet we have little to buy it with apart from government debt (which thankfully is holding up at the moment in terms of price, but what of the medium to long term?)

Nuclear is a good solution to our problems as long as we start building now.

Having read a lot on this subject I agree with Tenuous up above a lot. Contemporary nuclear generators are very different in terms of the muck they produce compared to their predecessors and compare quite favourably to coal-based electricity generation and all the nasties they chuck out their chimneys!

aracer - Member

"indeed - thats what I have been arguing all along".

Thanks for that, TJ. So you don't actually even believe your own "evidence" that nikes aren't necessary?

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/hinkley-c-do-you-have-a-view/page/5#post-2008752

What are you on?

What are you on about? I have argued the same line consistently - you keep misrepresenting what I say

The Gen IV reactors are based on variants of fast breeder reactors which DON'T produce long lived transuranic waste. The waste is only dangerous for decades.

Zokes is saying the new reactors are going to be PWRs the same as the french ones ( his aregumet is based round them being proven tech} then you say that they are going to be fast breeders - a type of reactor that has never been made yet as far a I am aware?

PWRs produce the high level waste. Where is there a sucessful fast breeder reactor?
Don't fast breeders produce plutonium?
Which of you is right?

Has anyone who has posted on this particular thread looked at www.theoildrum.com?

I found some of the stuff that was posted very interesting and also quite doomerish 🙁

I missed this bit

There is no democratic mandate for new nukes

Actually, you'd be wrong there. Labour were considering them, and the Tories are. It's only the few SNPs, PCs and Lib dems that don't want them, and no doubt C.Legg with cow down on whatever Cameron wants anyway. I'm not even totally sure if the one green MP is that fussed - I'd hope she could see the bigger picture. I make that the vast majority of the house either a definite or tentative 'for'.

Scotland may be different, but a lot of Labour votes came from up there. My argument (and going completely off piste here) would be that if Scots do have a parliamentary right through Holyrood to dictate their own energy policy, then their MPs shouldn't vote on energy policy debated at Westminster. (Which would obviously mean a large tory majority and therefore nuclear power)

Zokes - you going to clear up the confusion?

Zokes is saying the new reactors are going to be PWRs the same as the french ones ( his argument is based round them being proven tech} then you ( tenuous) say that they are going to be fast breeders - a type of reactor that has never been made yet as far a I am aware?

PWRs produce the high level waste. Where is there a sucessful fast breeder reactor?
Don't fast breeders produce plutonium?

The BN-600 reactor in the USSR would be an example of a commercially operational one. It has been running since the 1980s. Working prototypes of the tech have been around since the 50s.

To produce plutonium for weapons (which I presume would be your objection?) you would need a specially designed reactor that was for that purpose. Fast breeders designed for power generation would not produce plutonium other than internally. And obviously thorium based thermal breeders don't involve plutonium at all.

Zokes - you going to clear up the confusion?

You could quote me, rather than someone else for starters. (Oh, and point to the original post so I can see its context - I'm not going to wade back rthrough 6 pages of 2-week-old thread to find out what you're on about)

Then perhaps, you could help us all out by telling us how the governments of the world can convince their populations to use a LOT less energy, and still hope to be re-elected.

I'm sure most green-minded people like the theory of using less energy, provided it doesn't actually affect them. I've already pointed out a great way for you to save 500W or so, and you seem to be disinclined to do so. As you're the advocate and won't follow your own tune, what hope is there for the rest of us.

If we can cut our energy useage by 50% then great, we don't need nukes. If cutting our energy usage impacts on our lifestyles one iota (cf. plastic bags being put behind the till raising petty objections to a very minor inconvenience of having to resuse bags), I'm afraid you (and any government who tries to enforce this) will be on to a looser. If the lights go out, the government will be on to a looser. The only answer to being re-elected is to keep the lights on. Your current choice is coal, gas, or nuclear for the base-load generation. One is massively polluting, one will run out, and one causes hysterics amongst people unable to grasp the bigger picture. I'm not saying its perfect, but seeing as you're unwilling to stop wasting energy yourself by using your PC to post here, what chance is there of the less environmentally aware decreasing their use?

EDIT: I've just read a bit further up. I would suggest both of us is right. New gen 'conventional' nukes as a start, leading on to thorium cycle and its like as research progresses. (As part of 'the mix').

As I've mentioned before, the irony being that had funding not been cut and research set back 20-30 years due to the mass hysteria over the word 'nuclear', we probably wouldn't even be considering buolding conventional PWRs now. The real risk is the few remaining good scientists in this area are slowly retiring, then the knowledge on this will be gone. I suppose this would help your anti-nuclear cause, but it would hardly be constructive from an environmental point of view; seeing as most of the research is looking into increased efficiency, reduced waste, and increased ease of decomissioning.

What are you on about?

"I am not suggesting that 20% of baseload comes from renewables and I never have"

My apologies - so you agree that that's unfeasible in the timescales we're talking about, and that we need to do other things instead?

aracer - indeed - thats what I have been arguing all along.

Yet your "evidence" for us not needing nukes appears to be based on the political musings of those who reckon we'll fill the gap by having 20% of energy from renewables.

It seems you're not even keeping up with what you're posting on this thread yourself.

Please point out where I've "misrepresented" you by directly quoting from what you've posted.

teenuous - is that a fast breeder that produce electricity? teh french one no longer produces electricity

So guys - what type of rector are the new ones being proposed for the UK - PWRs like the french ones or some sort of fast breeder ?

I thought is was zokes that was stating the new UK reactors would be proven tech same as the french ones now tenuous is claiming they are going to be fast breeders which are distinctly experimental.

So which is it?

waht type of reactors is being proposed?

Crossed posts - so you are now saying that we will be using thorium reactors not a proven tech after all?

you cannot have it both ways - either its proven PWR tech which is dirty or is thorium fast breeders which are experimental.

That fast breeder produces 600MW (they went for a really exciting naming scheme as you can see).

Also, I'm not claiming anything about what anyone plans to build. I'm saying what I believe we [i]should[/i] build, and explaining why they are an effective and realistic solution and something green groups should be in favour of.

PWRs are being proposed initially. As I said above, one would hope thorium cycle stations would become more widespread in due course. Had attitudes like yours not caused a massive reduction in R&D funding, we'd probably be there now. Funding on renewables research has increased greatly (and why wouldn't it, it's 'free' energy), and we're still nowhere near an answer unless we surround ourselves with windmills and tidal buoys, and barrage every estuary in the country.

You are pretty good at deconstructive debate by doging the real question TJ, but you're not that good. You entire anti-nuclear argument is backed up by your 'evidence' that we don't need it. Yet, you say this:

"I am not suggesting that 20% of baseload comes from renewables and I never have"

So where is the generation going to come from? That 20% is very conservative - older coal stations will soon be decomissioned too; and if we move to electricity for cars, there will be greater base load requirements to charge them at night. If we're not going to replace that generation, please will you once and for all answer the question on how the hell you plan to convince the world to reduce its consumption, without affecting lifestyle.

If you can't answer those two points then you truly are arguing with no basis whatsoever. The answer needs to be workable in the real world, not pie-in-the sky idealism. That, I am afraid, would be just the sort of 'non-answer' you have accused me of.

Teh French one has stopped producing electricity.

So tenuous you want to make our energy futeure dependent on an experimental type of reactor that has never been made into a working electricity producing plant?

PWRs will produce the nasty high level waste. Thorium fast breeders are unproven tech.

I have answered that question several times - for the hard of thinking

Look at total energy consumption in the UK. Use aggressive energy conservation measures both active and passive to reduce consumption. this reduces C02 output.

sacrifice some of this reduction in co2 in out put with new electricity generation plants - a mix of solutions from biofuel to CHP to local microgeneration to localised thermal storage to renewables

Remember nukes at the moment only supply 4% of our energy needs.

If all the money that has been wasted on nukes had been spent on research in these directions we wouldn't be in this jam now. Its still not too late.

You talk about pie in teh sky

You srtill have not given an answer tothe4 waste and the decommissioning and you want to make the security of our energy suppies dependent on an experimental type of reactor?

You know there is absolutely zero chance that these new nukes will be built. Its complete pie in teh sky.

So tenuous you want to make our energy futeure dependent on an experimental type of reactor that has never been made into a working electricity producing plant?

That's not what I said at all. I only mentioned thorium based ones as an aside to your query about plutonium.

Perhaps if you spent a little less time being deliberately dishonest you might find your discussions on here a bit more fruitful and less combative.