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

Cheap coal won't help as a stopgap either, it seems:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html

And taht's even if you're still so curiously blaze about the true environmental impacts...

Use aggressive energy conservation measures both active and passive to reduce consumption. this reduces C02 output.

And promptly be voted out next time round, with the oposing party's winning manifesto pledge being to reverse said policy. I said real-world, not pie in the sky idealism.

Well thats my answer and there is no reason why iot can't be done. it needs a change of midset.

Tehre is no reason why energy conservation should be unpopular - wouldn't you like to live in a well insulated house that costs much less to heat? Do that to every house in the UK that the equivalent of more than one nuke in reduction in energy usage and would cost less than that nuke - and last longer.

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.

sounds to me like you are saying they are going to be this type of reactor.

If you cannot even be honest then at this point I am out

E

Tehre is no reason why energy conservation should be unpopular - wouldn't you like to live in a well insulated house that costs much less to heat? Do that to every house in the UK that the equivalent of more than one nuke in reduction in energy usage and would cost less than that nuke - and last longer.

We should absolutely do this. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this, they just don't think it will be enough.

They? Who are tehy?

there is no proposal to do this or to take other energy conservation measures. Not enough money for big business, not enough kudos for the scientists.

You want 10 new nukes - thats one of them not needed in a simple low tech solution.

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?

The answer to the waste is quite simple. Either keep it where we can see it, or bury it in a geologically stable area. Scientists and engineers who know a lot more about this than you, I or greenpeace loonies agree that these are the two best options. If you're worried about terrorism, I think most have cottoned on that it's much easier to hijack a plane.

And you, in a melodramatic, hysterical manner, decry a technology (assuming you're going on about thorium here) that isn't 'nuclear' in the way you perceive. I'm not sure there is much point in arguing about this any more.

PWRs are most likely to be built whether you like it or not. Perhaps not in Scotland, but frankly, who gives a damn about Salmond's over inflated ego and political posturing.

Thorium cycle reactors area lot closer than fusion, and offer a lot more than renewables. They are a lot cleaner than conventional nukes, and a lot more realistic than powering the UK on renewable energy, which simply isn't dense enough to efficiently (i.e. more energy out than in) provide the power the country will need.

As I keep saying, had anti-nuclear hysteria not stymied R&D funding, we'd not be having this argument, you'd be typing on a computer most probably powered to some extent by one. We'd also be a lot closer to fusion, which is the only way the developed world can hope to maintain a shred of its current lifestyle.

it needs a change of (sic) midset

It does. There is no electable way of making this happen though.

You want 10 new nukes - thats one of them not needed in a simple low tech solution.

So insulation will indeed reduce our space heating requirements, most of which is done by gas, not electricity (which in itself is mostly generated by gas). It is a start, but still doesn't address the need to replace the aging coal and nuclear fleet, nor does it do anything about the likely increase in electricity requirements for transport.

sounds to me like you are saying they are going to be this type of reactor.

I'm sorry it wasn't clear enough. The Gen IV reactor designs are largely uranium fuelled, with I think one thorium fuelled design. None of them produce long lived transuranic waste however.

zokes - how can I get thru to you .

we need to look at our energy requirements in total as its co2 reduction that we need. Thus the insulating the homes reduces the amount of co2 we produce by more than one nuke will do - thus we don't need that nuke as a part of our electricity generation to reduce our co2

I have said how I would replace our generators - that's a different question You keep mixing the two. We can generate electricity in many ways. To reduce our co2 output we need either to use less energy or to use nukes top generate elecricity. Our current nukes is only 4% of our current energy needs

And you, in a melodramatic, hysterical manner, decry a technology (assuming you're going on about thorium here)

Melodramatic? Hysterical? I merely point out that it is untried experimental tech that no one has been able to get to work. Thats all I said about it

You are the one being hysterical and melodramatic with your pronouncements that energy conservation is impossible its nukes or the lights go out.

You need to open your eyes and look at tehis as a much wider issue

teh only solution is to use less energy.

we need to look at our energy requirements in total as its co2 reduction that we need. Thus the insulating the homes reduces the amount of co2 we produce by more than one nuke will do - thus we don't need that nuke as a part of our electricity generation to reduce our co2

We can generate electricity in many ways.

Our current nukes is only 4% of our current energy needs

You seem to be ignoring my point that your "evidence" that we don't need nukes is contradicted by your own belief that we can't fill the gap with renewables (which is what the proponents of your "evidence" are busy assuming).

You want 10 new nukes - thats one of them not needed in a simple low tech solution.

aracer - the difference between total capacity and base load? We are committed to 20% renewable s by 2020 and well on the way - but they will not be able to be base load as they fluctuate too much. t
To get 20 % of capacity is easy, baseload is more difficult. I would have thought you understood the difference - but it suits you to rubbish my arguments by misrepresentation

I have repeatedly said what I would do its just a couple of posts up

Insulating homes is just one of the energy conservation measures that are needed

if only we had not wasted all that energy and money on nukes we wouldn't be in this position. we could have had decent energy conservation instead

I really have had enough of the hysterical posturing and continual personal attacks and misrepresentation of my position.

Its clear that you cannot make a logical case for nukes and that you cannot find any answers to teh major issues of unreliability, expoense, pollution and decommisioning.

Melodramatic? Hysterical? I merely point out that it is untried experimental tech that no one has been able to get to work. Thats all I said about it

Like most renewables then? Like any energy policy resulting an a large enough reduction in consumption that will be acceptable by the electorate? Had funding not been cut folling the pull-back from nuclear after chernobyl, they wouldn't be untried technology. It's actually pretty close, and forward-thinking counties such as India are actually leading the research.

You are the one being hysterical and melodramatic with your pronouncements that energy conservation is impossible its nukes or the lights go out.

The lights will probably go out anyway. Forcing energy reduction (aside from offering free insulation, which would be a start) would be suicide for any elected government. The succeeding administration would most likely have been voted in on the promise to generate more energy, thus alleviating some of the forced measures. How would they do this? Well:

1) coal (increasingly expensive, increadibly polluting)
2) gas (increasingly expensive, running out rapidly)
3) nuclear (expensive, generates highly concentrated waste that can, and is managed)
4) renewables (totally unproven in the scale needed, depends on your priorities re: windmills everywhere vs a few big powerstations in one spot)

Personally I'm for a mixture of nuclear and renewables, and energy efficiency. Whilst we probably can increase efficiency to some extent, in the next 30 years all coal and nuclear stations will need replacing, gas will start being a real issue, and there will be an increasing reliance on electricity for transport and heating. Where will this come from?

teh only solution is to use less energy.

Correct. But when the general public doesn't want to understand that fuels will run out, let alone the concept of climate change; you will not find a democratically elected government with the teeth to make this happen. As several of us have invited you to do so, suggest a workable plan that doesn't force the very large reductions we'll need, and you'll get your Nobel prize...

if only we had not wasted all that energy and money on nukes we wouldn't be in this position. we could have had decent energy conservation instead

Not with our current lifestyles. Most families have two cars. Lots more people live singly therefore needing to heat two houses rather than one. People expect to be able to wear T-shirts all year round. We have a fad for electrical gadetry. I'm not saying any of this is right, but it would be political suicide to attempt to force the public away from this. The massive reductions required to reduce our reliance on fossil energy (simply because it will run out - you can forget climate change for now) simply are not compatible with the lifestyle the world expects. We expect it because we're used to it, the developing world expects it because it sees that we have it and quite rightly feel they deserve some luxury too.

I really have had enough of the hysterical posturing and continual personal attacks and misrepresentation of my position.

Serving of irony coming right up. Why your hysterical paranoia about nuclear power when teh facts are there to see?

Its clear that you cannot make a logical case for nukes and that you cannot find any answers to teh major issues of unreliability, expoense, pollution and decommisioning.

It's clear that you won't listen to the facts that our aging fleet of nukes is surprisingly reliable, that new designs are much more efficent in terms of reliability, waste, and decomissioning, and compared to conventional generation are surprisingly green. You have completely failed to offer any alternative to the impending shortfall in generation, either by a constructive plan on how to encourage meaningful reductions, or present a feasible suite of renewable technologies.

The only reason the insults are starting to become personal is because you're the only one daft enough not to see your position is completely untenable. If there is only one person on one side of a heated discussion, then any criticism of their argument could indeed be taken personally, as there's noone backing up their argument. You're not very good at this are you?

Just how [i]are[/i] you going to convince the general public of a workable energy reduction plan when you can't even convince a group of people who for the most part appear to have pretty green credentials ourselves?

Why your hysterical paranoia about nuclear power when teh facts are there to see?

What hysterical paranoia? just point to a single post?

It's clear that you won't listen to the facts that our aging fleet of nukes is surprisingly reliable,

Under 50 % reliability is reliable? Really?

You have completely failed to offer any alternative to the impending shortfall in generation, either by a constructive plan on how to encourage meaningful reductions, or present a feasible suite of renewable technologies.

Most families have two cars.

shows how out of touch you are with reality it is not so.

Not with our current lifestyles

aracer - the difference between total capacity and base load? We are committed to 20% renewable s by 2020 and well on the way - but they will not be able to be base load as they fluctuate too much. t
To get 20 % of capacity is easy, baseload is more difficult. I would have thought you understood the difference - but it suits you to rubbish my arguments by misrepresentation

Not misrepresenting you at all - quite happy to accept you understand where we are on this issue (though IMHO 20% of capacity is actually pretty useless in terms of energy security, and not even that good at reducing emissions if it can't supply baseload, and a total waste of money which could have been spent on more useful stuff). Just making sure what your position is before pointing out the flaw in your earlier argument (I'm kind of surprised you didn't spot the trap).

I have done so several times.

I have done so several times.

Please highlight this. I mean real, workable solutions, not hypothetical hyperbolae. How will you convince the general public of teh need to cut their electricity use by

1) ca. 20% to make up for loss of existing nuclear generation
2) ca. 40% to make up for loss of existing old coal / gas generation

That's before an increased use of electricity that will come in a reduction in the use of petrol for transport and gas for heating - the heating of water won't be reduced by insulation

I'm sure renewables can take up some of that, but not all of it by a long way, so what else will plug the gap in the medium-long term?

Under 50 % reliability is reliable? Really?

Fallicious - Have a look at 'load factor' in table 5.10, pg 28

DECC.GOV.UK "http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf"

Also bear in mind that just means the station wasn't running at 100% 365 days a year, this may have been due to scheduled maintenence or operational requirements, not just 'unreliability'

If you want some peer-reviewed conclusions, have a read of this in [i]Science[/i]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5993/799.full

You really think that over 40 years with all those billions spent we could not have improved things greatly? Get real

Well, go and invent a time machine, take us back 40 years, and we'll do it your way. What? We can't? Oh well, I guess we'd better deal with the mess we now find ourselves in.

I (and several others) have presented a real plausible solution based on the somewhat alarming facts we have in front of us about future power station closures, loss of fuel supply, and an increasing demand on electricity for transport and heat.

You waffle on in some idealistic non-existant world that efficiency and renewables will save us all. It is you, I think, that needs to 'get real'.

Good morning Everyone, TJ is most especially warmly greeted.

i've slept on this, and a question has struck me.

TJ; we already have nuclear power stations, producing lots of nasty waste, we are currently gearing up to build more (i'm sitting next to a massive construction site which you will be seeing in the news later).

what do you suggest we do with the waste? - this stuff is real, and we're getting more.

i'm asking an honest question - what do you suggest we do with it? - pretend for a moment that my government of compassionate fascism is in power, and i've just put you in charge of nuclear disposal. knowing that you'd go to great lengths to store it as safely as possible.

what method gets the TJ stamp of 'least dreadful' ?

this is also an honest job offer - assuming i can take power of course.

Haven't read all of the above, but here's my thoughts, for what they're worth

I understand the argument that says coal stations going off due to carbon restrictions and CCS not being proven, plus our original nuclear station coming to the end of their lives we potentially have an energy gap from 2016 onwards. I also understand that renewables as at present cannot be relied upon for base load. Gas has all the problems of energy security and being paid for in a foreign currency (as the GBP is rapidly becoming worthless, this is a real issue). So the argument goes that leaves us with nuclear.

However, in my opinion (and it's just that), the side effects of nuclear are horrendous and have not been properly addressed. Mentioned above ad nauseam are the waste issues (agree, it seems to be just bury it out of sight and leave it for future generations to deal with) plus the health problems for those unfortunate to live near the sites.

That adds up to a pretty intractable equation which is why this thread is 8 pages long. Both sides can shout as much as they like but to me it's a pretty miserable choice; solutions can only lie in reducing consumption (will happen anyway as prices go up / if power becomes unreliable) and trying to develop an alternative, although for the life of me I can't think what that might be.

So no, like everyone else I don't have an answer!

i'm not shouting...

TJ is an educational genius, he asks very good questions that have encouraged me to go and do some homework.

and in all sincerity, i thank him for that.

the side effects of [b][u]burning fossil fuels[/u][/b] and to a lesser extent nuclear are horrendous and have not been properly addressed.

Fixed it for you

health problems for those unfortunate to live near the sites.

Which are? Go and read the thread properly, and you'll find that as well as the masses of chemical pollutants spewing from coal fired power stations (yes, what are we going to do with that environmentally damaging CO2? I know, lets just put it into the atmosphere and see what happens), a coal-fired power station emits a damned sight more radioactivity to the atmosphere than a nuclear power station does.

Amusing. As soon as the word nuclear is mentioned people become hysterical, yet noone seems to care about the real damage fossil fuels are doing, both globally through GHG emissions, and locally through diffuse and point chemical pollution.

So how do we reduce the most insulating of greenhouse gasses?
That water vapour is a reet bastard, ya knaaaa...

but CO2 is the one we're dicking around with.
and without wanting to kick up another massive argument - we're only talking about a small change in temperature, 2ish degrees [i]is[/i] small. but it will probably have a terrible impact on marginal places like the maldives, bangladesh, siberia, etc.

(we might not notice if it gets a bit warmer, a bit colder, a bit wetter, etc. but if sudan gets a bit warmer/drier then 30million go without food, etc.)

etc.

we're lucky, but billions of people will be affected.

That water vapour is a reet bastard, ya knaaaa..

It is, and as the atmosphere warms, it can hold more of it, further warming the atmosphere etc...

So lets ban water

So lets ban water

Outstanding. 🙄

Is that the best you can do as a comment on global warming?
Personally, using your logic, I blame the sun much coooler without that IMHO 🙄

It's the same logic you lot are applying to the problem, anything the UK can do to attempt to combat the global situation is entirely futile.

anything the UK can do to attempt to combat the global situation is entirely futile.

So lets not do anything then. But you'll still have to replace oil, coal and gas with something when they run out. Any bright ideas?

Let the planet find its own equilibrium? Without all modern comforts, the most parasitic, excessively aggressive species will soon die out to a sustainable number.

the uk is responsible for massive energy consumption, it's easy to blame all those factories and power stations in china, but they're making all the shiny crap that we buy to define our lives.

'Chinese' pollution is really european/american/'western' pollution.

Let the planet find its own equilibrium? Without all modern comforts, the most parasitic, excessively aggressive species will soon die out to a sustainable number.

Indeed it will. Now place yourself at the head of government and make it so. Lets see how long you stay elected for...

the uk is responsible for massive energy consumption, it's easy to blame all those factories and power stations in china, but they're making all the shiny crap that we buy to define our lives.

'Chinese' pollution is really european/american pollution.

Perzacerley, so lets all quit buying all this unnecessary consumer shit, lets stop the food miles and eat locally produced foodstuffs, lets all quit commuting 20 miles a day and work in the town we live with an efficient worthwhile public transport system...

a coal-fired power station [b][s]emits[/s][/b] [b]has the potential to emit[/b] a damned sight more radioactivity to the atmosphere than a nuclear power station does[b], if the flue gases are not properly scrubbed[/b]

Amazing that scrubbers have only just got a mention.... scrubbers that can also reduce co2 emissions as well as the other nasties?
I'm sure with investment and research they could be made more efficient?

U31 - Member

the uk is responsible for massive energy consumption, it's easy to blame all those factories and power stations in china, but they're making all the shiny crap that we buy to define our lives.

'Chinese' pollution is really european/american pollution.

Perzacerley, so lets all quit buying all this unnecessary consumer shit, lets stop the food miles and eat locally produced foodstuffs, lets all quit commuting 20 miles a day and work in the town we live with an efficient worthwhile public transport system...

er, sort of*, but mostly how about accepting that we're partly responsible, and so should take steps to help fix it.

(*i already try to do most of those things)

So a small core of the environmentally aware are going to sway the other 65million UK residents in to giving up replacing their iphone every year, buying the next gen of purpleray dvd players that are no better then last years blueray but have a shit-site better marketing department, turn down the heating and put on a jumper when its cold etc etc etc etc?

Kit - Member

a coal-fired power station has the potential to emit a damned sight more radioactivity to the atmosphere than a nuclear power station does, if the flue gases are not properly scrubbed

So how do you get all that 14C out of the flue gas then? And what about the low-level radiation in the ash?

Amazing that scrubbers have only just got a mention.... scrubbers that can also reduce co2 emissions as well as the other nasties?
I'm sure with investment and research they could be made more efficient?

Simple thermodynamics. It takes about as much energy to split the carbon and oxygen up as they emitted when they bonded to form CO2.

So a small core of the environmentally aware are going to sway the other 65million UK residents in to giving up replacing their iphone every year, buying the next gen of purpleray dvd players that are no better then last years blueray but have a shit-site better marketing department, turn down the heating and put on a jumper when its cold etc etc etc etc?

all those things would help.

my guess is that people won't change their behaviour because they want to save the maldives.

but they [i]might[/i] change their behaviour as rising energy/raw material costs force them to...

but most importantly, i'd like people to stop pointing the finger of blame at everyone but themselves.

to use a marcusism: china doesn't have democracy or a free press, but that doesn't mean we should give them up.

think local act global you are probably right but to see the problem and do nothing is worse than to deny the probelm and do nothing

Re: CO2 'scrubbing', see Carbon Capture & Storage.

So how do you get all that 14C out of the flue gas then? And what about the low-level radiation in the ash?

"All that" - want to give me a percentage of 14C in emitted CO2, and how this relates to radiation dosing, rather than a typical environmentalists exaggeration of something they've heard?

"the low-level radiation" - also, want to put a figure on Bq/hr (or whatever doses are measured in) so that we can judge whether its really that dangerous? Pulverised fuel ash is sold to and used in a number of different industries, to make cement, grout etc. If the radiation doses were as high as you appear to be claiming, then they wouldn't be allowed to sell it. Handling of dangerous substances in the UK is very tightly controlled. I can't speak for the rest of the World, but given our context is the UK, then I'm sorry I don't see what the problem is.

If you can provide the numbers, from credible sources, then I'm totally open-minded to believe you, but just saying "lots" and other such non-scientific waffle isn't a good argument. But I appreciate that you've probably got work to do, and so don't have the necessary time to be researching, collating and critically assessing all the numbers.

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

"Mining and milling operations in the U.S. have disproportionately affected indigenous populations around the globe. For example, nearly one third of all mill tailings from abandoned mill operations are on lands of the Navajo nation alone.(9) Many Native Americans have died of lung cancers linked to their work in uranium mines. Others continue to suffer the effects of land and water contamination due to seepage and spills from tailings piles."

"Uranium and associated decay products thorium-230 and radium-226 will remain hazardous for thousands of years. Current U.S. regulations, however, cover a period of 1,000 years for mill tailings and at most 500 years for "low-level" radioactive waste. This means that future generations--far beyond those promised protection by these regulations--will likely face significant risks from uranium mining, milling, and processing activities."
Not really much worse than asbestos I suppose.