[Closed] Let's go nuclear

England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland

Good to see the ones near me are going ahead. Much better than those pathetic windmills.

Looks good to me. Lots of jobs for chemical engineers, so the daughter can care for me in my old age

Expensive dirty and unneeded. Its all about jobs for the boys not about clean energy.

Why the hell do we get 3 of the things in Cumbria though... I mean - there are few people who live here to be using that much power.

And none in London.

They should build power stations where the folk that leave office lights on all the time live and work, that would be a much better solution, and I bet the obsession with nuclear power would be quelled pretty swiftly too.

So which would we rather have a large steel shed painted green, patrolled by armed police, a terrorist object, that contains material that will be dangerous for a very long time,is expensive to produce, and health and safety is a job creation scheme for printers, printing all the signs.

Or a nice tall windmill that makes little noise,is environmentally freindly, and cheap.

Perhaps we should be saving energy, switching of lights, etc.

Saving energy first. Tidal barrages and wave next.

'tis OK tho - Scotland will show you the way. Should be nuke free in a decade or less.

TandemJeremy - Member
England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland

Ah! I see the cunning plan TJ. Scots oil and gas runs out and England and Wales hold the Scots to 'energy' ransom. It will be like the Russians turning the gas off?!

 

If they want nuclear power perhaps london town would be a good place, Hyde Park is just a green field that needs a use,and just think of all the jobs that would be created for all the unemployable bankers.

Good I could get a job as a Safety Inspector. Can't be that hard if Homer can do it.

England and wales only which is not the UK

You'll find that both England and Wales are in the UK. Scotland might not be having any new nuclear power stations, but neither will Surrey - even though it is part of the UK.

It's worth remembering that some of these new nuclear power stations will be built and owned by the French government, although none will be built or owned by the British government. Nice.

Tankslapper - IMO this is wee eck ( salmonds) big test. He has talked the talk about nuke free and renewables - can he do it? scotland is in prime place to do so with both the resources and the skills. It will be his big test and his legacy if he can.

Scotland does not have much gas BYW - but plenty of oil and plenty of coal

Why the hell do we get 3 of the things in Cumbria though... I mean - there are few people who live here to be using that much power.

Well, there are these things...you may have seen them about the place called pylons, they transmit the power form one place (cumbria+low population=perfect Nuclear sites) to another. 😉

Saving energy first. Tidal barrages and wave next.

'tis OK tho - Scotland will show you the way. Should be nuke free in a decade or less.

I'd agree, but wind and wave power isn't going to satisfy our energy needs, we just don't want to save energy even though the privatised utilities are going to fleece us big time in the next few years. Speaking of which:

It's worth remembering that some of these new nuclear power stations will be built and owned by the French government, although none will be built or owned by the British government. Nice.

Our Government (previous and present) don't want to invest in this sort of infrastructure and knowing that once again the privatised energy companies are essentially doing a "USA" when it comes to it, gets another governments nationalised energy company to build them for us...at a tidy price of course. 🙄

Good old British ingenuity. Or something.

About time too. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.

As long as it is safe...

Ok how dangerous/safe is it? as one is near Bristol?

I thought some of the Rocks had radeon in them anyway in the west.

About time too. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.

Why I am against nukes? Polluting, dangerous and unreliable.

When someone works out a permanent solution to the waste then I might accept it.

It is not clean energy by any means due to the pollution involved in building and decommisioning sites ( which no one knows how to do)

Supply of fuel is unreliable and finite.

Its the wrong answer to the wrong question. Energy saving and renewables could easily fill the gap if the same money was spent.

A few years ago the founder of the green movement said that the only viable solution at the time was nuclear power.

TJ.... England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland

Ernie.... You'll find that both England and Wales are in the UK.

I [b]think[/b] TJ is correct in strict constitutional terms in that there was never a union between England and Wales. Wales was conquered by England. Incidentally this is why there is no Welsh element to the Union Flag (and also why the powers of the Welsh Assembly are different to the Scottish Parliament?)

So 'England and Wales' [i]is[/i] in the UK. As is Scotland. As was Ireland (although things have changed somewhat there)

Having said that, it is completely correct to say that all the new nuclear sites will be in the UK. As it would be to say that they're all in Europe.

p.s. I'm pro-nuclear, simply because I'm pro having reliable energy into the foreseeable future. The waste issue is a bit of a non-argument in that we already have to deal with 'some' waste. Building new nuclear means we'll have to deal with more waste but we won't have to solve any problems that we don't already have.

Higs - what was the solution to the waste then? They must have sneaked a solution in when no one was looking ''cos as far as I am aware we have no permanent solution to some very dangerous and unstable waste.

IETR is the answer at Cadarache.

TJ Energy saving in theory is a great idea, but how to you see it producing significant savings in reality? Esp. when the social-economic fabric of the country is based on continuous growth?

Where did I say we had a permanent solution to the waste? It can be managed quite safely in the short/medium term and we will have to find a permanent solution some day for the waste that already exists.

It is arguable that we should never have got into nuclear power in the first place without a permanent waste solution. But we did.

p.s. my view is that we will find a permanent solution in existing technologies. The issue at the moment is a combination of political will, NIMBYism and the ease of medium term storage meaning that we don't yet have a [b]really[/b] pressing need to decide on the long-term strategy.

Ian - there is massive amounts of energy saving that could be done. Energy is too cheap which is part of the reason why there is no incentive to do so but stopping offices leaving the lights and air con on 24/7 and properly insulating homes would go a long way.

One thing I have heard quoted is that if everyone turned their TV off rather than leaving it on standby that would save the output of and entire nuclear power station. If that really is true think how much energy could be saved with strong measures.

Higs - so there still is no solution to the waste -and we have not got a satisfactory short / medium term solution. - the ponds at sellafeild are a real danger and mess for example.

to create more of this toxic waste without any solution even for the medium term is highly irresponsible IMO

[i]If that really is true think how much energy could be saved with strong measures.[/i]

My question is what are these 'strong measures'?
More expensive energy just means increased poverty for the poor.

Strong measures? Insulation of all homes to a high standard. Legislation to stop offices leaving lights on all the time. That sort of thing.

More expensive energy need not affect poor people more - it depends what you do with the money raised. give every adult £500 worth of free energy and then charge at twice the rate?

If nuclear is safe, then the power stations should be built right in the middle of the big cities.

This would avoid transmission losses.

Fat chance 🙂

. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.

Higs - so there still is no solution to the waste

Higs - we have not got a satisfactory short / medium term solution.

Higs - the ponds at Sellafield are a real danger and mess for example.

I'm not sure it's going to work out that simply TJ. Let's assume that Scotland went for the make energy expensive route with a lot of business legislation, whilst England went for the build loads of reactors and keep energy cheap with a light touch business regulation. Loads of business will move out of Scotland and into England.
Which will of course reduce Scotland's energy demand, but also it's employment levels, tax income and all the problems which come with that.
I don't for a moment dispute that saving energy is for the good, and that at the moment we squander loads, but I think that changing that situation is far harder than people imagine.

Blair fudged this 10 years ago. The decision to go for nuclear new build should have been taken in the late 90s.

The long term answer has to be energy saving and alternative technology - but we need to replace the ageing fleet of existing nuclear plants, as well as reducing reliance on coal and gas burning.

If nuclear is safe, then the [s]power stations[/s] reactors should be built right in the middle of the big cities

I think you'll find that this is already the case

Ohh - and the charge more / energy is too cheap view will not be widely accepted until shareholder benefit is taken out of the equation

Ian - I am not saying it would be easy. It could be done with the political will tho.

rkk - where is there a nuke power station in a city?

[i] It could be done with the political will tho.[/i]
Again, I'm not sure. Political will still requires an electoral mandate, and the population as a whole tend to be as short-sighted and after a quick fix as the politicians they vote for.

TandemJeremy - Member

rkk - where is there a nuke power station in a city?

I chose my words carefully...

[s]power stations[/s] reactors should be built right in the middle of the big cities

Plymouth certainly. [s]Less sure about[/s] Edinburgh (historically), but certainly in the past

TJ - I simply cannot conceive that Torness B will not be built in 20 years time. The present administration will not be in power for ever and the blackouts will have started to happen by then.

You mean small university reactors? Rather a different level of risk to nuclear power stations

No - the first pressurised water reactors were in use at these locations - long before the controversy over the introduction of PWR at Sizewell B.

The navy were operating PWRs in their submairne fleet since 1963. When I was young it was sometimes possible to see 6-8 Churchill and Swiftsure (and latterly Trafalgar) class subs tied up alongside at Devonport.

Because the reactors remain active when the boats are alongside, there was a proposal muted to use this capacity to run turbogenerators to supply electricity to Plymouth

It's a panic measure because thay have been sitting on the fence for so long. Goverment was afraid their popularity would take a nose dive by spending money on sustainable energy sources and efficiency, and anyway, they gave all our money to the bankers, rather than encouraging sustainable development.

It'll all cost us hugely more than they predict in the long run, not to mention our kids generations who will be left to clear up the radioactive mess it'll leave.

Donald. There is a clear large majority against new nuclear power stations in the scottish political bodies and amongst the public. Nor is there any need for new nukes to supply power for scotland. Over tha past years the amount of power exported to England is equivalent to the amount generated by nukes in Scotland.

I do not believe any new nukes will be built in scotland. Certainly not in this review nor whilst there is a SNP administration

Scotland will not be nuclear free, irrespective of who is in the Scottish Parliament,and irrespective of whatever enrgy reviews or needs...
.
.
.
.
.
.until there is no further need for Faslane

Rikk - faslane will go as soon as the scots parliament has the power. Its one of the main reasons I support scots independence and I bet its within a decade

TJ - "Its the wrong answer to the wrong question. Energy saving and renewables could easily fill the gap if the same money was spent."

Partly right on renewables but (not) if you include wind. Energy saving process is already starting in lots of industry I can assure you, however the message is not getting to everyone. We do not help wasting power on the interweb. In fact many technologies that are in common use in homes now are much more power hungry than those that they replace (flat screen tellies etc).

Lets assume that we have 5,000 windmills it's winter, very cold due to the high that is covering most of the country (this happens at some point each year, maybe for a day sometimes a week our more), it will not be windy on most of these days. Cover will be required for times like this, so the choice will be coal or nuclear as the rest of the renewables will be at full stretch. With the increase of powered airconditioning in summer a similar situation can (nearly did last year) occur, not enough power produced for that being used. We will have CHP/waste to energy or incinerators in old money as the programme for building these is now well underway but it will not be enough to provied cover for windbased renewables.

At some point someone is going to get there head round the idea that everyone can be a micro generator and provied small amounts of energy for themselves, perhaps all it will do is keep acouple of lights on but alternatively it may be just enought to keep the electric central heating pump running on their gas central heating, oh and the pilot light on.

Power generation is a strategic issue in the UK now and the enviroment is sadly not at the top of the list of issues to solve. It could have been if plans had been made ten years ago. But hey who'ed trust a politician to see past the next election of a vested interest and think of the good of the country.

Thats say on the subject, off to look at making a small windmill for the garage. Had to edit as usual.

Certainly not in this review nor whilst there is a SNP administration

Which is why I say in twenty years time.

TJ

This from a Labour Party campaign leaflet for Beaconsfield 1982 for a T.Blair.

“Labour is the only party pledged to end the nuclear madness.”

I guess people change their minds 😉

[tongue in cheek]

good for you TJ, and when you run out of energy/money I'm sure England will be more than happy to supply you with more than enough energy to keep you in deep fried battered cream eggs indefinately. At a price though obviously? I mean it's not like being one big union benifits both countries at all does it, in fact f*** off the lot of ya!

[/tongue in cheek]

On an asside, there's some bolloks on this thread about what to do with nuclear energy. For example;

Did you know you could quite happily handle the fuel rods before they go into the reactor with your bare hands? The white gloves are just to keep your grubby fingerprints from spoiling the fuel. They'r too hot afterwards and take a while to cool down, which is why they'r sat in concret baskets up in Cumbria.

Build them in towns......
Heysham 1&2
Dungerness A&B
Ok, Morecambe and Dungerness are hardly the cosmopolitan capitals of the world, but last time I checked neither was a smouldering hole in the ground.

Hartlepool, on the other hand, probably should be a smouldering hole in the ground.

maybe is should be, but given nuclears safety record, unlikely to happen any time soon.

Lets assume that we have 5,000 windmills it's winter, very cold due to the high that is covering most of the country (this happens at some point each year, maybe for a day sometimes a week our more), it will not be windy on most of these days. Cover will be required for times like this

Look up CAES on google and Sirius PLC.

The UK have a leading company in the use of compressed air energy storage for this exact situation.

Given that nuclear will require a large public subsidy, it's reasonable to look at what we might do with that money instead. TJ is right to point out that the most efficient option is to stop wasting energy in the first place - so subsidy could be used to provide free insulation for every house in the UK, for example.

Once we've done that, then lets return to the discussion of how much power we actually need to generate.

the most efficient option is to stop wasting energy

I believe the market is doing a pretty good job of forcing this issue at the moment. £2000 a year energy bill anyone?

"I believe the market is doing a pretty good job of forcing this issue at the moment. £2000 a year energy bill anyone?"

You'd think so, but it isn't translating. Mind you, there are a couple of good reasons:

1. Private rented accomodation - no incentive for the landlord to invest.
2. Solid-wall housing - expensive and difficult to insulate.

As I alluded to earlier, if every house had adequate loft and wall insulation, then it would be reasonable to explore how we go about generating power. But we're nowhere near that stage. Unfortunately, the giovernment has left it too late, so it seems as though nuclear is the inevitable medium term solution.

If you're Pro-Nuclear:
Please name 1 thing you need power for so badly that it justifies creating nuclear waste.

Please name 1 thing you need power for so badly that it justifies creating nuclear waste

Hospitals,

And whats so bad about nuclear waste (without geting hysterical, please give me facts)

Lardy_biker - very interesting they got a mention recently on some work I was involved with, did not realise they were so far on. Can see that there are the existing places to do this. If it works it'll be another addition to renewables (is it?) but will not get us away from the requirement for power station building. The countries needs(wants) are to big, can you imagine what would happen if the Xfactor was not on one night due to a power shortage.

I'm all for a mixed solution meself with many ways to make power. Using less would be the first place to start though. Can't help feeling that we are a bit trapped by the national grid thinking which is wasteful it's self.

ooOOoo

This forum.

This is not a spoon. the toxicity with no way of safe disposal or storage. The history of leaks of radioactivity causing multiple cancers. The radioactive soup that is now the Irish sea from illegal and accidental discharges from Sellafield.

The storage ponds at sellafield are in a really dangerous state - and they are the best solution we have?

mt.

They just bought the patents to do the CAES thing using CO2 which has been caught and is being stored. Its an interesting company. Would you care to allude where they were mentioned?

As ever, mixed IS the way forward.

Much as I love a good lynching,

Sellafield is not run by the bunch of cowboys Greenpeace would have you believe.

Cancer (and other clusters) occour everywhere. The Greeks discovered it as a disease (the name comes form the spiders web type apperance of the skin of some of the corpses looking like crabs). And Im pretty sure the Pathenon and temple of Zeus were famous for their architecture, not their nuclear power.

Cornwall is pretty radioactive too, must be all those nuclar power stations disguised as cute seaside cottages. I mean, it's not possible for an area to have a higher than average background radiation naturaly is it?

Hospitals - yes a good answer, but what about personally, in your home?
STW - ridiculous. This is a trivial use of electricity.

I'll admit nuclear has a good safety record, but we're only 50 years into its use. The repercussions of a problem could be horrific.

thisisnotaspoon - Sellafield and legal / illegal discharges from it are clearly responsible for irradiating the Irish sea. Many leaks and intentional discharges over many years.

http://www.lakestay.co.uk/hot.htm

and loads of others. An estimated half tonne of plutonium has been dumped into the irish sea

but we're only 50 years into its use.

How about being a little more positive and changing use to development in the quote above. Refining and deverloping processes has to make the use more efficient stable and safer?

ooOOoo - safety record good? Windscale / 3 mile island / chernobyl / dounray. How many cancers?

The problem is that once the radioactive pollution is in the environment it is very hard to remove - plutonium is constantly being found on the beeches around dounray

actually a key waste of power if the national grid system itself...

why do you think birds sit on power lines? why? as they are warm due to the resistive losses. Transmission losses are huge.

a move to decentralised power would help and is happening but only on a small scale at the moment.

the key to future energy security is a. to get the mix of sources right - this will include nuclear and to get on and build stuff now rather than wingeing about it.

I'd say 50 years and I can only think of 3 big events
Winscale - very old crap design

3 mile island - pilot relief valves are never 100% reliable, I'd be suprised if they'r stil used in the industry (we dont use them if we can help it)

Chernoble - crap design (no containment) , crap controlls (they didnt actualy know it was going to blow up) , crap procedures (safety systems turned off for an experiment)

Again, this statement as if it were fact...

The storage ponds at sellafield are in a really dangerous state

A small child could drown in a storage pond - is that enough to call them 'very dangerous' or do you have some rationale to back up what you regurgitate as 'fact'. What level of quantified risk are you equating to 'really dangerous'?

We deal with human health risks at work, including excess cancer risks.

It is undeniable that radioactive particles wash up at Dounreay (very low population access to that area), and that there are cancer risks associated with civil nuclear power programmes.

However, this is all about risk perception. The numbers (in the UK / W Europe) affected by radiological contamination are incredibly small - especially when compared to other anthropogenic contamination sources that are widely overlooked by society and the media.

The use of coal and oil as fossil fuels (and chemical feedstocks) also has a legacy of carcinogenic contamination - but these are chemical carciongens, not radiological carcinogens, so do not attract the same dread factor as the N word.

How many people have died of asbestos related cancers (mesothelioma) as a result of exposure to asbestos lagging material in thermal energy plants??? (power stations and boiler / heating plants). How many people are exposed to combustion residues and poor air quality as a result of oil and coal burning??

I don't claim that nuclear is energy generating panacea. Personally I would like to see a mix of hydro, tidal, wind and micro generation - but for the moment we need to address the huge gap between our electricity generating potential and our energy demands.

Wasted energy should be a criminal offence - but how would you set the boundaries?? It really winds me up to see office / reatil space fully lit up at night - but would you also criminalise house owners for leaving security lights on if they are out of the house, for example...??

dounray I've not studied

Windscale's problems were mitigated by the filters (ironicaly added as an afterthought to the cooling chimneys and though and unnececary and expensive addition)

3MI - cancer and illness rates are aknowlaged to be too low to detect even if they do exist.

Chernoble - As I said, it was a horrendous f**** up by the soviet union. Would not and could not happen again.

And whats so bad about nuclear waste

Until Chernobyl I believe they said this [b]Would not and could not happen [/b]....

Lardy_biker - Subject of compressed gas generation came up at meeting about another type power generation. I was under the impression that it was a concept and had not been trialed yet.

With you all (and Rootes1) the way on mixed solution from big power to domestic generation. We should stop looking at it as a problem and see it as a marvelous opportunity, in fact I find the ideas that are comming really exciting. Don't have problems with some nuc though nor a bit of coal for that matter. Considering all the waste we make CHP in cities has got to be a must. What about a small windmill on every building, street light and road sign, you could go mad with ideas and designs.

Junkyard - Member

And whats so bad about nuclear waste

LOL what a daft question.

On one level it is....

But there is a coal fired power station near me - surrounded by hectares of landfill containing PFA (pulverised fly ash) - which is reputedly contaminated with asbestos dust. The large city located downwind is unable to achieve air quality standards on the days when that power station is operating....

What about the half tonne of plutonium in the irish sea?

I agree that there are risks in all ways and that the risks of nukes are oft overstated. However the helath risks from the radiacivity are far greater than many would have yu believe.

Teh ponds at Sellafield - sounds like you guys know more than me - but my understanding is that they are not sure what is in them, the concrete containment is cracking up leading to groundwater leaks and that they are full anyway - no one has any clue what to do with this stuff in them now - it cannot remain there for ever but no future disposal method has been found.

I say again - tell me how to gt rid of the dangerous high level waste and I'll accept nukes. No one anywhere in the world has a solution to the disposal of the high level waste

and I believe I said Chernoble was a complete and utter f**** up, a bit like riding offroad without a helmet (safety systems turned off), blidnfold (poor controll systems), and experimental work (riding the rangers path at speed), then wondering why its all a bit painfull.

The reactor design was never used outside the soviet union for a very good reason.

lets be honest growing global population, a middle class explosion our electricity usage is gonna go through the roof what happens if electric cars become the norm when the oils gone??

nuclear and maybe fusion- go iter!!!
and look the oils going soon, we are gonna have to dig up the amazon and the antartic but eventually well run ou
[img] [/img]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Windscale - large accidental release of radioactivity after a fire in the 50s and continual release of contaminated water even now.

Mt

There is an operational CAES plant in ireland and one on the go in germany (Huntorf). Ithink these will grow in use over the comming years through (in part) eco concerns but in reality the carbon credits attached to there use.

I say again - tell me how to gt rid of the dangerous high level waste and I'll accept nukes. No one anywhere in the world has a solution to the disposal of the high level waste

Ironicaly NIMBYism is the way foreward on this, the argument in the USA about where to burry it (Yukka Mountain, etc) has gone on for so long that keeping it in above ground concreet baskets as it cools is begining to be looked on as the long term solution (well guarded, accurate inventory, no leaks etc etc etc).

And in case the idea of half a ton of uranium in the irish sea is scaring anyone, there's proababy several times that in the Solent, Valencia harbour, Aukland harbour.

So, can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't have a Severn Barrage??*

20% of the UK's energy demand in one hit

its not uranium - its plutonium - rather more nasty. Thousands of times as toxic.