Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15825467
So its going to cost 2.6 BILLION to knock the power station down, and another 60 million to reprosses about 48 tones of spent fuel thats if they dont loose any.
We could have major engery conservation schemes, wind turbines, along with more renewables for that sort of cash, creating a lot of skilled jobs in construction, instead of a few jobs for blokes in white suits, holding a box that goes bleep every few seconds.
Oh and just how do you consult with everyone along the route the train is going past, and are going to suffer if it goes bumpty bump off the track spilling its contents.
You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.
only benifit with nukes is they make LOTS of electricity all day long but it costs a zillion quid and 1000's of people work there every day.. whereas that awful nasty windfarm above rochdale has no body working there... areas like scout moor were made for windfarming .. windswept desolate not even the locals will go up there..
Nukes are also quite good at giving peeps serious health conditions and leaving a lasting legacy of polution, as in Chernobyl, windscale, etc etc.
*sighs*
project - Member
We could have major engery conservation schemes, wind turbines, along with more renewables for that sort of cash, creating a lot of skilled jobs in construction, instead of a few jobs for blokes in white suits, holding a box that goes bleep every few seconds.
Really? Enough to produce a comparable amount of energy?
*awaits project's evidence*
TandemJeremy - Member
You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.Posted 3 minutes ago # Report-Post
Yep we could just blow them up, and sell the scrap to china or india, who now buy our old factories.
whereas that awful nasty windfarm above rochdale has no body working there
Cobblers. 2 turbines have had to be rebuilt due to fires. There are engineers up there everyday.
It's machinery, you can't just leave it.
If you reduce energy needs you dont need so much production of electricity, the condems seem to be allowing major indiustries to close every day, so we must be using less power.
The largest user of power closed last year on Anglesey, and another smelter before that in Dolgarrog, and now another at the north east.
I've never heard anyone argue that nuclear energy was cheap.
It's because it's so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support.
It's a damn sight cheaper than having to go to war every few years to protect the supply of gas and oil which is the (real) alternative. And envornmentally cheaper than coal (if you believe the climate change malarky). It's gonna cost quite a few billions to put a dyke round bangladesh!(Or do we not worry that all the bangladeshi's have drowned, as long as they don't drive a train past the end of our gardens)
A war every few years kills considerably less people than a nuclear explosion does.........
oil is mostly used for industry and vehicles, not for heating water to make steam ,then ultimately electricity.
Also Bangladesh has signed an agreement with Russia for them to build 2 nuclear power stations in Bangladesh, so much for the dyke.
A war every few years kills considerably less people than a nuclear explosion does.........
I must be reading the wrong newspapers.
Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.
Hmm believe the Chernobyl death toll as of 2008 was 95. Coalition casulaties alone so far in Afghanistan stands at around 2700.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.
It's true, I hadn't thought of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That's probably because there weren't any nuclear generators in Hiroshima and Nagasaki though.
Hiroshima, nagasaki, chernobyl, all nuclear explosions.
But only one of them being related to power generation and even so the latter has seriously questionable data attached to it wrt the number of dead/ill from it - just depends who's numbers you believe. As the japanese have recently proved, even a fairly hefty problem isn't exactly the end of the world, or overly lethal, and at least is done in persuit of good intentions, unlike war.
Also Fukushima casualty numbers currently stand at 5 (all plant workes and mostly down to earthquake and tsunami). Where as about 15,000 died as a result of the Bhopal pesticide plant accident.
Nuclear power is very expensive.. Only as it is one of the only businesses that is actually un-insurable. It is impossible to get insurance on a neuclear power plant.
But when comparing the output of a full life power plant, its output is humongous and is relatively clean.
This [url=
documentary[/url] is well worth watching If you have concerns about nuclear power.
the output is possibly clean, but he plant and fuel it uses isnt, and we have a very low knowledge of what to do with the waste, or what to do if it goes bang.
saw the horizon docusoap, very propogandist.
mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people as fukoshima will kill people for decades
very propogandist
says the guy who started the thread about how nuclear power is bad, very very bad 🙄
Doesn't it only cost so much money to decommission because rabid anti nuke nutters like TJ make decommissioning so difficult?
If we were willing to countenance a couple of minor exposures to non lethal doses in the process, then it could be done in half the time for a quarter of the price - its because it is SO incredibly safety conscious that it costs so much. We're stuck in a cycle of thinking that "any-level-of-radiation-is-not-safe" despite the fact that we're exposed to it all the time, and that many people get a higher dose from natural background radiation from where they live than most nuclear power station workers in their entire career.
If we applied the same level of safety to Coal, it would cost five grand a ton - but we're willing to accept a few thousand deaths every year from coal mining, the odd environmental disaster from oil extraction, but, lets face it... not a single radiation death from Fukushima.
in the words of the former clinical head of Royal College of Radiologists “The situation in Japan looks set to follow the pattern of Chernobyl, where fear of radiation did far more damage than the radiation itself,”
project - renewables cannot yet provide the necessary base load required on the grid - only oil, coal, gas and nuclear can realistically provide that. Given the limitations of the carbon-based sources mentioned, there is currently no other viable solution other than nuclear to provide the electricity and reduce carbon released into the atmosphere. It is the best of a bad bunch. TJ speaks like a true Luddite and would have smashed many a machine if he were born earlier. Like saying that Mr Mercedes and Mr Benz built dangerous cars so I'll never buy one, despite them getting safer every generation.
ar more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people
peer reviewed reference for that please.
mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands
TJ, this is where the numbers arguement gets silly. From wikipedia/UNSCEAR:
"The number of excess deaths among 5 million people living in the less contaminated areas is estimated at 3,000–5,000"
Personally I'd go for the lower (but still sensible) figures over the sensationalist ones
tens [s]if[/s] not hundreds of thousands
FTFY TJ 😆
Tens, literally [u]tens[/u] of people killed in the worst nuclear accident that happened, how terrible 🙄
Doesn't it only cost so much money to decommission because rabid anti nuke nutters like TJ make decommissioning so difficult?
No. But nice try at pinning the blame for the cost of nuke decommissioning onto TJ.
Guys - we have done it all before and yo just don't want to believe.
This is a very tightly drawn report that ignores many many deaths because of its tight remit - note the people that are signatories to it 11000 deaths. certainly an underestimate because it has such a tight remit.
The Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms
In September 2005, a comprehensive report was published by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of agencies including the[b] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies[/b] and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report titled: "Chernobyl's legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts", authored by about 100 recognized experts from many countries, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators). This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation. This number was subsequently updated to 9000 excess cancer deaths.[31]
Other reputable reports give much higher figures as they do not have such a tightly drawn remit
mr blobbby - far more people killed by chernobyl - tens if not hundreds of thousands - and its still killing people as fukoshima will kill people for decades
Crikey. That's evidence-lite even for STW.
- really? You seem unsure. Could it as easily betens if not hundreds of thousands
?tens if not hundreds
total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000
Ah.
From the Fukushima plant damage, from published figures the "projected increase in cancer mortality would be ~0.001% above the natural rate"
johnners - 9000 plus and that is an underestimate as it ignores the effects of contamination beyond the immediate area and ignores many types of deaths -
and there are at least several thousand deaths per year mining for coal in China alone:
[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/02/14/china-coal-deaths-idUKTOE61D00V20100214 ]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/02/14/china-coal-deaths-idUKTOE61D00V20100214[/url]
So quoting the statistics of those who have died in nuclear accidents is almost meaningless when producing the biggest alternative fuel kills so many in normal daily business.
Nuclear doesn't come close to killing as many as digging for coal or drilling for oil has.
The cost of decommissioning offshore platforms is massive, however, those offshore windfarms are the biggest legacy anyone is going to be left with.
(I'll get my coat.)
Anyone fancy a wind turbine?
email in profile.
My stance is for a mixture of renewable and nuclear. I just don't see renewables being something we can completely rely on, well unless there's a technological leap forward some time time.
Out of curiosity, how many wind turbines would it take to generate the amount of electricity dounreay has generated over the same life span? and what would the cost be? Seems like the obvious comparison to make? Any energy statos out there?
Comparing the benefit to the community wouldn't be a back idea either, i.e jobs created by each method.
Seems like the obvious comparison to make?
Not really - wind power only generates when there is wind and even then only in a certain wind speed range. Nuclear provides the base load that you need to have regardless.
It's because it's so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support.
Unlike wind farms which are sooooo good value that they are not viable or reliable even with huge subsidy.
France continues to have iro 60% of its electricity generated by nuclear and they never had an explosion and we are all happy to visit there.
Course nuclear isnt cost effective (only when compared to oil or gas or coal) but then again neither are the trains are they and no one (with half a brain) is suggesting we abandon them.
The 2011 UNSCEAR reportThe United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a report drastically different to many appreciations of the effects previously produced. The report concludes that 134 staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome and of those 28 died of the condition. Many of the survivors suffered skin conditions and radiation induced cataracts, and 19 have since died, but not usually of conditions associated with radiation exposure. Of the several hundred thousand liquidators, apart from indications of increased leukaemia risk, there is no other evidence of health effects. In the general public, the only effect with 'persuasive evidence' is a substantial fraction of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in adolescents observed in the affected areas. By 2005, 15 cases had proved fatal.
The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.
The report concludes that 'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident'.
Full report:
As I understand it, previous reports had been very-much based on [i]predicted[/i] effects, whereas when people actually went looking for evidence, they found a lot less than expected.
Dounreay IS unrepresentative by the way. It is/was an experimental reactor from the start and has been a complete f***-up in terms of waste management throughout its existance.
Friend of mine who works in the industry was asked to quote for the clean up and he reckons his company just came up with the stupidest number they could think of as there was no way they wanted to get involved with it.
We need to invest in more modern technologies, it's not difficult to create!
Unlike wind farms which are sooooo good value that they are not viable or reliable even with huge subsidy.
I don't know what the cost of wind farms is.
How is that relevant to the fact that nuclear energy is so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support ?
We need to invest in more modern technologies, it's not difficult to create!
Evidently it is, otherwise we'd all be doing it.
ernie - wind farms are subsidised, so worth mentioning when talking about subsidising other energy generation.
So you saying that you can't estimate the power generated/cost to built/cost to disassemble/jobs generated by a number of wind farms over say 40 years? and then compare to the numbers for dounreay? I don't really understand why a windfarms downtime should affect that analysis?TooTall - Member
Seems like the obvious comparison to make?
Not really - wind power only generates when there is wind and even then only in a certain wind speed range. Nuclear provides the base load that you need to have regardless.
ernie - wind farms are subsidised, so worth mentioning when talking about subsidising other energy generation.
But we weren't talking about that when I made the point that I had never heard of nuclear energy being described as cheap.
Nuclear weapons factories have a beneficial side effect - producing electricity
So you saying that you can't estimate the power generated/cost to built/cost to disassemble/jobs generated by a number of wind farms over say 40 years?
Not realistically - no. It isn't like for like. Without suitable energy storage, renewables can never replace the likes of nuclear as they don't produce constant electricity so you can only have it when it is available. We can't do without the steady base load that wind adds to at this time.
I really like the fact that the people who are most opposed to nuclear, and so for renewables, are also the people who so often tell us that Britain needs more manufacturing... how we don't [b]make[/b] stuff anymore
Ever wonder why there were all those gert big power stations & coal yards dotted round Yorkshire?
Ever wonder why there were all those gert big power stations & coal yards dotted round Yorkshire?
Cos it's ugly and no-one wants to go there? 😛
renewables can provide base load - tidal will which is why it is being installed of the scottish coast now. Mind you I don't know how any of the machines got installed this summer nor how many will be left by next summer
"The cost of decommissioning offshore platforms is massive, however, those offshore windfarms are the biggest legacy anyone is going to be left with.
(I'll get my coat.)"
While I'd agree the cost of building and running offshore windfarms is very high, I'm not sure the decommissioning costs are going to be comparable to nuclear.
My position on nuclear remains the same... An obviously bad option, but currently the best of a list of bad options, and so it's a suitable stopgap til we can improve some of these bad options. Renewables seem to have lots of potential but we're not there yet and rushing into things isn't generally a very smart approach.
renewables can provide base load
Nuclear power can be safer.
If you are going to knock supposition in nuclear, best you stick to what works now in renewables. Are you sure tidal can provide base load? It seems you would have a fluctuation throughout the year with spring tides etc. Not very base. Slack water goes against a steady flow as well.
tootall - you need to look into the scottish tidal setup - two locations far enough apart that the tides are at different times, its done on flow not height so spring tides make little difference. So yes - it should provides a steady baseload 24/7/365
The main issues is the robustness of the hardware and getting the energy to the consumer.
the other way to get baseload is use pump storage (planned undersea connector to Norway to use pump storage there as little more can be built in the UK and hydrogen generation / storage as in the unst project might have a role on a larger scale but is only proven on a small scale
Doesn't it only cost so much money to decommission because rabid anti nuke nutters like TJ make decommissioning so difficult?
Yes, damn all those "do gooders" for putting all those rules and regulations in place. I mean, we should just dump all that radioactive material anywhere we like. Isn't that what the Irish sea is for?
Nuclear power is here for the foreseeable future, we should be focusing on what will replace it after that. Renewables aren't quite there yet and simply telling us to use less energy isn't being particularly realistic.
How is that relevant to the fact that nuclear energy is so expensive that nowhere in the world has it ever been practical without government support ?
Is this argument really a valid one? While the burning of fossil fuels for the production of energy is so relatively cheap it's never going to make financial sense to pursue any form of alternative.
Be an interesting debate to consider what we would do if we had to stop using fossil fuels right now.
it should provides a steady baseload 24/7/365
Should - when and how much? Not enough soon enough.
Planned undersea connection to Norway and use pumped storage there? You voted for an independent Scotland and you believe it could happen as well don't you? 😀
I love futuristic possibilities, but you really need to pin your hopes on more affordable closer-to-realities.
Tidal, its the future.
Is this argument really a valid one?
Well it certainty was when the OP suggested he had just discovered that nuclear energy isn't cheap. Very valid indeed I would have thought.
Tootall - the tidal is being installed now with proven tech. It will provide base load quicker than new nukes which will take more than ten years to do so. In ten years there should be enough tidal for Scotlands base load. Its a multiphase plan for many many years. stage 1 is get the north south interconnect up and install the offshore tidal wave and wind - this is all underway.
Interconnnects to Norway and further afield are further away in time but are well into planning - thats real joint government planning - its a useful idea for them as well.
Did I? I was too young for the referendum in the 70s and must have missed a recent vote on Scottish independence.You voted for an independent Scotland and you believe it could happen as well don't you?
this stuff will produce electricity in significant quantities befoer any new nukes doI love futuristic possibilities, but you really need to pin your hopes on more affordable closer-to-realities.
tootall - really you might be interested in looking into the current scottish developments and plans for renewables - its hopeful and promising and the hardware is appearing in reality. Its not pie in teh sky - its a real and achievable aim.
As I say - the major problem as I see it is: will the hardare survive the winter storms?
I was too young for the referendum in the 70s and must have missed a recent vote on Scottish independence.
Considering how much stick you get on here, it's surprising how little some people read of what you post. Specially on a subject such as Scottish independence.
i ll have wager if anyone will take it that No new nuclear power station will be operational in the uk before petrol hits 3 quid a litre
Hiroshima, nagasaki incidents were nuclear bombs not power plants
chernobyl explosion that blew the lid off the core was thermal not nuclear.
It's a mistake to conflate weapons with power generation in this discussion.
It's also a mistake to compare modern commercial reactor designs to old soviet designs. You would not confuse the safety of a 2011 honda with a ford pinto
To beclear I advocate mix energy sources including renewables andrenewal of existing uranium reactors and fast breeder research to resume to usefully use that dangerous stock pile of weapons grade plutonium up. And then we need to be looking into liquid thorium salts in parallel with fusion
i ll have wager if anyone will take it that No new nuclear power station will be operational in the uk before petrol hits 3 quid a litre
Is that because you predict that petrol will more than double in the next 14 years ?
Well it's more than doubled in the last 14 years, so you could be right.
How much will a pint of Guinness be ?
Tidal is the way ahead, but TJ in ten years, bolloks! 50 years maybe, a mate of mine was involved in the project that put the turbine in the Pentland firth, he said it was way over engineered and the designers/engineers said it would withstand blah blah, 5 weeks after they put it in he was back up there taking it out because it was f#####d.
Fair enough, my real point was that there should be comparisons made against them both. As the choice for alot of people is one or the other, so tot up a list of positives and negatives and see which one comes out the better(things like storage issues/how they will solve that will go in the positive/negative columns etc)... Like I said earlier though, I'm for both(which is how we will go anyhow) so the arguement for me is fairly redundant.TooTall - Member
So you saying that you can't estimate the power generated/cost to built/cost to disassemble/jobs generated by a number of wind farms over say 40 years?
Not realistically - no. It isn't like for like. Without suitable energy storage, renewables can never replace the likes of nuclear as they don't produce constant electricity so you can only have it when it is available. We can't do without the steady base load that wind adds to at this time.
Someone wanted comparative costs??
£4.5Bn gets you 300 offshore turbines generating 1,500MW.
Is that the one put in in August this year? I wasn't aware it had developed any major faults.scotsman - Member
Tidal is the way ahead, but TJ in ten years, bolloks! 50 years maybe, a mate of mine was involved in the project that put the turbine in the Pentland firth, he said it was way over engineered and the designers/engineers said it would withstand blah blah, 5 weeks after they put it in he was back up there taking it out because it was f#####d.
Cheers Druidh,
So is nuclear cheaper? I don't see any power output number here mind, and obviously there are a million other factors to consider..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7180539.stm
The Olkiluoto project is Western Europe's first new reactor in a decade and is expected to cost about £2.25bn ($4.5bn), but there have been serious delays there.
From that bbc link...
Not only do I find £72bn to be quite a frightening number, but that fact that it could have gone up by £16bn in only two years!!! Makes me wonder just how accurate any of these figures areThe Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be £72bn over 20 years - up from an estimate two years ago of £56bn.
Let's accept the fact that the Greenpeace figures are likely to err on the high side, but splitting those costs over 6 power stations gives us £2bn to build, £12bn to decommission and maybe £3bn for waste dumps - that's £17bn per 1,7000MW power station - not including the actual cost of the uranium. Do you think that's going to be getting cheaper or more expensive??Critics, such as Greenpeace, say that the bill for building new waste dumps will be a further £21bn and then £30bn to build the new nuclear power stations.
This might give you a clue...
[img] 
[/img]
What we don't have are the decommissioning costs for 300 offshore turbines and the actual amount of electricity they'll produce averaged over windy and non-windy times.
To be fair it'll take a better man than me to figure it all out! I still think we should use both until renewables can eventually take over. Imo we'll need a new generation of nuclear plants in the meantime. As it's all well and good the scottish government planning all our energy from renewables within 10 years but that becomes a different prospect when you think uk wide.
especially as there are unknowns all round - no solution to waste from the nukes and no real idea of what decommissioning will cost.
Unclear the longevity of the turbines both tidal and wind in the scottish seas as well as the rest of the hardware
Aye - I don't think the same possibilities exist across the rest of the UK (yet).
seosamh77
UK wide more could be done - there are possible tidal generator places in England. Nukes are only a small part of the generation in the UK and it will take tenplus years to build any new ones
TJ, That's a big if though, I'd be more than willing to be convinced otherwise mind.
I think there are timescales that need to be kept to, to ensure a constant supply? In that building will need to start sooner rather than later because it takes so long?(unsure on that)
So for renewables on a UK level they are really running against the clock? Plus it really is a case of proven technology against unproven technology at the moment. So still both for me. I'm not one for betting on the energy needs of the future.
Don't get me wrong, I'm more on the renewables side, in that I'd like to see them as the main and the only source, I just don't think they are there yet and we'll need to bite the bullet on nuclear this time round.
the timeline is around ten years IIRC. The renewables are hardly less proven than Nukes, remeber people keep talking about fast breeders and thorium cycles - non of whichcis working commercially yet. AGRS are known yes.
In ten years we could install a lot of wave and tidal. similar scale to the nukes
By going for nukes you are gambling - the time effort and money devoted to them mean not enough investment in alternates. Spend the money for one nuke on energy efficiency and you save more power than the nuke generates.
Nuclear fuel will run out soon but the main issues remains what to do with the waste and the huge open ended costs involved
Working within the infrastructure/civils industry I don't really regard 2.6 billion as a huge number for the amount of work involved. Whether or not it represents value for money in the bigger scheme of things depends on how much it would cost the economy to put up with the vagueries of a power system that may/may not generate enough to keep all the lights on.
I'd imagine the most cost effective way of ensuring enough energy is provided is to drive down power consumption in the homes/offices/factories and employ more smart technology at the final user end.
Oh well at least there's some facts/numbers getting posted....and the OP has left coincidentally left the thread.
Three of us in this household, leccy:
Consumption Production
September 160kWh 352kWh
October 160kWh 301kWh
>Nov 22 126kWh 118kWh
Gas: zero
Wood: about one tenth of a metre cube so far this heating season, I cook the evening meal on the stove which cuts our electricity consumption during peak demand.
And you Project? We are all part of the problem and can also be part of the solution.