[Closed] Nuclear Power, yay or nay

Its a simple point. I was told in the 70s how wonderful the nukes would be and they turned out not to be as reliable or as cheap as promised. This leads me to be sceptical of promises of what they will do in the future.

If someone lies to you several times will you believe themn in future?

So fundamentally your position is based on sociology rather than physics and engineering?

Sounds reasonable to me. You think there have been no more liars or incompetents entering adulthood since the 1970s?

Sounds reasonable to me. You think there have been no more liars or incompetents entering adulthood since the 1970s?

No, but instead they now lie about what they're going to do to the banks, whether we should go to war, the 'threat' of terrorism or even how much better off some parts of the UK will be on their own in the long term...

Nobody who is arguing against a new generation of nuclear reactors on this thread has yet come up with a viable alternative that is low-carbon, and can cope with increasing demand on electricity as gas and petrol become more scarce. Could that be because there isn't one?

zokes - feasible in your opinion. IMO the nukes won't solve it and the measures I suggested could.

Its all about political will.

Could that be because there isn't one?

Yep.

IMO the nukes won't solve it and the measures I suggested could.

Its all about political will.

Look at the facts. Even if you can reduce use of electricity now, what will happen to electricity demand when the entire transport sector needs to run on H2 or batteries rather than oil? Given current government rhetoric on this issue, it's already starting, and as electric / H2 cars get more affordable, and more like the ones we have already more people will use them. What is going to generate this extra electricity?

Removing one option of electrical generation for no logical means (you can believe what you like about safety and storage of waste - you're certainly wrong about the risks there) puts more pressures on renewables that could only hope to power the country's electricity demands (without added electric-powered transport) with a massive reduction on current usage. Any views to the contrary are simply the ostrich with his head firmly in the sand.

Guys - you keep asserting that it is inevitable energy usage will increase. It is not. the cost of one nuke put into energy conservation ( home insulation mainly)would reduce the countries energy usage by more than the power station would produce ( you do get into diminishing returns quickly tho)

There are many easy measures that could be taken to reduce energy usage - all it requires is political will. From prevent office blocks lighting being kept on overnight to preventing [b]excess[/b] consumption in the home.

combine this with renewables and you have an alternate solution. Teh problems are twofold - firstly it requires political will and leadership that out politicians seem to be unable to provide and the second is that there is not the money for the big businesses in doing so. They have a vested interest in increasing consumption not decreasing it.

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time - why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

Now you guys may not want to believe this could work - but many folk do and the numbers add up.

I am giving up on this. Zokes - you are obviously well informed but you keep making assertions with no evidence. There simply is no inevitability about an increase in energy consumption.
edit - you say - look at the facts and then start making assertions about the future that are pure conjecture.

Guys - you keep asserting that it is inevitable energy usage will increase

No I'm not, I'm guaranteeing that [u]electricity[/u] usage will increase. I'm fairly sure overall energy usage will decrease substantially. If [u]electricity[/u] usage increases, we need more generation capacity. If we were to build as much renewable generation as feasibly possible, we could not match the demand of transport and other sectors that currently do not use electricity as their primary energy source, but will have to as oil and gas become scarcer.

There are many easy measures that could be taken to reduce energy usage - all it requires is political will. From prevent office blocks lighting being kept on overnight to preventing excess consumption in the home.

combine this with renewables and you have an alternate solution. Teh problems are twofold - firstly it requires political will and leadership that out politicians seem to be unable to provide and the second is that there is not the money for the big businesses in doing so. They have a vested interest in increasing consumption not decreasing it.

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time - why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

So you are suggesting we build less generation now to take into account modest cuts such as those you suggest, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room?

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time

Correct, so why not be prepared for it by having the generation capacity to wean ourselves off oil and gas slowly?

why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

So what I've just suggested then?

Edit:

edit - you say - look at the facts and then start making assertions about the future that are pure conjecture.

q) Will oil run out and become increasingly expensive?

a) yes

q) Will gas run out and become increasingly expensive?

a) yes

q) How do you propose we heat our homes and power transport?

a) um....

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE. NONE. This relies on political decisions.

You are a very clever man to predict the future with such certainty.

You analysis is reasonable - you conclusions are flawed. everything you want to do can be done without nuclear.

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE. NONE. This relies on political decisions.

You are a very clever man to predict the future with such certainty.

So we'll all just give up heating our homes, driving, and transporting freight then? It's one option or the other, but any transfer from petrol / gas to electricity is an increase in electricity. As currently less than half the UK energy consumption is via electricity, ANY transfer from oil / gas to electricity will be an increase. As I said last night, if we stopped using EVERYTHING that is currently powered by electricity, the UK energy savings would be less than 50%. Our current use of electricity isn't the problem - it's what we have to use to heat our homes, power our cars and transport our goods that's the problem.

All current suggestions to solve the latter two issues are centred around electrolysed H2 or batteries. What do we need to electrolyse water or charge batteries?

everything you want to do can be done without nuclear.

Yes, it can be done by burning coal - the one fossil fuel we have plenty of still. As I said before - 1bn from climate change vs 100k from a very unlikely event such as Chernobyl. Your call...

Yes my post was not in anyway based on facts but I was trying to illistrate a point (however badly) 😀

The point is that the population is growing, maybe not in this country but overall in the world we are in a population boom, so even if we halve our energy requirements (UK) all the rest of world (most of the worlds) energy demands are going up as the billions of people move from very little energy usage to probably a 'X' fold increase. These economies are growing and these growing economies with growing populations are going to move into a more comfortable lifestyle which invairiably will require more energy. So by us halving our energy demands what impact will that have on the rest of the worlds energy requirments? Next to sweet FA I would think.

As for actually reducing our use of energy, look at the world climate convetions what has been achieved? Nothing. How is joe puplic across the whole world going to be convinced to reduce energy consumption when people are so selfish.

So I guess we are all doomed which ever way you slice it.

All current suggestions to solve the latter two issues are centred around electrolysed H2 or batteries. What do we need to electrolyse water or charge batteries?

wrong There are many other solutions to reducing energy usage in domestic heating and transport

Yes, it can be done by burning coal - the one fossil fuel we have plenty of still. As I said before - 1bn from climate change vs 100k from a very unlikely event such as Chernobyl. Your call...

Wrong Reduce energy usage and we reduce CO2 emmisions

The choice is reduce energy usage by easy measures available with current tech while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE.

We've got a rising population in this country (for whatever reason). So that alone will make it hard to avoid increased energy usage.

I did not say it wouldn't be difficult to avoid - but it still remains that there is no inevitability about it.

TJ - you are in the realms of fantasy. There is no feasible way you can attain the g CO2 / kw figues an old nuclear plant can achieve by burning coal. You have construction of the plant, you have carbon sequestration measures that have to use energy by the laws of thermodynamics, then you have the CO2 being generated day after day as you burn coal.

If you think we can reduce our energy consumption by more than 50% (seeing as I keep stating, ALL our electricity accounts for less than this figure) then you're living in cloud cuckoo land...

while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

So now using [i]your[/i] crystal ball you're certain we'll crack a form of power that is appreciably lower in carbon than nuclear, whilst still having the scope for the sheer amount of electricity we need? The closest currently on the radar at all is nuclear fusion. This was 50 years away when it was first touted more than 50 years ago. It's if anything, further away now than it was then.

wrong There are many other solutions to reducing energy usage in domestic heating and transport

Which are...

1) Drive less - yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership. In addition, we're now also expected to commute further to work, and be more flexible about taking jobs elsewhere. Both my partner and I have a 45min commute by car, in opposite directions. Despite trying, neither of us can find a job closer. I suspect a 45 min / 30 mile commute is considerably shorter than many when you consider the country as a whole.

2) Move goods around less - ditto the above. Where was the PC you're using now made?

Both these energy uses will require more and more electricity. At present, charging a g-whizz at night would use more electricity for transport than I do...

3) More insulation at home. This reduces the need to heat, but when gas runs out we will either have to go back to burning coal, or use electricity to some extent. The reason we started using coal was because there weren't enough trees 200 years ago - there certainly aren't now

Whats that wooshing noise? something right over your head.

You are missing my point completely or deliberately ignoring it.

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

This has become totally pointless.

edit - I'll just pick up on one point

Drive less - yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership.

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

Any idea when are we expected to reach 'peak uranium'?

Zokes you make some good points about energy use, based on current practices, but even if we go nuclear that is a finite resource.

I know a lot of the public still believe we are on some unswavering course towards a jetsons/star trek future, with infinite energy on tap. But assuming fusion never properly works, at some point we have to face the limits of our surroundings.

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

You claim we can make reductions in energy usage. I then agree, but point out that as more than 50% of the UK's current energy isn't electrically-based, in all probability we'll need more electricity generation to make up for the gas and petrol we won't be able to burn for much longer.

You then doggedly respond by saying that we will make further cuts. You decline to provide us with examples of how this may be done.

Out of all the technologies feasible to produce large amounts of low-carbon energy, nuclear fission is one of the few currently available. You suggest instead of that we invest the money in finding something new. What do we do in the mean time? You think there's an energy-gap looming now? Just wait until 20 years time if we don't build more nuclear power stations now.

Or we could build coal, but as I keep saying, and you keep dodging - 1bn projected deaths attributable to climate change. At least if there's a nuclear disaster in the west, it would be us who paid for our energy usage. What have the Bangladeshis done to deserve their entire country being inundated by rising sea levels?

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

So make it MORE expensive. You then price those who can't afford it off the road, leaving only those who can. Rather elitist don't you think?

There is no other way approaching reduction in car usage and transportation in a democracy. You state the need for political will, frankly there's less chance of a government that puts forwards plans to stop us driving staying in power, than a nuclear reactor near you melting down. Maybe in China, where we'd be told to stop driving and lump it, but not in the western world. Personally, I prefer even Gordon Brown's unsavoury style of government to the totalitarian regime in Bejing.

Any idea when are we expected to reach 'peak uranium'?

Ever heard of Thorium?

I know a lot of the public still believe we are on some unswavering course towards a jetsons/star trek future, with infinite energy on tap. But assuming fusion never properly works, at some point we have to face the limits of our surroundings.

I quite agree, but there seems little point in making it sooner for our country and plunging us back into the dark ages. Someone else will use all the uranium if we choose not to, and maybe someone else (and it was someone else on the two previous occasions) will suffer a major nuclear incident. Sinking the ship for a ha'p'orth o' tar seems a little daft

while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

So make it MORE expensive. You then price those who can't afford it off the road, leaving only those who can. Rather elitist don't you think?

Whatever happens though people will be restricted, whenther by self control, government or the planet running out of resources-food and energy.

The only point out of those three likely to happen would be the final one. Little chance of self control, and even less of a limp-wristed government with a view on the next election instigating anything that restrictive...

There is a fourth way - we plan NOW for 20-30 years ahead when oil is becoming scarce, and make sure there is enough electricity generation capacity to fulfil probable future requirements for the needs of H2 and battery-powered transport. At least then there will be a low-carbon alternative to petrol - admittedly less of it, but then at least the government couldn't be accused of just watching oil run out and not trying to prepare alternatives.

So we're advanced enough to build all this clever stuff like cars, computers, planes etc. but when it comes to using them it's back to behaving like animals, with no forethought? Always depresses me that.

As long as massive energy use is no more taxing than flicking a switch, or gently pressing your right foot, I suppose people will continue to think what we do today is normal.

As long as massive energy use is no more taxing than flicking a switch, or gently pressing your right foot, I suppose people will continue to think what we do today is normal.

Worse than that - it's what a lot of the developing world aspires to.

Very interesting thread, I've read it all. I don't have anything to add, but thank you to all participants, I feel like aI know a little more now.

zokes - Member

Worse than that - it's what a lot of the developing world aspires to.

And ultimately that is what will sink us. If we in the UK all go back to caves burning wood tomorrow it will be no use unless china and india don't start using energy like we do

And don't get me started on the USA 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds man made greenhouse gas emissions / energy usage yet no will to do anything about it.

I hope the UK can be a beacon for the future to show the way forward and we have the opportunity to be a world leader in developing alternative solutions of all sorts. We have the expertise and the skills.

It seems to me that one problem that is overlooked with talk of reducing energy usage is that there are so many societal factors that would make this difficult. To take just one, the high level of family breakdown leads to a demand for more housing, at a lower occupancy level (i.e., the average UK child has two bedrooms, one at mum's and one at dad's), with all the extra travel that that incurs. What are environmentalists doing to ensure that families find it easier to stay together in one household?

You may think this sounds like a daft question, but really it's not. There are any number of external factors driving people's life choices which lead to energy consumption (why is it that so many people need to commute so far to work for example), and no amount of turning off video recorders or wifi routers at night is going to address that.

er, yay for nukes?

environmental disasters following oil leaks etc. aren't unknown, we still use oil.

burning coal releases massive quantities of radioactive material, we still burn coal.

(and good old non-radioactive air pollutions kills many thousands every year, we still all burn stuff).

nuclear power doesn't strike me as any more or less 'safe' than the alternatives.

as for the waste; we have mountains / rock formations that haven't moved in billions of years, when it comes to the really nasty waste we've only got to hide it away for a few thousand years - a brief moment in geologic terms.

Can't be arsed to read all the above comments but just wanted to say

Yay

I don't think we are going to be using more energy in the future.

Unfortunately there is no technology that is going to come anywhere near replacing oil any time soon. Probably before we get new nuclear power online things are going to start getting sticky re' oil. We probably have already had peak-oil but that has been disguised/mitigated by the credit crunch. We'll be lucky to maintain our electricity supply and the idea of having enough extra to replace our current transport is a joke.

That's one reason I don't want more nuclear, because without oil we won't be able to support such a complex society of specialists and I worry that in time nuclear power stations will become too complex to support properly.

If you don't think that is possible have a look at what happened to the USSR when it collapsed. As oil starts to run out there's no guarantee that our society won't break down in the same way. It would be nice to think we'd end up like Cuba, but maybe we'll end up like Chechnya.

China and India are not going to develop in the way we have. There are too many of them and not enough oil to go around. They might fight us for what's left but probably not as even if we (in the west) weren't using it there still wouldn't be enough to bring them up to western standards of living. They will be better off trying to limit the expectations of their own populations.

So I don't think we are going to be driving round like we do now in 10 or 20 years time. 1 litre of oil will do approximately equivalent to 70 man hours work. As oil becomes more scarce we're going to be less and less likely to use that transporting big lumps of metal around - we'll use it for something important.

If you really want to prepare for the future, I think you should find yourself a house/job where you don't need a car to commute. And where you've got a network of friends that think the same as you about the future. Then start trying to cut down your energy usage.

Some people make the point that cutting energy use won't make a difference globally. But even if that were true it will still make a huge difference to individuals, who won't suffer the same amount of shock if(when) fuel prices go through the roof and our completely fragile (even if highly efficient) transport system goes tits up, as hopefully they'll already be some way towards being weaned off it.

I'm ducking out of this discussion now - already spent far too much time here that could have been spent more usefully chopping logs.

I'm pro-Nuclear, I know several people who work in the industry and many discussions later I believe that they are a fairly safe way of generating power and definitely the answer in the short-term.

One thing I will say, having read the whole thread, is TJ repeatedly states it’s all about political willpower with regards to reducing energy usage. That however, relies on said political party being voted in, how many of the average joe will vote for a party that places restrictions that I gather a large majority will view as unfair/unnecessary? I know that I probably wouldn't, and most of them simply don't care enough to even read up on the subject.

Zokes - thanks for the links of Thorium reactors. Highly interesting diversion to work!

Haven't read it, but this has been recommended

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Haven't read all the posts but some may find this a good read if very scary of what happened at Chernobyl.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

That's one reason I don't want more nuclear, because without oil we won't be able to support such a complex society of specialists and I worry that in time nuclear power stations will become too complex to support properly.

If I'm reading correctly you're arguing that we shouldn't build more energy sources because when we start running out of energy sources we won't be able to support these new energy sources

That's what I thought, but I'd given up arguing with the [s]blind, deaf and dumb[/s] anti-nuclear lobby some time ago