If we max out reactor building (which no one is proposing) – best case scenario and it will take longer than 10 years to get that as most of the CO2 from rectors is released in the building of them.

Whereas efficiency and renewables have a greater capacity to reduce CO2 output for the same money spent

molgrips – Member
The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So if you build nukes you can’t insulate houses?

yes – we have a finite pot of money to spend and nukes are very very expensive. Over the past few decades efficiency and renewables have ahd a tiny fraction of the investment. continue to waste moneyu on nuclear and wehave no money for reneawables and efficiency

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

Fact or ‘TJ Fact’?

I’m uncertain as to whether or not nuclear will always need massive subsidies. Seems a bit strange to me.

Are you saying every nuke worldwide is simply a govt pawn in a weapons programme?

I’m uncertain as to whether or not nuclear will always need massive subsidies. Seems a bit strange to me.

Look at the costs involved and it becomes less strange, even for one power station.

The cost of decomissioning is largely an unknown, look at Dounreay for example (http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/dounreay/) which frequently goes up by hundreds of millions of taxpayer £’s, then look at the number of sites waiting decommissioning now and in the future, its just crazy money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority#Costs)

Everywhere, it has needed public money to fund it – whether it’s to build the power stations or/and deal with nuclear waste.

Well, however unwittingly Ernie, you’ve finally added something of use to this discussion. Now then, lets investigate why nuclear power has needed public funding….

Could it, perhaps, be that conventional fossil fuel power doesn’t as yet need to pay for the majority of its waste in any shape or form?

Nah, that would be silly….

And Edukator, I and several others have been discussing the whole world here. The UK is a convenient case study as it is a situation with which we are all familiar, but if you’re saying renewables can power the whole world, thank goodness you actually have no political influence in this matter.

Finally – TJ: your question about why should the UK have nuclear power if we don’t allow other ‘risky’ nations to. Well, I don’t think it needs saying that in the wrong hands fissile materiel is pretty dangerous stuff. The key to that last sentence is the in the wrong hands bit. If as a result of this rational thought you then somehow come to the conclusion that because Iran probably shouldn’t have a civilian nuclear programme, then neither should the UK, then good for you. I believe the saying is something like cutting your nose off despite your face.

If you’re happy to discount the 20GW a new fleet of nuclear power stations would bring to the UK (and also the GHG emissions from their conventional equivalents), why bother faffing with renewables either? Lets just build a few new gas stations and use less. Result. GHG below 1990 levels and no windmills cluttering up the place.

OR

We use our brains, and whilst aiming for efficiencies, build a sustainable mix of renewables, storage and nuclear.

I’m pretty sure the people of Bangladesh couldn’t give two figs about Fukushima, but I know for a fact they’ll be cursing BAU as their country disappears.

its just crazy money

Even compared to something as comparatively trivial as a few banks going bust and a few very rich people becoming less rich? Amazing what governments can find money for when it suits them…

Got a cost analysis of a nuke vs a coal?

Surely nukes must be profitable somewhere? What about France?

Got a cost analysis of a nuke vs a coal?

Not at work ATM so no easy access to journals, but I’m sure there will be economic modelling covering various carbon prices and break-even of renewables and nuclear vs fossil. If not, I might change fields and write something myself!

Cos if France has 50% or 75% or whatever nukes, that’s well beyond what was needed for a cold war weapons programme…

its 20 GW of new nuclear in the UK now is it? I thought it was 16GW

Remember thats to replace the aging reactors so its not all extrea capacity and again you misrepresent totally numerous factors

Nuclear is more expensive even without the cost of the waste. We have to pay extra for it and then we have to pay to deal with the waste on top.

Please tell me where the money is going to come from to develop renewables and efficiency if we spend the huge sums the new nukes require?

As regards sharing the nuclear power – that is not the question I asked.

Nuclear is more expensive even without the cost of the waste

Time for some numbers on this.

As regards sharing the nuclear power – that is not the question I asked.

You said it was hypocritical that the UK could have nukes and Afganistan et al can’t. You then qualified your stance by stating that if nuclear isn’t globally suitable then it;s not worth doing. I may have paraphrased, but this is the interpretation I and others took. Stop wriggling and deal with the correct answers you receive. You’re not Nick Clegg are you?

Remember thats to replace the aging reactors so its not all extrea capacity and again you misrepresent totally numerous factors

Sadly, your tone is taking this back to a pointless slanging match again. Re-read what I’ve quoted there and see how stupid it looks. By definition, replacing nuclear plants that likely would have been replaced by coal / gas as a result of a hysterical knee-jerk in response to Japan would increase CO2. Replacing them instead with nuclear eliminates this. Replacing ageing Coal and gas with nuclear would reduce CO2 further.

Please tell me where the money is going to come from to develop renewables and efficiency if we spend the huge sums the new nukes require?

I would suggest your MP might be able to furnish you with a better answer, seeing as he’s the one who will make policy etc.

But, if you make fossil-based generators actually pay for their emissions, I think you might find that alternative energy sources suddenly become more viable. Anyway, as I mentioned a minute ago, if the government can find £150bn to save a couple of banks, you would have thought that energy security issues might attract their attention. Nope. Probably not.

Lets face it, these 1100 posts are all just hyperbole between a few more or less informed internet geeks. None of this will change policy, as currently, coal and gas are artificially cheap by a huge margin as they don;t have to pay for their waste. Until that changes, not a great deal will happen in any country.

Interestingly, there’s a carbon-pricing debate raging here in Oz at the moment. They keep getting guests on from the UK, urging for such a scheme in the UK to level the playing field a little towards nuclear and renewables. If fossil fuel burners paid for their waste, there would be much less need for subsidies for either renewables or nuclear.

If we max out reactor building (which no one is proposing) – best case scenario and it will take longer than 10 years to get that as most of the CO2 from rectors is released in the building of them.

Whereas efficiency and renewables have a greater capacity to reduce CO2 output for the same money spent
Except that if you apply the same criteria to renewables as you’re applying to nuclear, you release even more CO2 in building them and you take even longer to get that back.

if the government can find £150bn to save a couple of banks the economy

FTFY. Don’t be flippant.

Zokes – go back and read what I wrote.

I am not the one talking this back to a slanging match.

You cannot answer the question so you attack the questioner. Druidh was right – the pro nukes will refuse to answer as you have shown.

Nuclear power generators don’t pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

Molgrips – I would suggest an energy shortage would make a few banks pale into insignificance when it comes to the economy needing saving. Try not to be so condescending in future…

the pro nukes will refuse to answer as you have shown.

It is a stupid question. What does it matter whether Iran has nuclear power? And why does it affect whether the UK should? If you could clarify these inadequacies in your question, perhaps it could be answered. Similarly Iran can’t do hydro – does that mean we shouldn’t be able to, lest we be seen to be hypocritical?

Nuclear power generators don’t pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

So like fossil fuel then?

Zokes – you claim it is imperative that the UK has a new generation of nuclear power stations. This is despite the fact that ( amongst other drawbacks)it is expensive and we have no way of dealing with the waste. However you will refuse to allow other countries to share this technology. so if it is so imperative that we have it how can you justify denying it to to other countries? Its a global issue its either necessary for all or its not necessary for any. After all unless it is adopted across the globe then new nuclear will have an infinitesimal impact on global warming.

So you want us to spend huge sums of money on a technology that has major drawbacks,no significant advantages and will make no significant reduction in global warming.

Teh sums involved make the 150 bn figure you quote look like small change

So like fossil fuel then

Indeed – unlike your claim above

It is a stupid question. What does it matter whether Iran has nuclear power? And why does it affect whether the UK should?

well as you noted it is dangerous in the wrong hands. Some people take this to mean humans you just take dangerous to mean humans I dont trust for political reasons.
It matters because it shows you dont trust it under certain cirtcumstances so you and TJ can discuss what these circumstances are rather than you insisting it is safe
I dont knwo what either of you are getting out of this. Neither of you are morons and can see that the other person position is a legitimate one even if you disagree with it.

TandemJeremy – Member

Nuclear power generators don’t pay for decommissioning stations or disposal of waste. Teh government has to take on that liability.

thanks to our grandparents, we already have this responsibility. we didn’t ask for it, but there it is, like a poo on the carpet. there’s no point shouting at the dog, or chaining him up outside, there’s still a poo on the carpet.

Even if/when we all decide to agree with you and never build another nuclear power station.

whatever we decide to do with the nuclear waste we already have, it won’t cost much more to dispose of a bit extra.

if/when we end up burying it a few miles underground, most of the cost will be rung up by establishing the process, and building the tunnel to get down there.

An extra tomb or 3 won’t add much more to the bill.

ELEVENUNDRED!

Ah, bugger… 🙁

sorry Elf’!

🙂

French tax payers paid for French nuclear infrastructure and EDF has creamed a profit off it since. I suspect the tax payer will pick up the tab for much of the aftermath. Electricity here is silly cheap; I paid on only 250e last year for 2200kWh including standing charges. Not much incentive to economise then but that didn’t stop me spending a few hours getting rid of a thermal bridge between the floor and the wall. In Germany they pay roughly double.

Some simple measures would result in energy saving. Zero VAT on all insulating materials, triple glazing, heat pumps and anything else that will reduce energy use. Changes to building regulations are needed, obligatory triple glazing of windows, R10 minimum for all walls and the floor in new houses and to get a permit for renovation. An obligatory standard for rented accomodation below which it would be illegal to rent out. A high tax on empty property forcing landlords to invest or sell up. Lots more ideas but I’ll let you digest those.

bigjim – Member

The cost of decomissioning is largely an unknown, look at Dounreay for example … which frequently goes up by hundreds of millions of taxpayer £’s, then look at the number of sites waiting decommissioning now and in the future, its just crazy money…

Dounreay is a bad example to use for estimating costs of decommissioning.

my friend’s father helped design/build it, and he admits that they built it with no idea or thought about taking it apart again.

consequently, it’s a bit tricky.

Try not to be so condescending in future…

I will if you don’t say silly things. You know damn well that the bank bailout was extremely important, if morally repugnant and regrettable.

how can you justify denying it to to other countries?

Other countries have a) nutjobs in charge and b) different renewable potential.

EDF has creamed a profit off it since

Electricity here is silly cheap

Hmm, sounds like nuclear could be profitable then, especially if any govt subsidies could be met by retail price increases. Silly cheap energy does no-one any good.

Some simple measures would result in energy saving. Zero VAT on all insulating materials…..*snip*

Absolutely. These things are a no brainer. All carrot no stick makes good policy.

Well, however unwittingly Ernie, you’ve finally added something of use to this discussion.

Well it was completely unintentional, I can assure you – I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it.

But I will certainly be more careful in the future………I much rather leave the useful contributions to those who believe they can move the immovable.

I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it

Is that neccessarily the case though?

Can nuclear be made economical?

Can nuclear be made economical?

Well as I said, I’m fairly certain no country anywhere has yet managed to do that. Apart from anything else it’s all the shit it leaves behind I believe.

Mind you, I’m not that bothered about what the market says – and I’m happy to use public money to support something worthwhile, specially when it concerns the environment. So nuclear energy being uneconomical is hardly likely to sway me in any direction.

It must be a problem for Tories though.

Except of course, we know that for all their lecturing about the “market always knows best” they don’t actually believe all that bollox – they just can’t admit it.

Can nuclear be made economical?

Wind/solar power is only economical because of huge subsidies via carbon levies.

(Although Ernie’s argument applies equally here as well).

I thought everyone knew that nuclear energy required massive amounts of public money to support it.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a budget of £2billion per year for the next 25 years. Spread over the electricity the nuclear industry has supplied over the last 25 years gives a subsidy of 2.3p per kWh. A hefty subsidy to be sure but pales into comparison to the 7p per kWh subsidy currently given to offshore wind.

Actually civilian nuclear subsidy is less than that because a lot of the nuclear subsidy goes to the clean up of material left by the military nuclear programme.

You might get one new reactor in ten years – you will not get 9

Was only after 8 – do keep up. Anyway, just one will supply more baseload electricity than all the renewables actually confirmed, hence likely to be in place in 10 years time – you can’t build those all that quickly you know, given just how much construction is required for the equivalent of one nuclear plant, and the fact some of the technology isn’t even proven yet.

sizewell was 7.5 years in building once all the politicking was done

Good job a lot of the politicking has already been done, and sites chosen then.

And it is unreliable

Oh goody, can we do this one all over again? Really?
Just how unreliable exactly is Sizewell B, TJ – in comparison to what you might have instead?

Can nuclear be made economical?

It kind of depends what you mean by “economical”, and what you include in the the calculations. As pointed out somewhere up there, not all the costs of conventional power stations get included, and renewables tend to have even larger subsidies than nuclear – there’s not really anything which is “economical” if you compare what we pay for it with the real costs. Not even petrol, at the prices everybody complains about (just to point out that I do agree with TJ on some controversial issues – I think I’m finding this so frustrating because he does often talk a lot of sense).

well as you noted it is dangerous in the wrong hands. Some people take this to mean humans you just take dangerous to mean humans I dont trust for political reasons.

If that’s the point TJ was trying to make with the question, it’s easily debunked. Nuclear power isn’t actually dangerous even in the wrong hands, however it does form one step along the way to making dangerous things.

Nuclear power isn’t actually dangerous even in the wrong hands,

So when some guy from the party told an operator in the Ukraine to do something daft and he did it, it wasn’t dangerous in the wrong hands?

You have a point, Edu. So we should worry about nuclear in the hands of those who already have it, and whatever we do won’t make any difference to? Though I’m surprised to see that even you need a bit of revision on what actually happened 25 years ago.

I don’t need to revise that’s exactly what happened. The superiors told the operators to overide and ignore a series of safety measures (something daft) and the operators did so, with the consequences we all know.

“Some guy from the party”? The people making the decisions were also rather more directly involved in pushing buttons than you suggest, hence paid the ultimate price.

The strange thing is “some guy from the party” would actually seem to support my position!

They were all in the party. You can try to rewrite history or have your own fantasy opinion if you want but that’s what happened. The order to carry out the experiment on back up power systems came from above (the party) and to comply with the order the operators ignored safety procedures.

You’ll argue black is white won’t you, Aracer.

The order to carry out the experiment on back up power systems came from above

Evidence for that assertion? Though I’m still really not sure why I’m arguing against something which would confirm just how unlikely another Chernobyl is if it was true.

You’ll argue black is white won’t you, Aracer.

If somebody thinks it is black because they’ve got their eyes shut, yes.

3mile island? This sort of stupidity is not the preserve of the USSR