Nuclear Power, yay or nay

But they are increasingly dependant on Russia for energy. Not very bright when it comes to energy security.

As I said, they're very good at building things. Long term strategies (especially involving Russia) – not so good.

Yes to Nuclear Power.

Safe
Nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source
Abundant, relatively inexpensive raw material from stable sources
Most concentrated energy source

Yes there are some negatives but at the moment until they get fusion working there is no alternative.

mikewsmith – Premier Member

We do have a long term waste storage strategy

Interesting. What is it? As far as I am aware this is unresolved so I would like to know what this secret solution to the storage of the waste is as no one else seems to know.

The day a satisfactory solution to the issues around waste storage is found is the day I will consider support for nuclear.

I love the idea of a huge fusion reactor telling us that Nuclear power is bad.

Exactly. The only huge fusion reactor which should be supplying us with energy, should be kept 90 million miles away.

Not next to a city.

Epic FAIL.

Even wikipedia can reliably tell you the difference between fission and fusion, ernie…

As for current technology, uranium fission has been managed very safely in the UK for the past 50 years. Energy efficiencies are great, but in the real world, will they happen? I fear not…

Add to this the bizarre idea that we should be focussing transport on electrical-based energy (H2 or batteries), and we'll need more stable baseline generation. The only viable forms of this energy in the UK are tidal and hydro – both finite in quantity as there aren't that many valleys left to flood, and not so many Severn estuaries to barrage.

Put simply, these are the facts:

1) Energy demand WILL increase
2) Greater strain will be placed on the electricity network due to decrease in use of oil for cars, and gas for heating as they become increasingly expensive, and the government 'makes' H2 / electric cars cheaper
3) Existing nukes due to be retired shortly – we need 25% more generation to replace them
4) Existing coal power due to be phased out – what will replace that?
5) Making the huge assumption that the several thousand-strong offshore windfarms announced shortly produce a significant amount of reliable energy, this will still be a fraction of that needed
6) Wave power and tidal lagoons are great, but untested in the sizes we require. This certainly needs more research, but can't possibly fill the gaping hole left by existing nukes, coal, and gas when it runs out
7) Increased interest in nuclear power will increase knowledge and research into better nuclear options. I see the thorium cycle has generated some posts above[/url].
8) Finally, someone may crack fusion. If they don't, the lights will eventually go out, no matter what.
9) It could be postulated that the risk of a very unlikely nuclear accident are worthwhile, given the dubious morals of not wishing a nuclear reaction near us, but blissful ignorance of the effects of burning more fossil fuels and slowly sinking 1 bn people who live in coastal regions throughout the world…

Zokes – there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.

There have been many serious accidents and discharges of radioactivity in the UK and these are still going on now.

The history of nuclear is full of accidents unreliability ane very expensive electricity. I have no faith that this will change and I would like to see the money being spent on nukes spent on energy conservation and research into alternatives.

Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.

what will you do with the waste?

Zokes – there is no inevitability of increasing energy consumption. Thats a political decision.

Really, do you see most of the 60m people on our rock listening to being told we can't drive, or watch TV? It's a fact that no political decision in a democracy can change

Coal will not run out in the foreseeable future. Its the only fuel we actually have a lot of.

Correct, however I refer you to my final point above. How do you propose to tell the Bangladeshis et al who will lose most of their country if even the most conservative climate change predictions prove to be correct?

what will you do with the waste?

This is indeed the unanswered question, however, see my point about the thorium cycle above. In any case, morally what's worse for future generations? A comparatively small amount of highly dangerous waste, or the widespread loss of coastal areas, and high levels of draught and famine due to the changing climate. Your call…

Zokes – their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.

If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????

The waste question is critical.

I simply have no faith that nukes will be reliable enough to solve the issue and they do not reduce carbon release by a significant amount

It's to late, the building starts very soon. You can argue all you like but we will be getting lots of new nuc stations. All built by other countries over here.

Zokes – their is a third way. Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Most people in this country have no clue where their energy comes from, the implications of its use, or anything else. They are lazy. When oil prices go up they blame the government, when gas rises, they blame the supplier etc. Most simply do not care, and this is a fact that WILL NOT change. The only way it could would be by forced increases in prices through taxation. Just how quickly will any government forcing appreciable increases on energy prices last in government when every year we hear of impoverished elderly people dying because they can't afford to heat their homes?

If the money being spent on Nukes went into energy conservation and carbon capture / hydrogen tech ????

And how 'safe' is forcing the CO2 back undergound? What would happen if it leaked out again? As for H2, how do you get it? Oh yes, by using lots of electricity to electrolyse water – do you see the flaw yet?

The waste question is critical.

I agree, although selfish national priorities versus taking a big step towards further cutting emissions that may reduce sea level rise and changes in rainfall patterns that would affect billions. Your call…

TJ, whats wrong with out current nuclear waste storage statergy?

In the US they've been having the same debate, it's gone on so long that 'doing nothing' has become the prefered option. Leave the material in concreet flasks on the surface, in well secured, well inventoried sites.

We should have built Kingsnorth……………..

Zokes – levels of energy consumption remain a political decision and there are many clear and obvious mechanisms available to reduce consumption. Its really simple to see but requires the political will. Capping usage. sliding scale pricing, compulsory insulation, price rises, stopping profligacy such as lighting commercial buildings overnight. Its possible but requires political will. I see several big buildings near me with lights on 24/7/365.

However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption

We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

TJ, whats wrong with out current nuclear waste storage statergy?

Which is? We have no capacity and no long term answer.

We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.

But why?

If I use a block lard to make some pastry for tonights pie I'll die of heart failiure.

If I make the patry with olive oil I'll stand a better chance.

If I make the crust form bread dough it's pretty much fat free (looks and tastes suprisingly like pastry too).

I still want my to eat my pie though. I just chose the method thats not going to kill me.

Which is? We have no capacity and no long term answer.

leave it on the surface as we do now, I said that. It works, its not going anywhere, its secure, its not casuing any polution. Once its cooled down we'll probably just put it in another concreet box.

Anyway, reprocessing technology means that theres a lot less waste generated now than there was 50 years ago.

But why?

Why not?

so where are you going to leave it on the surface? Reprocessing actually creates waste – smaller quantities of the very high level waste but more low and medium.

so where are you going to put this waste? The cooling ponds atr sellafield are full.

Probably put it in a concrete box? that sounds like a well defined and organised solution! What are you going to do with the concrete box?

TJ

"However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption

We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now."

Don't disagree but you sound so 1970's. Their is a lot of money in the various new technologies and it will be "big business" that provides it.

So you first with the reduced consumption, go on turn of the PC.

Zokes – levels of energy consumption remain a political decision and there are many clear and obvious mechanisms available to reduce consumption. Its really simple to see but requires the political will. Capping usage. sliding scale pricing, compulsory insulation, price rises, stopping profligacy such as lighting commercial buildings overnight. Its possible but requires political will. I see several big buildings near me with lights on 24/7/365.

However there is not the money for big business in doing so they will try to negate it. capitalism does not encourage reduction in consumption

We are going to have to reduce consumption sometime. Lets start now.

Right, lets see how long a government suggesting such policies will remain in power then in our 'democracy'?

Political will is one thing, but when such policy implementation will leave you out of power following the next election because the majority of the electorate can't see past their noses doesn't make that a likely prospect. To assume so, and base your energy policy around that fact is very naive indeed.

As to the waste question:

You still haven't justified how us making H2 from coal-fired electricity and actually increasing our use of coal will be preferable on a global scale to controlled use of U, followed by thorium, which again you've failed to comment on.

The policy decisions that can be made by our government relate simply to ENCOURAGING efficiency, and our choice of energy production. There is no conceivable way that a UK (or future independent Scottish one) can force compulsory efficiencies on the public. That may work on business re: lights 24/7, but this is small fry compared to the efficiency savings truly required if you want a renewables-centred energy policy.

The moral choice is quite simple:

Uranium fission and us dealing with the waste, with a view to thorium (and much less waste) in future

or

Burn more coal, and apologise profusely to the billions who WILL be affected by climate change

Anything else is utopian fantasy

Leave them on the surface, I don't work in the industry but know people who do research into this. Their oppinion is that there's no point moving it. You could stand next to the waste containers your whole life and suffer no ill efects (other than being a bit hungry as its a fair trek back to the cafe)

Reduce consumption which can be done with the political will. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable and to pretend we can carry on using energy at the rate we do is humbug. This has to change and simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly. we must change our lifestyles

There's a hefty dose of wishful thinking in there I'm afraid. Also, either "simple measures with existing tech could reduce energy consumption significantly" OR "we must change our lifestyles", which is it? I'm afraid the answer in terms of meaningful, rather than at the margins, energy usage will mean radical changes to our lifestyle that will be extremely difficult to achieve.

I really, really, recommend the David MacKay book that has been linked to already above, and in other similar discussions. He carefully adds up all the numbers for how much we use, how much could be saved in various ways, and how much could be generated sustainably in various ways. The numbers are scary, and there are NO easy answers.

I don't work in the industry

Really!

yes there are

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Buttered_cat.png" alt="" title="" class="bbcode-image" />

"You could stand next to the waste containers your whole life and suffer no ill efects".

Is that why it's stored the way it is at Sellafield?

I dont know much about it, but being naturally cautious nuclear power doesnt seem a great idea.

this really is comedey genius though, very very funny:

Renewables are great, but largely unstable.
Nuclear is stable

For all the paranoid amongst you, have a little look for dosages of radiation from flying, or scarier – potassium-40. This is a natural radioisotope of potassium, present in all food. You willingly eat radiation every day, and quite a lot indeed of you like bananas. People have been eating bananas for a very long time without ill effects.

So yes, whilst some very low level radiation my be routinely released to the environment during modern nuclear industrial activities, maybe look where else you may be subject to radiation to get a sense of perspective…

this really is comedey genius though, very very funny:

Renewables are great, but largely unstable.
Nuclear is stable

Not sure of the comedy. Wind energy is generated when it's windy – the lights go out when it isn't

Nuclear power is generated all the time.

Which is most stable?

Zokes – the two nukes in Scotland are running at around 40% of capacity and this fluctuates greatly. They simply are not stable As I said in the beggining of this debate

In the end it comes down to a faith argument. You either believe that the next generation of nuclear stations will be safe and reliable or you don't. I look to the history of nuclear power and I see accidents, pollution and expensive unreliable power generation. Others look to recent reactors in france and other countries and see cheap reliable and safe.

Yay…

It's inevitable given our lack of a real national energy policy and the current state of our generating and transmission systems. When you look at the options, unfortunately, I don't think we have a choice.

However, personally I'd prefer to see an upgraded European electricity grid with advanced storage technologies to handle a massive increase in renewables.

As for the current intermittency of wind, have you seen how much the national grid is affected if one or more of the current coal or nuclear stations, or the French interconnector, is on an unplanned outage?

But TJ, all you're doing is saying nukes are bad, yet failing to offer any viable alternatives. With decision making like that you should run for government…

Nuclear power is the biggest government funded white elephant going. If you look at the political landscape at the time, it was all to do with weapons. Electricity was an added extra.

We have no native uranium, its a finite resource anyway, its hideously expensive to produce electricity (even when the cost models don't include waste disposal and management) and produces large volumes of waste that is very difficult to manage. TJ is right. There is no current established end-of-use storage solution, other than the existing 'do nothing' and keep it on the surface, which IMO is unacceptable for the very long durations it needs to be kept before it becomes safe.

If as much time, effort and money had been put into alternative sources, we'd be alot further down the renewables/hydrogen/fuel cell/incineration/gassification path than we are now and the energy supply composition of the UK would look alot healthier and alot more flexible than it is now.

Successive governments have neglected supply and generation infrastructure for years. We now have no choice but to go nuclear in the short-middle term, since other technologies are not suitably advance to make up the shortfall. There's really no point in arguing the toss.

Energy efficiency is easy. Government should legislate maximum power consumption for all mains supplied electronic goods (depending on what they are) and remove standby mode via statute. This takes it out of joe public's hands and is designed in during conception and manufacture of the device.

Zokes – I gave you my solutions. Increased energy efficiency, increased renewable s, decreased energy consumption, research into renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture and energy storage.

If every TV in the country was turned off rather than left on standby that would save the electricity of one average power station.

Wind power to produce electricity with fluctuations smoothed by hydrogen production and burning at the site of generation looks good to me – but obviously still needs work. Small scale it is working.

I simply believe that nuclear is too unreliable to be the solution. Thats the lesson from history.

yes,
get an all party 50 year plan, anybody who deviates has a methane extractor surgically attached, and see which of the renewables does actually work then start a planned and realistic migration strategy.

(* also maybe charging for power along the following lines might help
– below 3/4 average use @ 3/4 price
– 3/4 – average use = price
– 1/4 above average use = price + 1/4
– above that price + 50% etc etc

If as much time, effort and money had been put into alternative sources, we'd be alot further down the renewables/hydrogen/fuel cell/incineration/gassification path than we are now and the energy supply composition of the UK would look alot healthier and alot more flexible than it is now.

Fair point, however:

1) Hydrogen, as I have said before, needs large amounts of electricity to electrolyse it from water. Any move to a H2 economy relies on a massive increase in electricity generation

2)Incineration is quite lossy in terms of energy liberated by burning vs investment of new energy and materials if things aren't reused / recycled. In any case, despite what people may think, there isn't actually that much rubbish to burn in the grand scheme of things

3) Gasification / pyrolysis. See my above point re EfW. If we're talking about biofiels, then you have the world's greatest white elephant. The planet can barely sustain our food and water requirements as it is, just where do you propose we find all this fertile land to grow the vast amounts of biomass required?

Everyone says money on nuclear is wasted and should have been invested into renewables. This is a puzzling argument. Renewables are as follows:

1) Wind – we know how to do this, but we also have limited space, and are limited by its unreliability

2) Tide – space limitations, tides go in / out at fixed times, not necessarily when needed. Huge ecological implications.

3) Solar – in this country?!? Although this is certainly one area where improvements in panels can be made, at present many panels will last for a shorter length of time than that required to pay back their energy during manufacture

4) Biofuel – See above: feed us, or our cars, but not both

5) Wave – again under used and under-researched, but hardly likely to be a panacea

I'm sure I'll have missed one…

Energy efficiency is easy. Government should legislate maximum power consumption for all mains supplied electronic goods (depending on what they are) and remove standby mode via statute. This takes it out of joe public's hands and is designed in during conception and manufacture of the device.

Have you seen the fuss now they're phasing out incandescent bulbs? This is the British public we're talking about. In any case, it'll take a lot more than limiting power consumption per appliance. We need to limit the use of appliances full stop. Everyone points to improved efficiencies etc. I wrote enough on this further up the thread to demonstrate why it simply won't work

Zokes – I gave you my solutions. Increased energy efficiency, increased renewable s, decreased energy consumption, research into renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture and energy storage.

OK, so just how were you going to make the British public change their habits, and remain in office, were you the person who had to call it? You're basing the whole of the UK's energy economy on a fantasy utopia then. Just how much faith do you have in joe public's ability to see the issues, let alone understand and act?

The rest is small fry, and something I've just gone into detail in response to scienceofficer above…

I simply believe that nuclear is too unreliable to be the solution. Thats the lesson from history.

Yes, because designs haven't improved in 50 years? 🙄

AGAIN, see my comments on the Thorium cycle for further evidence.

The whole lot is pi$$ing in the wind if we can't crack fusion anyway. In 50 years time we'll be nearly out of oil, and there'll be some very big wars to decide who gets / keeps the remainder…

Zokes – It won't wotrk IN your opinion. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that. Some well researched people believe 25% energy usage cut could be made before lifestyle changes need to be made simply buy increasing efficiency sand reducing waste.

Really it needs a multi pronged approach and I personally beleive that the dirty, CO2 generating, unreliable and expensive nuclear has no place in it. Others may believe differently. We will see as England and Scotland are heading in diffferent directions – no new nukes up here.

Zokes – It won't wotrk IN your opinion. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that.

Yes, obviously my opinion isn't well researched then? Just what do you do for a living again? 🙄

Some well researched people believe 25% energy usage cut could be made before lifestyle changes need to be made simply buy increasing efficiency sand reducing waste.

Great, and with the world population set to grow, where does that leave us? Yes, that's right, with GREATER energy demand. If we want to replace oil as the fuel for transport, we're going to need a hell of a lot more generation capacity. At present, roughly 50% of UK energy usage is in transport. Then there's heating too. Not enough gas to go round, let alone fuel yet more gas power stations. They'll need to be replaced, and are some of the most efficient generation capacity we have…

Really it needs a multi pronged approach and I personally beleive that the dirty, CO2 generating, unreliable and expensive nuclear has no place in it. Others may believe differently. We will see as England and Scotland are heading in diffferent directions – no new nukes up here.

You're correct, so why dismiss out of hand one very large prong? You still haven't passed any views on alternatives to uranium in nuclear generation. Why don't you have a read?

Lastly, as I said before, there isn't the renewable resource on the planet to sustain our ever increasing demands. We therefore need another solution once fossil-based energy runs out. The only infinite resource we are currently aware of is nuclear fusion, and we're still 50 years away from it being a commercial reality. That's where we need to focus our research funding and attentions…

I watched a program the other day about the next generation finnish nuclear power stations,which are supposed to be the same design as the ones they want to build over here.
the gist was.
they are years over due.
they are over budget.
at the moment they would not be certified to run due to construction problems.
there are serious concerns over there safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
no thanks to this.

they are years over due.
they are over budget.

Apply this to any large project anywhere.

So because poor quality subcontractors have been used and screwed up means no more reactors should be built anywhere? The fact it has been noticed that they screwed up at this stage is actually quite reassuring.

Even Chernobyl only blew up because the staff disobeyed several safety procedures, and pretty much disabled every safety device installed before carrying out a banned experiment. As testament to this, the two undamaged reactors continued to generate without further issue for some years after. And this was a very crude soviet design that would never have been allowed to run in the west even back then. The world has come on some way in design since then…

Even Chernobyl only blew up because the staff disobeyed several safety procedures

Oh, that's all right then.

zokes – Member

"Zokes – It won't wotrk IN your opinion. others may have different opinions an well researched ones at that."

Yes, obviously my opinion isn't well researched then? Just what do you do for a living again?

I did not mean to imply that. You obviously are well informed. Others can read the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.

I do not dismiss nukes out of hand. I have read the evidence and looked a the record and have concluded that they have no part in the solution.