New nuclear plants in Britain

[rainforests1]

http://www.enn.com/business/article/28486
I'm not too knowledgeable about this subject, but I know this can't be a good thing.

[Loki]

I support it. After all, where else do we get our electrical energy from?

Fossil fuels certainly aren't all that good, and renewable energy often yields low amounts of energy.

Realistically speaking, nuclear energy is the way forward. It can make loads of energy. It's costly though,and when itgoes wrong, you'll know about it. Fortunately, we've learned a lot of lessons, and I reckon that a few newly-built nuclear stations could have long lifetimes, with impeccable safety, since we've come a long way from the fifties.

I am quite fascinated with the whole affair. Back in the fifties, the government even produced a twenty minute film about nuclear power, and how ace it is: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1951to1964/filmindex.htm

[Bells]

Yeah, like Loki said, nuclear energy is not really such a bad idea.

[Indian Summer]

Well. Assuming that we can somehow eliminate the possibilities for human and machine errors, thereby avoiding incidents like Chernobyl and Tree Mile Island, there is still the pesky issue of dealing with radioactive waste.

The high level waste has to be stored safely and securly for something like a million years. In this kind of time span, one has to consider all sorts of likely and unlikely risks: Earthquakes, floods, rising sea levels, meteorites, terrorists, madmen, wars ... Also, I would assume that we would accumulate quite a lot of radioactive waste over time - especially if nuclear energy is to become a permanent solution. Currently the world produces about 12.000 metric tonnes of high level waste each year, but that would dramatically increase if nuclear energy were to largely replace fossil fuels.

Of course, there's also the low level and intermediate level radioactive waste to deal with, which is less radioactive, but tends to take up much more space.

Taking all this into account, it seems obvious to me that nuclear energy - with the technology that exists today, is not a solution to the energy problem. Maybe in the future we will be able to develop nuclear technology that produces much less radioactive waste (e.g. fusion power), but even then there is some waste produced.

[Kraut]

Well. Assuming that we can somehow eliminate the possibilities for human and machine errors, thereby avoiding incidents like Chernobyl and Tree Mile Island, there is still the pesky issue of dealing with radioactive waste.

The high level waste has to be stored safely and securly for something like a million years. In this kind of time span, one has to consider all sorts of likely and unlikely risks: Earthquakes, floods, rising sea levels, meteorites, terrorists, madmen, wars ... Also, I would assume that we would accumulate quite a lot of radioactive waste over time - especially if nuclear energy is to become a permanent solution. Currently the world produces about 12.000 metric tonnes of high level waste each year, but that would dramatically increase if nuclear energy were to largely replace fossil fuels.

Of course, there's also the low level and intermediate level radioactive waste to deal with, which is less radioactive, but tends to take up much more space.

Taking all this into account, it seems obvious to me that nuclear energy - with the technology that exists today, is not a solution to the energy problem. Maybe in the future we will be able to develop nuclear technology that produces much less radioactive waste (e.g. fusion power), but even then there is some waste produced.

1) Chernobyl was a very stupid reactor design & was incompetently managed. Bad combination!! You can't condemn the industry on that example. You can force the industry do better.
2) Three Mile Island was unfortunate but no one died because the systems eventually worked. In fact, no one has ever died in the US from nuke power plants. People die all the time from oil & coal power plants. Go figure why people focus on nukes.....It's because they don't understand nukes.
3) The scale of the nuclear waste problem depends on a lot of variables. For example, some reactor designs generate waste that is barely more dangerous than naturally found uranium. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU
4) Some reactor designs, such as CANDU, can safely dispose of current nuclear waste like plutonium & turn it into energy. All the world's excess plutonium could be turned into energy instead of keeping it lying around in storage and possibly used in nuclear bombs and/or dirty bombs.

We don't have much choice. Either we destroy the energy based world economy as we know it or we need to develop additional HUGE sources of energy that are practical. Nukes will be part of the solution.

[rainforests1]

I just became interested in environmental issues maybe 2-3 years ago and this is one subject I haven't done much research in so that's why I said what I said. I do know that every time I hear nuclear energy mentioned, environmentalists are usually protesting. There are obvious risks to any energy you use, but I don't feel that there has been much of a push by governments around the world to use solar or wind energy, etc. I'd like to see a bigger effort to move towards other renewable energy sources before we promote nuclear.

[Bof]

I support it. After all, where else do we get our electrical energy from?



Wind, hydro, tidal, solar, hot rocks etc., etc.

[Loki]

Wind, hydro, tidal, solar, hot rocks etc., etc.

That is an excellent idea.Or at least it would be were it not grossly unfeasible to meet our energy requirements with renewables. These can only provide small quantities of the UK's power.

Wind requires a lot of infrastructure, much of it will be opposed, as you get the nimby crowd opposing windmills. I personally think that a few village windmills, architecturally designed to serve as a centrepiece of a community would be a lovely thing, but these would be grossly expensive proof-of-concept PR campaign to make wind power seem great. The truth is that wind power is tempermental.

The UK has little in the way of hydroelectric capability, unfortunately.

Tidal and wave power would be feasible to some degree. I know that in the orkneys, it's proven to be good.

As for solar power - I can just see that doing well in blackpool - Where we barely see the sun!

And geothermal energy is not something that would be feasible in the UK. It works brilliantly in Iceland, but for the UK, it is not feasible.

On this basis, I would argue that nuclear power is the logical choice. Our knowledge of nuclear physics has come a long was since the "Atomic Achievement" film was made, and safety will be paramount.

Best of all, nuclear power is rather low carbon, as fossil fuels are not being burned. there's only anenvironmentalproblem in the event of a meltdown,which shouldn't be a problem unless they employ homer simpson!

[Indian Summer]

If only as much development resources had been spent on alternative energy technology as has been spent on nuclear energy technology.

For example, beneath the crust our planet has an almost endless energy source - geothermal energy. But with today's technology we are not able to take real advantage of this energy. (One of the reasons is the limitations imposed by current drilling technology.)

Solar energy is limited by our athmosphere and clouds, which is a problem that could be overcome by collecting solar energy in space and then transferred back to Earth.

Other alternative energy technologies suffer from similar lack of technology development.

[rainforests1]

http://www.enn.com/energy/article/28647
Germany is one of the few countries doing a good job in this way, but it looks like solar could be a possibility if the desire is there.

[Bof]

That is an excellent idea.Or at least it would be were it not grossly unfeasible to meet our energy requirements with renewables. These can only provide small quantities of the UK's power.



Why can't electricity be generated in places with an abundance of renewable energy and shipped / transmitted around the world as oil is now?
Maybe, for example, electricity could be used to produce hydrogen which is easily transportable.

Just because the weather in Blackpool is crap, it doesn't mean that the UK must have nuclear power.

[Indian Summer]

1) Chernobyl was a very stupid reactor design & was incompetently managed. Bad combination!! You can't condemn the industry on that example. You can force the industry do better.
Unfortunately, "better" is not nearly enough when you're talking about handling radioactive materials that have the kind of devastating potential we saw demonstrated in the Chernobyl disaster. A lot can be done on the technical side, but with such complex systems there are always unexpected scenarios. And one can never safeguard 100% against human error.


2) Three Mile Island was unfortunate but no one died because the systems eventually worked. In fact, no one has ever died in the US from nuke power plants. People die all the time from oil & coal power plants. Go figure why people focus on nukes.....It's because they don't understand nukes. People are afraid of nukes because they saw what happened in Chernobyl. They know what could potentially happen if disaster struck.


3) The scale of the nuclear waste problem depends on a lot of variables. For example, some reactor designs generate waste that is barely more dangerous than naturally found uranium. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDUYeah, that article is one glorious piece of propaganda. A perhaps more objective view can be found here:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.09-energy-candu-reactor/

Basically, it says that CANDU has been subsidized with lots of Canadian tax dollars for years and years, but there have been a lot of problems with the reactors, and many have had to shut down after an unimpressive number of years in operation. Other countries that have bought and used CANDU in the past are now looking elsewhere for their new reactors. Even Toronto might now be getting its new reactors from foreign companies.

Re: your statement that CANDU waste is barely more dangerous than naturally found uranium: I don't think you would find uranium in nature in such concentrated form as that found in a fuel bundle. Also:


Once a bundle is "spent" (after 12-18 months in the reactor), it is highly radioactive. The 1978 "Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning" (aka: "Porter Commission") stated, "The extreme lethality of a freshly removed spent fuel bundle is such that a (unprotected) person standing within a metre of it would die within an hour."http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/candubundle.htm


4) Some reactor designs, such as CANDU, can safely dispose of current nuclear waste like plutonium & turn it into energy. All the world's excess plutonium could be turned into energy instead of keeping it lying around in storage and possibly used in nuclear bombs and/or dirty bombs.That's a very noble idea. (Although I'm not convinced the processed material is all that safe and that it can't still be used in dirty bombs.)


We don't have much choice. Either we destroy the energy based world economy as we know it or we need to develop additional HUGE sources of energy that are practical. Nukes will be part of the solution.If as much resources over the years had been put into development of alternative energy technology as nuclear energy technology, who knows if we'd now be faced with such a dilemma? So yeah, maybe nuclear technology will have to be part of a temporary solution, but only until less environmentally-risky technologies are developed.

[Loki]

If only as much development resources had been spent on alternative energy technology as has been spent on nuclear energy technology.

If only. Unfortunately, the market decides what we may and may not do, and as much as I hate to say it, it was a combination of the second world war, and a fifties "march for progress", which rightly or wrongly, put an emphasis on this new "atom splitting" technology as being the saviour of all mankind which saw nuclear development. And given the boost to nuclear technology which war had provided, it would have probably been silly not to have developed a peaceful use for the technology.

Unfortunately, other technologies are developed in response to what is required. So drilling technologies can only improve if there is a genuine need for improved drilling technologies. I highly doubt that just throwing money at developing new technologies wuld work. It has to be a reasonable investment.


Just because the weather in Blackpool is crap, it doesn't mean that the UK must have nuclear power.
I said nothing of the sort. What i said was that because the weather in Blackpool is crap, solar power is a no-no. Of course, Blackpool has a lot of wind, and if you're a geek like me, you'll probably know that many years ago, a windmill was the centrepiece of almost every town on the Fylde coast. It's the one form of power that can be relied upon. So fittingly, there's been an off-shore windfarm development not too far away. And the illuminations are looking to go "carbon neutral" by purchasing a few windmills (Cost: Approx £150,000 per installation) to offset the huge electricity wastage.

However, what i amsaying is that there are a lot of inadequacies with renewable forms of energy, in that they are expensive, and that they deliver little return. It would certainly be a good idea to invest more in renewables, in order to get an infrastructure in place, as well as developing viable technologies (Which is a given, if the current tchnologies show feasibility.) to improve the energy output of renewables.

However, in the light of coal-powered installations being heavily polluting, nuclear power is the only clean alternative. Unless it goes wrong, but as we've already stated, though there have been accidents in the past, we are highly knowledgeable about nuclear material, and as such, we can ensure that accidents are extremely unlikely to happen. They already are extremely unlikely, but risk can be kept as close to zero as possible. Chernobyl was badly managed, and the reactor was rubbish. A nuclear reactor and control system, if designed in 2008, would incorporate a lot of the lessons weve learned in the past, to ensure that they are not repeated.