Non-nuclear energy companies

A_fiend_for_life

Recent article from the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/nuclear-waste-nuclearpower

skelly01

Ste C, there have been loads of incidents at nuclear power stations throughout the years.
It is more luck than anything that there has not been a major incident!!

Ste_C

skelly01 wrote: »

Ste C, there have been loads of incidents at nuclear power stations throughout the years.
It is more luck than anything that there has not been a major incident!!

So it's just "luck" which means hundreds of people die each year at coal and gas power plants too?

Look up the facts. More people die from coal and gas plants than they do nuclear, it's not down to luck.

There is a risk associated with any power plant - by their very nature they are going to be dangerous and there will always be incidents.

skelly01

So you are telling me that there are hundreds die each year in the UK power plants that are operated by coal etc. Are you really sure it is hundreds and not just a few, where are you sourcing your facts?
I can point you to more articles such as the one that fiend for life posted that demonstrates just how "lucky" this country has been that we have not had a nuclear disaster.
Anyway this is degressing from the original posters query which has been answered.

jd87

Chernobyl was in 1986 in a crumbling soviet state, it was an old dangerous design. Modern nuclear power stations in modern countries are a million times safer.

theyellowlizard

jd87 wrote: »

Chernobyl was in 1986 in a crumbling soviet state, it was an old dangerous design. Modern nuclear power stations in modern countries are a million times safer.

Hang on... Did you not read the article which A Fiend For Life linked to above (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/nuclear-waste-nuclearpower)?

On the morning of Sunday 7 January 2007, one of the contractors working on decommissioning the Sizewell A nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast was in the laundry room when he noticed cooling water leaking on to the floor from the pond that holds the reactor's highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

As much as 40,000 gallons of radioactive water spilled out of a 15ft long split in a pipe, some leaking into the North Sea. The pond water level had dropped by more than a foot (330mm) – yet none of the sophisticated alarms in the plant sounded in the main control room.

By the time of the next scheduled safety patrol, the pond level would have dipped far enough to expose the nuclear fuel rods – potentially causing them to overheat and catch fire sending a plume of radioactive contamination along the coastline.

If that's your idea of safe, I wouldn't fancy coming round to your gaff! :eek:

I cannot support a power source which is storing up radioactive waste for generations to come without full knowledge of what the consequences might be of that decison.

You're right, of course, that coal and other sources are dangerous too. But if more money were put into renewables - which are ultimately going to be what we have to use anyway now resources are running out - we could start to circumvent the need for fossil fuels as well.

skelly01

Exactly lizard, you will notice that I never got a response to my enquiry as to where the figures were based. Rest assured nuclear power is not safe. As I said earlier in my posts burying it for 100's of years to leave it for someone else is not sensible, but heh they can't do anything else with it because it is so dangerous and volatile.
Only problem ihave with renewables at present is their reliability.You keep hearing about all the homes these windfarms can supply, and based on the number now supposedly operating at full capacity in Scotland alone, they should now be able to shut down a coal plant. I don't think they have however which begs me to ask do these really generate the power they say they will?
I am pro environment and green but just not sure we are there yet.

jonesjw

Sizewell A is not a good example, as it's not a modern reactor.
Also the comments above don't say how radioactive the water was & the lefties at the Guardian would probably specify that in some detail if it was really serious.

jonesjw

theyellowlizard wrote: »

I cannot support a power source which is storing up radioactive waste for generations to come without full knowledge of what the consequences might be of that decison.

Do you support power sources which pump the atmosphere full of CO2 which will have much more severe consequences for future generations?

The C02 out there is already causing more trouble than all the nuclear waste.

greenbee

If the OP's ethical stance is anti-nuclear, it makes sense to provide them with information on non-nuclear sources of energy. I don't think they were looking to get into a debate about it.

Nuclear is currently approx 15% of the UK's fuel mix, and renewables about 5%. Most of our electricity is gas-generated, with the next biggest proportion being coal.

Fuelmix has all the available data so that you can compare and choose the supplier that meets your personal ethical criteria.

GoodEnergy is 100% renewable
Green Energy is renewable and gas
Scottish Power is 50% coal, but no nuclear declared for 2008
Ecotricity has a higher than average proportion of nuclear (presumably to meet its carbon targets)