Government and Nuclear Power...

kittiwoz

Etheco wrote:

I don't understand though, why we wouldn't be able to supply all our power needs with renewable energy. We may not be able to meet current power needs but that's because we live in a wasteful power hungry society.

A few simple changes to our power consumption habits could significantly reduce our power needs and renewable energy, with the right kind of investment, would then be able to meet those needs.

That's just not true. Not in this country anyway. We can't anywhere near meet our needs through renewables alone and it isn't just because we live in a wasteful power hungry society. It is because we don't have a great deal of land mass and we are quite densely populated. The most optimistic estimates suggest we could generate 1/3 of our power use nationally from renewable resources.

I agree we will need to try to be be more energy efficient in the future and I think this will involve not only greater awareness and personal responsibility but also technological change. For example a lot of work is being done to try to achieve a breakthrough which will alow computational power to increase without a corresponding increase in electrical power input.

However I do think we need a new nuclear power station to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I realise that nuclear power has dangers associated with it but incidence of accidents is actually very low. If the process is considered overall it has a much better safety record than coal fired power stations; There are a lot of dead miners but mining accidents and black lung are not as spectacular as a nuclear disaster. To say that the relative safety of coal to nuclear is not relevant since opponents of nuclear back renewables is to ignore the impossibility of meeting our energy needs using renewable power. Something will have to supplement renewables and at the moment that means either fossil fuels or nuclear. As with fossil fuels the longer we rely on nuclear fusion the worse the problems assosciated with it will become. The amount of nuclear waste we have to dispose of will start to mount up and eventually the uranium will start to run out.

So long term I don't think nuclear fission is the answer either and that is why we have to invest in renewables alongside nuclear. Fission will provide us with a stable power supply which we can use while we come up with something better. Maybe improvements to renewable technologies will eventualy allow us to depend it on completely for our energy. Maybe someone will build a tochamac that produces more power than it uses and we will be able to start investing in fusion plants. I don't know. One concern I do have regarding nuclear fission is that the steady energy supply might creat complacency. Perhaps we need rising energy prices and major blackouts looming over us to convince us to keep investing in renewable technolgy. That would be a shame.

Etheco_2

What about offshore windfarms? Plenty of sea out there.

Or how about pulling out of Iraq and spending that money providing domestic solar power or at least subsidising it properly.

As we get smarter about energy use and our technology becomes more efficient, we'll get closer and closer to being able to meet our energy needs through renewable sources. The motivation just isn't there right now.

moonrakerz

Having worked in VERY close proximity to various things nuclear (my pet hate - people who cannot pronnounce it properly ! nuc-u-lar Grrrrrrrrrrrr) for many years, I have an interest in some of the comments made in this thread.

There is a small hardcore (no pun intended) of anti nuclear zealots who spread gloom and doom about nuclear power. Some of these people spread incorrect information because they believe it is true, other spread it knowing it is untrue to justify their cause. Unfortunately many of the general public get taken in by these people because they sound convincing and - if they are going to save us all from a slow, lingering radiation-induced death - they must be right !


The vast majority of anti nuclear facts are just simply UNTRUE. We have already had Chernobyl mentioned here, lets deal with some of the oft quoted "facts" about Chernobyl. When Chernobly happened there were predictions of tens/hundreds of thousands of deaths, which were based on the best forecasting methods available at that time, which came from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These forecasts have turned out to be huge over-estimates, the actual deaths directly caused by Chernobyl is now thought to be in the low hundreds - and even that is also probably an over estimate. However the figures bandied around still refer to huge numbers of deaths.

Detailed surveys of wildlife in the evacuated areas around Chernobyl show no increase in genetic defects at all. "Three headed calf" in the Sun/Mail/Mirror/NoW - nothing to do with Cernobyl - just a freak of nature; don't let the facts get in the way of a good story to sell more papers.

Many people think that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion - it wasn't - it was a chemical explosion, mainly steam ! It is impossible for a nuclear explosion to take place in a nuclear power plant core.

In fact, some research is now starting to show that a moderate dose of radiation MAY be good for you.

Yes, nuclear radiation can be dangerous, I think I know that more than most, but don't get frightened by it. It is (and must stay) a valuable part of our power generation portfolio.

Some years ago I saw a very pertinent bumper sticker in the USA, some of you oldies, like me, will get it; to the others I have to say:- "Google" it.

It read "More people died at Chappaquiddick Bridge than at Three Mile Island"

As they say at the end of Crimewatch - Good night, and don't lie awake worrying.

Etheco_2

Is Chappaquiddick uninhabitable now? I don't think that comparison stands up very well.

Nuclear power may be our best short term hope but we really need to come up with a clean and safe source of energy because we're simply not capable of not f***ing it up and making little radioactive messes everywhere.

God only knows about the ones we don't even know about. Let alone bomb testing contamination.

woollyjumper

I agree with sticking windfarms isn't enough to cover the needs of a nation.
But we should be looking at a number of technologies not just one.
If push came to shove I would rather have a windfarm built in the near vacinity than a nuclear power station...
I think if the government hadn't left it too late to invest in greener technology we wouldn't need to have a nuclear power bill.
New builds houses for instance why not have legislation that they have to install a windturbine, solar panels, fully insulated, rain water collection, low energy lightbulbs as standard (and reuse), obviously means tested. This would surely drive the prices down if there is more demand , cheaper production and then make it competitive for existing home owners to invest and use the same technologies.
It is the chicken and egg scenario with quite a few of the greener alternatives.. I looked into replacing my oil boiler with wood chip - the prices worked out okay with the grant, the price of running costs would have been cheaper if I didn't have to ship the wood chips 300 miles across the country past loads of commercial forests! So in order to get people to buy new technology the underlying infrastructure needs to be there in the first place.
not enough demand means high prices, more demand means more competition and lower prices.

Volcano

the actual deaths directly caused by Chernobyl is now thought to be in the low hundreds -

Actually estimates vary from 56 (initial accident) to over 9,000 (WHO report) with Greenpeace claiming 200,000+

From wikipedia:

"According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead."

"The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe."

Considering the massive amount of human suffering from this accident, your attempts to play this down is frankly disgusting.

Some of these people spread incorrect information because they believe it is true, other spread it knowing it is untrue to justify their cause.

Like the nuclear industry for example?

Gal

The energy market in this country is trying to spread there power sources so that if one supply was cut then the country has another source to rely on. Coal Fired, Gas Fired, BioMass, Oil Fired are all in existance also Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, Wave and Solar (individual).

Nuclear power is one source that causes great disputes mainly because of Chernobyl. In truth it was a global disaster caused by incompetance of the staff at the time.

Someone mentioned sellafield - This isn't a power station but a re-processing plant for spent fuel rods.

I think that Nuclear will play a large role in future UK Supply, Unfortunately wind power for the cleanliness of it isn't viable as UKs main source of energy as the space is not available and offshore isn't economically viable at present. And there is only so much sea they can use without blocking shipping lanes.

Moggles_2

The dinosaur nuclear power industry gets nearly two million pounds of taxpayers money in subsidies daily. The government must take effective action to combat climate change, but continuing to prop up this industry is not the answer. Nuclear power is expensive, unreliable, polluting, commercially unviable and vulnerable to terrorist attack.

A typical nuclear reactor produces electricity for around 30-40 years yet the radioactive waste it produces remains unsafe for thousands of years. On top of this, spent nuclear fuel is routinely transported by train from nine nuclear power stations around the country to the Sellafield storage & re-processing facility in Cumbria. Typically these journeys take place once a week from each reactor, at the same time and on the same lines as regular passenger and freight trains. Many of the nuclear train routes travel through long tunnels close to densely populated urban areas.

The inherent dangers are intensified by the knowledge that the terrorists who bombed London in July 2005 had been gathering information about nuclear installations. Given the government's own well-publicised fears that we almost certainly face further terrorist attacks, it's hard to see how it can justify continuing to transport nuclear waste around Britain. Not only that, the government is seriously considering expansion of nuclear power as part of the current Energy Review. Inevitably, new plant would produce even more radioactive wastes than the nine which are currently in operation. Can this possibly make sense?

Nuclear power should be phased out as quickly as possible. It's simply not worth the risk.

We could cut fuel bills permanently, create thousands of new jobs and make this country energy independent, by investing in clean, green energy. This strategy would also lead to a less aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East.

kittiwoz

Etheco wrote:

What about offshore windfarms? Plenty of sea out there.

Or how about pulling out of Iraq and spending that money providing domestic solar power or at least subsidising it properly.

I'm all in favour of investment in renewable energy. But I don't believe we can support our economy through renewables alone. This is not a matter of faith or personal politics for me, it is based on knowledge. I have recently completed a degree in mechanical engineering which included a module on renewable energy resources. There are a number of issues relating to different forms of renewable energy and the explanation I gave was a very brief and basic boiling down of a lot of these. I am very much in favour of off-shore wind turbines but there are a number of limits on possible sitings so as far as potential turbine sites go, no there is not plenty of sea out there. Solar pV is unfortunately inefficient and expensive and so not currently really suitable for UK domestic use. It is currently most suited to large scale arrays in areas such as the Nevada desert. Technological advances could start to make solar power a viable option in the UK in the next 50 years although being a damp little island I don't see it ever being at the forefront of power generation here. Bio fuels such as rape seed oil, corn ethanol and coppiced willow or hazel require large amounts of land which we don't have. I think it would be nice to have a bit of coppicing but that's more sentiment than science. Our geography makes hydro in Scotland and off-shore wind turbines good options because Scotland has lots of waterfalls and the UK has a lot of coast for its size. Wave power is something which doesn't really work at the moment but is worth investment because it would make our island status a real asset from a energy generation POV. Waste composting and incineration is something we really should do. We have a problem with creating energy, we have a problem with disposing of our waste. We should close the cycle. Unfortunately waste incineration plants are hard to sell to local communities although there is no evidence that they present any danger to health.

Nice as the idea of making the UK energy independent through renewable resources is it isn't something there is any realistic prospect of in the foreseeable future. Given that we have to make up the shortfall somehow. I completely accept that people are entitled to their different opinions and I can understand why people are opposed to nuclear fission. I count myself a reluctant supporter. However if people are opposed to nuclear power they must accept that for the foreseeable future at least that means accepting fossil fuel fired power stations as the alternative. Not to do so is dishonest.

Volcano

Unfortunately waste incineration plants are hard to sell to local communities although there is no evidence that they present any danger to health.

There is also no evidence that they do not present a danger to human health! Studies on incinerator emissions have been erratic, but we do know that they produce dioxins, PCBs and furans. As the push for Energy From Waste continues I'd expect these dangers to be down played, especially if incinerators are to be sited near residential areas.