Government and Nuclear Power...

tr3mor

gromituk wrote:

Good for you

Cheers!

What right do we have to build turbines in Golden Eagle's back garden if we're not prepared to build them in our own. There's less than 1000 of them and 60 million of us!!

Moggles_2

Originally posted by talksalot81
Care to quote the risk and damage estimates for a 'transport' accident?

A report into the risks of nuclear transportation in the UK published in March 2006 by nuclear engineers John Large & Associates, investigated the potential threat that a serious accident might pose to one of these consignments. Their findings do not make comfortable reading for the government, the nuclear industry, the train-travelling public or those who live and work alongside the rail track. Dr Large is also highly critical of accident simulation tests performed by the industry on the spent nuclear fuel flasks. These containers would be unlikely to survive a serious fire or collision intact.

A new generation of nuclear power plants would result in a significant increase of radioactive waste being transported through the most densely populated areas of the UK en route to Sellafield. A further report by John Large and Associates assessed the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials if new plants were commissioned. It concludes that the movement of waste will impose a level of additional radiation exposure and, in the event of a radioactive release "present an additional risk of intolerable levels of health injury" to members of the public who live and/or work alongside the rail track and personnel required to decontaminate the stricken area.

The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) and the government's own advisers have acknowledged that, at best, nuclear power could only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a mere eight per cent. (That's not much more than could be cut overnight by eliminating the six per cent of UK electricity being used to power machines left on standby.)

Even eight per cent may be unduly optimistic. It is misleading to suggest that nuclear power is in any way carbon neutral. To generate electricity from uranium, a chain of industrial processes is needed: to convert uranium ore in the ground into fuel elements for the reactor; to construct the facilities including the nuclear power plant itself; and to handle and store waste safely. All these processes produce substantial amounts of carbon dioxide.

Whilst the nuclear power industry is used to gigantic loans and subsidies, the wind industry does not receive government handouts. The onshore wind industry has shown itself to be profitable and is expanding rapidly. I do not support further onshore expansion, but to secure more power with less visual intrusion, offshore wind must be made a reality and this requires government grants. Windpower will abate carbon emissions more cheaply than nuclear plants and have sharply reduced decommissioning costs in comparison to atomic energy, but why limit ourselves to wind power? As others have said, the solution lies in a package of renewables. For countries with lots of coastline for our size and strong prevailing winds, the UK and Ireland have been slow to exploit either wind or hydropower. Are we going to make the same mistake with solar power - the one safe and abundant form of fusion energy that is perpetually available to us?

Sadly, we stand to lose not only the golden eagles but many more endangered species if we continue along our present path. The subsidies for nuclear power over the past five decades have been colossal - about a hundred times the amount we have spent on developing all renewables put together. This has to change. The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy would be limited and outweighed IMO by the clear disadvantages of creating a long-term radioactive waste disposal problem.

talksalot81

Moggles wrote:

Sadly, we stand to lose not only the golden eagles but many more endangered species if we continue along our present path. The subsidies for nuclear power over the past five decades have been colossal - about a hundred times the amount we have spent on developing all renewables put together. This has to change. The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy would be limited and outweighed IMO by the clear disadvantages of creating a long-term radioactive waste disposal problem.

I will comment not on the report you cite but will make note that, inspite of what it seems, the risks are assessed based on tentative knowledge of radiation risk. Unfortunately the government cannot make much comment about this because governmental bodies are not keen to fund research into this.

As to the quoted paragraph. I mentioned earlier that the waste is mainly a problem we already have. Waste production by modern designs is minute compared to the waste we already have. I more importantly wish (again) to stress distinction between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear is not simply nuclear! Many of the problems associated with fission cannot be associated similarly with fusion.

I would also ask how the nuclear fearing readers would like to tackle issues such as future space travel. Quite simply this is impossible if we were to totally cease all things nuclear. Whilst nuclear fuels may not be used in such a setting, knowledge and experience gained with nuclear is absolutely necessary. To give something of an idea of this, consider science fiction. Almost every single fantastic technology which is dreamt up relies on the science born from nuclear physics. Matter/antimater reactions (this is not just science fiction) require the knowledge from nuclear science. Quite simply, if nuclear power was really stopped, the research most critical for the furthering of our technological world would die (this may not follow logically, but lack of nuclear industry results in zero funds for research). In many ways, it would have been like deciding electricity was too dangerous and stopping its use.

There are many issues in question here and many of them are not seen by the non-technical analyst.

tr3mor

Moggles wrote:

It is misleading to suggest that nuclear power is in any way carbon neutral.

The concrete, steel and other materials used to build turbines come straight from Mother Nature's heart don't you know. Not like Satan's concrete and steel they build nuclear power stations from.

tr3mor

Moggles wrote:

Sadly, we stand to lose not only the golden eagles but many more endangered species if we continue along our present path. The subsidies for nuclear power over the past five decades have been colossal - about a hundred times the amount we have spent on developing all renewables put together. This has to change. The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy would be limited and outweighed IMO by the clear disadvantages of creating a long-term radioactive waste disposal problem.

I'm sorry, are you intending we get all of our energy from renewables?

What happens when it is neither windy nor sunny?

Cardew

There obviously is some element of risk with nuclear fusion. Equally clearly the proponents/opponents will never agree on the scale of that risk.

My very distinct impression is that the proponents have invested huge sums in objective research to quantify that risk; while the opponent’s case is largely based on a fear of all things nuclear that has its roots in the ‘ban the bomb’ mentality.

As the Bhopal disaster killed 15,000? and injured 600,000? perhaps all chemical plants should be banned.

BaJi_2

tr3mor wrote:

What happens when it is neither windy nor sunny?

Well, you've got a bit more to worry about than if your toaster is going to work.

tr3mor

BaJi wrote:

Well, you've got a bit more to worry about than if your toaster is going to work.

Have I? Most of the time here in Manchester it's dull and calm!

Seriously though, what do people actually intend we do to cope with the unpredictability of renewable sources of energy?

BaJi_2

Cardew wrote:

There obviously is some element of risk with nuclear fusion. Equally clearly the proponents/opponents will never agree on the scale of that risk.

Risk of getting it to work I think, or more correctly making it economical. Don't get me wrong I think fusion would be great. I don't see why you think there is any risk involved with it?

With regards to matey who keeps going on about Kamikaze birds flying into wind turbines. I know people who live near wind farms and they have never, ever seen it or any evidence of it. If you are worried about it then campaign for airfield bird scaring equipment in and around the farms. Don't waste your time moaning about wind farms. More birds are killed by moving automobiles and aircraft......so shall we ban them?

Regarding the nuclear fission argument. Ok we might save CO2 emissions but it seems at 'first glance' an easy solution for now. Remember, Uranium isn't an unlimited fuel source and in around 400 years time, maybe less if everybody goes nuts for nuclear fission, then our descendents will have to face the decision of where to get power from. However, hopefully somebody would have worked out how to make Nuclear fusion economical by then or found some other power source. Where is it we source our Uranium from exactly?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is, what happens to the reactor core at the end of its lifetime? Well I'll tell you, the plant is dismantled around it and the core is encapsulated with concrete and it's left there for years, many, many years. How save will it be sat there all alone? Will someone blow it up? Will they find a way in and remove material for a dirty bomb (suicide mission of course)?

And another thing. Ignoring what will happen with global warming for the moment, then, what happens when the next Ice age arrives? Providing there is still a civilisation of humans (and side-lining all the other problems this creates) then the ice and glaciers created will plough straight through anything in their way, including any concrete casing of old redundant cores left in the northern hemisphere. Once the ice-age has finished and the glaciers have retreated. Then the radioactive material spread everywhere will still be very much radioactive, but that's a problem for our desendents. It's easy for us not to worry about our rubbish isn't it? Shall we take the risk? It's not my call, but I wouldn't want to make the decision.

Actually, we are in an ice-age now just that it is a warm period. Some of you may also know that one of the results of global warming may be that it throws us into a cold period or ice age.

You'll see lots of information stating that currently new nuclear plants are safe, melt-down proof, not likely to be attacked (as long as terrorists don't find there way again onto the flight decks on commercial airliners) and they will cure your fungal infections.

Nuclear power from fission may seem save but the risk is still there and it is one of the most expensive forms of power generation there is. If you watch 'An Inconvient Truth' by Al Gore you will see how we can reduce our emissions to 1970's levels without the need for any new nuclear power plants. This I believe is the way to go. Not to argue if we need to find ways to supply the ever increasing demand for electricity. But to look for methods of reducing our demand, for which the solutions are already there. Anyway, time to switch off the PC and save some power.

Ken-Dodds-Hairy-Knodule

tr3mor wrote:

Have I? Most of the time here in Manchester it's dull and calm!

And yet 25mins down the road there is liverpool, one of the windiest places in the country..