Nuclear power

ninky_2

Niv wrote: »

2015 (I believe - may be misread by myself) is when we (as a nation) would need to start building new nuclear plants (or some sort of mass power generation) as the old ones are coming to the end of thier life. I wasnt suggesting oil was running out. So do you believe that we need more fossel fuel power plants until the renewables and the message to reduce consumption has 'got through'? I dont care much for carbon targets either, made up nonsense, all that happens is nations trade their 'spare carbon allowances' - stupid political nonsense.

Couldnt agree more regarding carbon related climate change. Sure it is happening and sure we are contributing However these things happened before mankind was on the planet and it will happen after we are gone (unless us going involves blowing the place up - which I dont put past us doing).

no i don't think we need more fossil fuel power plants. a european wide discussion on power might be the way to go. there are certainly other european countries that are on possible geothermal supplies. if we could look at ways of harnessing and transporting renewables and sharing the burden of cost for that it would be a positive solution. domestically at least and in some other applications (street lighting?) solar definitely has a place. i'm less keen on wind farms but lostinrates suggestion of placing them close to motorways seems a sensible one. and i'd rather a wind farm than a nuclear power plant.

one good thing about recession is it will probably buy us a little more time as consumption will naturally drop off.

Niv

One of my inital points still remians though. This is very unlikely to happen in the very near future, lets face it, we have to get politicions to agree. How do we address the shortfall or do you seriously want to see rolling blackouts?

mwd

d123 wrote: »

Are you seriously taking part in a debate over nuclear energy but don't have the capacity to understand an entire post including the part quoted.

This was the point I was agreeing with:

Read your post again [26] you obviously do not have the capacity to explain yourself.

kittypimms

Niv wrote: »

2015 (I believe - may be misread by myself) is when we (as a nation) would need to start building new nuclear plants (or some sort of mass power generation) as the old ones are coming to the end of thier life.

Yes - that sounds right. We can (and are seeing) life-extension on some of the existing plants (same as at gas/ coal fired), but we need New Build on track sooner rather than later so we don't suffer a shortfall.

There is a heck of a lot of potential for renewables in this country - the Pentland Firth alone would provide a great deal of reliable tidal energy. However, one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the Network Infrastructure - the energy grid would need to be upgraded (and in at least 2 parts of the UK massive interconnectors would have to be built). This is where the expense lies, and where we will fall down on renewables, sadly.

Hence nuke being a good option; the infrastructure is mostly in place, the tech is proven, low/no carbon and Decomms costs Must be absorbed and accounted for by the operator at Build stage.

ninky_2

Niv wrote: »

One of my inital points still remians though. This is very unlikely to happen in the very near future, lets face it, we have to get politicions to agree. How do we address the shortfall or do you seriously want to see rolling blackouts?

i think i'd rather see rolling blackouts than nuclear. problem with nuclear is it will make people think we can go the way we are going. it won't be a case of going nuclear until we come up with better renewable solutions it will just mean we come to rely on nuclear.

personally i had been coming round to the idea of nuclear but this accident has completely changed my mind. maybe it's an emotional kneejerk reaction but for me it shows that scientists cannot build in safety measures for every situation as not all situations that occur are conceivable and the risks of that with nuclear are too great for me. it doesn't matter if someone says i'm more likely to be hit by a bus that as a risk to humanity and the planet seems much less dramatic than a nuclear accident.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

kittypimms wrote: »

the Pentland Firth alone would provide a great deal of reliable tidal energy.

Looks like that is bang on a fault line to me.

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

i
personally i had been coming round to the idea of nuclear but this accident has completely changed my mind. maybe it's an emotional kneejerk reaction but for me it shows that scientists cannot build in safety measures for every situation as not all situations that occur are conceivable and the risks of that with nuclear are too great for me.

Don't you think it would be sensible to just wait a while and see how this pans out before making these types of statements?

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Don't you think it would be sensible to just wait a while and see how this pans out before making these types of statements?

it's panning out pretty badly. now a level 6 and they say the containment has been breached. i don't want to be the voice of doom but from where i'm sitting it looks as if massive amounts of radioactivity are about to be unleashed. no wonder US is getting involved - the are going to be the next country impacted by this.

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

it's panning out pretty badly.

But my point is that this is still 'panning'. Let's wait and see where we are in a couple of weeks before we start deciding the future on nuclear power.

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

But my point is that this is still 'panning'. Let's wait and see where we are in a couple of weeks before we start deciding the future on nuclear power.

okay fair enough but that also means putting all plans on hold for now, no? other countries are already doing this and germany is shutting down all nuclear power stations built before 1980.