Nuclear power - The whole truth?

thor

I see post after post, debate after debate where renewables are slaughtered for having to be subsidised due to their high costs and low efficiency compared to nuclear. In this nuclear debate has the total cost of building power stations and dealing with the waste been factored in though? I have just seen that the clean up costs of sellafield has hit 67 billion pounds with no signs that it won't increase as time goes on. That is just for one site! Is this an inconvenient truth or are renewables going to cost even more?
I think all those calling for an end to the likes of wind, solar and tidal power must realise we need a mix of technologies as fossil fuel runs out. If every country went the way of France then how long will nuclear fuel last before it too begins to dwindle?

gc_bus

thor wrote: »

I see post after post, debate after debate where renewables are slaughtered for having to be subsidised due to their high costs and low efficiency compared to nuclear. In this nuclear debate has the total cost of building power stations and dealing with the waste been factored in though? I have just seen that the clean up costs of sellafield has hit 67 billion pounds with no signs that it won't increase as time goes on. That is just for one site! Is this an inconvenient truth or are renewables going to cost even more?
I think all those calling for an end to the likes of wind, solar and tidal power must realise we need a mix of technologies as fossil fuel runs out. If every country went the way of France then how long will nuclear fuel last before it too begins to dwindle?

Eeek - we've just got to stop using so much energy - but then when you take China/Asia into account it's only just begun! Are we doomed or will the world HAVE to change its ways sooner or later?

Ich_2

So this is the waste that has accumilted since the piles first started at Sellafield in the late 1940s and contains a proportion of military stuff as well!
There may also be stuff belonging to other countries in there that we wish to return to them, but the enviromentalists then complain about transporting it!

Sellafield want a deep starage facility to allow the site to be cleared, the enviromentalists don't want that either.

This stuff exists, it is sat in surface storage at Sellafield, safe for now but new facilities are needed to keep it safe.

It will not go away, but every bit of opposition to providing the means to deal with it will only prolong this!!

(the cost quoted is spread out over the next 100 years or so)

So come on, what do you think should be done with it as every attempt to deal brings protest?

peternoble99

The real costs of nuclear power are defered and that is why it appears to be a workable proposition. However as others have pointed out the cost of dealing with the waste is never factored into the equation. Its like we are taking out a mortgage on behalf of our grandchildren so we can continue to be profligate now. Western two party democracies are not equipped to deal with this issue. Tomorrows children are doomed to a bleak future by the governments we elect now.

There is an old saying that the first thing you should do when you are in a hole is to stop digging. Turn of the frickin street lights for a start. Would you be prepared to suffer even that small inconvenience to make life a little easier for your grandchildren. Most people are way too selfish to consider the well being of people that are net yet born.

grahamc2003

peternoble99 wrote: »

Most people are way too selfish to consider the well being of people that are net yet born.

Yeah, it's always other people. I don't suppose you drive a car and use oil, which therefore won't be there for the unborn. Have you turned your electricity off? If not, that's one hell of a lot of irreplaceable coal you're ensuring is burnt, as well as producing the Nuclear waste you started thi thread with.

We are all using finite resources.

One ubiquitous resource which won't run out is Uranium, the fuel for our current Nuclear power stations, and yet that's the one you incorrectly seem to think we are depriving our future generation of. Coal, gas oil will all eventually run out, but uranium won't. Tiny amounts are used compared to fossil fuels. Almost like magic, we can create energy by destroying tiny amounts of matter, just like Einstein predicted..

We are facing many problems with out future electricity supply. Current 'green' 'solutions' like windpower won't solve them, because they always need reliable (fossil or nuclear) for the times the wind drops or doesn't blow at all. So if/when we have no fossil fuel left, and if we choose to have no nuclear, then we have no electricity.

It's fine having everyone voicing their opinions on internet forums, but if we want to solve our looming electricity problems, it's those who know the total implications of various generation technologies who can attempt to solve it. I doubt they are being asked yet.