Nuclear energy

[SaligoBay]

Do you have any issues with nuclear energy?  Do you object to plans to build new nuclear facilities in the UK?

If only they realised they didn't have to bother!  

1. 75% of France's electricity comes from its own nuclear facilities.

2. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity.

3. France has its own nuclear reprocessing plants.

4. The UK imports French electricity.

No problem then! 

Lots of info here http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

[The Riff-Raff Element]

According to my marvellously informative EDF bill:

83.4% Nuclear

8.1% Renewables

3.8% Gas

3.1% Coal

1.3% Oil

0.3% "Other" - what could "other" be? Hot air from politicians? Farting from farmyard animals? Or would that be "renewable"? I am at a loss here.

Mind you, given the price of oil / gas at the moment, nuclear might actually be heading into the realms of economic viability for a change.

[Tag]

Yes, but the French authorities are busy scouring the country for suitable sites to store the waste. Beware, they could end up near you!

[Patmobile]

[quote]According to my marvellously informative EDF bill:83.4% Nuclear8.1% Renewables3.8% Gas3.1% Coal1.3% Oil0.3% "Other" - what could "other" be? Hot air from politicians? Farting from farmyard animals? Or...[/quote]

I think "other" might be hydro-electric schemes such as the tidal barrage on the R. Rance. Unless that comes under "renewable", of course.

The big objection to nuclear seems to be the thousand year problem of waste. That, and the threat of materials intended for, or produced as a by-product of power generation, falling into the hands of people who would build and actually use nuclear weapons.

We should by now have learned from centuries of polluting and burning up limited natural resources that any energy policy needs to consider its possible effects at least a thousand years ahead, so the nuclear waste problem is not so daunting a challenge when seen in context.

Terrorists with nuclear bombs - now that's far more scary.

Patrick

[Will]

Having been involved with a magazine for the nuclear power industry some years back, I can confirm that as an energy source nuclear ticks an awful lot of the right boxes - it is economic (high capital cost for construction of the power stations, but comparatively low running costs and very cheap fuel), it is sustainable, safe (statistically, though some in the Ukraine might disagree but that speaks more for what happens with badly run power stations than for nuclear in general), and, very significantly, zero greenhouse gas etc emissions.

The problems highlighted above are of course valid, and significant. Though not all types of spent fuel are convertible into plutonium or other undesirable by-products, and 'waste' that must be disposed of refers not merely to spent fuel but to the inevitable contaminated materials used in handling and storing fuel. Much of the waste can be buried at suitable sites (though how do you define 'suitable'?) where it can naturally decay over a long period, bearing in mind the fact that granite (for example) has a very high natural radioactivity and is capable of storing large quantities of nuclear waste without any significant increase in danger. In fact the most significant waste product is the power station itself when it reaches the end of its service. That is probably a big argument for, once a nation like Britain or France has nuclear power, staying with it and further developing it rather than switching to an outwardly 'greener' solution, like the Germans and Scandinavians, then having to face the problem of what to do with closed-down plant.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

We do rather seem to be caught betwen the Devil & The Deep Blue Sea, don't we?

On one side we are facing an energy crisis arising from:

- The inability or unwillingness of the developed world to make even modest curbs in its energy consumption;

- An understandable desire from the developing world to equip themselves with cars, DVD players and air conditioning;

- The location of remaining supplies of hydrocarbon in parts of the world that can be described as "unhelpful". The obtention of these supplies by conquest is proving problematic (oh, sorry, "conquest" should read "by establishment of a vibrant, free-market economy created through the fanning of the fragile flame of democracy");

- Notwithstanding, the continued burning of oil, gas, coal, etc leading to climatic changes that look quite likely to be catastrophic.

On the other hand, we have nuclear power with the issues that Patrick has already pointed out. Hmmmm....can I phone a friend?

[Tag]

Will, your very succinct resumé begs the question: Has any country yet managed to decommission a nuclear plant successfully and safely? Or are they simply locked down on a  care and maintenance basis? Whatever happened to Calder Hall for example which I think (could be wrong)was the first UK plant?

[Tag]

Be careful johnd you will get a D notice slapped on you. Which begs the thought, are newspaper on-line sites usbject to D notices or is it just the print media?  (OK, I know, getting off thread, but will full discussion of the issues be allowed with this oh so open and democratic government?)

[Richard-R]

I think nuclear power is the only way forward, but we need to switch from Fission to Fusion as a way to create energy.

[le bouffon]

Given the fact the the nuclear power as only been around for less than a hundred years(if you think what as happened in the advance of science in the last hundred years)it could be that the same advance in the rate of  technology will over come the waste issue and make it a truly green fuel?

[Iceni]

le buffoon - who cares ? Unlikely that any of today's posters will be around for another 100 years and what have the future generations done for us anyway ?

John

not

[zeb]

John - I can't believe that all you are interested in is Now! From Di's postings, it's pretty clear that she cares about the environment. My children, their children and their generation have a right to enjoy and live in a peaceful and sustainable planet, as we do and I'll do my best in my only small way that they can.

[Jc]

Speaking about this matter to a Swede(person),he said he wished the UK was 100% nuclear.He said he would prefer the very low possibility of a nuclear leak to the vast amounts of muck that currently descend upon his country from our oil and coal fired stations.

[GRT17]

Jc

I have Swedish friends who will not swim in the Baltic (at their local seaside) as they are worried about what is coming over from Russia, post Chernobyl.

A difficult topic this one and there don't seem to be any easy answers.

Gill

[Perlats]

Quite apart from the inherent dangers of nuclear energy, just how sustainable is it in the long term? I'm sure I have read somewhere that if full scale production is widespread then plutonium (or maybe it was uranium or possibly both, I'm no scientist) reserves will only last about 60 years. Balance that against, what, tens of thousands of years to clean up? And what happens after the sixty years production runs out anyway?

[andyh4]

I think nuclear energy has to be an inevitable intermediate solution if we wish to half mainatin our current styles and standards of living.

How intermediate will depend on things like the long term viability of fast breeders and fusion.

 

In the mean time it will be essential to build up renewables - that is if the nimbys of this world will allow it - "no wind farms on my hill"; "no wave machines near my beach"; "no flooding my valley for hydroelectric plants".

 

Something somewhen soon will have to give.

[Deimos]

From what I have heard, the US has been forward buying most of the Uranium from around the world so even if Mr. Blair does build his nuclear power stations then there will probably be a shortage of uranium in the future.

I agree that there is little else to use in the short term. It is disappointing that (certainly in the UK but I suspect everywhere) that governments have failed to invest in research that may be able to offer alternatives. Trouble is that, to an extent, the “pay-back” time on such research is so incredibly long that the “private-public” partnerships so loved by New Labour are of no interest to the “private” side and New Labour cannot bring itself to put money into it alone. Short-sighted – yes. Would any other government do the same – probably (so why do we elect any of them ?)

I guess the renewable forms will always suffer from nimbys. They all have to be put somewhere and the UK is crouded enough that there will always be nimby’s close by. Maybe when people are freezing in their homes with no electricity they will be criticizing the government for not building that wind farm on that local hill (after all its really windy there).

Ian

[Perlats]

But surely even nimbys would rather have a wind farm next to them than a nuclear power station or stockage?

[Deimos]

[quote]But surely even nimbys would rather have a wind farm next to them than a nuclear power station or stockage?[/quote]

Probably not an either or consideration. Nimbys want neither and will spend ages (and loads of gov. money delaying enquiries, etc.). I actually support some of the protests about some UK gov. plans and do think there needs to be enquiries about these things. Its just that often the nimbys seem to have no valid reasons for “not here” other than “it would spoil the view”, etc.. Sometimes these can be valid arguments which makes the whole thing very difficult. All made worse by the fact that on occasions gov. has made some poor planning decisions, overrules enquiries they have set-up, etc.

Ian