Jokes1 min ago
Nuclear power stations - yes or no
How many people are for or against the UK building some modern nuclear power stations?
Do you want to keep the lights on and your fridge to work. Do you want to cut down greenhouse gas emissions? You can run your car on electricity (we have to not be reliant on oil). We have not had a criticality accident in he UK (that I know of).
Nuclear energy production can be very safe and very clean and efficient. You can more or less just turn it up and down as required. I don't favour reprocessing irradiated fuel if we can help it. I would rather store it dry in special stores, at least untill it has decayed sufficiently to allow safer processing, but only if necessary.
If you don't want nuclear energy production do you have a logical reason for not wanting it, or is it just that it is 'icky' nuclear stuff?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by alphamale. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nuclear is the only realistic way forward (even though I think windfarms are beautiful!). The problem is that much more research is needed as the technology is still in its infancy. (Yes, I know it's been around for decades but it hasn't moved on much in that time). Power from nuclear fission (rather than fusion) has to be the ultimate goal.
Chris
PS: Before someone asks :
1. I do understand nuclear power. I hold a qualification which entitles me to work with open-source radioactive materials.
2. I do live reasonably close to a nuclear power station. (I'm in the 'commuter area' for Sizewell).
3. I don't work in the nuclear power industry or for their publicity agents!
Chris
PS: Before someone asks :
1. I do understand nuclear power. I hold a qualification which entitles me to work with open-source radioactive materials.
2. I do live reasonably close to a nuclear power station. (I'm in the 'commuter area' for Sizewell).
3. I don't work in the nuclear power industry or for their publicity agents!
I agree with Homer Simson's post. I mean Buenchico's. We can't keep using gas/oil/coal as 1 -they're going to run out fairly soon and 2 - they pollute the planet something 'orrible. Wind, wave and solar are obvious options, but nuclear is so much more powerful and once it is safe it will end up as the world's number 1.
It is safe, and it produces much more realistic levels than most renewable sources.
While wind and solar power are nice for the environment, the actual amount of power they produce is nothing compared to a nuclear or fossil fuel facility. The only renewable sources with any real output behind them are wave and hydroelectric power, but both of these have serious environmental effects.
I'm an advocate of its use, but I can also think up a few reasons against it.
Radioactive waste is difficult to store, esp for its indefinate lifespan. Isn't it just being "stored" right now underground? Second, it would be very very bad if its uranium content got in the hands of the wrong people (did someone say 'global threat of terrorism?'...well, then there would be). And third - it's research and development by any country is kind of sketchy. They could be proliferating nuclear weapons in secrecy with a "developing nuclear energy" front.
Questions becomes paramount - Can we provide enough protective defenses in its use against types of sabotage? How important is its production - given the "environmental health" vs "terrorist and pollution threat" debate? It's a trade-off of nuclear power providing beneficial results in the face of it being a constant threat to public safety. Certain things may cause this "threat or opportunity" conflict to shift value, such as diminishing oil reserves or a lack thereof.
Radioactive waste is difficult to store, esp for its indefinate lifespan. Isn't it just being "stored" right now underground? Second, it would be very very bad if its uranium content got in the hands of the wrong people (did someone say 'global threat of terrorism?'...well, then there would be). And third - it's research and development by any country is kind of sketchy. They could be proliferating nuclear weapons in secrecy with a "developing nuclear energy" front.
Questions becomes paramount - Can we provide enough protective defenses in its use against types of sabotage? How important is its production - given the "environmental health" vs "terrorist and pollution threat" debate? It's a trade-off of nuclear power providing beneficial results in the face of it being a constant threat to public safety. Certain things may cause this "threat or opportunity" conflict to shift value, such as diminishing oil reserves or a lack thereof.
-- answer removed --
Public opinion hinges on the opinions of the populace. But do the actions and beliefs of the ruling eltie get influenced more by the public than the opinions of the populace get influenced by whatever rhetoric serves the self interests of the ruling elite?
Nuclear power is good, but just remember...its future use WILL be a constant threat to humanity. But hey...we live with threats all around us.
Nuclear power is good, but just remember...its future use WILL be a constant threat to humanity. But hey...we live with threats all around us.
I think we HAVE had a criticality incident in the UK. Namely the windscale fire http://www.lakestay.co.uk/1957.htm
However we are fast running out of options especially when we consider greenhouse emissions.
Renewable sources are great but won't run all our needs they are probably going to be most important in minimising the number of reactors we will need.
One of the major waste problems is medium level waste which unlike low level waste is quite radioactive and unlike High level waste there's a lot of it. Some of the materials tecnology developed around fusion projects such as JET and ITER revolve about the intelligent choice of materials used in reactors so that waste has a short half life. Some of this technology should be transferable to fission reactors.
There is however much more than a technical aspect to this decision. It is political (who's going to get it built next to them?) and economic. Nuclear reactors are just not cost effective when the decommissioning costs are considerred. The last generation were built with the Government agreeing to pick up the tab for this. No commercial organisation will build more if they will have to pay for this.
BTW the answers in this thread have been quite amazingly positive to the nuclear option - I'll bet you'd get a different response in "body and soul"
I feel Jake makes an entirely pertinent point when he talks of renewable sources. Surely any solution does not have to be an 'either/or' situation? Surely it makes more sense to pursue a multi-format approach? If nuclear energy is the most appropriate, safest and cleanest method of large scale power production, then it should be the favoured solution. At the same time, we should surely be enouraging the use of renewable resources, particularly those such as solar panels etc which allow households to generate their own electricity. Personally I would like to see loads of windfarms. I can't really say I understand the argument that they're unsightly; they've always struck me as very elegant looking things. Is the problem simply that the government are likely to favour a private sector approach to the issue, which would tend to favour whichever solution can turn the best profits?
I think the question setting is being rather unreasonable in using such emotive language in his argument, though. There are entirely legitimate safety concerns over the use of nuclear power; denigrating them as 'icky' is disingenous at best. You may argue (e.g.) 'Oh, well Chernobyl wasn't being run in the way it was supposed to be' and I would agree. It didn't stop someone running it in a way that it wasn't supposed to be though, and it must be acknowleged that there are dangers associated with implementation of nuclear power. We have carried out reprocessing for example and there is a higher incidence of cancers around areas with nuclear plants and suggested reasons such as 'Oh, it's to do with the high levels of bracken' are less than convincing. Given that power generation from renewable sources is safe and clean, it would make sense to promote them as much as is feasible.
I think the question setting is being rather unreasonable in using such emotive language in his argument, though. There are entirely legitimate safety concerns over the use of nuclear power; denigrating them as 'icky' is disingenous at best. You may argue (e.g.) 'Oh, well Chernobyl wasn't being run in the way it was supposed to be' and I would agree. It didn't stop someone running it in a way that it wasn't supposed to be though, and it must be acknowleged that there are dangers associated with implementation of nuclear power. We have carried out reprocessing for example and there is a higher incidence of cancers around areas with nuclear plants and suggested reasons such as 'Oh, it's to do with the high levels of bracken' are less than convincing. Given that power generation from renewable sources is safe and clean, it would make sense to promote them as much as is feasible.
No, no, no.
Still measuring radioactive pollution from Chernobyl in Welsh sheep to this day.
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/137/137740_new_cancer_fears_over_chernobyl.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1071289.stm
Maybe if CANDU is redesigned or we follow the Chinese example and go for the pebble bed reactor invented by Farrington Daniels.
No, no, no. Give me tidal power.
Hello Golden boy,
Geothermal for the home is quite an outlay to start with, about 16 - 20 �k. Then the only cost is to run the 0.25 hp motor to circulate the heat from deep down to your heat exchanger. I have considered this as my house is on rock. I don't know if a really really big big geothermal station would work as well in the UK as it does in Iceland.
I am thinking about having a domestic wind turbine put up. Not sure of the costs, just starting to look into it.
I have trained and worked in the nuclear industry, it's my job, it's how I make my living, so from a personal point of view ofcourse I want nuclear power to continue in the UK.
Where I live there is almost no other industry, you either work at taking the old power station apart, the declining fishing industry or for the tourist industry. Man cannot live by fish and tourist alone!
We need more nuclear power stations in the UK for all the good reasons pointed out. North Scotland is a great area for a new nuclear power station - the people are used to it, we have all the expertise, land and an acceptance of the nuclear industry.
I want to go into my old age knowing that the lights will still be on when I want them.
Uranium is now getting expensive - everybody wants it. It's about $30 per pound (I won't bother with the conversion) whereas just a few years ago it was $10 and plentifull.
I've probably said this before, coal and oil fired power stations probably lay more radionuclides on our environment than your local friendly nuclear power station. They put out poloniums, radons (and all the subsequent daughters), lead-210 and mercury.
Even the oil industry relies upon us 'Atomics' as we used to be called. The nuclear industry has to help clean the inside of oil pipelines as the natural radioactivity laid down on the inner surfaces is really quite frightening.
The point being natural radiation, particles trapped when coal etc was formed. The old saw about fossil fuel power stations having more radioactive output than nuclear takes no account of the mining, enrichment or disposal of Uranium. Nuclear power creates dangerously radioactive material down to the structure of the building, which not only requires reinforced concrete containment but will inevitably have to be decommissioned in time. Dounreay is 500 miles but too close to me.
Hello folks,
Looks like I was wrong - the UK did have a criticality accident in the 1970's.
http://www.csirc.net/docs/reports/la-13638.pdf
alphamale
There is enough solar power around for everyone. In summer we get 1kh per sqm. Even with present technology every home could have solar panels on . The excess electric could be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which could be stored or used in our cars . Unfortunately oil companies have massive lobbying power in parliament, and politicians really dont have the drive to change invested interests, so nothing much will happen until change is forced on us by shortages
1 to 19 of 19
