nuclear

[craigthemoo]

do you think that the government will build nuclear ?and if so what do you think will be the consequences

[CT]

Well. I think they will build some nuclear power stations, they'll not have any sort of nuclear meltdown, and we'll be left with the long term nuclear waste.

[bobjim1705]

Are we talking about the UK Government here?
Nuclear power isn't a new thing: we currently have 23 nuclear reactors in this country (the first being in 1956), generating about a fifth of our electricity.

[alphamale]

Hello craigthemoo,

Yup, I would not be at all suprised to have a number of new stations up and running within 7-10 years. The consequences will be: jobs, exportable technology, electricity to sell overseas (the French sell nuclear electrons to England), no greenhouse gas emissions. The single most important aspect is that we won't be dependent on oil and gas for power - I really don't want to be held ransom by other nations. We would be very foolish to let this happen - some would say it already has happened.

We need a number of nuclear stations to be built in the UK, and soon.

The tendency now is to use low enriched fuel for civil power stations. Some of the high enriched weapons material is being converted to low enriched fuel for civil reactors. So, there will also be a decrease in the stocks of weapons grade nuclear material.

I have an interest in nuclear power supply - I work in the nuclear industry (I also used to make and prepare nuclear material for medical use) so I want a job, I want the lights to stay on, I don't want our weather to change irreversibly, I want the UK to stay ahead in nuclear technology.

The Green party tell you how bad nuclear power stations are. Unfortunately they forget to tell you that coal fired power stations (and to some extent oil fired stations) pump out more nuclear waste over your heads everyday than any operational nuclear power station. The volume of waste produced by coal fired power stations is huge compared with nuclear waste.

I favour storing irradiated fuel pins in air cooled bunkers i.e. not reprocessing. But the price of uranium has trebled in the last few years as countries all over the world are sourcing new stocks of uranium. So we do need to reprocess.

I think the UK should use CANDU reactors (a well established model), although the small STAR reactors sound quite intersting.

AlphaMale

[qapmoc]

Yes alphamale I totally agree with you, but the problem is that oil is running out now, not at some time in the future but now!! it takes some years to put nuclear stations on line and that is too long to really help the energy situation which will probably develop within the next 3-5 years, the other problem is that nuclear power stations use uranium as fuel and the worlds uranium stocks will also deplete fast once more stations are on line so that is only a short term stop gap.
If the uranium deposits available can be doubled (exploration etc...) then assuming a 5% increase/year in use, the world supply will only last until about 2025 at latest.

PLEASE google PEAK OIL and read some and don't dismiss it all as hyped up rubbish.

[buildersmate]

Which is probably why Tony Blair is upping the anti to encourage the nuclear debate again - because Governments also know the oil is running out and we've become rather dependent on electricity on tap. Its getting a critical mass of the population to believe it that Governments are gonna have trouble with.