NationStates Jolt Archive

Following a series of consecutive warm-Winters, the United Kingdom is once more facing a Winter that will cause serious problems for commuters, businesses and, of course, the national grid. As usual when this country is plagued by that mystical phemonenon known as "weather", the inconvenience is immediately blamed on global warming. Whatever is to fault, the British chemical industry has been facing serious problems as North Sea Gas dwindles and methane is, once again, in increasing demand for domestic heating. All the more reason that this nation needs a new nuclear powerstation programme, and it needs one today.

Electricity generation accounts for 40% of the world's energy needs. In Britain, this figure is even higher. The current generation of oil, gas and coal powerstations pollute, are expensive and inefficient. They consume extremely useful resources in a desperately limitted supply, and we are increasingly relying on foreign imports to acquire them in sufficient quantities. Britain's Generation I and II nuclear powerplants are approaching the end of their useful lives, and will soon have to be decommissioned, leaving a massive gap in Britain's energy network.

This gap will have to be filled, one way or another. An expansion into oil, gas or coal would just be putting off the inevitable, and in the meantime would be taking these vital materials away from already squeezed industried which rely on them to continue business, as has been shown so dramatically as former ICI plants have been closed entirely due to a short term price spike.

The Government's preferred option is, of course, renewable energy. This source sounds fine in principle - limittless, found anywhere, no harmful byproducts, etc. but the truth is not so rosy, and it calls into question whether Labour is proposing their use out of a real belief in their worth, or out of political convenience. Afterall, they will most likely not be in power when the energy time bomb really starts to explode in 10 - 20 years time and Blair certainly wont be. And, of course, renewables are popular with the uninformed, easily mislead voters.

Renewable power currently accounts for a slender 2% of Britain's total energy production, with most of this being hydroelectric. Photovoltaic panels account for a miniscule amount of this, they produce far less energy when demand is highest - in low light conditions with cloud cover - and they are extremely expensive. About £60,000 just to provide around 3/4 of the energy for a single house.

The much-touted wind 'miracle power source' accounts for just 3.5% of British renewables, or 0.07% of Britain's total energy generation. Wind power is also extremely expensive and space inefficient. In order to account for the entire world's energy needs, you would have to cover an area the size of the United States with wind turbines.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is cheap, clean, compact and the technology is in place to a sufficient degree of cost efficiency already. Per KWh, even accounting for decommissioning costs, nuclear is cheaper than any renewable power source. In terms of greenhouse gas emmissions, nuclear is several orders of magnitude less polluting than fossil fuels, and the emmissions produced by nuclear power (in the extraction and processing of Uranium) are comparable with those produced in the manufacutre of wind turbines.

It is also extremely safe. The average Briton receives a larger dose of radiation from their television than from nuclear powerstations, and more from their own food than from all man made sources put together (powerstations, bomb tests, Hiroshima, Etc.). Actually working in a nuclear powerstation is no more dangerous than wearing an old-fashioned luminous watch, and the worst ever nuclear accident - Chenobyl - killed just 57 people (source: United Nations), of whom only 6 were not in the plant at the time or involved in rescue work.

Talking about Chernobyl, it is impossible, as there is not enough material, for a nuclear powerstation to cause a true nuclear explosion and destroy vast swathes of land. In badly maintained, poorly built foreign plants, there have been comparatively non-leathal coolant leaks. The total number of people killed in all civilian nuclear accidents probably does not reach into 4 digits, and certainly does not exceed 50,000 (the number of people killed each day by Whooping Cough).

Wind power is all well and good for remote, isolated areas and solar panels may become useful if the price drops substantially, but if we are serious about tackling global warming, or even maintaining our own economy, the only real option available is nuclear. Let us just hope that Labour ignores the ill-informed masses and goes ahead with building a new generation of British nuclear power plants.

/clap /clap /clap

Would you mind stating the source to your claim more precisely?

'Cause I found this
http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/

and that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1297261.stm

Besides, you can't really trust those numbers given out by the Soviet Union in 1986. Took them 3 days to acknowledge what had happened and I'm not inclined to believe them with numbers.

Wouldn't you think that building off-shore powerplants that use wind energy would do the trick - after all, there's a lot of weather...

As a last thought, the world's Uranium supply will run out as well. And then what?

As an interesting side-note (and I will only state this as a claim 'cause I can't find the source to back it up just now):
If the whole of Germany completely shut off their technical equipment (tvs, stereos, etc) while not in use, one nuclear power plant could be shut down. Interesting, is it not?

The solution to power problems definitely is a combination of making things more energy efficient and actually start saving energy where it is clearly wasted. How about improving house insulation and thus reducing heating costs...

There's gotta be better ways than to put more of those dreaded nuclear waste producing power plants on the grid.

As a last thought, the world's Uranium supply will run out as well. And then what?

Breeder reactors, it is actually possible to get MORE fissionable material fromt he fission of U-235 thant you put in. Okay, you can on ly do that once, but it can extend supply to nearly half a millenium.


There's gotta be better ways than to put more of those dreaded nuclear waste producing power plants on the grid.

Why are they "dreaded"? Lets not forget chernobyl went tits-up because they turned off the safety systems to try and get extra power out of it. Which, knowing sods law, is really asking for it.

Also, there are now such things as passive safety systems, that cut in unless the power station is working well enough to STOP them from doing so.

And the nuclear industry is the ONLY industry to take full accountability for ALL its waste.


Lets buld enough to take almost all of Britains load for the next sixty years. Then we are covered until those chaps at ITER get their fusion thingies working :P

Finland just finished the world's newest, most advanced and most powerful Nuclear Reactor in the world - and no one in Finland is against it...

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,386451,00.html
Eurajoki has plenty to offer, including an imposing manor house in the classical style, a medieval castle that was once home to pirates and a seaside setting along the Gulf of Bothnia.
But inhabitants of this western Finnish town of 5,826 are even prouder of two giant concrete monuments made of northern red clay. Olkiluoto 1 and Olkiluoto 2 -- two nuclear power plants located on the eponymous island in the Baltic Sea -- are at the top of Eurajoki's list of tourist attractions.

I think one of the major concerns about nuclear power, at least from the govts. perspective, is that the cost of both building and running the powerplants far outweighs the total amount of revenue to be obtained. It'll get like many other govt. projects from the past - they will never pay off the debts to their loaners and will remain in debt.

On the other hand, cost effectiveness + wind farms = laughable.

<.<.......>.>

Go nuclear!

EDIT: COmpletely unrelated, but has anyone seen the modified combustion engine that runs off iron nanoparticles and is virtually unpolluting? Research grant into that, TBH.

I'm glad someone else said it. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought this. Nearly everybody I know is an eco-friendly person, who thinks that one can save the environment by covering every square inch of Britain with obscene windmills. And still not have enough power.

Didn't I say off-shore windparks?

Besides, where does the UK store its nuclear waste? That's the biggy here in Germany. Not the - compared to international standards - very safe reactors. Where do you safely store all that glowing stuff after you're done for the next couple of millenia?

France and Germany are strongly pushing nuclear if I'm right. Won't be long before the EU emposes in on the rest of europe mabey, might as well prepare for the enevitable.

And yeah carbon dioxide is bad and all that stuff :)

France and Germany are strongly pushing nuclear if I'm right.
I don't think you are...Germany has decided to proceed with taking nuclear power out of the system.

Well I heard france at the very least is pushing towards a huge increase in use of Nuclear energy, and this seems to be spreading across lots of Europe.

New nuclear technology is safer, more efficent, and less likely to be misused than it was when the last round of construction ended. New reprocessing lowers the radioactive decay from tens of thousands to a few hundred years, and is able to extract incredibly large amounts of spent fuel. New reactors are better designed, safer, and more efficent. Nuclear power is the large scale future of world energy security, and I wholeheartedly support its implementation on all scales.

Plus, it would create thousands of jobs in high-tech, high education sectors and would create a pool of experience from which new innovations and improvements in the technology could be drawn.

Didn't I say off-shore windparks?

Besides, where does the UK store its nuclear waste? That's the biggy here in Germany. Not the - compared to international standards - very safe reactors. Where do you safely store all that glowing stuff after you're done for the next couple of millenia?

well luckily the UK has been reprocessing most of EUs wate for ages, despite the wanderings of a few people with geiger counters (nothing better than a clicking geiger counter and a picture of a reactor in te background to scare the shit out the uninformed)

Should have gone Nuke 20 yrs ago instead of all this Gas Powered crap, the biggest objectors are as usual the Utility ompanies (who might have to invest some money or possibly *Spasm clutches chest* reduce prices and also their combined divine holiness' opec.

Wind power has been pushed and sucessfully in someparts however the same bunch of whining green welly brigade that started the no nuclear power campaign turn in to right wing Nimbys threatening destruction of property if a wind farm goes near them

Arrrgh need relaxant need kittens now ......

chernobyl happened because the russian scientists wanted to know that if there was a total systems power failure, would there be enough kinetic energy left in the turbines and drive shafts ect. to keep the coolant system running. the experiment went wrong. but in the uk this experiment would never be able to happen as there are safeguards.

i agree that nuclear power is the way. however there is a much better, cleaner solution for britain that has presented itself thanks to the eu.
y not simply buy more power from france. France is a big user of nuclear power and although it would have some quite severe national security issues there would be no need to build more power stations.

if we must build more power stations then they MUST be nuclear.
it really is the only way. the waste can all be shipped to other countries these days so we dont even need to worry about that.
but we need some nice new modern ones. state of the art.

its safe, clean and efficient.
coal is dirty and dangerous (hundereds of poeple die each year when coal powered stations (mainly in the under funded third world) explode!

so go nuclear.!!

any one that disagrees is a tree huggin hippy to high on pot to make an informed decition.

the bread sultan hath spoken

Didn't I say off-shore windparks?

Besides, where does the UK store its nuclear waste? That's the biggy here in Germany. Not the - compared to international standards - very safe reactors. Where do you safely store all that glowing stuff after you're done for the next couple of millenia?


actually the australian gov is in the process of opening an international (for a fee) nuclear waste storage centre in the middle of the desert. where there is nothing to get iradiated even if it does all go tits up and the storage centre is accidently hit by multiple stray bunker buster missles.

which lets face it wont happen.

actually the australian gov is in the process of opening an international (for a fee) nuclear waste storage centre in the middle of the desert...
Meh, I'll believe it when I see it. There is a lot of politicking to be done still before it'll actually happen.

Didn't I say off-shore windparks?

Besides, where does the UK store its nuclear waste? That's the biggy here in Germany. Not the - compared to international standards - very safe reactors. Where do you safely store all that glowing stuff after you're done for the next couple of millenia?


In a really deep hole?

I'm glad someone else said it. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought this. Nearly everybody I know is an eco-friendly person, who thinks that one can save the environment by covering every square inch of Britain with obscene windmills. And still not have enough power.
That's why we should use tidal power - the tides are entirely reliable (the moon isn't suddenly going to drop out of orbit) and we have loads of coastlines. Tidal power systems can be made very simply - just fill up a tank with water at high tide, let it drain into another tank (past some turbine), and then empty the lower tank at low tide - because water can be held in either tank for as long as necessary, a few of these can be used together to generate power at a constant rate.

the moon isn't suddenly going to drop out of orbit

Shows what you know. Soon my plans will be complete! The Moon is no more! MUHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!

Shows what you know. Soon my plans will be complete! The Moon is no more! MUHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!

Whaaat? You mean that graviton generator you've been touting about? Oh, that reminds me, I borrowed it for a while. Hope you don't mind. :p

As for nuclear power, well, powered flight wasn't exactly safe when it began, but its relatively commonplace now and safe. Nuclear isn't the only solution, but its an acceptable one if you've got the right advancements and safeguards in place.

Oh yes, it also has to be economically sound to begin with too.

But for that Finnish plant, it turns out that the same article points out that the plans for building the plant were riddled with lobbying, promises that never materialized and downplaying of critics.

Sounds like there's more than a bit of suppression of criticism there.

With regard to comments about coal, oil, gas and eventually uranium all running out, I've had this thought about renewable energy.

Presumably, for wind turbines to work, they require the wind to turn them? So energy is presumably transferred from the wind to the turbine. So the wind downwind of the wind farm is presumably a little gentler than the original wind? So if you get enough windfarms together, eventually you'll stop the wind? Which presumably will have an effect of some variety on the climate?

I'm sure the same must be true of wave power too (energy transferred from the waves as they lift the generator thingies, resulting in less powerful waves beyond the generators, resulting in less erosive force wherever the waves end up, meaning an effect on the environment).

Does that make sense to anyone else? :D

(..)the waste can all be shipped to other countries these days so we dont even need to worry about that.(...)
the bread sultan hath spoken
actually the australian gov is in the process of opening an international (for a fee) nuclear waste storage centre in the middle of the desert. where there is nothing to get iradiated (...)


Thou hast spoken, indeed. Enough, if I might add. Do I agree? http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/no.gif
What a way to think. Shipping the crap around the world will just create another factor of insecurity.
And it goes well with the way Australia has treated the aborigines. Why not make the Uluru the biggest nuclear dump of the world? Hell, if it glows in the dark, it might even become a greater attraction, right? :headbang:

In a really deep hole?
Unaffected by earthquakes, cave-ins, water inleakage and such? Yeah right.

(...) Does that make sense to anyone else? :D
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/laughoutloud.gif

I vote for deep space nuclear waste! What have aliens done for us? :gundge:

Go Nuclear!

I'm glad the LePreau plant in my province has been getting the upgrades it needs. In a world where some fuels are dwindling, I hope that other countries can reap the benefits of responsible nuclear energy.

Shows what you know. Soon my plans will be complete! The Moon is no more! MUHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!

Don't you dare. Unicron is expecting that as an appetizer when he comes to devour our planet.

People, the problem is there's not enough Uranium on Earth to replace oil as the main energy source. The same statement, phrased differently: the total energy which could be obtained from the Uranium available on Earth is less than the total energy which could be obtained from oil. That's why you don't see a country going 100% nuclear - there's not enough fuel. The only long term solution is a different energy source - fusion, for example.

People, the problem is there's not enough Uranium on Earth to replace oil as the main energy source. The same statement, phrased differently: the total energy which could be obtained from the Uranium available on Earth is less than the total energy which could be obtained from oil. That's why you don't see a country going 100% nuclear - there's not enough fuel. The only long term solution is a different energy source - fusion, for example.

I think we're going to start seeing fusion gain popularity within the next ten years.

I vote for deep space nuclear waste! What have aliens done for us? :gundge:
Right. Too bad rockets have that slight tendency to blow up when you a) least expect it and b) least want them to.
Your vote has officially been http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/banned.gif