NationStates Jolt Archive

The go-ahead has been given for a new wave of UK nuclear power stations.

Industry secretary Alistair Darling told MPs nuclear power needed to be part of the mix of energy supply for the UK over the next 40 years.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said plans to include nuclear energy sources had been "correct".

Meanwhile, the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) applauded the government for its balanced strategy and for "grasping the nuclear nettle".

More at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5169888.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5169788.stm

Whining:

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=2532&&edition=1&ttl=20060711204914

Read the review here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_07_06_energy_review_report.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_07_06_energy_review_exec_summary.pdf (if you are lazy)


Personally, I am glad this decision has been made. You know, since New Labour seized power, I have been waiting for the day they made a decision with which I agreed. Finally, after 9 years, they have finally done so. The cynical would say it is merely evidence of their shift to the right. But the pragmatic would observe that unless you deal with reality, reality deals with you, whatever your politics.

There is no escaping nuclear power in the UK. As I have argued in the past, I understand that people have good intentions, and really wish things could be different. But their dreams are not achievable. The industry must work with what it has, and it has waited too long already. If we are to safeguard supply security, and more broadly, energy security, replacing our current nuclear generating capacity gigawatt for gigawatt, is unavoidable.

The alternative is accepting blackouts. And what people do not realise is that were the electricity supply cease to be reliable as a result of massive supply shortfalls, it would not be a simple case of powerful incentives for conservation. People are fundamentally selfish. If there is a 20% shortfall in available generating capacity, most would accept that, but only provided that 20% hit someone else. Faced with a regular lack of power, they would start to complain. And I'm talking brick-throwing type of complaints, were it to be announced that rotating blackouts are to be the new way of life for a decade or more.

People also do not realise that when there is a shortfall of supply, but the demand stays fixed, equipment is damaged. You cannot run a power system accepting the possibility that the regular demand peaks could push the system into an unstable operating region. You would disconnect a town rather than have something explode. It's candles at dinnertime.

People keep saying there are plenty alternatives. Let's see...

- Natural Gas: The Russians are coming!
- Coal: Too dirty
- Nuclear: Too dangerous
- Wind: Too ugly
- Wave/Tidal: Kills fish
- Imports: DC electric fields harm fish

Hmm. Could the greens make their minds up? Too late. Can't be bothered maintaining a dialogue with you any more. Thus certain planning restrictions on energy infrastructure are going to be removed, according to the Financial Times.

What it comes down to for me is this: I know what is realistic, and what is not, because this is where I work. In rather the same way that a teacher can judge whether or not some proposed new initiative is feasible, or a police officer can judge whether or not some strategy is workable, I can say with confidence, in line with industry consensus, that the nuclear-free renewable energy dream will never work in the UK. Too many people, too densely packed, too much demand, too little time.

Thanks to current planning laws and regrettably overzealous local democracy, gigawatt for gigawatt, it will actually be easier to push through nuclear than equivalent wind. Wind totalling 1GW, you will simply not find a site with a population willing to accept it. Nuclear totalling 1GW, you can build at an existing nuclear facility, and wave the Establishment card at anyone who raises a voice in protest. Job done. That's the beauty of democracy. Sometimes, it makes doing the good stuff harder.

Basically the British anti-nuclear lobby can read it and weep. They never had the background to participate fully in the debate, often making themselves look ignorant in front of those who have a clue. Now it looks like the technocrats are getting back in charge. Leave it to the experts kthx, or don't whine when it's your turn to get disconnected. :)

I'm happy so long as I don't have to live by it. :)

I really do not know why everyone complains about the windfarms though. They're so pretty…

Nuclear power may be dangerous, but so is everything. Crossing the road is dangerous but anti-nuclear people don't campaign against roads.

I really do not know why everyone complains about the windfarms though. They're so pretty…
Testify!

Windfarms are generally considered unsightly by part-time country people who buy second homes away from the city so they don't have to be around the rest of us the whole time.

It only takes a few hundred to kill a windfarm proposal. So many have been rejected now, that wind turbine suppliers are increasingly refusing to do business with the UK. Too many cancelled orders.

Wow, people who agree with me about windfarms looking good. Although this sounds harsh, I would love to see the council just ignoring the complaints of the uninformed idiots who call them dangerous eyesores. Of course, I realise that this will never happen due to politicians wanting a chance at re-election. And much as I'd love to see a turbine in every neighbourhood, I can settle for nuclear as a damn good alternative.

I hope this enthusiasm carries over to the US. Nuclear power is a safe and massive form of electricity generation and it's the best solution to our energy needs, especially considering the risk of global warming from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power should be greatly encouraged and expanded to replace coal power and wind/solar along with other renewables can be used to replace natural gas. It combines a clean, abundant load stabilizer and clean, nearly limitless intermittent renewable power, so it's an ideal solution to our energy needs in a time of rising energy prices and the threat of global warming. Improvements in reprocessing technology are cutting down on the waste produced, and storage technology can keep waste safely stored far away from human inhabitation.

Also, I live within 5 miles of a nuclear power plant; it's the Perry power plant in NE Ohio in case you're interested. I have never been concerned about its safety and there has never been any problems. In fact, the plant produces a fortune for the Perry school district and town.

Wow, people who agree with me about windfarms looking good. Although this sounds harsh, I would love to see the council just ignoring the complaints of the uninformed idiots who call them dangerous eyesores. Of course, I realise that this will never happen due to politicians wanting a chance at re-election. And much as I'd love to see a turbine in every neighbourhood, I can settle for nuclear as a damn good alternative.

Wind turbines are a hell of a lot more attractive than the smokestacks, LNG terminals, coal stockpiles and pipelines that are needed to produce coal and natural gas power; you'd think people would like to reduce the number of those we need in favor of windfarms. They're nothing more than a bunch of sculpture-like turbines in the middle of a grassland. They'd also look good in the ocean; that's the next big wind power site since there's so much wind offshore compared to land.

But then again, remember the NIMBY spirit; we can just dump the ugly and polluting infrastructure on someone else who lacks the money to protest it or we'll complain when there are blackouts and prices soar.

Nuclear power may be dangerous, but so is everything. Crossing the road is dangerous but anti-nuclear people don't campaign against roads.

http://www.exileimages.co.uk/HowardD/Prostest/UK.MISC.UK.15.jpg

I work for a renewable company and we have a wind farm in Wales and several hydro schemes up and down the country, and we operate a number of Landfill Gas sites all over the UK.

The wind farms have to go through extensive approval & planning stages before they go ahead. They are never built in places invasive to residents (ours isn't). If there was substantial opposition the basic fact is they wouldn’t go ahead. So these people who moan about wind farms near their homes, did you protest long enough and loud enough?? If you had it wouldn't be there. Plus land owners receive a percentage of the income the company makes from the power it produces. They're also no where near as 'loud' as people say they are. All turbines are fitted with controllers that minimize the sound the blades make when in motion. It limits the speed specifically within set scale.

I personally think that wind farms aren't eye sore, and when you've climbed to the top of one and sat up on top of the Nacelle (the bits the blades are connected to) and looked at the view, it's quite breathtaking.

And the hydro schemes are specially designed to be fish friendly using barrier fences. All schemes are approved by the Environmental Agency.

All this is well and good, but at the end of the day the decisions are going to made based on what is cost effective, and it's nuclear. Not my preferred resource, but an understandable choice.

<Picture>
A minority.

A minority.

Maybe, but a sizable one. Certainly not just a handfull.

(Though probably the loudest and most active faction)

Wind Farms are great, and they look nice as well.

Ask people - which do you want on your pretty hill - some wind turbines or the new Sellafield?

Testify!

Windfarms are generally considered unsightly by part-time country people who buy second homes away from the city so they don't have to be around the rest of us the whole time.

It only takes a few hundred to kill a windfarm proposal. So many have been rejected now, that wind turbine suppliers are increasingly refusing to do business with the UK. Too many cancelled orders.

Never been to Northern Germany? There you can find a fair few Wind Turbines.

Personally I like them as well.

And what you say about the 2nd home owners...spot on.

I think if you went to a suitable place and asked the inhabitants if they would mind a windfarm...the trade off being that their bills go to pay off that investment...nothing else. When its paid off you don't pay anymore. To enable people to move you can work out some kind of sliding scale system...money left over (if there is...which it should not...but then again you could add a little extra %'age and use that money to improve the community)...

Just thoughts

When its paid off you don't pay anymore.
Aren't there fairly significant maintenance costs with windfarms? :/

With nuclear we know what the risks are, and how to control these etc. Wind, on the other hand, is something that people don't think through.

Wind power generation takes energy out of the air currents, which leaves these being slower and weaker than before. What effect will that have on local climate, or, in the long term, on global weather patterns? We simply don't know.

There is no such thing as free energy. If we take it from somewhere it this action will have an effect. The question to be answered is do we know what these effects are and are the results acceptable?

wack a tidal barrier accross the severn. job done.

Maybe, but a sizable one. Certainly not just a handfull.

(Though probably the loudest and most active faction)
You don't have to be a hippie to be afraid of nuclear power.

wack a tidal barrier accross the severn. job done.

Yes. Screw the wildlife. (this is honestly my opinion)

Aren't there fairly significant maintenance costs with windfarms? :/

Not really; most of the infrastructure is just a concrete base and a metal pole, and the actual turbines are usually designed to work for at least 30 years without signifcant maintenance. They're virtually cost free once they're in place and only require a small staff to operate.

I'm sure our development team could look into this.. and possibly preserve the wildlife in the process ;)

Yes. Screw the wildlife. (this is honestly my opinion)

exactly, 6% of the UK's energy totally renewable and will never fail (the tides always come)

Not really; most of the infrastructure is just a concrete base and a metal pole, and the actual turbines are usually designed to work for at least 30 years without signifcant maintenance. They're virtually cost free once they're in place and only require a small staff to operate.

This is true

We have a maintenance team of about 4 guys for 17 turbines and an out of hours team. The majority of movement and control is all done remotely.

Not really; most of the infrastructure is just a concrete base and a metal pole, and the actual turbines are usually designed to work for at least 30 years without signifcant maintenance. They're virtually cost free once they're in place and only require a small staff to operate.

But what about the "lightning strikes" and "bent blades" of which Google speaks? :(

Wind power generation takes energy out of the air currents, which leaves these being slower and weaker than before. What effect will that have on local climate, or, in the long term, on global weather patterns? We simply don't know.
We do.

Western Europe was once covered by thick forest. See any forest? No.

You understand how much wind energy was absorbed by the UK when it was entirely covered in thick forest? Wind farms do nothing to change atmospheric energy content.

But what about the "lightning strikes" and "bent blades" of which Google speaks? :(

They're not that common. Also, new and improved technologies for prevention of these problems are reducing the damage and risk posed by lighting and blade damage. Of course, you could also consider the fact that wind power can't explode like natural gas or give off toxic pollutants like coal.

But what about the "lightning strikes" and "bent blades" of which Google speaks? :(

The first is extremely rare, and they have emergency shut down systems that would isolate the one turbine that has the fault, the rest would continue to work.

Bent Blades?... if a piece of engineering designed to harness wind power bends under the strain, they it's clearly not a good a design and the investors made a bad choice. In saying that, they can get damaged in other ways, and are usually replaced within 10 days. Again, the one turbine is isolated and the others remain running.

But what about the "lightning strikes" and "bent blades" of which Google speaks? :(
That's where the maintenance comes in. But frankly, overhead line towers suffer from the same problems. One nasty strike causing a phase-phase flashover, and you have a fault. If an isolator fails, you have to make the circuit dead and get linesmen out there. It's just a hazard from the environment.

That's where the maintenance comes in. But frankly, overhead line towers suffer from the same problems. One nasty strike causing a phase-phase flashover, and you have a fault. If an isolator fails, you have to make the circuit dead and get linesmen out there. It's just a hazard from the environment.

And overhead lines have more problems from wind then from lightening. The two lines meet in a stron wind and it can take out a part grid for HOURS.

And overhead lines have more problems from wind then from lightening. The two lines meet in a stron wind and it can take out a part grid for HOURS.

What about subterranean power lines? :o

You don't have to be a hippie to be afraid of nuclear power.

Nor do you have to be a hippy to be concerned about roads.

I admit that the picture may have been a bit misleading. But the protest against the Newbury bypass was hardly the end of concern about roads. Which is why local communities frequentl petition local councils to install speed cameras, pedestrian crossing and other "traffic calming" measures. There is great fear about roads and the crossing of roads, this fear does motivate people to do something. (And some of those people are anti-nuclear people)

Ask people - which do you want on your pretty hill - some wind turbines or the new Sellafield?
The late cartoonist Austin drew a cartoon back in (I believe) 2004, which I cut out and saved. It depicts the chairman of an anti-windfarm group announcing at a meeting:

"We've won. They're building a nuclear power plant instead."

Alas, the guy never lived to see it happen for real. But that was the choice on offer. With the M6 corridor near the Tebay service station declared an "area of outstanding natural beauty" to block a windfarm proposal, nuclear build at existing sites was the only option left open.

Personally, I don't care which technology is pursued, there is no such thing as the "nuclear lobby", the company for which I work has a finger in every pie. Personally I believe a balanced mix of generation is the best way forward. But if a centralised transmission/distribution fourth-generation nuclear build is what we get, hell yeah I'm all for it. We could have so easily had more windfarms, but the environmentalists split their forces and it is their loss alone.

What about subterranean power lines? :o

Much harder to install, and much harder to get at to repair. Yes, you get a bit of protection against weather, but at the cost of having to dig up vast areas every time you want to fix the line, including roads, buildings etc.

What about subterranean power lines? :o

now you're just testing :p

.. seriously.. undergound lines are probably the best for reliability. But there's a difference between the generation, transmission, and distribution of the power, and each section has it's own problems.

Aren't there fairly significant maintenance costs with windfarms? :/

Sure there are running costs but I can't imagine it being horrendous....anyway....get a grant from the gubberment LOL

and pay for it in taxes...

and pay for it in taxes...

yeah...that was tongue in cheek...

yeah...that was tongue in cheek...

i no, im just too tired

I just wish they'd fucking fix Sellafield first before building new ones. :rolleyes:

I just wish they'd fucking fix Sellafield first before building new ones. :rolleyes:
Technology has moved on, it will most likely be surplus to requirements anyway.

Technology has moved on, it will most likely be surplus to requirements anyway.
I meant plug the holes! :p

Wind power generation takes energy out of the air currents, which leaves these being slower and weaker than before. What effect will that have on local climate, or, in the long term, on global weather patterns? We simply don't know.

I came across that argument years ago in a novel by, I think, Greg Bear. And it made sense to me, until I thought about it a bit.

Wind isn't a perpetual motion machine. Wind is fueled by solar energy. And we keep getting more of that.