New petition: Stop Hinkley nuclear plant and spend the money on renewable instead

Scroll to see replies

jeremy1988

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

Actually Germany is going to renewables so maybe stop being so uninformed and making up an apparent friend of yours.

He's not made up, and he's not my friend at any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-and-current-events/45476-nuclear-power.html#post1511873

And Germany has had to reopen coal plants during the interim. They're trying to move towards renewables, true, but renewable sources don't produce the same amount of energy as conventional sources, nor are they as reliable.

The German power grid would be quite unreliable if it were dependent on wind and solar alone.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

Atlas Thugged

I would start a petition to request the government builds a nuclear power station in every city, especially those cities which are choc full of hippies, but thankfully I'm smart enough to realise petitions are stupid and don't work.

Reply 22

limetang

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

You really can't see the solution? Investing in renewables will mean they will come up to scratch with Nuclear in terms of generation, create many more jobs, be much more long term and have you heard of diversifying your energy sources?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be developing our renewable infrastructure, but nuclear is a safe, environmentally friendly option for generating power on a scale that dwarfs (pound for pound spent on infrastructure) than renewables. And when the fact of the matter is that we are approaching something of an energy crisis NOW (power plants built in the 60's are now in the process of falling down). So we do have something of a problem here and nuclear is seemingly the way to address it.

Reply 23

Tempest II

I say build more nuclear power stations. I'm very disappointed that we have to rely on the Chinese to do it for us however.

Reply 24

Dez

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

I suggest all those supporting Nuclear go and live right next door to the plant

Preferable to living next door to a wind turbine to be honest.

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

and lets use your back garden as a dumping ground for deadly radioactive waste.

Although the track record for dealing with nuclear waste has definitely been patchy, these days it's taken care of in much more sustainable ways. They certainly aren't just going to be dumping it in someone's back garden, they'll be storing it in secure facilities until it's safe to move elsewhere.

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

Also I think you should pay for it and all the subsidies it will require for decades to come and it will go way over budget I can guarantee that.

And an equivalent solar/wind project would not?

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

Nuclear Power in its current state, is wasteful, expensive, creates fewer jobs than renewable alternatives, is still short term and an unnecessary risk.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the expected operating life of the new plant is going to be 60+ years at the very least, so hardly short term. Also "creates fewer jobs" is arguably a benefit, since that means it's less labour-intensive, costing us less economically.

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

Also don't come out with crap like oh what if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. You do realise there is more than just wind and solar and it's been proven to be successful in generating a lot of power in many other European countries. I seriously advise you educate yourself on the matter, maybe do Geography at A Level and realise current nuclear power is not worth it!

I fully support renewables, but there is simply no way at the present time we can hope to power the entire grid with them. Nuclear isn't perfect either, but there is no reason why the UK cannot pursue both technologies.

Reply 25

ManiaMuse

Nuclear is hugely more efficient than constructing hundreds of offshore wind farms. Also little is known about the long term enviromental effects of wind farms, there have been some studies which suggest they might have more of an influence on weather patterns and climate (i.e. warming!) than anticipated.

Disadvantages of nuclear obviously include the cost. Hinkley C is going to be extortionately expensive as is. They have been struggling constructing the prototype EPR reactor in France as well as the ones in Finland, India and China. None of them are complete yet, the one in France is 3 times over budget and god knows how many years delayed. And while they are supposedly going to be X times more failsafe, the previous generation of nuclear reactors were perfectly fine unless built by the coast in a region with a history of earthquakes and tsunamis...

Plus the government secured a rubbish deal for the unit price of the electricity which is going to rif off the British public for decades.

I have no objection to nuclear power in the UK but think we should have gone with a proven design that would have proven better value to the public.

Reply 26

CurlyBen

When I was studying mechanical engineering one of my friends was really interested in working in the renewables industry. We actually covered quite a lot of stuff about wind turbines in fluid mechanics and design, but he chose other modules to increase his knowledge of renewables and how to improve them. By the time he left university he was confident in the future of energy generation. Straight from university he has been working in the energy industry.
Designing civil nuclear systems.

Reply 27

Rakas21

I'm normally one to support nuclear but given the cost of Hinkley compared to alternatives and the fact that we providing subsidies and guarantees, i'm of the view that we should not be doing this.

To be honest we should probably go for another round of fossil fuel plants until renewables actually reach grid parity in the UK.

Reply 28

Napp

Given that this is little more than a high-tech kettle scrap it. It is outrageously expensive, will cost the tax payer in terms of government spending/debt/perks more than it could likely ever conceivably make [not to to mention the subsequent cost of disposing of the spent fuel and demolition] about a £37,000,000,000 over life price tag for its 60 year lifetime if i remember correctly? Produces energy at twice the cost of any other nuclear plant in the pipe lines. Oh and lest we forget this contract also sees the government give carte blanche to EDF in terms of delays to reactor construction.

The subsidy contract guarantees EDF a price of £92.50 for every unit of electricity produced for 35 years, a deal that on current estimates will see consumers pay £30bn in subsidies, over and above the wholesale price of power.

Ministers estimate that every household will pay about £10 a year on their energy bills to fund the subsidies when the plant starts generating.

Why not use to build something like a Wind/Solar farm, Tidal barrage, Gas, Rubbish?

Hell why not build a giant hampster wheel?

Reply 29

2016_GCSE

Nuclear can be disastrous especially in a dense small country like the UK.

SIGN THE PETITION!

Reply 30

Napp

Kind of speaks for itself right?

Reply 31

2016_GCSE

Original post by Napp

Kind of speaks for itself right?

And wind is good Look at Denmark. Wind produced 42.1% of Denmark's electricity in 2015!

Reply 32

CurlyBen

Original post by Napp

Kind of speaks for itself right?

That the person who produced the graph doesn't understand physics?

Reply 33

Napp

Original post by CurlyBen

That the person who produced the graph doesn't understand physics?

My mistake that concerns the value for money :rolleyes:

That's better.

Reply 34

hippohops

Original post by KingBradly

Nuclear power is the best answer to global warming. These days it's very safe.

I'm sorry but nuclear is STILL dangerous. I can't believe anyone could say it is "safe". It is a lie that nuclear is safe. If an accident occured in any nuclear reactor, it would cause large quantities of deadly radiation to be released into the environment causing the most horrific damage. Why would we want to risk that? Why put our lives, health, safety and trust in a big money driven organisation, just hoping to not have an accident which could potentially cause immense damage?
I realise we put our trust in big organisations every day, but surely you have to agree that this takes it to the extreme because it is nuclear; if something went wrong, the damage would harm so many people, while causing unreparable & uncalculatable damage to the evironment.

Furthermore... Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Why would we want even the minimal amounts of that in our water, our air?

...And these are not the only reasons it is dangerous!

Nuclear power is not clean nor renewable, nor safe, so it is not a wise option all round.

Original post by limetang

It's not safe, it's not evironmentally friendly.

"Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity. These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies."
http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html

"...high-level waste remains dangerously radioactive for 240,000 years or more." "After half a century of research there are still no satisfactory solutions to this problem."

"Uranium reserves are limited and this fuel problem cannot be solved with fast breeder technology because even after decennia of research, fast breeders are a technical and economical failure. Moreover plutonium, the fuel for fast breeders, is extremely poisonous and dangerous as well as being the basis for nuclear weapons."
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf

"Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors."

Nuclear has the ability to cause horrific problems that humanity is not able to handle.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 35

hippohops

Also... Back to where @limetang said "nuclear is a safe, environmentally friendly option for generating power on a scale that dwarfs (pound for pound spent on infrastructure) than renewables."

Well first I want to say: Surely safety, human and environmental health is more important than whatever amount of money is spent in the short or long term?

Either way though, there are lots of alternative energy sources and the costs of renewable sources are falling. For example:

In Australia - Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels: http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-new-fossil-fuels-in-australia/
"The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date”, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.

Since 2011, the cost of wind generation has fallen by 10% and the cost of solar photovoltaics by 29%. In contrast, the cost of energy from new fossil-fuelled plants is high and rising."

UK - "New onshore windfarms are now the cheapest way for a power company to produce electricity in Britain, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/07/onshore-wind-farms-cheapest-form-of-uk-electricity-report-shows

"Costs have dropped to $85 (£55) per megawatt hour (MWh) compared with the current costs of about $115 for constructing coal or gas-fired plants, its analysis found." "The price of wind, which has fallen from $108 just 12 months ago, compares with nuclear which Bloomberg assesses at $190"

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 36

CurlyBen

Original post by Napp

My mistake that concerns the value for money :rolleyes:

That's better.

Wonderful.
It's not really relevant though, is it? Efficiency is only part of the story. With something like solar, geothermal or nuclear where input energy is cheap/free, plentiful and lacking emissions efficiency isn't all that important. Going by that graph clearly we should just be looking at hydroelectric power, but it doesn't consider the energy to get the water into the reservoir in the first place (a lot of hydroelectric power is pumped storage).

Original post by hippohops

You don't really know much about nuclear power, do you? For a start, coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity than nuclear power stations. As does the granite in Cornwall and Aberdeen.

As for safety, I very briefly worked as a design engineer for a company that designed fuel handling equipment for nuclear power stations. Safety is absolutely paramount, regardless of the cost (although if you're determined to think they're solely profit motivated, unplanned reactor outages cost of the order of a million pounds a day). The level of analysis and sheer anal retentiveness when it came to safety, interlocks, failsafes etc etc etc was part of the reason I left - it's incredibly tedious. Essential, but tedious. It's not an environment where a few quid will be saved at the cost of a real or imagined reduction in safety.

And an accident is highly unlikely to release radioactivity even if one were to occur. It's possible, yes, but highly unlikely. And please don't mention Chernobyl - that was universally recognised as a poor design, not least because it was unstable at low power settings and vulnerable to positive feedback. There are no operating reactors that could behave in the same way. And just to be clear, the accident at Chernobyl was NOT a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion.

Reply 37

Studentus-anonymous

Just wanted to say I didn't sign that anti-science radiophobic drivel petition.

Mainly because on pretty much all counts nuclear is the best option. Efficient, relatively clean and you don't need to festoon hillsides or estuaries with reactors to meet UK needs.

Between nuclear and hydro, other renewables will always be nothing more than complimentary fractions of UK energy.

Reply 38

Napp

Original post by CurlyBen

Indeed it is, so is sustainability, cost, pollution, economics etc.
Some Hydro-plants require that some dont.. As with wind/tidal/solar though once they're made and operational no further input is required bar maintenance whilst coal/gas/oil/nuclear require refuelling from every once in while to constantly not to mention the tonnes of pollution of varying sorts.

. As does the granite in Cornwall and Aberdeen.

Given that granite emits Radon in quantities which is more or less harmless unless under natural conditions whilst spent fuel rods are rather dangerous..

As for safety, I very briefly worked as a design engineer for a company that designed fuel handling equipment for nuclear power stations. Safety is absolutely paramount, regardless of the cost (although if you're determined to think they're solely profit motivated, unplanned reactor outages cost of the order of a million pounds a day). The level of analysis and sheer anal retentiveness when it came to safety, interlocks, failsafes etc etc etc was part of the reason I left - it's incredibly tedious. Essential, but tedious. It's not an environment where a few quid will be saved at the cost of a real or imagined reduction in safety.

I believe the poster was reffering to the instance where their is a containment breach or worse which whilst a million to one, the dice will sometimes role that way such as at worse Chernobyl and Fukushima and less serious in Sescale, 3 mile island and so on. Not to mention Americas seem to be built on a fault line.

And an accident is highly unlikely to release radioactivity even if one were to occur. It's possible, yes, but highly unlikely. And please don't mention Chernobyl - that was universally recognised as a poor design, not least because it was unstable at low power settings and vulnerable to positive feedback. There are no operating reactors that could behave in the same way. And just to be clear, the accident at Chernobyl was NOT a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion.

I'd cite Fukushima with the aforementioned reason, not every scenario can be predicted and prepared for... I dont personally dislike nuclear power but I do believe tht is the point they're trying to make.

Reply 39

Napp

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

The petition isnt against nuclear power stations or power persay its against this particular one where the tax payer/energy customer gets shafted, big time in terms of the cost to build and cost of electricity.