This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Nuclear industry too big to fail?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160

Teaddict

Again, I apologise for the long post.

Reply 161

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by Teaddict

Look @*=-+1!<>6

However, it would appear that whilst we share a similar belief in the environment; I assume that's why you support renewables so much, we differ when it comes to being realistic.

You cannot, I repeat, cannot, develop a sustainable energy policy for the future, devoid of fossil fuels, without nuclear power as the backbone of said policy. It's not going to happen and to attempt it would be grossly expensive; and when we have millions in fuel poverty it's hardly the right decision.

This maybe where im not being clear but i have stated it a number of times now. I do not believe we can do without nuclear. I believe that nuclear will never be the cheapest energy source, we clearly need some but shouldn't plan on it being our primary energy source as quite simply our money could be better spent.

You clearly believe that thorium is the future so are you not in the slightest bit concerned that our energy strategy is all about uranium?

Original post by Teaddict

I do believe we should be investing in renewable energy, however, this shouldn't include solar power or wind power. Both are inefficient, inefficient, relatively expensive, use up massive amounts of land and are unbelievably hideous.

In all honesty i am not overly concerned with the environment. I live quite close to a nuclear power plant but i am not at all concerned with a nuclear disaster having a direct impact on me other than my pocket be that in the UK which is of course not very likely or elsewhere. Why anybody cares about the aesthetics of any power generation is totally beyond me. I disagree with you on solar, it does have a great amount of potential to be extremely cheap and needn't take up a lot of valuable space.

Original post by Teaddict

Without nuclear, the idea that we can aim for a low-carbon economy and move away from fossil fuels is nothing but a dream.

Agreed and I have never said anything of the sort.

Reply 162

Teaddict

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

You clearly believe that thorium is the future so are you not in the slightest bit concerned that our energy strategy is all about uranium?

I am not concerned in the sense that I oppose it; rather I would like to see some progress being made to adopt thorium as our primary material for nuclear fission.

In all honesty i am not overly concerned with the environment.

Then why are you supportive of inefficient and ineffective renewables? Usually that nonsense is reserved for Greens.

Why anybody cares about the aesthetics of any power generation is totally beyond me. I disagree with you on solar, it does have a great amount of potential to be extremely cheap and needn't take up a lot of valuable space.

It's not aesthetic in the sense of being a darling piece of architecture but rather aesthetics in the sense that it isn't a blight of the landscape. Solar power in the UK will never be extremely cheap and nor will it be that effective; solar power should be reserved to hotter climates that get far more energy from the sun; we don't get enough to warrant the huge investment in solar.

Agreed and I have never said anything of the sort.

You need to be more clear my friend; everyone on this thread has jumped on you because we are all under the impression you oppose nuclear. Be clear.

Reply 163

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by Teaddict

I am not concerned in the sense that I oppose it; rather I would like to see some progress being made to adopt thorium as our primary material for nuclear fission.

Not likely if we have a load of new uranium reactors.

Original post by Teaddict

Then why are you supportive of inefficient and ineffective renewables? Usually that nonsense is reserved for Greens.

I believe it will be cheaper

Original post by Teaddict

Solar power in the UK will never be extremely cheap and nor will it be that effective; solar power should be reserved to hotter climates that get far more energy from the sun; we don't get enough to warrant the huge investment in solar.

Not sure that is true or Germany wouldn't be the largest user of solar.

Original post by Teaddict

You need to be more clear my friend; everyone on this thread has jumped on you because we are all under the impression you oppose nuclear. Be clear.

I have made it quite clear several times, i dont expect you to read the whole thread but it does get tiresome repeating myself.

Reply 164

Teaddict

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Not likely if we have a load of new uranium reactors.

They can be converted. But this is a long term thing.

Not sure that is true or Germany wouldn't be the largest user of solar.

Germany has a large amount of solar and wind power. Neither have resulted in the closure of traditional power plants.

have made it quite clear several times, i dont expect you to read the whole thread but it does get tiresome repeating myself

Well on the last few pages where others and myself have spoken to you, you haven't given a hint of anything to the contrary.

Reply 165

JayTeeKay

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Errr no, that doesn't mean its commercially viable.

I'm not suggesting not using nuclear at all i'm suggesting we should keep it to a minimum

Do you understand the words "commercially viable"?
Energy has a price attached to it, because it costs money to generate energy. Nuclear power stations are commercially viable because the average cost of producing 1 kW-h of energy is low enough that it can then be sold at a competitive price -electricity produced by nuclear stations is among one of the cheapest commercial sources of electricity.
Ask yourself, if it costs so much money to generate energy from nuclear sources, why does France source almost 80% of its electricity from nuclear reactors? If it costs so much money for them to generate that electricity, why are they able to export it so easily?

France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe
Wikipedia

I advise you to become acquainted with the facts before you make a decision on something.

Reply 166

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by JayTeeKay

Another condescending and yet idiotic response.

SUBSIDIES

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 167

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by Teaddict

They can be converted. But this is a long term thing.

Bit wasteful though ?

Original post by Teaddict

Germany has a large amount of solar and wind power. Neither have resulted in the closure of traditional power plants.

Fair enough but my point was our latitude isn't that much of a hindrance.

Original post by Teaddict

Well on the last few pages where others and myself have spoken to you, you haven't given a hint of anything to the contrary.

On Previous page. Sure theres more examples.

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Its never been a rant against all nuclear. Some is clearly needed

Reply 168

Teaddict

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Fair enough but my point was our latitude isn't that much of a hindrance.

It's a hindrance if you expect some renewables, such as solar and wind, to replace traditional power plants.

Reply 169

nickbob00

Anyone who believes that wind or solar power can make anything more to a token contribution to our energy production is deluded. If you covered your whole roof in solar panels, on a sunny day you might be able to just about boil a travel kettle. Solar hot water heaters are not at all a bad idea, the best designs can produce warm water even in freezing temperatures.

Nuclear is the only feasible solution to our energy problems that isn't horribly polluting, end of. Gas is acceptable as an interim solution, and I'm sure as renewable energies become more mature (try 30-40 years) they will become competitive. Cold fusion is an ultimate goal, but that is probably about 50 years off the first commercial implementation. I would also like to point out how environmentally unfriendly current solar panels are to make, they are chocked full of toxic and rare metals, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out more energy is used in their production than they generate over their lifetime.

(When I say solar panels, what I mean is photovoltaic cells, the electricity producing variant.

Reply 170

mfaxford

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Fair enough but my point was our latitude isn't that much of a hindrance.

It's not just going to be about latitude though is it. Solar and wind both need large areas of land. Based on previous numbers I quote >100 wind turbines to match a smaller nuclear station in optimal condictions. That's a lot of space and space is at a premium in this country as we have so little of it. Solar is only really reasonable if you can guarentee little cloud cover based on the last month we'de have struggled. Solar also relies a lot on being able to store power (We need the power more when it's dark - when the sun isn't shining on those solar panels). We're not really in a position to store that sort of energy in any sensible way (look at the issues with electric cars).

Out of wind and solar I don't believe that solar is really that feasible on a large scale. Wind maybe possible but requires large amounts of space so the only real choice is offshore wind farms. This pushes the cost up significantly and I doubt those costs are going to reduce. We've not really made any real technological advances in wind turbines for a number of years so I'm not sure how the costs are likely to drop. A couple of years ago the uptake of wind power was so low the main factory for them in this contry closed (search for vestas on the Isle of Wight)

For a couple of interesting bits of reading:

•

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom: Gives an installed capacity of wind power at 5GW.

•

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom: Adding up the numbers gives nuclear a capacity of 11GW.

This would suggest that, at least in this country, wind power isn't that small in comparison to Nuclear so I'm not really sure how "Nuclear industry too big to fail" can be true. It would also suggest that both wind power and nuclear power are both fairly well developed technologies.

As has been previously been discussed there are potentials for nuclear power to make it cheaper and safer (Thorium). The only real advance I'm aware of recently with wind power has made it more expensive (moving offshore).

I'm not really sure what argument you're trying to make against nuclear now. From what I remember of the tread I think it can be sumarised as follows:

•

Cost: At least at present Nuclear is cheaper overall than wind. This may change slightly.

•

Safety: The impact of a nuclear disaster might be higher but the likelyhood is extremely low. In terms of a risk analysis it would probably come out with a similar score to Wind.

•

Technological development: Both are already pretty well developed. There are some advances in the pipeline for Nuclear (Thorium Reactors)

•

Comercial viability: New nuclear stations won't be subsidised (in theory). Wind power is still heavily subsidised.

The one point that hasn't been discussed yet that is the major win for Wind/Solar power. They can be done on a small scale (at least for the hobbyist). There's an interesting project I've come accross to run an Amateur radio repeater from solar/wind. When it's worked it's been successful, but based on the blog they've had all sorts of issues as well (http://www.gb3jb.blogspot.com/). I've personally had a go with some solar power as well. However it's usually been limited by the lack of sunlight!