[Joinedup]

The german nuclear station building consortium of eon and rwe has pulled the plug on building new capacity in britain. This leaves 2 consortia standing... French (edf) and french/spanish (nugen).
This certainly looks like a disaster for the economy of Anglesea where one of the rwe plants would have replaced the job losses from the closure of the existing power station.
Can the remaining consortia stay in play with the eurozone still in crisis? Will we be able to keep the lights on in a couple of years when the current nuclear stations are phased out? Would you think it's a good thing if the nuclear plans failed? (why?)

[Aj12]

Not too shocked. Nuclear power is horribly expensive and there is so much ignorance surrounding it. Ideally it would be one of the best ways to power the country. Since many so called green methods like wind turbines require rare earths and so are not actually renewable

[marcusfox]

If you are afraid of nuclear power, you are an idiot.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by marcusfox)
If you are afraid of nuclear power, you are an idiot.

Considering the risks of nuclear reactors I can appreciate that there would be a lot of fear/anger towards say, building a reactor right beside my house

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by Joinedup)
The german nuclear station building consortium of eon and rwe has pulled the plug on building new capacity in britain. This leaves 2 consortia standing... French (edf) and french/spanish (nugen).
This certainly looks like a disaster for the economy of Anglesea where one of the rwe plants would have replaced the job losses from the closure of the existing power station.
Can the remaining consortia stay in play with the eurozone still in crisis? Will we be able to keep the lights on in a couple of years when the current nuclear stations are phased out? Would you think it's a good thing if the nuclear plans failed? (why?)

I'm glad that nuclear reactors aren't coming, waste disposal will always be a problem.

I always wondered about geothermal energy, what's the problem with that?

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Considering the risks of nuclear reactors I can appreciate that there would be a lot of fear/anger towards say, building a reactor right beside my house

And yet where reactors exist they are supported by the population. It's one thing having lentil loving guardianistas complain about it but they produce a lot of employment for the local population.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I'm glad that nuclear reactors aren't coming, waste disposal will always be a problem.

Why 'always'?

Technological advancements have resulted in the latest reactors which are able to burn nuclear waste, leaving only a very small proportion which can be easily stored.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Considering the scientific illiteracy of the general population I can appreciate that there would be a lot of fear/anger towards say, building a reactor right beside my house

Fixed it for you.

Why a reactor? Are you OK with say, a coal fired power station? Wind turbine?

Now if you had said "any power station" I might agree with you, after all, it might spoil the view.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
And yet where reactors exist they are supported by the population. It's one thing having lentil loving guardianistas complain about it but they produce a lot of employment for the local population.

True, then again you could argue this applies for any new energy development such as tidal or geothermal .

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Why 'always'?

Technological advancements have resulted in the latest reactors which are able to burn nuclear waste, leaving only a very small proportion which can be easily stored.

I used "always" because of the long half-lives of plutonium/uranium, therefore any side-effects would last a substantial length of time.

Burning nuclear waste? I haven't heard of any tactic, then again it isn't well covered.

And even the waste that remains, is it buried underground? (insert argument discussing ecological impact)

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Fixed it for you.

Why a reactor? Are you OK with say, a coal fired power station? Wind turbine?

Now if you had said "any power station" I might agree with you, after all, it might spoil the view.

I wouldn't be the biggest fan of having a coal fired station either, but that's more because I wouldn't understand why they are investing in fossil fuels when it should be going on renewable resources.

If it was renewable I'd imagine being happy it's there until I realise how irritating it would be as a neighbour. E.g a wind turbine

Oh and surely the reason why the fear of it being on your doorstep is the event of a meltdown?

[doggyfizzel]

As has been said, it sad. Most of people's understanding of nuclear power is poor. Mistakes like the design of Fukishima are already being corrected, their are various bombardment methods being used to significantly shorten the lifetime's of the waste.

They are the best non CO2 producing option.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I used "always" because of the long half-lives of plutonium/uranium, therefore any side-effects would last a substantial length of time.

Burning nuclear waste? I haven't heard of any tactic, then again it isn't well covered.

And even the waste that remains, is it buried underground? (insert argument discussing ecological impact)

It isn't plutonium, uranium and the tens-of-millions-of-year long lived isotopes that are so much of a problem in nuclear waste, it is the short to medium term ones.

'Burning' as a reactor fuel, as opposed to 'burning' meaning oxidation.

Stored at power stations. The amounts really are miniscule. The UK doesn't bury waste - well, in the 50's and later they dumped it at sea, but not anymore.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I'm glad that nuclear reactors aren't coming, waste disposal will always be a problem.

I always wondered about geothermal energy, what's the problem with that?

There are many different types of nuclear reactor, several of them produce no waste, and all of them are very safe. New technologies using different fuels and wave-oscillatory systems do not produce any waste that needs disposal of. Also, why the talk of disposing it? Radioactive isotopes are useful, many industries make extensive use of them.

Also the radioactivity of an isotope is inversely proportional to its half-life; i.e. long lasting isotopes are less dangerous. The ones that last millennia are practically harmless. Short lasting isotopes are dangerous, but equally are not a problem for very long and so not a danger to the public. Medium length isotopes find frequent use in industry.

You're thinking of noteworthy nuclear incidents from the media which are sensationalist with lots of false information. For example, the UK does not experience earthquakes above 5 Richter, and Chernobyl was caused by a chemical explosion.

Many types of nuclear power plant are actually incapable of going into meltdown. Reactors which use graphite moderators will shut down safely even if all safety features are intentionally deactivated and efforts are made to actively cause a meltdown.

We can't use geothermal energy because the UK doesn't have any active volcanoes. Not enough energy available from geothermal to power more than a town.



I'd be happy to live next to a nuclear power station because I understand how they work. I'd suggest you go research the topic in depth before believing what lobbyists tell you to.

I would NOT be happy living next to a wind turbine, or indeed within about half a mile of one. They are dangerous, not structurally sound and not rated for wind speeds that are common in the UK.
(The flaw is the turbine blades are made of materials that are not sufficiently resistant to the stresses at the base of the blade - the BBC ran a story a few months back about people blaming a missing turbine blade on possible UFOs. The truth is it just snapped off. They have an abysmally high failure rate)

[marcusfox]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
I wouldn't be the biggest fan of having a coal fired station either, but that's more because I wouldn't understand why they are investing in fossil fuels when it should be going on renewable resources.

If it was renewable I'd imagine being happy it's there until I realise how irritating it would be as a neighbour. E.g a wind turbine

Oh and surely the reason why the fear of it being on your doorstep is the event of a meltdown?

And what makes you think it would melt-down?

You would be more likely to die from a tsunami obliterating your house.

Oh wait...

[Rakas21]

I oppose the current nuclear proposal but only because i believe that the time to transition to Thorium nuclear reactors is now.

If you begin the reaction using a particle accelerator and use the Flouride design then it is physically incapable of a meltdown and produces no waste.

Further, if production levels reach the same levels as Uranium then it could be as much as twenty times cheaper.

Wind is pointless in the UK, only achieving around 25% peak efficiency.

Solar is not a viable nationwide alternative because it would currently 5 times more to power the entire country (though even at current inefficiencies it could produce the power), it is however a good idea to build them on new homes and generate your own power for a while.

Geothermal is a very good option but only available in parts of the west of the UK (Cornwall and Scotland). You do not need volcanoes, you simply need pockets or trapped water under pressure to generate steam.

My energy policy would be to have a solar panel built on each new home, geothermal where possible and then Thorium nuclear for the bulk of the country.

[Manitude]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
They are the best non CO2 producing option.

I'd have thought that additional research into fusion technology would be the best option. Although I agree that within current technology, fission is best.

However, we should never rely completely on one source of energy.
Solar is a good potential source, if the efficiency can be improved. I heard somewhere that a typical solar panel is only about 10% efficient...if that can be increased to say, 50%, we can start investing in that.
Wind is controversial as it's a blot on the landscape. Tidal and wave also have similar complaints, as well as environmental issues with birds.

In regards to the rare earth metals argument someone presented before, my understanding is that the minerals are used in the magnets of the generator, so the same problem is applicable to all power generation. However I guess that a wind farm needs a lot more, but smaller, magnets than a nuclear/coal/gas etc power plant.

[Sir Digby Chicken]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
There are many different types of nuclear reactor, several of them produce no waste, and all of them are very safe. New technologies using different fuels and wave-oscillatory systems do not produce any waste that needs disposal of. Also, why the talk of disposing it? Radioactive isotopes are useful, many industries make extensive use of them.

You're thinking of noteworthy nuclear incidents from the media which are sensationalist with lots of false information. For example, the UK does not experience earthquakes above 5 Richter, and Chernobyl was caused by a chemical explosion.

Many types of nuclear power plant are actually incapable of going into meltdown. Reactors which use graphite moderators will shut down safely even if all safety features are intentionally deactivated and efforts are made to actively cause a meltdown.

We can't use geothermal energy because the UK doesn't have any active volcanoes. Not enough energy available from geothermal to power more than a town.



I'd be happy to live next to a nuclear power station because I understand how they work. I'd suggest you go research the topic in depth before believing what lobbyists tell you to.

I would NOT be happy living next to a wind turbine, or indeed within about half a mile of one. They are dangerous, not structurally sound and not rated for wind speeds that are common in the UK.
(The flaw is the turbine blades are made of materials that are not sufficiently resistant to the stresses at the base of the blade - the BBC ran a story a few months back about people blaming a missing turbine blade on possible UFOs. The truth is it just snapped off. They have an abysmally high failure rate)

Although I agreee with your sentiment on nuclear power, your part about wind turbines is rubbish. Wind turbines in the uk are more than capable of taking the stresses of the weather in the uk. Just because a few have broke doesn't mean they are all flawed. Do you actually think the engineers that designed these turbines are incompetent enough to not take into account all extreme weather conditions. With the health and safety rules in the uk they wouldn't even have been considered for commission without exstensive stress testing. The majority of the turbines used in the uk are rated at 3 MW and now they are introducing the new siemens SWT-6.0-120 wind turbines rated at 6.1 MW. The turbines in the uk are absolutely fine for use in the uk.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Manitude)
I'd have thought that additional research into fusion technology would be the best option. Although I agree that within current technology, fission is best.

However, we should never rely completely on one source of energy.
Solar is a good potential source, if the efficiency can be improved. I heard somewhere that a typical solar panel is only about 10% efficient...if that can be increased to say, 50%, we can start investing in that.
Wind is controversial as it's a blot on the landscape. Tidal and wave also have similar complaints, as well as environmental issues with birds.

In regards to the rare earth metals argument someone presented before, my understanding is that the minerals are used in the magnets of the generator, so the same problem is applicable to all power generation. However I guess that a wind farm needs a lot more, but smaller, magnets than a nuclear/coal/gas etc power plant.

More research into fusion will not help at the moment because a fusion plant is already being built (France i think) but because of the complexity it will have taken decades to build. Once it has been tested then i would assume that we would have a couple more tester plants to work out the kinks and speed up the building process, only then can we start building them so 2050+.

The newest solar technology is over 40% efficient and can generate electricity while cloudy (light, not sun is needed) but is 5 times more expensive per unit of electricity than Uranium nuclear.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Sir Digby Chicken)
Although I agreee with your sentiment on nuclear power, your part about wind turbines is rubbish. Wind turbines in the uk are more than capable of taking the stresses of the weather in the uk. Just because a few have broke doesn't mean they are all flawed.

Except for the majority of the time when it isn't windy. That's why every windfarm has a load bearing fossil fuel plant on standby to keep pumping in the juice the moment the wind drops.