The Student Room Group

Uk Nuclear Power

Scroll to see replies

bump
What do you think are the Conservative's policies regarding nuclear power?
bump
Reply 43
Fusion Power please.
Out of the effects of nuclear waste and fossil fuels, I pick nuclear as the least risky. That's why I think it should be used as a transition fuel, as we get off fossil fuels and develop other methods of producing energy. And at the moment, there is no way we'll have enough energy produced for the country's needs without one or the other (fossil fuels/nuclear).
Why is Scotland against nuclear power?
bump
Nuclear fission vs Wind farms?
Building solar panel fields in the desert?
These are the facts:

A handful of uranium contains more energy than 100 boxcars full of coal.

Consumption of energy creates more energy, not less.

Despite years of government subsidies (regulators, for instance, have forced utility companies to buy "renewables"), these same renewables generate only about 0.9 percent of our total electricity.

The most efficient solar panels currently in use (on the space station) are costly, and their conversion efficiency is about twenty percent, which is not very much.

Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate about 300 megawatts, a miniscule amount. Furthermore, those reflectors must be kept squeaky clean, maintained to the hilt, or they won't work.

At our current level of technology, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, or wave can meet even half the demand for energy.

All of you NEED to read this article http://mises.org/daily/3536

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Obscenedilemma
These are the facts:

A handful of uranium contains more energy than 100 boxcars full of coal.

Consumption of energy creates more energy, not less.

Despite years of government subsidies (regulators, for instance, have forced utility companies to buy "renewables"), these same renewables generate only about 0.9 percent of our total electricity.

The most efficient solar panels currently in use (on the space station) are costly, and their conversion efficiency is about twenty percent, which is not very much.

Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate about 300 megawatts, a miniscule amount. Furthermore, those reflectors must be kept squeaky clean, maintained to the hilt, or they won't work.

At our current level of technology, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, or wave can meet even half the demand for energy.

All of you NEED to read this article http://mises.org/daily/3536

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED


Thank you for your post, it will help me with my EPQ
Reply 51
I'm against nuclear energy on the basis that we would be completely and irrevocably ****ed if chernobyl were to happen here. I accept that the risk is minimal, but I'm not willing to take it.
Original post by kaosu_souzousha
What do you think about Nuclear Energy and its future in Britain?


- Most of british nuclear industry is controlled by EDF (energy de france)
- Major problems with nuclear fuel is that we could only use 3% of it and rest goes to dumps
- 4th generation of powerplants will increase it to about 12%
- Toxic waste reprocessing plants are doing a good job recycling the waste so that only a fraction has to be contained
- People who live near Nuclear Plants are exposed to some radiation but this yearly amount is equivalent to one flight in the plane.
- When Nuclear Power plant is running its almost carbon neutral


Electricité de France :tongue:.

I'm absoulutly for it as it will make more money for my country. Actually radiation are worth if you live over granite than "near" a nuclear power plant.
Reply 53
Original post by Manitude
Ideally we'd be on nuclear fusion as that will be a very inexpensive way of producing more energy than our civilisation could use in a million years or so.
Until then, fission is safe and efficient, the waste is a small problem but not as bad as the results of burning fossil fuels.
Incidents like Chernobyl don't happen when properly trained safety officers are working there.


Ni teivos aissur raelcun noqaew kcatta uoy.

:cool:
Reply 54
Original post by Stratos
Ni teivos aissur raelcun noqaew kcatta uoy.

:cool:


lol, took me a few minutes to work out what you meant there :P
Reply 55
Original post by Manitude
lol, took me a few minutes to work out what you meant there :P


You may have soviet blood in you.
Reply 56
Original post by Stratos
You may have soviet blood in you.


:pierre: I think not.
I'm all for nuclear power though I think the govt should still be investing in offshore wind etc as well so we have several sources of low carbon energy and can be less reliant on fossil fuels. But in terms of the most viable source of energy for the long term I think nuclear is the way forward.
Original post by LysFromParis
Electricité de France :tongue:.

I'm absoulutly for it as it will make more money for my country. Actually radiation are worth if you live over granite than "near" a nuclear power plant.


Thank you for clarifying the name :biggrin:. Did you know that they are building a 500 MW nuclear fusion prototype reactor in France? The first research based one is in Oxfordshire and only generates 16MW.

P.S. radiation is awesome (alpha, beta, gamma ... so much good stuff)
Original post by kaosu_souzousha
Thank you for clarifying the name :biggrin:. Did you know that they are building a 500 MW nuclear fusion prototype reactor in France? The first research based one is in Oxfordshire and only generates 16MW.

P.S. radiation is awesome (alpha, beta, gamma ... so much good stuff)


Yes, ITER in Cadarache (in the nice south of France). They are supposed to deliver a working prototype in 2025 and industrial reactor for 2050. Fusion create no pollution and it will be one of the greatest achievement of humanity.

Wind are solar could not be use over a certain per cent, you need a constant and reliable source of electricity which sun or wind are not (especially for the sun in UK ^^). Even using Nuclear Power plant you need to keep Gaz or fuel power plant to be able to react to consumption pick.

Regarding the PS, of course nuclear power plant carry some danger, but modern power plant and waste treatment make as minimal as it is possible, and it's pretty unlikely than those power plant explode, Chernobyl was based on a different technology and the power plant was poorly maintained.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending