Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    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.
    Indeed. So posting a single graph and presenting it as a self contained argument was a little silly (though I still maintain the first graph you posted just shows the person that produced it doesn't understand physics).
    Given that granite emits radon in quantities which is more or less harmless unless under natural conditions whilst spent fuel rods are rather dangerous..
    I'm not suggesting that radon is particularly dangerous, but it's still a greater source of atmospheric radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I was responding to statement "Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water" which just isn't the case.

    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
    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.
    Airliners used to fall out of the sky on a regular basis. Does that mean you won't get on a plane? We have moved on somewhat.
    2 workers burned to death on a wind turbine a couple of years ago. 4 died and 300 were injured in the UK over a five year period. Surely we should be banning wind turbines on safety grounds? Or are those deaths ok because they don't get much media coverage, in the way a nuclear accident would? After all, we've seen two INES level 7 incidents in the 60 years that nuclear power plants have been around. Of those, only one has actually killed anyone as yet. And let's just put Fukushima into perspective: the meltdowns are expected to cause somewhere in the region of 100-600 premature deaths. The earthquake which lead to those meltdowns killed close to 20,000 people. I do understand that the thought of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant is scary, but if you look at the facts and understand why previous accidents have happened... the risk is pretty minimal.
    How would you fancy living next to a wind turbine? Failures like this are not infrequent
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Indeed. So posting a single graph and presenting it as a self contained argument was a little silly (though I still maintain the first graph you posted just shows the person that produced it doesn't understand physics).
    I'd assume that said graph is representitive of life time costs and since wind is for all intents infinite after construction very few costs are occured.

    I'm not suggesting that radon is particularly dangerous, but it's still a greater source of atmospheric radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I was responding to statement "Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water" which just isn't the case.
    Well technically speaking everything does but many of the older plants for instance will discharge low level waste usually water if i recall, into the sea. Compared to coal ash i dont dispute that though.

    Airliners used to fall out of the sky on a regular basis. Does that mean you won't get on a plane? We have moved on somewhat.
    2 workers burned to death on a wind turbine a couple of years ago. 4 died and 300 were injured in the UK over a five year period. Surely we should be banning wind turbines on safety grounds? Or are those deaths ok because they don't get much media coverage, in the way a nuclear accident would? After all, we've seen two INES level 7 incidents in the 60 years that nuclear power plants have been around. Of those, only one has actually killed anyone as yet. And let's just put Fukushima into perspective: the meltdowns are expected to cause somewhere in the region of 100-600 premature deaths. The earthquake which lead to those meltdowns killed close to 20,000 people. I do understand that the thought of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant is scary, but if you look at the facts and understand why previous accidents have happened... the risk is pretty minimal.
    How would you fancy living next to a wind turbine? Failures like this are not infrequent
    Thats somewhat facetious isnt it? the difference between an airliner falling to earth and a meltdown are somewhat different in terms of scope. Same with follow up remarks. I was merely making the point that nuclear plants can and do go wrong and when they do it can be rther bad, hence the other posters remarks on it. I'm fully aware of the odds but also that because it shouldnt doesnt mean it wont not to mention the arguement that their sheer complexity is in itself a fault as much more can go wrong.
    I'd object to the noise and sight of it more than anything else but either way i know what your point is and personally im not worried about nuclear power as such im just aware of what could happen. With regards to Fukushima though werent they relatively lucky in that most of the fuel is either still in the RPV or otherwise in the PCV instead of being blown out as with chernobl?
    Either way my only objection to said plant is the cost and the terrible contract for the tax payer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I'd assume that said graph is representitive of life time costs and since wind is for all intents infinite after construction very few costs are occured.
    I'm not sure we're looking at the same graph - the first one implies wind turbines etc. can create energy, I don't see anything related to money? I think the maintenance costs of wind turbines is very much non-negligible though, especially when built offshore, and the turbines certainly don't have an infinite lifespan!


    Thats somewhat facetious isnt it? the difference between an airliner falling to earth and a meltdown are somewhat different in terms of scope. Same with follow up remarks. I was merely making the point that nuclear plants can and do go wrong and when they do it can be rther bad, hence the other posters remarks on it. I'm fully aware of the odds but also that because it shouldnt doesnt mean it wont not to mention the arguement that their sheer complexity is in itself a fault as much more can go wrong.
    I'd object to the noise and sight of it more than anything else but either way i know what your point is and personally im not worried about nuclear power as such im just aware of what could happen. With regards to Fukushima though werent they relatively lucky in that most of the fuel is either still in the RPV or otherwise in the PCV instead of being blown out as with chernobl?
    Either way my only objection to said plant is the cost and the terrible contract for the tax payer.
    Is it facetious? The A380 has been certified to carry nearly 900 people (I don't know if any configured that way have actually been delivered in fairness) and there's a reasonable chance a crash would kill everyone on board. That's more than the worst case predictions for total deaths related to Fukushima. Though that wasn't my point - I was trying to illustrate that judging the safety of new build plants by the safety record of plants designed 50 or 60 years ago is dubious at best, just as you wouldn't judge the safety of the A380 by the record of the DC10.
    Anyway objecting to the terms of the contract is fair enough. My prior post was just intended to counter the somewhat hysterical and ill-informed post I quoted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    You have to be clinically insane to think that renewable can replace nuclear. It is the future. Renewable is a stopgap and will be gone by the time fusion becomes viable.

    Nuclear fission really isn't a long term solution to energy. It's too polluting, too expensive and too dangerous.

    Fission is also inherently dangerous, just because it's fission. There are places in Sellafield where people can only wok for 5 minutes before they have to leave. Building 30/31 and the storage pond, both of which require desperate maintinance that no one can do because no one can go near it.

    A Fusion based commercial grid could realistically be another 100 years away.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hippohops)
    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.
    You are correct in stating that nuclear is not 100% safe. However, when comparing impacts, you can't look at Chernobyl or Fukushima and the handful of other nuclear incidents around the world without comparing it to other forms of energy production. Chernobyl did kill quite a few people but not as many as expected and Fukushima killed no one although 6 people did die of potentially related illnesses.

    By comparison, the number of people killed by pollution caused by burning fossil fuels runs into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. It is true that these folks were not killed as a direct cause of the power generation i.e. a station blowing up, but had the stations not been there, they would still be living.

    Safety and risk is something humans are hopeless at judging. We fear terrorism and spend billions to prevent it but are massively more likely to be killed by a car outside our own home.

    Nuclear is not 100% safe, but working in and around a nuclear facility is much safer than a typical industrial setting simply because awareness and regulation are so much tighter.

    The safety argument doesn't really stack up in a rational argument. I believe Germany's decision to get rid of nuclear was more emotional / political than rational. However, the one argument that does weigh heavily against nuclear is waste and decommissioning. These are two massive issues.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    And when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
    Then we'll have to run off hydroelectric and/or the batteries we've been charging while the sun was shining and the wind blowing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Nuclear fission really isn't a long term solution to energy. It's too polluting, too expensive and too dangerous.

    Fission is also inherently dangerous, just because it's fission. There are places in Sellafield where people can only wok for 5 minutes before they have to leave. Building 30/31 and the storage pond, both of which require desperate maintinance that no one can do because no one can go near it.

    A Fusion based commercial grid could realistically be another 100 years away.
    Yes Fission is dangerous, but it is the only solution. Wind and solar take up too much room and provide little energy.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Napp)


    Kind of speaks for itself right?
    What it fails to tell people is that coal costs pennies, is more flexible in terms of power outage and subject to planning approval ect.. can be operational within 2 years.

    I'm a big fan of renewable energy for the future but until Germany hits 75% for the full year, we should avoid shafting the taxpayer by going for currently expensive options.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What is it with people and their petitions these days?

    The football match didn't go the way I wanted it! : Make a petition!
    The exam was too hard! : Make a petition!
    My cat got stuck up a tree! : Lets make a petition!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    Yes Fission is dangerous, but it is the only solution. Wind and solar take up too much room and provide little energy.
    Denmark broke the world record for wind power in 2015, producing 42% of its electricity from turbines.

    Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:

    Yes, Great for a country that only has 5 million living in it. But compared to our 64 million, that reliance on wind power couldn't happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    Yes, Great for a country that only has 5 million living in it. But compared to our 64 million, that reliance on wind power couldn't happen.
    It's a difficult one with wind especially compared to other renewables, though we do have a lot of space that is unused and for example instead of using up more & more space to store radioactive waste or to mine or for fracking (all dirty & damaging industries which would be nice to slowly phase out) we could be considering where to place more renewable technologies and systems. Of course Denmark itself has a long way to go but I wonder if certain countries made a trade agreement, increasing connections, there could be a way to do it larger scale. But it would have to be a big long term agreement and not just with wind obviously. Just some thoughts I had, it really depends on so many things doesn't it
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Liberals and Conservatives are all bad as each other...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    nah, nuclear is great

    I love the stat that the radiation emissions from coal-fired power stations are actually greater than those from nuclear :lol:
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    Yes, Great for a country that only has 5 million living in it. But compared to our 64 million, that reliance on wind power couldn't happen.
    Germany is a better guide for the UK (31% renewable in 2015).

    We should let them do the heavy work and then once they reach 75% only then should we think about making a move.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    I suggest all those supporting Nuclear go and live right next door to the plant and lets use your back garden as a dumping ground for deadly radioactive waste. 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. Nuclear Power in its current state, is wasteful, expensive, creates fewer jobs than renewable alternatives, is still short term and an unnecessary risk.

    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!
    We do pay for it.. who do you think is paying for it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    And wind is good Look at Denmark. Wind produced 42.1% of Denmark's electricity in 2015!
    Population - 5.5 million so about 2 million people or so. LOL wind energy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Population - 5.5 million so about 2 million people or so. LOL wind energy
    Based on sizeof country to population though we are fairly in line.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    renewables are ok if you want to fund them on your land privately but otherwise there no real commercial aspect to them or just buy investments in the field there a company who let you buy in for £10,000
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    nah, nuclear is greatI love the stat that the radiation emissions from coal-fired power stations are actually greater than those from nuclear :lol:
    Even if radiation emissions alone might be less from nuclear than coal-fired power stations, that doesn't mean they aren't both dirty industries. Nuclear is still highly dirty for various reasons. For instance, think about the damage done to environment & people by uranium mining. Look right now at campaigns going on in (e.g.) Greenland against it being done.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 29, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.