Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Personally, I'd rather live next to something like this:


    Sizewell B produces about 1.2GW and only takes up a few hundred of acres on some scrubland near the coast. You'd need a gigantic wind farm with over 600 turbines on a bloody windy hill (which are mostly in national parks and areas of natural beauty) to produce that much and you'd need a LOT more than a couple of hundred acres.

    This wishy washy "oh let's all build wind turbines" crap makes me so angry. The only viable solution to the UK's energy needs is nuclear and government's procrastination and the red tape the envirocretins are causing isn't helping.
    Nuclear energy isn't without substantial environmental damage caused indirectly through uranium mining and severe pollution from uranium enrichment plants [O Hai Sellafield!]. Whilst you might reduce the impact of climate change, the ecological damage to the world would be severe if we got up and replaced all fossil fuel plants with fission plants overnight.

    In truth, no single solution can be sought, at least not until we have a viable fusion reactor [HiPER looks promising but it's still a while away]. We need to mix and match between renewables and nuclear if you want sustainable energy, and considering that uranium can't be sourced in the UK in any sizeable quantities, it's politically prudent not to put all of our eggs in someone else's basket.

    The 15GW proposal for the Severn Barrage might be a good start, assuming that the environmental factors can be offset by the creation of marshes further down the coast, or by protecting them somehow. Combine that with the 20-30GW of Turbines, and a new generation of nuclear reactors, and we could be producing zero carbon through energy generation by the late 2020s.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Nuclear energy isn't without substantial environmental damage caused indirectly through uranium mining and severe pollution from uranium enrichment plants [O Hai Sellafield!]. Whilst you might reduce the impact of climate change, the ecological damage to the world would be severe if we got up and replaced all fossil fuel plants with fission plants overnight.
    "Severe" = what, exactly? Uranium mining is no more damaging than regular mining, while the quantities that need to be extracted are far smaller. What did Sellafield do? As far as I am aware, the only harm it is accused of is a tenuous correlation between proximity to the site and very marginal increases in some types of cancer.

    In truth, no single solution can be sought, at least not until we have a viable fusion reactor [HiPER looks promising but it's still a while away]. We need to mix and match between renewables and nuclear if you want sustainable energy, and considering that uranium can't be sourced in the UK in any sizeable quantities, it's politically prudent not to put all of our eggs in someone else's basket.
    If a single solution is clearly better than all the other possibilities then it seems like a very good idea to put all your eggs in that basket. If you really think we're going to be held to ransom by such unstable anti-British uranium producers as Australia and Canada, nuclear fuel is compact enough to simply stockpile.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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