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

Nuclear Power: Accelerate or Blackouts? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By 2017, Britain will be facing an electricity shortage. Fact.

    Nuclear power is one option to secure our energy supplies and the Government has chosen to accelerate the building of stations through a specially appointed planning committee that can make decisions without going through normal planning procedures. Is this right? Is Nuclear the answer?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear is the answer. In the fusion form however. Although fission will have to do until we manage that one...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Now that you said "Fact.", I'm completely convinced. You need to provide evidence for any outrageous claim...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The "Fact" that I work in the industry means that I am confident in my facts. If you need more proof, read the governments white paper on energy policy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Some people love burying their heads in the sand. Climate change is a myth, swine flu is a myth. Energy shortage must be a myth. Wait till they get their energy bills in 5 or 10 years time and people are starting to pay a significant amount of their income on paying for energy.

    In South Africa during the 90s experts were warning about blackouts unless they did something about their energy problems, people said it was scaremongering, in 2007 they started load shedding, and thats the sort of thing that will come in here at some point during the next 7-12 years unless we get a serious solution. The government turns the power off in your region for a couple of hours every day on a rota, eg you will be off 8am-10am one day, then 10-12 the next day, 12-2 the day after that etc. When it goes off everything goes off, the traffic lights, freezers, everything that doesn't have a generator, so businesses have to invest in generators.

    I think a full non biased debate has to be held, as with all issues in science, on the pros and cons of nuclear power. We will have to accept there are serious cons with nuclear power, and weigh up whether they are acceptable risks and costs to pay. Something serious needs to be done and the long term solution is in renewable energy but there will be a time gap between us being in deep sheet and renewable energy being technologically ready to meet our needs, so the pro-nuclear argument is generally of "one more heave" to use nuclear power to guarantee our energy.

    However I have doubts as to whether the nuclear option will get properly off the ground due to the scale of our budget deficit. It will need some serious investment and very high input costs, which will have to come from massive government subsidies which just won't be forthcoming at the moment.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    When we have reports of companies like BP reporting billions in profit and our own British Gas reporting a profit of 500m last year why is it up to the taxpayer to fund new plants through the government?

    We should have gone Nuclear years ago when the French did (who we now import electric off)
    We should have been stricter with building design years ago using solar gains, insulation and communal spaces.
    We should have invested more in renewable energy sooner such as offshore windfarms and groundsource pumps.

    A lot of this was preached whilst I was still at school, yet it's only just coming into action now.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    The "Fact" that I work in the industry means that I am confident in my facts. If you need more proof, read the governments white paper on energy policy.
    Not that I'm disagreeing you, but all I hear in current days is that the goverment is failing its promises, and that nearly everyone in England didn't want to be part of the EU (UK less power QQ) Power house, making us a big "country", the goverment did it anyway without a referendum. (I had to start my point somewhere).

    But, we have high electricity prices compared to the rest of the world, and -we seem to pay more tax- so why are we going to get an energy shortage? We pay more, we should get more.

    In my Town, they are thinking of building a powerplant (nuclear, when there is already one) out of 10 possible place, I was going to go to the talk, but I had to send questions in to begin with, which would mean they would have time to evade, disarm or mayeb answer them, such as: Evinromental factors, chance of breakdown, then onto the things which would make me comfortable; cheaper electricity? If not then why the hell would we want one? The lives of many outweigh the lives of thousands.

    To be honest I don't care if they put powerplants (nuclear) ones up, just aslong as it's a good alternative (we still make less CO2 than our conterparts) and aslong as my goldfish doesn't have three eyes. O.o and I don't want cancer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    The "Fact" that I work in the industry means that I am confident in my facts. If you need more proof, read the governments white paper on energy policy.
    there are enough hydrocarbon reserves for the next 80 years, all other fuels are more copious. unless the worlds population doubles almost four times in the next 7 years youre talking ********

    fact

    isnt it fun not to provide any evidence at all

    infact, im a geologsit so you know what - if you go 20 metres down into the crust the rest of the earth is oil and gas, theres no core or mantle, just oil and gas

    fact

    isnt this fun

    or maybe i should use caps lock

    FACT
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Exalted and Worshipped Member? I don't see why :P
    I thought that the study was 100 years of hydrocarbons left (10 years ago) and that in 2005 the figure was actually running out by 2090 (after they said 2200 or so).
    But there are thousands, if not millions of oil et cetera unfound in the world today, and people are thinking of using a solar panel close to the sun for energy, so if that works in the next 100 years, the figure could go up, by using a bit less fossil fuels, or we might hit a big haul, or reduce CO2, and reduce hyrdocarbon usage.

    But he didn't say we would run out of hydrocarbons, so I just wasted 4 minutes of my life, kudos.
    You should ask what/why we would face power shortages? Greedy other countries, cost of oil, other variables.
    Please try to use punctuation and more grammar because it looks like you're trolling. FACT.

    I get where you're going, but you could have went straight to the point, and prove that when you go 20 metres down blah blah.
    There's a 30 metre hole within a mile of me, no oil, no gas, just dirt, pure unadulterated dirt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    The "Fact" that I work in the industry means that I am confident in my facts. If you need more proof, read the governments white paper on energy policy.
    i work in the canteen for atlantic enrgy and i kno that the uk will be able to burn coal for are energy forever becaus we have the best miners in the world GO MINERS
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Immortalis)
    Exalted and Worshipped Member? I don't see why :P
    I thought that the study was 100 years of hydrocarbons left (10 years ago) and that in 2005 the figure was actually running out by 2090 (after they said 2200 or so).
    But there are thousands, if not millions of oil et cetera unfound in the world today, and people are thinking of using a solar panel close to the sun for energy, so if that works in the next 100 years, the figure could go up, by using a bit less fossil fuels, or we might hit a big haul, or reduce CO2, and reduce hyrdocarbon usage.

    But he didn't say we would run out of hydrocarbons, so I just wasted 4 minutes of my life, kudos.
    You should ask what/why we would face power shortages? Greedy other countries, cost of oil, other variables.
    Please try to use punctuation and more grammar because it looks like you're trolling. FACT.

    I get where you're going, but you could have went straight to the point, and prove that when you go 20 metres down blah blah.
    There's a 30 metre hole within a mile of me, no oil, no gas, just dirt, pure unadulterated dirt.
    probably because i've been on this forum for more than a week, as anyone but an absolute numpty would know that status goes by post numbers

    there are many estimates of what hydrocarbon reserves are left, which constantly changes due to usage changes, more reserves and resources being discovered, and the ability to recover reserves that werent available before.

    no, he said electricity - im geussing if there are reserves of fuel that can generate electricity for longer than stated then my point would be correct? or are you just a daft little troll?

    and lol at the little weeny with 0 posts calling someone a troll. go away
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why aren't we looking into hydrogen fuel?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely. It is infeasible to obtain enough energy through renewable energy sources and building nuclear power stations seems the only option to meet the UK's demand cheaply and effectively. Besides, nuclear waste from fission doesn't harm the planet that much especially when exposed of correctly, which it will. It is worth investing in fission now because that means we will soon develop technology to harness fusion which has absolutely no down-sides.

    :top:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Why aren't we looking into hydrogen fuel?
    It's next to impossible to transport the stuff at current until a huge amount is invested to find a means of transport, in which case the returns from the investment compared to nuclear power investments seem worthless.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    It's next to impossible to transport the stuff at current until a huge amount is invested to find a means of transport, in which case the returns from the investment compared to nuclear power investments seem worthless.
    hey, we drive around in high speed capsules, listen to endess hours of music on a small black box and can communicate with people from the other side of the world through a device the size of a cigarette pack. Who knows... Anything's possible :o:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    By 2017, Britain will be facing an electricity shortage. Fact.
    What gives rise to you claiming this is a fact?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    probably because i've been on this forum for more than a week, as anyone but an absolute numpty would know that status goes by post numbers

    there are many estimates of what hydrocarbon reserves are left, which constantly changes due to usage changes, more reserves and resources being discovered, and the ability to recover reserves that werent available before.

    no, he said electricity - im geussing if there are reserves of fuel that can generate electricity for longer than stated then my point would be correct? or are you just a daft little troll?

    and lol at the little weeny with 0 posts calling someone a troll. go away
    Wow, you had to point out he said electricity "But he didn't say we would run out of hydrocarbons" implies he said something else, which is electricity, you are really observant.

    I implied that the amount of hydrocarbons left fluctuates, no need to point it out to me. I stated there are lots of unfound ones, bound to be found, so thanks for pointing it out. I said somewhere abouting reducing CO2 and hydrocarbon usage, which anyone but a numpty would know would increase the amount of time we have those reserves of hydrocarbons currently left.

    Try quintupling your guess, otherwise it fails as much as your ability to copy what people say and then replying to them, then putting it in your own words, without CaPiTaL lEtTeRs, and spelling mistakes with a big hint of grammatical error.

    By the way, the "status" is about the quality of posts, and what other people think of them, not about the sheer number of spam you have amassed.

    Go away? Metaphorically, physically, spiritually, emtionally, sympathetically. This isn't your site, I have just as much right to be here as you, I live in my home town "born and raised", I'm not a sprite, I don't attach myself to commonplace flamers, and I actually agreed with you, but only a "numpty" wouldn't have been able to see it.

    You're patheic, I could add some slander, and probably have the best "anti-troll" post for a few weeks, but I think people deserve respect, by the way, well worded post. :P

    (In case you didn't get it, I posted before that a smiley = sarcasm)

    P.S: Fusion may be a few years away if they can harness the power of coliders. :P
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Howard)
    What gives rise to you claiming this is a fact?
    In 2016 a lot of old power stations are set to be decommissioned, and with no new plans for new ones you can guess what's going to happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What gives rise to you claiming this is a fact?
    He works in the British Energy offices in East Kilbride which specialises in nuclear power.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree with the OP on the fact that we are facing shortages unless we build new generation capacity (I also work in the energy industry, in R&D and consultancy). I don't agree that nuclear is the only answer, it is part of the answer. The problem is that not only do we have the decommissioning of nuclear and non-nuclear assets by 2016, but we also have the problem of an increased percentage of intermittant renewables coming on line which will require increasing flexibility for other types of generation. The problem with nukes is that we don't have a history of flexible operation in our fleet in Britain and, although OEMs tell us that the new nukes are flexible, they aren't keen on telling us the cost of flexible operation, which makes me think that it is relatively high. We have to look at new coal and gas fleet as well (probably mostly gas given the environmental and time constraints) and even then the flexibility demands are going to make these plant expensive.

    We need a diverse and flexible generation portfolio in the UK, we are running out of time fast to get this up and running and that will mean bad decisions and big increases in costs to consumers (or failure to met environmental targets or both). The new government formed in May/June needs to hit the ground running or there will be a big problem (there still will be a problem as it is too late to avoid that).
 
 
 
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: February 23, 2010
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.