Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

How can anyone be against all Nuclear Power? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Simple question really:

    How is it possible to be logically opposed to any and all use of Nuclear Power in the UK?

    What would you replace it with?

    How quickly?

    How would you overcome the main engineering/structural/economic challenges a your suggested grid would pose?

    My answers:

    I don't.

    More, newer nuclear plants (at least 20 - aim for 50% of UK energy needs minimum) and continue current slow growth of renewables, investing heavily in tidal and solar power.

    ASAP - preferably a decade ago! Definitely must fast track 10 - 15 new nuclear plants in the next couple of years.

    The main challenge from nuclear is long term storage - I would build a facility under the lake district (plans/designs are already in place and local interest has been noted). I would get this done as soon as possible - current plans will take 3 decades! I would also build many small nuclear plants around the country (few hundred MWs in capacity) with a recent technology that allows for rapid changes in the power of the output - these plants would be to use when the renewable sources were not running at capacity (low wind days) and during peak demand.

    PS: I work in the energy industry so expect some touch responses :P
    Offline

    12
    I support nuclear and events in Japan didn't change my mind. For starters, we're not exactly famous for having gigantic earthquakes and tsunamis in the UK! Secondly, even in Japan I was amazed that such an old and poorly built nuclear power plant seemed to cope as well as it did. Of course the media wants to make it look as bad as it can to get a story, but they haven't found that much of substance to talk about really. When you consider how many people might die in a coal mine without making people argue on that basis against coal power, it doesn't seem consistent to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Complete idiocy basically. I can't think of any other reason. Same reason that all sorts of people hold all sorts of moronic views.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear power is good...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    they're all luddites


    personally i don't see why we cant pump nuclear waste into empty oil wells. (theres probably a really obvious answer to this)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    they're all luddites


    personally i don't see why we cant pump nuclear waste into empty oil wells. (theres probably a really obvious answer to this)
    That it would leach out into the soil?

    It's perfectly fine where it is for the time being. Other than that, you can either bury it in huge highly engineered depositories like Yukka mountain, or put it in sealed canisters and bury it at the bottom of the ocean.

    Did you know the nuclear power necessary to provide you with all the energy you will ever need in your entire lifetime produces an amount of waste the size of a walnut?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    I would also build many small nuclear plants around the country (few hundred MWs in capacity) with a recent technology that allows for rapid changes in the power of the output - these plants would be to use when the renewable sources were not running at capacity (low wind days) and during peak demand.
    Equally how can anyone be so pro nuclear they totally overlook the financial cost?

    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    PS: I work in the energy industry so expect some touch responses :P
    I look forward to my touchings.

    PS: I'm not against all nuclear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Equally how can anyone be so pro nuclear they totally overlook the financial cost?

    I look forward to my touchings.

    PS: I'm not against all nuclear.
    What financial costs? It's considerably cheaper than renewable alternatives, no matter how much you attempt to fiddle the maths.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    That it would leach out into the soil?

    It's perfectly fine where it is for the time being. Other than that, you can either bury it in huge highly engineered depositories like Yukka mountain, or put it in sealed canisters and bury it at the bottom of the ocean.

    Did you know the nuclear power necessary to provide you with all the energy you will ever need in your entire lifetime produces an amount of waste the size of a walnut?
    the oil never leached into the soil, i thought they were basically sealed shut which is why they're looking into pumping co2 back into them. (they may already be doing this)

    if the whole oil well business isn't possible, i'm a fan of putting them in deposits where we can keep an eye on them, and hopefully in the future have the technology to deal with it properly (or just put it on a space elevator and throw it into the sun)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I support nuclear and events in Japan didn't change my mind. For starters, we're not exactly famous for having gigantic earthquakes and tsunamis in the UK! Secondly, even in Japan I was amazed that such an old and poorly built nuclear power plant seemed to cope as well as it did. Of course the media wants to make it look as bad as it can to get a story, but they haven't found that much of substance to talk about really. When you consider how many people might die in a coal mine without making people argue on that basis against coal power, it doesn't seem consistent to me.
    The Japanese government is going to be bailing TEPCO out. As a libertarian surely you can't feel this is coping well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    What financial costs? It's considerably cheaper than renewable alternatives, no matter how much you attempt to fiddle the maths.
    The financial costs of building lots of little reactors using expensive tech rather than big wasteful ones?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The thing with Nuclear power, is that people are scared out of their mind. Nuclear power is shrouded in secrecy, and a lot of people get their idea of nuclear power from The Simpsons. That alongside the fact that a nuclear accident has nationwide consequences, alongside the dangers posed by the waste material. It's made people terrified.

    More investment should be given to creating nuclear fusion power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    the oil never leached into the soil, i thought they were basically sealed shut which is why they're looking into pumping co2 back into them. (they may already be doing this)

    if the whole oil well business isn't possible, i'm a fan of putting them in deposits where we can keep an eye on them, and hopefully in the future have the technology to deal with it properly (or just put it on a space elevator and throw it into the sun)
    I remember reading a whole load of risk assessment surveys for the various options, and there are a number of viable options. I think it was quite critical of the oil well idea though.


    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    The financial costs of building lots of little reactors using expensive tech rather than big wasteful ones?
    It doesn't work out much more expensive than fossil fuel buring power stations in the long run. And taking into account the considerable externalities associated with fossil fuels (climate change, reliance on foreign suppliers, dangerous and dirty power stations, depletion of fuel materials), its probably our cheapest option. It's our only option.

    The choice comes down to embracing nuclear technology or giving up electricity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    It doesn't work out much more expensive than fossil fuel buring power stations in the long run. And taking into account the considerable externalities associated with fossil fuels (climate change, reliance on foreign suppliers, dangerous and dirty power stations, depletion of fuel materials), its probably our cheapest option. It's our only option.

    The choice comes down to embracing nuclear technology or giving up electricity.
    You've misunderstood. I'm saying HistoryRepeating overlooked the costs in their proposed solution.

    I agree with them that we need nuclear and that we should minimise our reliance on it. But it doesn't sound like a viable solution.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    i think people worrying so much about radiation and storage need to read radiation and reason (i'll admit now i've only read excerpts). the risks are greatly exaggerated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    they're all luddites


    personally i don't see why we cant pump nuclear waste into empty oil wells. (theres probably a really obvious answer to this)
    The storage containments needs to survive 10s of thousands of years. pumping into oil wells will contaminate surrounding ground and potentially also the sea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    The financial costs of building lots of little reactors using expensive tech rather than big wasteful ones?
    Its still vastly cheaper than wind, which is the only renewable power source in the UK currently able to supply more than a tiny fraction of our power needs. Distributed generation also has loads of structural advantages (reduces transmission losses, chance of outages etc)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would be great if we could all just pull our resources together and get nuclear fusion and superconductors put into practice. In an ideal world...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Simple question really:

    How is it possible to be logically opposed to any and all use of Nuclear Power in the UK?

    What would you replace it with?

    How quickly?

    How would you overcome the main engineering/structural/economic challenges a your suggested grid would pose?

    My answers:

    I don't.

    More, newer nuclear plants (at least 20 - aim for 50% of UK energy needs minimum) and continue current slow growth of renewables, investing heavily in tidal and solar power.

    ASAP - preferably a decade ago! Definitely must fast track 10 - 15 new nuclear plants in the next couple of years.

    The main challenge from nuclear is long term storage - I would build a facility under the lake district (plans/designs are already in place and local interest has been noted). I would get this done as soon as possible - current plans will take 3 decades! I would also build many small nuclear plants around the country (few hundred MWs in capacity) with a recent technology that allows for rapid changes in the power of the output - these plants would be to use when the renewable sources were not running at capacity (low wind days) and during peak demand.

    PS: I work in the energy industry so expect some touch responses :P
    Firstly, I know there is not local interest in using the Lake District as a storage facility. They have a fit about wind farms, let alone nuclear power. And who wants stored nuclear waste under their house? Especially in such a beautiful area of the UK.
    Admitably to fill the demand Nuclear currently fits the bill, but surely if we had invested more in alternatives sooner then we wouldn't have to rely mainly on nuclear?
    What about hydro? If you're prepared to fill the lakes with nuclear waste then surely you'd be prepared to fill up some empty valleys in scotland to power our ever increasing greed for energy?
    I know we have to have nuclear for our need but when most of our nuclear power stations are owned by EON, which is in turn owned by the French government then it brings questions over our independence for our own power.
    If we invested more in science and engineering we might get an even better alternative to nuclear thats cheaper, more efficient, and quicker to form an infrastructure for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Its still vastly cheaper than wind, which is the only renewable power source in the UK currently able to supply more than a tiny fraction of our power needs. Distributed generation also has loads of structural advantages (reduces transmission losses, chance of outages etc)
    Maybe but its not the cheapest way of doing it.

    Safety measures for nuclear seem to be arse about tit. To much concentration on keeping radiation exposure to a minimum not enough on making sure accidents are avoided.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.