Turn on thread page Beta

How can anyone be against all Nuclear Power? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Maybe but its not the cheapest way of doing it.
    So? There are lots of other public infrastructure policy objectives besides cost.
    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.
    What on earth do you base this assessment on?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    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.
    West Cumbria council have confirmed their interest in a long term geological storage facility.

    We are talking up to a kilometre underground, not filling in the lakes - the surface presence will be small. It would not cause significant damage to the local area, or even be noticeable.

    We already invest huge amounts of money in science and engineering. I agree more is needed but basing our energy policy on uninvented technology seems... ridiculous.

    "Invested in alternatives sooner" is a fallacy - most advances in renewables come from unexpected benefits from advances in seemingly unrelated areas (particularly materials engineering - new lightweight ceramics and alloys, new uses of rare earth metals etc. You can't advance one specific area of science ahead of all others too far when they interrelate as much as those needed for commercial application.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    The storage containments needs to survive 10s of thousands of years. pumping into oil wells will contaminate surrounding ground and potentially also the sea.
    contaminating rock a kilometer plus down under the ocean isn't too much of an issue as i imagine theres enough rock ontop of it to block most of the radiation from getting out. i guess obviously yo'd have to look into how much radiation it would release into the environment and compare that to background radiation etc
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    contaminating rock a kilometer plus down under the ocean isn't too much of an issue as i imagine theres enough rock ontop of it to block most of the radiation from getting out. i guess obviously yo'd have to look into how much radiation it would release into the environment and compare that to background radiation etc
    An oil well isnt a closed system - it could leak out. Remember these storage facilities need to be engineered for 10s of thousands of years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The German reaction to the Japanese Nuclear accident is surprisingly strong yet a but ironic, considering Germany is one of the countries least likely to be hit by any earthquakes, let alone strong ones.

    In the end I agree that we shouldn't only rely on Nuclear Power. But really, those who believe that nuclear power shouldn't be a part of the solution for the future of energy either believe that radiation glows green or still believe that the Earth is flat.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ocelotrevs)
    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.
    Indeed. 10 years till a viable reactor.
    Offline

    2
    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)
    Water table
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    because after the nuclear fuel has been used to generate power it is very radioactive and will stay dangerous for hundreds of years/can get in to the hands of terrorist/can pollute the countryside and so forth.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Really the problem is that if something happens, it can be a national and international catastrophe. You can never be 100% sure no accident will happen.

    Furthermore I think it is inappropriate to use technology you do not have full control over. If something went wrong and you decide to shut down the plant? How long will it take you? Exactly... No control over the fuel means no control over possible accidents.


    I think other energies need to be considered. Think geothermal. Free heat from the earth! Virtually no possibility of dangerous accidents that could wipe out a town.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottingham_Banker)
    Water table
    My thoughts exacty
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in favour of new nuclear, but only as a stop-gap whilst we build tidal-power barrages and a bit of wind too.

    The cost is very high, when you consider the decommissioning costs, and when something goes wrong, it really goes very badly wrong.
    The argument that as many people die in coal-mines is a facile one, since these people are aware of the risks and involved in the mining itself; with nuclear accidents people can die who have absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear plant; they needn't even be in the same country! Also casualty figures neglect to mention the increased rates of, for example, thyroid cancer in children born thereafter, and the economic cost (e.g. to fish/farming stocks).
    The long-term costs are much higher than renewables since it involves continuous mining of more Uranium. This is also more dangerous and expensive than coal-mining, so again counters the dangers-of-coal-mining argument. In particular, this means the same problems with oil/gas/coal are extant - namely that we do not have enough in our country so are not energy secure; that after building of the plant, the costs of energy generation are far higher than the essentially free energy of waves; and that we shall eventually run out of Uranium as well..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    What on earth do you base this assessment on?
    How ridiculously low limits of radiation exposure are and the number of accidents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    How ridiculously low limits of radiation exposure are and the number of accidents.
    Please provide evidence that low priority is given to preventing accidents.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I'm happy for fission power to be reduced provided that a massive investment is made in research in nuclear fusion.
    If we crack fusion then we have a sustainable power source for the next few million years.
    And because it doesn't deal with radioactive isotopes it's not a threat to health.

    btw OP, how did you get into the energy industry and what sort of role do you play, if it's not to much to ask (I'm sort of interested in working in the energy industry when I graduate...it's one of a small number of ideas I've got at the moment)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Please provide evidence that low priority is given to preventing accidents.
    Past actions of the likes of TEPCO?

    Not saying its low just that if they weren't forced to enforce such low limits for radiation maybe other more important areas wouldn't be overlooked.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I'm happy for fission power to be reduced provided that a massive investment is made in research in nuclear fusion.
    If we crack fusion then we have a sustainable power source for the next few million years.
    And because it doesn't deal with radioactive isotopes it's not a threat to health.

    btw OP, how did you get into the energy industry and what sort of role do you play, if it's not to much to ask (I'm sort of interested in working in the energy industry when I graduate...it's one of a small number of ideas I've got at the moment)
    Throwing money at a research project doesn't suddenly make it work. There are top men working on nuclear fusion. Top men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Past actions of the likes of TEPCO?

    Not saying its low just that if they weren't forced to enforce such low limits for radiation maybe other more important areas wouldn't be overlooked.
    You basically aren't capable of putting together a rational arguement are you.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Throwing money at a research project doesn't suddenly make it work. There are top men working on nuclear fusion. Top men.
    Throwing money at it would potentially allow projects like ITER to be built faster, as well as allowing for more experimental lines of enquiry which previously weren't possible because of funding limitations.
    It would hopefully mean that commercially viable fusion becomes a reality in maybe ten years rather than 20-30.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    You basically aren't capable of putting together a rational arguement are you.
    So you think enforcing such low radiation limits is a good idea?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I'm happy for fission power to be reduced provided that a massive investment is made in research in nuclear fusion.
    If we crack fusion then we have a sustainable power source for the next few million years.
    And because it doesn't deal with radioactive isotopes it's not a threat to health.

    btw OP, how did you get into the energy industry and what sort of role do you play, if it's not to much to ask (I'm sort of interested in working in the energy industry when I graduate...it's one of a small number of ideas I've got at the moment)
    I'm a Energy Projects Lawyer - new power plants of various kinds mostly.

    "Fusion" is not about simply investing enough money and effort and then getting limitless power - it may well NEVER be possible, regardless of effort and expense.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.