Turn on thread page Beta

How can anyone be against all Nuclear Power? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Past actions of the likes of TEPCO?
    TEPCO are not typical of a nuclear power station operator though.
    There are many examples of them cutting corners in recent years.
    That does not happen in most other countries.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    ok, cheers.

    I'd say that's quite a pessimistic view! I mentioned ITER just before, apparently it will give out more energy than put in (if it doesn't I suspect we would have to quite radically change our understanding of nuclear physics)
    Although it will take a long time to harness that into something which can then be used for generating electricity.

    I accept that money alone is not the one and only way of getting fusion to work, but I see it as something which could potentially stand in the way of progress if funding was cut.

    I'm confident that we will get fusion to work as a commercial energy source within our lifetime.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    People have the same kind of irrational ideas to nuclear power as they do to government borrowing.

    They see a nuclear disaster in Japan they go ohh nooos that's gonna happen in the UK.
    They see Greece and Ireland getting into a situation of sovereign default they go ohh noos thats gonna happen in UK.

    I would wind both camps up by building a shed load of nuclear power stations all financed by an issue of government bonds.

    Then if we ever come into a situation where we face default on our debts we can just say you think we got problems now, wait till the nukes meltdown lol.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    People have the same kind of irrational ideas to nuclear power as they do to government borrowing.
    It doesn't help at most people also have an irrational fear of the word "radiation". They seem to think if something is radiation then it is bad. I bet they never think about what all that "radiation" is doing to their eyes when they are looking about the room they are in, or the "radiation" that makes their TV remote control work, etc etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    So you think enforcing such low radiation limits is a good idea?
    Yes. Better to be too safe than sorry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    I would build a facility under the lake district (plans/designs are already in place and local interest has been noted).
    Yes, that's it, keep destroying our precious and beautiful countryside so people can become more and more gluttonous in their energy needs without showing any concern for what it will do to the environment. Oh, it's OK though, you live in the city but still want to come out to see some pretty greenery when you have a weeks holiday from your office. Disgusting.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    What really pisses me off with people against nuclear power. Is that they claim that wind / tidal will create all our energy needs,and cite Germany as an example of how this can be done. First of all where ever wind turbines are trying to be built, there is a storm of protest.Many of which originates from different green groups, as the most effective place to have wind turbines is the Lake District and other places of natural beauty.

    Secondly, how can people argue that because there have been problems in Japan we should nit have Nuclear. Japan has earthquakes and tsunamis we dont.

    Nuclear Power is the best way forward. Yes I know there is the issue of the waste, but thats a small price to pay for having electricity that is CO2 free and having better energy security. With all the instability in the OPEC countries at the moment.

    Rant over
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 21stcenturyphantom)
    Yes, that's it, keep destroying our precious and beautiful countryside so people can become more and more gluttonous in their energy needs without showing any concern for what it will do to the environment. Oh, it's OK though, you live in the city but still want to come out to see some pretty greenery when you have a weeks holiday from your office. Disgusting.
    Nice hyperbole. And by nice I mean incredibly ignorant.

    Almost none of such a facility would be above ground. It would have almost no impact on the countryside EXCEPT to guarantee the council / landowners above a large regular income with which to maintain the area.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    When I said filling in the lakes, I meant Lakes as in the Lake District not physically filling the lakes in.
    I'm not at all against nuclear power, and I don't suggest we base our energy need on uninvented technology..I just think we shouldn't come to rely on one technology source for our power. We need to keep our options versatile, otherwise we run the risk of loosing our energy completely due to the loss of resources, such as uranium. Britain itself does not currently produce any uranium we only import it and although the U3O8, or Yellowcake, stock piles are enough to last a century our consumption is increasing. We become vulnerable if our power plants are owned by the French and if our fuel supply, U3O8, is not in our own hands.

    I understand we need to advance all sciences as a whole, but it would be stupid and silly to just build nuclear power plants everywhere. We think we understand all the science of nuclear energy, but we don't entirely yet. There still needs to be a lot more research into some of the long term impacts. (we've only had nuclear power for 70-80 years so with chemical elements with half lives of up to 4.4 billion years we really can't understand the impacts that far in the future, we can only theorize about them).
    Offline

    18
    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
    Hippies hate everything other than trees, you see.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    By standing infront of it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toon Fan)
    What really pisses me off with people against nuclear power. Is that they claim that wind / tidal will create all our energy needs,and cite Germany as an example of how this can be done. First of all where ever wind turbines are trying to be built, there is a storm of protest.Many of which originates from different green groups, as the most effective place to have wind turbines is the Lake District and other places of natural beauty.
    Quite agree with this. Same with the Severn Barrage. Patently a good idea, providing masses of renewable, clean, efficient energy, in a polulated part of the country.

    But it will kill some fish.

    Who cares?
    Offline

    12
    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
    most of them are ignorant and think we can power the whole country if not world on "green power" which is just not fee-sable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    It doesn't help at most people also have an irrational fear of the word "radiation". They seem to think if something is radiation then it is bad. I bet they never think about what all that "radiation" is doing to their eyes when they are looking about the room they are in, or the "radiation" that makes their TV remote control work, etc etc.
    why would they worry about that radiation? its not ionising, but i see your point
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I support nuclear energy. Only reason Japan's nuclear plant went unstable was because of one of the largest earth quakes and tsunami's in recent history. The plant still survived nearly undamaged. It was in fact the the back up diesel generators which failed and which caused the core to go nearly into meltdown as there wasn't any cold water/air being pumped in.

    Alas this problem doesn't exist with the UK or most European countries. However in Question Time, one thing did arise, that was terrorism. The question of sabotage or anything like that, could incidentally happen. Though we haven't seen that happen, but that doesn't go to say that it couldn't happen. And there would be a catastrophe if nuclear radiation was leaking due to some terrorist attack. Which would devastate the whole of the United Kingdom and around the world. That is a huge risk, just to power a couple million homes.

    I still support nuclear energy, though it is incredibly dangerous. So if we could move away from nuclear energy that would be great, but currently to secure this countries energy security, we need it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ventura7)
    why would they worry about that radiation? its not ionising, but i see your point
    But most people don't know what ionising means, or even know that visibile light is technically "radiation". They just see the word and think "OMG that's dangerous!!".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    hysteria
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    I support nuclear energy. Only reason Japan's nuclear plant went unstable was because of one of the largest earth quakes and tsunami's in recent history. The plant still survived nearly undamaged. It was in fact the the back up diesel generators which failed and which caused the core to go nearly into meltdown as there wasn't any cold water/air being pumped in.

    Alas this problem doesn't exist with the UK or most European countries. However in Question Time, one thing did arise, that was terrorism. The question of sabotage or anything like that, could incidentally happen. Though we haven't seen that happen, but that doesn't go to say that it couldn't happen. And there would be a catastrophe if nuclear radiation was leaking due to some terrorist attack. Which would devastate the whole of the United Kingdom and around the world. That is a huge risk, just to power a couple million homes.

    I still support nuclear energy, though it is incredibly dangerous. So if we could move away from nuclear energy that would be great, but currently to secure this countries energy security, we need it.
    I'm curious as to how you think a terrorist attack could work. A bomb going off in the reactor chamber would have a negligible effect. A jumbo jet smashing into the reactor building would bounce off like a paper plane. There are something like 8 levels of armed security to get to the reactor control room, to say nothing of an array of automatic over-ride functions, so that even if you did try to **** stuff up, the system simply wouldn't let you. If they managed to somehow get into the reactor chamber itself, they would be dead within 8 seconds.

    Basically, the most outrageously well planned, supported and co-ordinated attack you can possibly imagine? Wouldn't stand a chance.

    Blowing up a chemical works on the other hand? Piece of cake, thousands dead.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    Quite agree with this. Same with the Severn Barrage. Patently a good idea, providing masses of renewable, clean, efficient energy, in a polulated part of the country.

    But it will kill some fish.

    Who cares?
    Nice to know some people see sense about the Energy Issue !!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I'm curious as to how you think a terrorist attack could work. A bomb going off in the reactor chamber would have a negligible effect. A jumbo jet smashing into the reactor building would bounce off like a paper plane. There are something like 8 levels of armed security to get to the reactor control room, to say nothing of an array of automatic over-ride functions, so that even if you did try to **** stuff up, the system simply wouldn't let you. If they managed to somehow get into the reactor chamber itself, they would be dead within 8 seconds.

    Basically, the most outrageously well planned, supported and co-ordinated attack you can possibly imagine? Wouldn't stand a chance.

    Blowing up a chemical works on the other hand? Piece of cake, thousands dead.
    According to the CDI:

    A terrorist attack on a commercial nuclear power plant with a commercial jet or heavy munitions could have a similar affect to a radiological bomb, and cause for greater casualties. If such an attack were to cause either a meltdown of the reactor core (similar to the Chernobyl disaster), or a dispersal of the spent fuel waste on the site, extensive casualties could be expected. In such an instance, the power plant would be the source of the radiological contamination, and the plane or armament would be the explosive mechanism for spreading lethal radiation over large areas. -- Source
    Global Security:
    Vulnerability from Air Attack. Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand
    hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events, but attacks by large airliners loaded
    with fuel, such as those that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not
    contemplated when design requirements were determined. A taped interview shown
    September 10, 2002, on Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that Al
    Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified
    concern about aircraft crashes.--Source
    A good article by the NCI.

    Current NRC security regulations do not address the magnitude of threat demonstrated by the September 11 attacks. -- Source
    I would rather not have the risk of having nuclear power plants, quite obviously. I would prefer green energy like most, but currently it lacks in energy and is expensive to achieve what a nuclear power station could achieve. But it is still is dangerous. So you have to weigh what is needed most, safety = cost or energy to power millions of homes.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 31, 2012
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.