M261 - Motion on Nuclear Power Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
M261 - Motion on Nuclear Power, The Rt. Hon. Cryptographic MP

This House fully endorses Nuclear power and the benefits it brings. In addition this House welcomes the finding that it is less or as polluting as wind, tidal and solar power per unit of power produced. With all of this in mind the House calls upon the Sectretary of State for Energy, Environment, Food, Rural Affairs and Climate Change to draw up and enact a plan for the UK to generate 75% of it's energy from nuclear power by 2030 and a scheme for funding research into Thorium Nuclear power in the UK.

0
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
As long as the motion isn't supporting the idea of nuclear security to the lowest bidder then a change to the UK's power supply is welcome.
Still unconvinced on the safety side though.
0
Will95206
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
An Aye for I. Nuclear power is the way forward away from finite and environmentally dangerous fossil fuels!
0
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
No. Whilst I am in favour of developing nuclear power, this motion is too simplistic for such a complex issue and I do not agree with the 75% figure.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Aye!
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
'Aye'.

I'm glad to say that the Conservative Party and it's allies have led on this issue in recent terms.
0
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Not sure about this. I think nuclear power has an important place in moving away from fossil fuels, but I don't agree with the subtext that we should be supporting it above renewables.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Blue Meltwater)
Not sure about this. I think nuclear power has an important place in moving away from fossil fuels, but I don't agree with the subtext that we should be supporting it above renewables.
^This.

Nuclear is good. But let's do renewables first, then nuclear.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
As I previously stated, we should be focusing on trying to achieve our energy generation through renewable means, thus researching more on reducing cost/increasing efficiency etc.

That said, further research into Nuclear power should be encouraged as well.
0
MacDaddi
Badges: 15
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
I'll have to agree with the lefties on this one. Renewables should be prioritised - importantly there aren't any problems with sourcing wind, sun and tidal energy compared to the purchase and extraction of radioactive elements.
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Nuclear families, nuclear power! Aye!
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Tidal, solar, hydroelectric and wind have massive potential and should be prioritised, but nuclear is definitely an immediate route towards energy independence and zero carbon emissions.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
I don't want us to be dependent on the French for electricity (who own large parts of our electricity suppliers) [even if they become part of the United Kingdom under the motion under debate], or the Russians or former soviet states (or other nasty regimes) for oil and gas. I'd also like to make it difficult for people who are inadequate drivers or have a small intimate body part from having large petrol guzzlers.

Is nuclear the main answer? I'm not 100% sure.
0
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by This Is Matt)
As long as the motion isn't supporting the idea of nuclear security to the lowest bidder then a change to the UK's power supply is welcome.
Still unconvinced on the safety side though.
The safety of nuclear plants is generally fine; the main disasters (Three Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima) are, in reality, freak occurrences due to poor training of staff (Three Mile), poor building quality (Chernobyl) and a natural disaster (Fukushima), but the Chernobyl plant was outdated at the time, we'd not be building anything like that, we don't lie on a fault line, near a volcano, or in hurricane/tsunami territory, so natural disasters aren't an issue.

However, having said that, I'm still not sure on Thorium - mostly because mined thorium isn't fissile and needs considerable 233U/235U/Plutonium for startup, which brings in all the old issues with nuclear power, along with the issue of fuel contamination. The idea of LFTRs isn't great, they've not seen much building or stress testing to determine the effectiveness of them, and even still the presence of fluorine isn't particularly good - a lot of decay products are very soluble in fluorine salt form, and the use of LiFBe as the liquid salt is incredibly problematic - 6Li is a neutron poison and, if present in too high quantities, will prevent startup, and even it's decay causes problems in maintaining a good cycle, while Beryllium is highly toxic.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#15
This is in cessation.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#16
This has been withdrawn.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (14)
16.09%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (6)
6.9%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (16)
18.39%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (11)
12.64%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (11)
12.64%
How can I be the best version of myself? (29)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All