Topic: Nuclear Energy

[El Rey, por favor]

After the weeks happenings in Japan, i've become quite wary about this form of energy, for all it's benefits the potential of any form of disadvantages actually occuring are too radical to be outweighed.

[hoonin]

Me thinks you're knee-jerking a touch*, but nuclear energy was a valid discussion before Friday and will be even more contentious in the coming weeks.

I'll abstain from voting and hopefully pick up some valuable knowledge from the likes of redbyrdz, farawayred and chops.

* no offense intended, I'm struggling to understand the ramifications of what is happening in Japan too.

[farawayred]

Safe. For the same reasons why one airplane crash does not make air travel more dangerous than car travel.

[El Rey, por favor]

Me thinks you're knee-jerking a touch*, but nuclear energy was a valid discussion before Friday and will be even more contentious in the coming weeks.

* no offense intended, I'm struggling to understand the ramifications of what is happening in Japan too.

No offense taken, I am totally knee-jerking but it is very scary when thinking of the potential ramifications of it's breakdown.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think it's as safe as anything else personally. And getting safer all the time.

The scenerio encountered in Japan is unlikely here. Chernoybyl in the UK is even more unlikely as modern power stations are designed very differently and more is openly known about them. 3 Mile Island also suffered from flaws and imprecise knowledge.

The fact is that if our civillisation is to continue, we need a lot of energy and fossil fuels/sunlight/water/wavepower and wind won't cut it.

So it's nuclear or nothing over time.

[CHOPPER]

The principal of using nuclear energy is fundamentally quite simple, what isn't, is keeping it stable, though as a future source of energy there is nothing that can beat it and for me is the only way forward. That is until we can develop super conductors that can operate at room temperature.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The principal of using nuclear energy is fundamentally quite simple, what isn't, is keeping it stable, though as a future source of energy there is nothing that can beat it and for me is the only way forward. That is until we can develop super conductors that can operate at room temperature.

Or cold fusion.

[Zizou]

While I understand the very strong "for" aspects of the idea - what happens if, heaven forbid, there's a world war? What's to stop nuclear power plants becoming the number one target for bombers and the like?

[Art Vandelay]

We live in the perfect country to build nuclear plants.  No earthquakes, no tsunami's, no hurricanes, stable weather patterns (relatively).....shame that nobody is actually willing to build any of the new buggers.

[CHOPPER]

We live in the perfect country to build nuclear plants.  No earthquakes, no tsunami's, no hurricanes, stable weather patterns (relatively).....shame that nobody is actually willing to build any of the new buggers.

They're on their way make no mistake about that, we've even tendered them out and given the contract to a French company, woooooo British Engineering...........

[farawayred]

While I understand the very strong "for" aspects of the idea - what happens if, heaven forbid, there's a world war? What's to stop nuclear power plants becoming the number one target for bombers and the like?

They already are a No. 1 target over here (US). We just do our best to not let it happen. That is no more scary than a dirty bomb thrown anywhere else in a vastly populated area; how do we prevent against that? I share the concerns, but I don't think that this is a new problem.

[CHOPPER]

Or cold fusion.

Not really offering the wattage output from the little I've read on it, though I'm open to be proved wrong.

[farawayred]

Or cold fusion.

You had to bring this up...

[Sir Harvest Fields]

Was it Oppenheimer that developed this? I mean who the fuck sits there over a coffee and peanut butter on toast and thinks of splitting the atom? How the hell do you even think about something like that? Hi have an after 8 mint and while we are at it, lets think of a way to destroy huge swathes of humanity while we are at it.

[redbyrdz]

Heh. I can't vote in that poll - what does 'safe' mean?

If nothing goes wrong, operation is quite safe. But we are accepting a risk of things going seriously wrong - like now in Japan. Is that risk worth taking? IMO that's a political discussion, and nothing anyone can just answer. It should be discussed much more openly, and away from the interests of big power companies wanting to make money.

There are a lot of problems with nuclear power apart from the 'safety' issue. It starts with mining of uranium which isn't without problems - it is also not really available in Britain, essentially making the UK totally dependent on other countries. Then there's the waste problem - no country has a good concept for a long-term ('final') storage repository, and nobody knows how to keep the stuff safe long-term. You can also question if it's wise to have our entire energy produced by just a few massive power plants, or if it wouldn't be better to have more smaller plants, because failure of one wouldn't have such a large impact. There's a risk of terrorist attacks. And there's the debate over nuclear weapons, which are linked to the nuclear industry. You could also be concerned over all our energy being produced by a few large, private companies.

For what it's worth, I think it's time to move to newer technology, renewable energy. We could sustain all our energy needs with just wind power produced in Britain. It would create far more jobs, jobs in rural areas and could be produced locally. It doesn't have to be instantly, and of course not only wind power, but a 'mixed energy concept', with a mid-term phase out of nuclear power. And no new nuclear power plants.

[generic_name]

Saw this elsewhere earlier, makes sense.

[Ben S]

Perfectly safe in the right hands, don't let your Diesel generators run out of fuel (my interpretation of whats happened...) and there's no problem. Japan has form for dodgy record keeping and cover ups etc when it comes to their nuclear plants so it's not a  massive surprise this has happened.

[BIGdavalad]

It's either nuclear or run out of electricity, realistically.

[srs507]

Perfectly safe in the right hands, don't let your Diesel generators run out of fuel (my interpretation of whats happened...) and there's no problem. Japan has form for dodgy record keeping and cover ups etc when it comes to their nuclear plants so it's not a  massive surprise this has happened.

What I've heard so far is that the Fukashima Daiichi is made to withstand up to 6.5 metre tsunamis, and this was more like a 7-10 metre one so it breached and wreaked havoc. Everything's failed up till now, but then again this is a 40 year old plant with outdated equipment. The new ones being built today, I have no doubt will be safe.

I'm worried about Indian Point near my place, which is I believe the oldest nuclear facility in the USA, or close to it. They already had a radiation leak last year.

[jerseyhoya]

I trust it, and hope the US federal government invests in it to help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Wouldn't mind them looking to place the new plants in less geologically active regions if possible though, and all the new places ought to be fitted to survive events that are worse than the worst case scenarios of the region.

srs507, where are you from exactly?

[jooneyisdagod]

Its safe IMO.  There are obvious risks associated with it but it took a mixture of the fourth largest earthquake in more than a century, one of the biggest tsunamis recorded for a nuclear reactor to suffer damage.  Don't get me wrong there is a huge potential for disaster but as technology and containment systems keep getting better, I think they will become safer.  Nothing wrong with nuclear energy at all.  As others have pointed out, take out nuclear power and most country will be struggling to meet their energy demands.

[mercury]

When it's safe, nuclear power's sort of very safe.  My city have one quite close, quietly doing its job.

When it goes wrong, it can be disastrous.  It is not like plane travelling, as the potential impact in terms of human and the environment can be huge and long lasting.

And redbrydz has rightly pointed out the mining and waste storage issues.  It take a lot of vigilance to do it and there is no fool-proof in the world.

Personally, it is a risk I am willing - for seeing no other choice for the time being - to take.  It will have to be a mix of energy sources, with nuclear part of it, until we devise new reliable sources of power.

[SMD]

We want everything with no risk, no down sides and no effort, at no cost.

Oh and someone else to design and build it.

Rule Britannia.

[mercury]

We want everything with no risk, no down sides and no effort, at no cost.

Oh and someone else to design and build it.

Rule Britannia.

That's the problem, isn't that?  My own society is quite deeply mired in this trap.

[SMD]

That's the problem, isn't that?  My own society is quite deeply mired in this trap.

If we invested money in researching things like alternative energy, efficient and fast public transport and encouraging R&D in the country, not only would we have more solutions for ourselves but we could license it out as well.

But no, let's give everything away to the private sector and let them cut costs to boost profit margins.

[Valore]

If we invested money in researching things like alternative energy, efficient and fast public transport and encouraging R&D in the country, not only would we have more solutions for ourselves but we could license it out as well.

But no, let's give everything away to the private sector and let them cut costs to boost profit margins.

Somewhat ironic isn't it. Looking to the future, but only far enough to the next budget balancing apparently.

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

I voted yes, but I think that any of these plants that are decades old and running on outdated technologies either need to be decommissioned or brought up to modern standards. There also needs to be more transparency when problems do arise.

It's apparent there were major factors here that could not have been foreseen and in light of what's happened the plant has done pretty well, but I still can't help but think that better fail-safe measures could've been implemented. Either off-site generators or somehow utilising subterranean back-up technology to avoid such problems occurring again.

[Matt S]

I'm one of those that voted 'don't know'. I don't know enough about it to say if they're safe or not. As others are saying, when nothing goes wrong it's safe. Same as anything else really.

Long term I would much prefer we looked towards wind power, wave power etc... than be dependent on a handful of large nuclear power stations. Never going to happen though is it.

[SMD]

I'm one of those that voted 'don't know'. I don't know enough about it to say if they're safe or not. As others are saying, when nothing goes wrong it's safe. Same as anything else really.

Long term I would much prefer we looked towards wind power, wave power etc... than be dependent on a handful of large nuclear power stations. Never going to happen though is it.

As things stand, wind power and wave power is not at all suited to the United Kingdom.

[SP]

They're on their way make no mistake about that, we've even tendered them out and given the contract to a French company, woooooo British Engineering...........

The AGR reactors were British through and through, and turned into vast money pits.

Nuclear Power is far less dangerous to the security of the world than most of the regimes that receive fossil fuel revenues.

It forms part of the solution to the world's growing energy needs.

[SP]

I'm one of those that voted 'don't know'. I don't know enough about it to say if they're safe or not. As others are saying, when nothing goes wrong it's safe. Same as anything else really.

Long term I would much prefer we looked towards wind power, wave power etc... than be dependent on a handful of large nuclear power stations. Never going to happen though is it.

Wind and Wave are too variable in their output to form the backbone of the Grid. So, if you don't like large nuclear power stations, would you prefer lots of smaller ones?

I did my Work Experience in a Nuclear Power Station. Fascinating places. In 1990 the control room was still a bit Doctor Who with flashing lights everywhere. But I am a sucker for 1970's beige technology.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Perfectly safe in the right hands, don't let your Diesel generators run out of fuel (my interpretation of whats happened...) and there's no problem. Japan has form for dodgy record keeping and cover ups etc when it comes to their nuclear plants so it's not a  massive surprise this has happened.

Don't think they ran out of fuel - they got washed away by the Tsuanami

[CHOPPER]

The AGR reactors were British through and through, and turned into vast money pits.

Nuclear Power is far less dangerous to the security of the world than most of the regimes that receive fossil fuel revenues.

It forms part of the solution to the world's growing energy needs.

I'm on about who will be building them rather than the core design itself, though I would imagine the overall design will be a French one from plan to build either way.

[Zappa]

What are the alternatives?

Coal, Oil, Gas and wood are all finite resources and running out.

Windpower is a bit of a joke. Costs 3 times as much and at any one time half the turbines are not working.

Solar panels last about 10yrs but takes about 20yrs to pay for the cost of installing.

Wavepower hasn't taken off in the 50yrs I know they've been talking about it.

Htdro-electric schemes are limited


There will be a massive power crisis in the near future; nuclear is currently the only real option

[Andy @ Allerton!]

What are the alternatives?

Coal, Oil, Gas and wood are all finite resources and running out.

Windpower is a bit of a joke. Costs 3 times as much and at any one time half the turbines are not working.

Solar panels last about 10yrs but takes about 20yrs to pay for the cost of installing.

Wavepower hasn't taken off in the 50yrs I know they've been talking about it.

Htdro-electric schemes are limited


There will be a massive power crisis in the near future; nuclear is currently the only real option

Wood is running out?!

[montysmum]

After the weeks happenings in Japan, i've become quite wary about this form of energy, for all it's benefits the potential of any form of disadvantages actually occuring are too radical to be outweighed.

I'll admit my ignorance about it but I dont like the thought of nuclear energy for several reasons.

First I dont feel it is safe.  One accident at a nuclear facility could affect hundreds of thousands of people.  Chernobyl's effects were felt as far away as the Lake District, and unfortunately human error or natural disaster can always cause a series of events that havent been anticipated.

Events in Japan have shown that it is impossible to plan for the unknown and how hard it is to keep control of things when they start to go wrong.

Second is the question of waste.  No one has come up with a safe and effective way to deal with nuclear waste.

At the moment the best way is deemed to be burying it deep underground for thousands of years and hope that it stays safe and undisturbed by future changes in geology, climate etc.  What if that all goes pear shaped?

I would rather that the money being spent on nuclear facilities was spent on a serious look at alternatives.  The best ways to get clean coal, hydro electric power, power from the earths own heat (as in Iceland) wind and wave power.

I am sure that safe and effective methods of power are available - it just takes political will, some forward thinking and funding to find them.

 http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/geothermal_energy_ground_source_heat_pump.html

Ground source heat pumps utilise geothermal energy to provide heating for a home or other building, or alternatively to provide hot water. (For more information on Geothermal Energy - Click Here). A few metres beneath the surface of the earth the temperature is a constant 12°C all year round. It is this heat that ground source heat pumps use by converting and transferring the heat into a building usually to heat radiators or under-floor heating.

Ground source heat pumps consist of a ground loop and the heat pump itself. The ground loop is basically a pipe filled with water and antifreeze which is pumped around a closed circuit absorbing the ground’s heat. This system, of course, requires a large enough outside area belonging to the property, although there are different pipe systems available including a bore hole variety.

Once the water has been heated the evaporator part of the ground source heat pump takes the heat from the water and it is passed into the compressor. This moves refrigerant around the heat pump and compresses the gaseous refrigerant to the temperature required for the heat distribution circuit (the radiators or under-floor heating). A condenser then gives up the heat to a hot water tank which feeds the distribution system (or, in some cases, provides hot water for use in the property).

The cost of a typical ground source heat pump system is approximately £7,000 to £13,000, and this type of heating provision is most cost effective where mains gas is unavailable.

For more information on ground source heat pumps visit www.est.org.uk.

Source: www.est.org.uk 2010

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

Wood is running out?!

Seriously though, if you were to start chopping down trees and using them as your main fuel source you'd find we'd run out rather quickly, even with replanting schemes.

[Cribertinokes]

Nuclear energy is perfectly safe when capacitated properly, also the problem with the nuke plant in Japan, wasn't the nuke plant, it's the fact that Japan is sat on multiple fault lines.

[Cribertinokes]

While I understand the very strong "for" aspects of the idea - what happens if, heaven forbid, there's a world war? What's to stop nuclear power plants becoming the number one target for bombers and the like?

If there is a world war then the superpowers won't start attack nuke bases for the simple reason of mutually assured destruction, if one side is capable of destroying a nuke base then so will the other side.

[cowtownred]

I.T.E.R. is the way...