The UK is facing a problem when it comes to where we get our power from. Currently about 20 % of our electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, and all but one of these plants are set to be mothballed by 2023. They need be be replaced, but by what? We can't replace them will fossil fuel burning power plants such as coal, gas or oil. Supplies of cheap domestic gas are running low and the price of importing oil and gas prices have risen dramatically. Besides which the government have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% of the 1990 levels by 2010. Natural sources of power, such as solar and wind can't fill the gap completely, so the only option apparent is to build more nuclear power plants.

In the past few weeks Tony Blair called for an "open-minded" debate on the future of nuclear power in the UK, saying that concerns over possible fossil fuel shortages and global warming were "too strong for anybody reasonably to ignore" and that the UK's targets for using more renewable sources, such as wind and wave power, were "very ambitious".

The government has not ruled out building more atomic power stations to help it meet carbon emission targets and plug the energy gap created by the closure of ageing plants. Mr Blair said the nuclear industry needed a "decision and a framework", adding that it was "responsible to start this debate and have it in a very open way" and to "take what decisions we think are right for the country".

Proposals for nuclear power are due to be brought in next year to allow a public debate on the issue.

The whole issue got me thinking, and I'm curious to know what the views of others are. Which is why I created this thread. Do you have any views you wish to express? If so, this is the place to do it.

__________________
Only two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former.---Albert Einstein.

Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.---Oscar Wilde

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

I haven't voted because although I think generally that nuclear power can be safe, there is still the possibility of human error or bad design/ maintenance which may result in an accident.

I support the use of nuclear reactors for the production of power but I'm not of the opinion that it is 100% safe. 98% safe maybe. I don't feel that your poll options cover this - there are three negative options, one completely positive and one neutral.

My answer - although I acknowledge the risks I do not object to the construction of more nuclear power plants.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Freedom For Fission!

I'd like to see more resources poured into fusion. At least ITER seems to be moving at last.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

I don't see what reason there is not to create as many wind farms as is needed( be that at sea or on land) to provide at least that 20% level of energy that nuclear presently does.

"oh it isn't always windy." some people might cry but there must be ways to store energy perhaps be electrolyzing water to make hydrogen to be burned when there are lulls in the weather.

__________________

A problem is the amount of windmills needed:

a huge offshore windmill generates 2.5 MW iirc. The nuclear power plant I used to live next to generates 2800 MW. That would require more than 1000 windmills, which is quite a lot. I know 2 groups of 4 (on average) large windmills on the land in this region. They can be seen from really far. Imagine 250 of such groups. I like the view of a windmill (the form of the blades is amazing for an aerospace engineer ), but I don't know whether I'd like windmills everywhere. If they all can be built at sea beyond view, that's something different of course.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I think the main objection to that is the sheer quantity of wind farms you'd need. Which obviously have to be plonked down somewhere. Finding that somewhere is a major problem.

I was looking at the design of a proposed bridge at Corran, south of Ft William in the Highlands. It's being proposed to replace the existing (very) short ferry crossing with a bridge. But what I really liked was the idea of building tidal power generators into the supports of the bridge that are in the water (there can be a fierce tide there sometimes). If the bridge is built, some of it will be sticking into the water anyway - so why not use that to produce some electricity (however little)? It all adds up.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

How about the ocean?

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

There are already some in the oceans around the UK - but they're mostly (probably all, in fact) very close to the coastline. While sticking them in the ocean is definately an option, it's not without it's own problems.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

I voted for "safe", but safe only means safe within normal engineering limits (or probably a bit more than normal, considering the bad press if anything goes wrong, no engineer wants to be responsible for the next Chernobyl). This basically means it is never perfect, but I think if they are built to very exacting specifications they will be reasonably safe. The problem is if the government starts pouring massive amounts of money into building new nuclear power plants, and we get the normal political pork processes, we may end up with some less scrutable groups being chosen to build sme of the plants. That could be disasterous.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

I voted "safe" and "construct more." In fact, that's what Ontario is doing. All coal plants in Ontario are going to be closed by 2009 and the Premier has said that we'll be refurbishing old plants in addition to building new ones.

Works for me. I mean, about 50% of Ontario's electricity is already generated by nuclear plants, and aside from needing more power, everything is peachy.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Fission, fission, fission, fission, fission, fission, fission, fission, fission, fission!

That's what we need. It looks like the government is finally getting some sense in their heads. I just hope they show strength against the forces of darkness (literally since that's what our houses will be without it).

We do a lot of hydroelectric up here in Washington state.

Look, I'll admit that I don't know as much about nuclear power as other people do, obviously, but it makes me nervous. I heard somewhere that one of the main causes of the Chernobyl disaster was that people had erratic work schedules--as in, switching between night and day shifts--and I don't think that problem would be fixed even though it ought to be fairly easy to do so. People just don't think that way.

Human error counts for an awful lot of problems, and it's at least partially responsible for both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Not to mention any number of dam failures, of course. And I certainly don't think completely automating the reactors is an answer, because that brings up a whole new list of problems. However, I'd really like as many of the opportunities for things like scheduling to cause disasters to be worked out now before we build more.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

To put your mind at ease, you will see why not to worry about Chernobyl or TMI.

The first because the real cause of the accident was a very, very bad design coupled with a lack of basic containment that all Western reactors have. The issue of Soviet work rostering may or may not be true, but it has little to do with the reasons why the Ukraine was showered in radionuclides. The second because it hasn't harmed a single person other than those that worried themselves into hypertension over the radiation boogey man.

It's safe enough to be our best bet for energy for the near to mid term (next couple centuries). And why is it we can't launch the waste into the Sun?

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

1) Because such an orbit would require a huge amount of energy.

2) Launching radioactive material will cause the end of the world, remember?

3) It would be a huge waste of a valuable energy resource.

a rocket, loaded with radioactive waste, exploding could really mess up someones day.

__________________

This poll needs another option: “Not only do I have no objections, but we should dramatically accelerate construction of new reactors”.

Gasified coal (aka “clean” coal) may save the day, economically speaking. Many existing dual fuel turbines (oil/natural gas) can burn it, and it will be cheap.

Which obviously hurts the gasified coal option.


20% wind power by 2020 is possible in the US and UK, but does not replace nuclear, it merely keeps pace with expanding energy demands. Offshore turbines are the key in the UK, and the next generation of 5MW and larger turbines will help a lot.

Unfortunately, 20% represents about the upper limit on wind—the cost of transmission lines and limitations on total wind capacity make wind, at best, part of a spectrum of energy sources and not the solution to our energy needs.

There are many approaches to this problem. The most likely is that we’ll simply run gas turbines during the lull. I’ve seen some innovative energy storage techniques proposed, but few that scale well enough to be economical compared to a gas turbine.


I second that, but I wouldn’t bet anything on it ever producing power economically. I expect it will, but wouldn’t bet on it.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

I didn't see an option to say "I think the reactors are safe, but what the blazes are we supposed to do with all the long-lived radionuclides in the waste?". Every article I've read about nuclear waste disposal (and yes, I know some of it can be reprocessed or repossessed or something, but some of it cannot) points out several poblems to which we do not yet have answers:
(1) If you bury it, how can you be sure not to contaminate groundwater within the next 10,000 years?
(2) If you bury it, how can you keep it safe from human stupidity for 10,000 years?
(3) If you keep it on the surface, you have to guard it for 10,000 years (and who's going to pay for that?)
(4) If you launch it into space (it doesn't need to be sent into the sun, just put into an orbit that will never intersect Earth's), you'll need a rocket that is 100.00000% reliable and powerful enough to lift many tens of tons into an appropriate orbit. In other words, something bigger than the Saturn V. And, because humans are fallible, no rocket will ever be reliable enough to keep everyone happy.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Oh, yes, and the other thing ... put resources into energy efficiency. Penalise users of inefficient systems / devices with taxes. Encourage installation of (for example) better-quality insulation / draughtproofing and so on. I work at a site that has R&D and manufacturing in neighbouring buildings. The site has many many lights that shine all night long - and some of them seem to be on during daylight hours as well. I'm sure it is not the only place that does this.

And, penalise all those companies that advertise on QVC things like "Why use an old-fashioned potato-peeler, when you can have a super-duper 2kW electric tubercule epidermis-remover for only £99.99!!!!"

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

We could store the waste for a couple of centuries until the space elevator is built (it will certainly be).

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

How about, what the blazes are we supposed to do with all that infinitely lived industrial waste from other sectors produced in huge quantities the likes of which the nuclear industry can't imagine?

Nuclear waste is not a problem when compared to all the other industrial waste problems. It is small and manageable and the fact that you worry about the next ten thousand years is a darn sight better than having to worry about the other kinds of the industrial waste until the end of the planet itself.

And the 10,000 year figure is bogus in any case. Closed cycle waste decays to below the activity of the original uranium ore within a few hundred years and that's ignoring future ADS incineration technology.

I'm sick and tired of people blowing the nuclear waste issue completely out of proportion. Other industries can only dream of having such a simple waste problem.

I'm reminded of the case of the patient who underwent an MRI or similar treatment and ingested a short lived radioactive meal for the procedure. Afterwards, he urinated out most of nuclides as normal. The urine was then subsequently spilled and the hospital quarantined because of a radiological hazard. This was some hours later when the meal had decayed significantly below its activity when the patient ingested it. In other words, what was safe for the patient to ingest, was all of a sudden and after hours of decay, considered an environmental health hazard when it was spilled.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I have a full (or even half full) understanding of nuclear waste - but am I barking up the wrong tree when I say that it can be made into glass logs which keep it inert and then buried deep down in the bedrock that there's no real chance of it contaminating ground water - even if the logs break from the shifting Earth?

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

You are indeed correct. Vitrification is done with fission products that have no other uses. But it requires the closed cycle, which is apparently EEVIL.

Spent fuel contains loads of actinides and some fission products. Under the closed cycle, the actinides are eventually burnt and the fission products are vitrified.

Good, at least I wasn't imagining it!

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Very interesting result on this poll I have to say. The general community here in Australia is probably something like 75-25 against nuclear power given all the horror stories we've been fed by our at times `hyperactive' news-media.

I support nuclear power, but as I understand it, the costs involved are huge and its really not in an economic sense the answer to all our energy woes. Plus, I read somewhere, and I will look for a link now that I bring it up, that the World's Uranium supplies run to around 50 years, even less than the length of time it will take to deplete current oil reserves.

Although, upon further investigation, that particular contention that I've heard turns out to be a lot of hot-air from those opposed to nuclear power! Should I really be surprised?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/position/uranium.htm

This page adequately explains the situation wrt Uranium resources. To quote from the article

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? You mean outright lies.

I wouldn't go quite that far, perhaps `exaggerations of the truth to suit a sensationalist end'

I believe it is necessary, but while the plants are probably safe the real question is what will we do with the waste. Has it ever been suggested that nuclear waste could be sunk into the mantle at a volcano or deep ocean trench? Also, I wonder how much uranium does it take to operate a plant, and how abundent our supplies are.

What we really need is some kind of breakthough in fusion.

__________________
All the woo-woos come out on the internet. Someday a real mod's gonna come down and wash all the scum off of this message board.

I'd be prepared to bet on it producing power economically - probably earlier than people generally believe, too.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.