Take a stance against nuclear

[turkish van]

Recent posts have left me in a bit of doubt about how many people on here are actually against nuclear - and a few of them were pretty disappointing (including some high-profile posters...).

However, if there are still a few people out there who think we can do it any other way, you might care to take a look at this site:

Nuclear Pledge (http://www.nuclearpledge.com)

"The Nuclear Pledge is a promise:

To resist paying any nuclear surcharge in my electricity bills to subsidise new nuclear power stations;

If I successfuly withold the nuclear surcharge, to pay the money into a green fund, run by independent experts, which will pay for new, additional renewable electricity generation capacity, and energy conservation;

To vote in a future General Election for a political party that promises a green electricity strategy based on renewables and conservation, and not on nuclear power;

To take other non-violent actions of my own to oppose nuclear power and support a green energy future. "

A good idea, and if they can get enough people on board, it might just have a little effect.....

:t:

[Karl J]

hmmm ... withholding part of your lecky bill hardly seems the best idea ever

So i doubt i'll be taking a stance against it to "...support a green energy future" or for any other reason

don't get me wrong - certainly we need to stop digging holes in the ground and churning out co2 at the current rate and i'm not against Green Energy (including the wind farm i can see from my upstairs), i just can't see how current Green Energy can meet the needs of the entire country on its own

We could just use less energy in the first place i suppose...

[deborah4]

Surely this isn't Green Party policy? (or the SNP!)

Not wanting to start another windfarm, fossil fuel debate, but how exactly does the anti-nuclear energy stance suggest we meet the even the current levels of fuel consumption let alone what it will become in the next 10 years with present rates of population growth?

As Karl suggests - reduce, reduce, reduce! - nothing else is sustainable in the long term and, especially for the majority of the populations of developed countries, certain aspects of our current lifestyles

(and not just fuel, but water use and material waste production)

[turkish van]

Money can be a powerful weapon Karl.. :-) Problem is, if it doesn't go according to plan some people are in a bit of trouble....

Deborah - not intending to start a debate! Am all for reducing, but if anything (apart from our current state) isn't sustainable, it's nuclear power. Obscene levels of pollution in the construction, continuing pollution throughout its life as the uranium is mined, purified (what's the proper word again?!) and transported. Sourcing problems, of course the never ending production of waste, environmental destruction in the unfortunate areas where the uranium happens to be.... The list goes on. And on. And by the time you get to the end of it, the uranium will probably have run out anyway....

So, erm, is there anyone out there who agrees with me?

[colonelboris]

Wind farm kill birds and produce little electricity in Britain as the wind is not reliable enough. Tidal energy destroys coastal ecosystems by reducing the number and intensisty of waves that reach the shore. Solar panels are good, but everyone needs to get one for them make a difference. To fuel Britain on renewable wood sources, such as hazel, an area larger than Wales needs to be harvested each year. Geothermal can only work in certain areas where the geology is right.
If you want to make a bit of a difference, try and persuade everyone who you know who drives a diesel and try to get them to convert to biodiesel. Also try microgeneration using your own solar panel and mini wind generator. Your friends will take an interest and may follow suit if you help them.
Try Dick Strawbridges site: www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org.
My dad did the biodiesel course and their whole way of life is an eye-opener. You don't have to go the whole hog and Good Life-it, but little changes add up.
As for nuclear, you could argue that you're digging uranium out of one bit of ground, using it and then burying it somewhere else. But it's got to be safe.
And don't think of using Chernobyl as an example of why it shouldn't be used - they knew what they were doing there was dangerous at the time.

[deborah4]

[QUOTE=turkish van]

Deborah - not intending to start a debate!

- you may not be intending to, but I think you probably will this your position on NE
Am all for reducing

the only long term and sustainable option IMO

but if anything (apart from our current state) isn't sustainable, it's nuclear power. Obscene levels of pollution in the construction, continuing pollution throughout its life as the uranium is mined, purified (what's the proper word again?!) and transported.

no less unsustainable than carbon fuels IMO

environmental destruction in the unfortunate areas where the uranium happens to be....

same has been argued against sighting of windfarms, not to mention pollution disasters to marine and avian life caused by oil spills etc etc

So, erm, is there anyone out there who agrees with me?

I'm not disagreeing with you Laura (certainly as regards the disposal of NW - just suggesting Reduction of energy consumption is the only longterm sustainable option at the moment, given that the available alternatives are not adequate for current needs without NE and ALL have an impact on the environment - it's a question of finding the most appropriate mix, in the most appropriate areas, and continuing to minimise E Impact.

(darn! can someone please explain how to do this quote thing :stuck: )

[Osprey_watcher]

No I don't agree with you.

If they can convince me that the disposal of the waste is safe, then it's the only way forward. IMHO. OK it's a big IF, but we could cover the British Isles with wind farms and probably still wouldn't have enough energy. And we'd have no birds left.
There's no way the majority of people will reduce energy usage until it is priced out of their reach.

[Osprey_watcher]

(darn! can someone please explain how to do this quote thing :stuck: )[QUOTE=Name] to start
[/QUOTE to finish, but put another ] after the [/QUOTE. Can't do it or you'll just see a red box.

[Karl J]

If you want to make a bit of a difference, try and persuade everyone who you know who drives a diesel and try to get them to convert to biodiesel.


As for nuclear, you could argue that you're digging uranium out of one bit of ground, using it and then burying it somewhere else.


Re. Biodiesel - what are the pm10 / health-problem causing pollutant levels like from this stuff ?

re. Nuclear - yes i guess you're right - and i'm not actually disagreeing with you either Laura - i guess its a choice of ballsing the planet up now with various pollutants or just bottling up a different set of them for the kids to sort out later on. Sort of lesser of two evils thing really, though i have to admit its hardly a good choice either way. I just can't see any other option at the minute (and in all seriousness the "using less" option just isn't going to happen, nor is there likely to be a wind turbine on every house in the land, imo)

[colonelboris]

One point raised in a book I read recently is that the rate of change of language is faster than the rate of decay of nuclear waste. So just how do we tell the kids it's there and what it does? It's probably a little arrogant to think they'll speak English as we do in 40,000 years time (random number, no related to half lives or anything), so if they dig some up, unless we can communicate what it is, they might be in for a bit of shock...

[Karl J]

Dunno but i'd have thought being encased in concrete would give them a bit of a clue

(how long does concrete last btw, or whatever it is they seal it up in)

[colonelboris]

I'd guess it depends on the conditions in which its buried. Acidic areas will eat through the concrete eventually.
Mind you, you'd think the same argument would apply to the pyramids... ;)

[Tim Allwood]

with you all the way Laura

it will happen

eventually

Tim

[Tyke]

Sorry Laura-I disagree.
Don't understand the logic of such a stance.

Colin

[abagguley]

And don't think of using Chernobyl as an example of why it shouldn't be used - they knew what they were doing there was dangerous at the time.

Yeah, we're much cleverer than those Commies, the technology has moved on, etc.

Yet we still get balls-ups like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/4778139.stm

All energy comes at a price to the environment, but the (potential) price of nuclear makes it a no-no for me.

I wonder how many free micro-turbines & pv cells the government could hand out for the price of one nuclear power station, plus the cost of processing & monitoring the waste for the next x thousand years?

Adrian

[Karl J]

One thing that leaps out from ideas such as "...oppose nuclear power and support a green energy future" is that it is all well & good / full of good intentions etc but there is very little in the way of Plain English detailing what this Green Energy future actually is

So, does anyone actually know ?

(and thats a genuine question re. biodiesel in #9, btw, if anyone knows)

And as for this bit - "If enough people make this pledge, it will make nuclear power a nightmare for the electricity industry and the Government. They will be faced with the prospect of trying to take hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people through the Court system, which is already severely overloaded..."

Honestly, how irresponsible can you get

[Tyke]

One thing that leaps out from ideas such as "...oppose nuclear power and support a green energy future" is that it is all well & good / full of good intentions etc but there is very little in the way of Plain English detailing what this Green Energy future actually is

So, does anyone actually know ?
(and thats a genuine question re. biodiesel in #9, btw, if anyone knows)

And as for this bit - "If enough people make this pledge, it will make nuclear power a nightmare for the electricity industry and the Government. They will be faced with the prospect of trying to take hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people through the Court system, which is already severely overloaded..."

Honestly, how irresponsible can you get

Absolutely agree.

The Yanks are majoring on bio-ethanol just now. Someone calculated how much land would be required to replace all their oil-the answer is a crazy number.
There is no such thing as "clean" energy, or "green energy" . There is an environmental cost for the extraction of all energy.

Colin

[turkish van]

Gee, this is going well....

Tony - I'm not saying every renewable energy is perfect, obviously they all have their downsides but I see no reason why we can't make use of them all (or a few of them) to balance it out. Covering the country in wind turbines or powering it all with wood isn't an option either in my mind. Geothermal for one has very little potential, and isn't even regarded as 'renewable' by some. I've never, ever used Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear! If anything, I hate the fact that I've heard the argument 'even if there is an accident it's not so bad - look at Chernobyl" so many times I've lost count. I love Dick Strawbridge though!

Deborah - I was including fossil fuels when I said our current state is unsustainable... Fair enough, wind farms etc do have a negative impact where they are sited, some places more than others. But no where near the scale of uranium mining. Uranium exists in rock in concentrations of around 0.02-0.01% (200g-100g per tonne). That's a fair few tonnes of rock to be mined to produce one tonne of uranium. Apparently, a standard 100mw/eh reactor requires around 160tonnes of uranium fuel (from around 16 million tonnes of rock) each year. That's a lot of rock, all blasted from the ground in open pits. Milling the rock to extract the uranium (along with other unwanted constituents) is a process of chemical leaching, resulting in a (radioactive) waste product dumped in the environment, untreated. The milled uranium then has to be preocessed more to extract the uranium-235..... Enrichment plants are essentially chemical plants, using extremely potent chemicals eg chlorine and fluorine, both far more harmful as a GHG than CO2, both released into the atmosphere at an unrecorded rate... It goes on. Sopend the next few years building new power stations and we're releasing an estimated 20 million tonnes of CO2 per reactor. The emissions a nuclear power station save over its lifetime might just about balance out the damage it's caused, but not by much.

Karl - how long does the concrete last? 1000 years I think, tops - well before the waste inside can be considered 'safe'. As for irresponsible, don't agree, but if so they are most definitely not on their own.

Tim - thanks

Adrian - thanks again, totally agree - put the money they're planning on wasting on nuclear into real renewables and imagine the progress we'd make.

Colin - don't think we should be getting ideas from the American government anyway, we need to be thinking for ourselves on this one....

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[Keith Reeder]

<real world on>

Personally I'm very much in favour of well-implemented nuclear power, for one very good reason.

There is no workable alternative.

<real world off>

[martin kitching]

Personally I'm very much in favour of well-implemented nuclear power, for one very good reason.

There is no workable alternative.



It's a rare day indeed when I find myself in agreement with Keith :t:

Laura, could you please point me in the direction of the source of your statement that 'fluorine and chlorine are both far more harmful as a GHG than CO2'?

As for the suggestion about making 'nuclear power a nightmare for the Government and the electricity industry'.......we should just be greatful that the majority of the public don't advocate such irresponsible action. What do you think it would actually achieve?

martin

[Jos Stratford]

Given the choice, where would I prefer to live? One blighted by a single nuclear power station or one covered by the equivalent number of wind farms needed to produce the same amount of power? Barring the big 'if there are no accidents', variant 'a' is essentially non-polluting and non-destructive to anything other than the immediate habitat perhaps destroyed to build the thing ... plus provides a good few Black Redstarts with choice homes :) Variant 'b', regardless of whether is operating normally or not, is guaranteed to be destructive, guaranteed to 'take out' significant numbers of birds and, given the number that would be required, guaranteed to be one huge blot across the entire landscape. Plus, total area that would disappear under cement and access roads would surely be many times greater than under the single nuclear option. Green way is nuclear.

PS saw Azure Tits this spring not so far from Chernobyl, very pretty area absolutely crawling with life

[pduxon]

longer term I think we should go the renewable route, fuel cells, solar, wave etc but in the short term I think we will have to use Nuclear.

[Jos Stratford]

Given the choice, where would I prefer to live? One blighted by a single nuclear power station or one covered by the equivalent number of wind farms needed to produce the same amount of power?

Come to think about it, where do I live? Lithuania is (was) one of the world's most nuclear dependant countries - the single plant produces most of our power - and, to date, there are mercifully few wind turbines.

[Jos Stratford]

To resist paying any nuclear surcharge in my electricity bills

Seems a good way to have cozy winter nights by candlelight huddling in blankets, wishing they would reconnect the power supply ;) Mind you, that would save on power use



.... pay the money into a green fund, run by independent experts, which will pay for new, additional renewable electricity generation capacity

I'd be asking some questions as to how that money is being spent - having refused to pay the electricity bill and so been forced to sit in a chilly home, I wouldn't like to think that my hardships are simply funding the chopping of a few more White-tailed Eagles

[abagguley]

...in the short term I think we will have to use Nuclear.

I think a lot of people fall into that camp, Pete - not 'out & out' fans of nuclear power, but seeing it as the lesser evil until something better comes along.

I can see the practicality of that, but morally I see a big problem with a short term power source which leaves very very long term waste.

Adrian

[turkish van]

Laura, could you please point me in the direction of the source of your statement that 'fluorine and chlorine are both far more harmful as a GHG than CO2'?

As for the suggestion about making 'nuclear power a nightmare for the Government and the electricity industry'.......we should just be greatful that the majority of the public don't advocate such irresponsible action. What do you think it would actually achieve?

martin

Annoyed that I can't find my original source for this, (and can't spend ages searching now - away on holiday tomorrow) and can't find a decent table of Global Warming Potentials that includes these at the mo. The best I can find is this GWP (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html) which only includes fluorine in compound form, and no chlorine. However, it does show the potential.

What would it achieve? Hopefully a little more than other campaigns are achieving at the moment. If the Government covers its ears, we have to shout louder. Ok, maybe it's not the most practical or responsible thing in the world, but it's a bunch of people going for the same goal who have decided to attempt something a little more drastic to try to make a difference. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[deborah4]

Deborah - I was including fossil fuels when I said our current state is unsustainable...

er, no .. you were using the 'unsustainability' argument to support a stance against NP in that particular quote and I suggested a long term reliance on fossil fuels were also unsustainable, hence my stance on 'reduction' in reliance of all energy dependent activities


Fair enough, wind farms etc do have a negative impact where they are sited, some places more than others. But no where near the scale of uranium mining.

That's probably due to the fact our reliance on NP is on a scale far greater than our reliance on wind power at present - if you believe we could derive anywhere near the same amount of energy from windfarms at current levels of energy consumption without an even greater environmental impact, I think you need to back this up with some figures


put the money they're planning on wasting on nuclear into real renewables and imagine the progress we'd make.

What exactly are you referring to, when you talk about 'renewable' energy sources? Anything available at the moment is on a small scale and very expensive to install, as such, where do you propose we derive our energy from in the meantime? (ie. If it's not fossil fuels, or NP?)

Your argument supporting a stance against NP, is abstract and unrealistic and NOT sustainable, given the current reliance on fossil fuel energy consumption and the very high cost of alternatives, including the environmental impact of even small scale renewables such as wind farms

[Keith Reeder]

It's a rare day indeed when I find myself in agreement with Keith :t:
But as you've realised Martin, everyone does eventually see the error of their ways!

;)

When they demolished Blyth power station a year or three back, I actually found myself thinking that It'd be OK with me if they replaced it with a nuclear installation, and I only live a couple of miles as the crow flies from the site.

Better there than up on Druridge Bay; and better to use the site for that than for another bloody housing estate.

I still feel the same - I'd be quite happy living in the shadow of a nuclear power station, and we simply have nowhere else to go.

The fact is, all power has its environmental price, and I honestly see the price of nuclear power as one worth paying.

That's not an "it won't be my problem..." mindset - there will be a solution to the disposal of waste (vitrification seems good - glass will last a damn' sight longer than any concrete), and avoiding nuclear in the hope of a totally environmentally benign solution is just crazy.

Besides, it might encourage a lot of energy wasters to reign back if they realise that in order to maintain their profligacy a nuclear power plant will need to be built at the end of their street...

[Jos Stratford]

If the Government covers its ears, we have to shout louder.

Or, it could be argued, they are already listening (to?) and beginning to understand that nuclear is preferrable to the current drive towards wind-dominated renewables, the latter a nonsence.

[turkish van]

Given the choice, where would I prefer to live? One blighted by a single nuclear power station or one covered by the equivalent number of wind farms needed to produce the same amount of power? Barring the big 'if there are no accidents', variant 'a' is essentially non-polluting and non-destructive to anything other than the immediate habitat perhaps destroyed to build the thing ... plus provides a good few Black Redstarts with choice homes :) Variant 'b', regardless of whether is operating normally or not, is guaranteed to be destructive, guaranteed to 'take out' significant numbers of birds and, given the number that would be required, guaranteed to be one huge blot across the entire landscape. Plus, total area that would disappear under cement and access roads would surely be many times greater than under the single nuclear option. Green way is nuclear.

PS saw Azure Tits this spring not so far from Chernobyl, very pretty area absolutely crawling with life

I honestly don't understand the obsession with windfarms. There's no reason to cover the country in them!

Sorry, but disagree on variant 'a' being essentially non-polluting and non-destructive. See my previous reply to Deborah for starters - nuclear is nothing but the opposite, and most definitely not 'green'.

Re Chernobyl: Ive seen the pictures, and agree it looks amazing. But if that's what it takes for nature to flourish, it's a sad day. Unless you see some Azure Tits of course :-)

[Tyke]

Hi Laura:-
As a matter of interest:-
When the gas runs out, from what fuel would you plan to generate electricity?
When the oil runs out, what fuel would you use in air & terrestrial transportation?
Colin

[turkish van]

er, no .. you were using the 'unsustainability' argument to support a stance against NP in that particular quote and I suggested a long term reliance on fossil fuels were also unsustainable, hence my stance on 'reduction' in reliance of all energy dependent activities

Ok, ok, misunderstanding....

That's probably due to the fact our reliance on NP is on a scale far greater than our reliance on wind power at present - if you believe we could derive anywhere near the same amount of energy from windfarms at current levels of energy consumption without an even greater environmental impact, I think you need to back this up with some figures

Again, not suggesting anything like windfarms need to power us 100%, far from it.Note the info I gave referred to one nuclear power station, blow that up to current and future levels of nuclear power use and I think we've got an effect that easily matches the negatives of wind power. But no, I don't have any figures.

What exactly are you referring to, when you talk about 'renewable' energy sources? Anything available at the moment is on a small scale and very expensive to install, as such, where do you propose we derive our energy from in the meantime? (ie. If it's not fossil fuels, or NP?)
A balance, utilising different forms of energy generation so that none are overpowering and causing excessive damage. Energy efficiency and reduction we are agreed is most important. Microgeneration (wind turbines/PV tiles) on houses and offices (as Adrian said, grants and subsidies handed out to make this a realistic option/requirement would be a far better use of 'nuclear' money). Wind, wave, tidal, solar.... yes they're expensive (what isn't at the beginning?), yes they're small scale - they need to be developed as everything else does. The potential is there - in the not too distant future, if we get our finger out. In the mean time, use what we have - nuclear is still on the go (I'm not saying we should shut them all down this instant), push efficiency/reduction. There's not an immediate crisis, and we have the technology waiting.

Your argument supporting a stance against NP, is abstract and unrealistic and NOT sustainable, given the current reliance on fossil fuel energy consumption and the very high cost of alternatives, including the environmental impact of even small scale renewables such as wind farms
Your opinions (which are very negative in my view - sorry!). I've got mine, I've got my ideal, and I'm sticking to it. One thing I have noticed in the last few years is that most people in my generation (I'm 19) and a bit older, (who you can call uneducated, inexperienced or whatever - they know enough to make an informed decision, as I think I just about do) are against nuclear, and those older are all for it, obviously with a few exceptions. Somehow we seem to have a more positive outlook. What does that mean? The people who will deal with it are the ones who don't want it. Unfortunate huh?

[deborah4]

I honestly don't understand the obsession with windfarms. There's no reason to cover the country in them!

Sorry, but disagree on variant 'a' being essentially non-polluting and non-destructive. See my previous reply to Deborah for starters - nuclear is nothing but the opposite, and most definitely not 'green'.




And see my responses to this unfounded drivel you used to rebut my arguments in post 27

[turkish van]

And see my responses to this unfounded drivel you used to rebut my arguments in post 27

Wow, what a nice post.

Funnily enough, I'm regretting starting this thread. Debate is important, comments like this unnecessary.

[turkish van]

Hi Laura:-
As a matter of interest:-
When the gas runs out, from what fuel would you plan to generate electricity?
When the oil runs out, what fuel would you use in air & terrestrial transportation?
Colin

Hi,

Think I've explained my humble opinion regarding the gas.
Oil - no answer I'm afraid. I haven't come across a solution to either which seems realistic, but I haven't read into it enough. Go on... shoot me down (or someone else).

[Tyke]

"I've got my ideal, and I'm sticking to it."

And quite right too at your age Laura.

But someone has to face facts which are IMHO :-
*Oil & Gas will run out-maybe in your lifetime Laura-quite probably in your children's
*Terrestrial based "Renewables" have a huge land footprint to output ratio-this goes for wind( which is unpredictably intermittent),bio fuel crops,& PV. It may seriously be a choice between growing food or growing fuel-or indeed having wild raptors & or having electricity.

*Micro-generation is what it says-micro-you can't run factories with it.
*Extracting Hydrogen from hydrocarbons is no gain-extracting it from water at present looks energy hungry.
*This country will soon be 80% plus exposed to imported gas for it's electricity generation-via pipelines thousands of kilometers long just waiting to be blown up by nut cases in foreign countries.
*What happens in UK doesn't matter one jot CO2 wise-China, India & USA will decide the world's CO2 emission levels.
*All of these problems derive from the unsustainable & growing population on this planet-this will get worse-consumption will rise-people will not willingly reduce their consumption. People in India & China desperately want to become consumers-of even basic commodities.

So-yes nuclear is worrying Laura-but so is the stark series of choices lining up for us-and for your generation more so. They are all unpleasant-they all have consequences.

Cheers
Colin

[scampo]

I think a lot of people fall into that camp, Pete - not 'out & out' fans of nuclear power, but seeing it as the lesser evil until something better comes along.

I can see the practicality of that, but morally I see a big problem with a short term power source which leaves very very long term waste.

AdrianTry as I might - and my highly knowledgeable eldest son keeps trying to convince me - but I just can't shift from my head the idea of the unbelieveable consequences for thousands and thousands of innocents if just one more power station does a Chernobyl.

Neither can I easily accept that it doesn't matter because "they knew Chernobyl was dangerous" - mistakes happen and always will is what my brain tells me. Well - as I said, I just can't shift that thought from my head.

Yet, nuclear is a reality in much of the world already so, maybe on that basis alone, we might as well go the same route. The danger is out there anyway. But I could never support such a move.

We need to change the way we live and reduce / conserve energy use. Maybe that would be good for us all. Mass consumption is unsustainable madness, surely?

[pduxon]

I think Laura's position that we should aim to use totally renewable fuels is a good one.

I am, however, a pragmatist. It isn't going to happen over night so in the medium term Nuclear is the only option. It is something we can't be held to ransom with over price and supply.

At the moment "green" alternatives are not the answer. if the government though takes Nuclear as the medium term answer to reduce dependency on "foreign" fossil fuels AND improves the investment climate for development of renewables then I think that is a sensible approach.

I do love the way some people on this forum resort to insults when someone disagrees with them though.

[scampo]

All of these problems derive from the unsustainable & growing population on this planet-this will get worse-consumption will rise-people will not willingly reduce their consumption. People in India & China desperately want to become consumers-of even basic commodities.

Cheers
ColinGood post, Colin. I suspect we'll be forced to cut our supremely extravagant consumption at some point whether we like it or not (and the sooner the better - just how do the supermarkets and manufacturers get away with it?). I do believe that the day will come when it will be thought that much of what we're doing today an unbelieveable obscenity.

The idea that future generations will be digging up ugly remnants of plastic instead of facscinating remnants of fossils appals me.

[POP]

"I've got my ideal, and I'm sticking to it."

And quite right too at your age Laura.

But someone has to face facts which are IMHO :-
*Oil & Gas will run out-maybe in your lifetime Laura-quite probably in your children's
*Terrestrial based "Renewables" have a huge land footprint to output ratio-this goes for wind( which is unpredictably intermittent),bio fuel crops,& PV. It may seriously be a choice between growing food or growing fuel-or indeed having wild raptors & or having electricity.

*Micro-generation is what it says-micro-you can't run factories with it.
*Extracting Hydrogen from hydrocarbons is no gain-extracting it from water at present looks energy hungry.
*This country will soon be 80% plus exposed to imported gas for it's electricity generation-via pipelines thousands of kilometers long just waiting to be blown up by nut cases in foreign countries.
*What happens in UK doesn't matter one jot CO2 wise-China, India & USA will decide the world's CO2 emission levels.
*All of these problems derive from the unsustainable & growing population on this planet-this will get worse-consumption will rise-people will not willingly reduce their consumption. People in India & China desperately want to become consumers-of even basic commodities.

So-yes nuclear is worrying Laura-but so is the stark series of choices lining up for us-and for your generation more so. They are all unpleasant-they all have consequences.

Cheers
ColinWhat an absolute peice of common sense,written by someone who lives in the real world.

POP

[turkish van]

"I've got my ideal, and I'm sticking to it."

And quite right too at your age Laura.

But someone has to face facts which are IMHO :-
*Oil & Gas will run out-maybe in your lifetime Laura-quite probably in your children's
*Terrestrial based "Renewables" have a huge land footprint to output ratio-this goes for wind( which is unpredictably intermittent),bio fuel crops,& PV. It may seriously be a choice between growing food or growing fuel-or indeed having wild raptors & or having electricity.

*Micro-generation is what it says-micro-you can't run factories with it.
*Extracting Hydrogen from hydrocarbons is no gain-extracting it from water at present looks energy hungry.
*This country will soon be 80% plus exposed to imported gas for it's electricity generation-via pipelines thousands of kilometers long just waiting to be blown up by nut cases in foreign countries.
*What happens in UK doesn't matter one jot CO2 wise-China, India & USA will decide the world's CO2 emission levels.
*All of these problems derive from the unsustainable & growing population on this planet-this will get worse-consumption will rise-people will not willingly reduce their consumption. People in India & China desperately want to become consumers-of even basic commodities.

So-yes nuclear is worrying Laura-but so is the stark series of choices lining up for us-and for your generation more so. They are all unpleasant-they all have consequences.

Cheers
Colin

Nice post Colin. I am facing these facts, and I'm just trying to put forward a possible beginning to a solution - obviously a different one to what most people think will work, but I'm not too bothered about that. (Well, I am in the sense that I don't think it's right, but I'm not going to be swayed too easily).

Only two things I can really say (see, I do agree!):
Add uranium to oil and gas in your running out list;
If there's one mindset I hate, it's that "one more won't make a difference". What happens in the UK does matter - we may be a small country, but we've got a bit of influence. If we can do it right and set an example, it might just encourage others to do the same. Maybe. It has to matter; otherwise what's the point? Why are we debating? I think it matters if I boil too much water in the kettle, and it definitely matters if we believe we can make a difference.

[deborah4]

Wow, what a nice post.

Funnily enough, I'm regretting starting this thread. Debate is important, comments like this unnecessary.

Apologies if my comment upset you. However, perhaps I can refer you to your original post which advocates immediate and direct action against the use of Nuclear Power on the grounds it is unsustainable and unenvironmentally sound. You argued quite strongly that it is more damaging than other energy sources such as fossil fuels and wind turbines when I and others suggested otherwise.

We are all in favour of deriving our energy consumption from totally renewable and environmentally sustainable methods - that is the Ideal. But unless it is pragmatic and acheivable in the short-term, which it is not without continued use of NP, and accepts existing energy sources during an interim period of moving towards more 'green' methods, stances such as advocated in Post 1 and the comments used to support such a stance remains political rhetoric. We are all in favour, from what I can gather from the comments on this thread, of 'green' energy. What you advocate in post 1 and the reasons you give to support this position do not provide the means to reach that Ideal. In my view, it does not consider the broader environmental, social, economic and practical issues required for sound 'green' politics. Ideals are fine, we all have them - but they remain vacuous objectives without a pragmatic and holistic way forward. If you are now arguing that we need an 'balance' of mixed energy derived from existing non-renewables, coinciding with a longterm strategy to move towards non-fossil-fuel, non-NP, renewables and reduction of use etc etc then I totally agree with you but that was not your position at the outset.

[joannec]

Mass consumption is unsustainable madness, surely?


This is absolutely the heart of this debate!!!! On a personal level, we ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IN THE WESTERN WORLD NEEDS TO CONSUME LESS, on every level, that means shopping less, buying less (even binoculars), travelling less and making do with less.

[Jos Stratford]

On a personal level, we ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IN THE WESTERN WORLD NEEDS TO CONSUME LESS, on every level, that means shopping less, buying less (even binoculars), travelling less and making do with less.

But we live in the real world

[scampo]

Nice post Colin. I am facing these facts, and I'm just trying to put forward a possible beginning to a solution - obviously a different one to what most people think will work, but I'm not too bothered about that. (Well, I am in the sense that I don't think it's right, but I'm not going to be swayed too easily).

Only two things I can really say (see, I do agree!):
Add uranium to oil and gas in your running out list;
If there's one mindset I hate, it's that "one more won't make a difference". What happens in the UK does matter - we may be a small country, but we've got a bit of influence. If we can do it right and set an example, it might just encourage others to do the same. Maybe. It has to matter; otherwise what's the point? Why are we debating? I think it matters if I boil too much water in the kettle, and it definitely matters if we believe we can make a difference.
I think seawater is a source of uranium - I read that somewhere. Yes it matters what we do but regarding the safety or otherwise of nuclear power, my only point was that there are so many power stations around the globe that the danger is already out there.

It's sad the much-hyped nuclear fusion experiments came to nil. That was the great hope when I was young. And what's equally sad is that no one has yet found a way to store electricity beyond the lead acid battery.

[scampo]

This is absolutely the heart of this debate!!!! On a personal level, we ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IN THE WESTERN WORLD NEEDS TO CONSUME LESS, on every level, that means shopping less, buying less (even binoculars), travelling less and making do with less.
People can't see it, sadly. At the least the manufacturers and retailers could start by packaging less and using paper instead of plastics...

A pair of bins does last for years and years whereas such as a mobile phone lasts next to no time. We dump a mountain of consumer electronics every year, choc full of poisonous metals.

[scampo]

But we live in the real worldWe live in a world where we value above all else our individual freedom of choice. Yet, of course, we don't have any such "freedom": we are driven by media fed consumerist desire and don't seem able to see a way out of it except maybe and occasionally by pricing, which always hits the poorest.

Why should car manufacturers be allowed to sell cars that do 12mpg or 140mph... I wonder if we live in the real world any longer, Jos, no - maybe we live in a hyper-real world, one manufactured for us by mass manufacturers and their media allies. It's fogged all of our brains. We're trying to live in the fantasy world they've created for us. We've given up being human - we're only satisfied if we're superhuman.

What we have really is only responsibilities, not rights. It's time we faced up to them. If nuclear power provides cheap electricity then we'll just continue as we are: mass consuming and mass polluting.

[Jos Stratford]

We live in a world where we value above all else the so-called right to individual choice. But we don't actually have such freedom: we are driven by consumerism and don't seem able to see a way out of it except by pricing, which always hits the poorest.

Why should car manufacturers be allowed to sell cars that do 12mpg or 140mph... we don't live in the real world, Jos, no - we live in a hyper-real world, Jos, one manufactured for us by the media and which has fogged our brains. We're living the fantasy dreams they sell us. We're trying to be superhuman.

We should realise that we have responsibilities not rights.

Partly agree with the points about high consumption cars ;) but in the post before it was suggested we travel less, buy less - including binoculars ! - a worthy ideal to wish for, but its not the way it's going to be. Personally don't think I live a fantasy dream or a world created by the media nor do I seek to be superhuman, but I can't see the energy issue ever being resolved by expecting us to cut down ...the fact is I would consider myself as moderately environmentally aware and concerned, yet probably do more kilometres than the average consumer and certainly take more foreign trips. If I don't do cut down, so I don't expect the vast majority of others will either.

[turkish van]

Apologies if my comment upset you. However, perhaps I can refer you to your original post which advocates immediate and direct action against the use of Nuclear Power on the grounds it is unsustainable and unenvironmentally sound. You argued quite strongly that it is more damaging than other energy sources such as fossil fuels and wind turbines when I and others suggested otherwise.

Wasn't aware it came across like that. Even I'm not daft enough to think we can shut them down tomorrow and everything will be rosy.


Ideals are fine, we all have them - but they remain vacuous objectives without a pragmatic and holistic way forward. If you are now arguing that we need an 'balance' of mixed energy derived from existing non-renewables, coinciding with a longterm strategy to move towards non-fossil-fuel, non-NP, renewables and reduction of use etc etc then I totally agree with you but that was not your position at the outset.

Haven't changed my stance in the last day, a balance is what I've been after for a fair bit longer than that. But I'm not looking for a long-term strategy either - no new nuclear power stations, simple as that. That's short term in my brain, and I see no reason why we can't achieve it.

No hard feelings :-)

[scampo]

Partly agree with the points about high consumption cars ;) but in the post before it was suggested we travel less, buy less - including binoculars ! - a worthy ideal to wish for, but its not the way it's going to be. Personally don't think I live a fantasy dream or a world created by the media nor do I seek to be superhuman, but I can't see the energy issue ever being resolved by expecting us to cut down ...the fact is I would consider myself as moderately environmentally aware and concerned, yet probably do more kilometres than the average consumer and certainly take more foreign trips. If I don't do cut down, so I don't expect the vast majority of others will either.
If we aren't forced to cut down it might be resolved for us, I suppose. But, at present it has to be said that for us in the West at least all seems well in this best possible of all worlds.

Btw, flying seems to leave the biggest "carbon footprint" of all, so that might be an area we later come to look back on with regret.

[Jos Stratford]

I wonder if we live in the real world any longer, Jos, no - maybe we live in a hyper-real world, one manufactured for us by mass manufacturers and their media allies. It's fogged all of our brains. We're trying to live in the fantasy world they've created for us. We've given up being human - we're only satisfied if we're superhuman.

Na, sorry, reconsidered this and have come to the conclusion your view of the world is far removed from how I see it - fogged brain, fantasy world, hyper-real (whatever that means) ...ha ha ha, glad I don't live in Leicestershire!

[scampo]

Na, sorry, reconsidered this and have come to the conclusion your view of the world is far removed from how I see it - fogged brain, fantasy world, hyper-real (whatever that means) ...ha ha ha, glad I don't live in Leicestershire!No - I think Leicestershire is still safe enough.

(-;

I was thinking of the rich city types living in fantasy land, maybe. Everything fake, everything perfect - cult of power, youth, etc.

[Jos Stratford]

Btw, flying seems to leave the biggest "carbon footprint" of all

Think I heard it mentioned before somewhere, but so what? I will still fly. I'll set a wager that my carbon footprint ain't so deep as many others ...it's all about a balance and I do my bit plenty enough, so if I fancy offsetting that a bit by getting to see the greater part of this wonderful world that we are striving to preserve, then well that's the real world.

[turkish van]

Think I heard it mentioned before somewhere, but so what? I will still fly. I'll set a wager that my carbon footprint ain't so deep as many others ...it's all about a balance and I do my bit plenty enough, so if I fancy offsetting that a bit by getting to see the greater part of this wonderful world that we are striving to preserve, then well that's the real world.

Ooh, Jos turns controversial....

I'm sure you do your bit, and the whole 'why should it be up to me?' thing comes into play here, but the problem is it's a bit late for a balance. We need to reduce, we all know that, and 'offsetting' your smaller footprint by flying to some far flung country isn't exactly achieving that...

I'd love to see the world (or even your back garden) but I've got a real problem justifying the flights. And it's really annoying.

[Jos Stratford]

flying to some far flung country isn't exactly achieving that...

It achieves what is designed to do - to get me to see what I want.

Sure I could spend my life locked up in a cold dark cupboard and probably have a so-called 'carbon footprint' next to zero, but I'd be bored out of my brain and probably not give two hoots about anything, let alone the environment. So, I and the majority of others who share this real world make decisions - sure we're environmental sinners on some issues, but at the same time I would hope we leave something elsewhere a little positive too.

PS back garden very nice, not sure you'd like the house though - no central heating or, in winter, running water.

[deborah4]

...

Haven't changed my stance in the last day, a balance is what I've been after for a fair bit longer than that.

Which is going to include NP, despite unsustainable waste management/decommissioning, at least for the short-term

But I'm not looking for a long-term strategy either - no new nuclear power stations, simple as that.

That is a 'long-term' objective, I think, rather than an acheivable and best environmental practice short-term strategy for all the reasons previously stated. The present alternatives to new nuclear power stations (other than maybe fossil fuels) will not meet current consumer demands with world population growth at the rate it is along increased consumerism in developing countries. At present, the deficit in supply that building no new np stations would leave, would be compensated by more drilling in places like the AWR, more violent conflicts over oil in the Middle East (with the polluting results we are now seeing in the Lebanese conflict) , larger and larger crude oil carrying tankers with all with greater risks of pollution to the biosphere, marine wildlife, migratory birds etc etc

...That's short term in my brain, and I see no reason why we can't achieve it.

Maybe a short term strategy but in my opinion, given the unlikelyhood of an immediate and massive voluntary reduction in world consumption of energy, it would create devasting long-term effects for reason's mentioned above.

No hard feelings :-)

None meant and none taken ;)

[scampo]

It achieves what is designed to do - to get me to see what I want.

Sure I could spend my life locked up in a cold dark cupboard and probably have a so-called 'carbon footprint' next to zero, but I'd be bored out of my brain and probably not give two hoots about anything, let alone the environment. So, I and the majority of others who share this real world make decisions - sure we're environmental sinners on some issues, but at the same time I would hope we leave something elsewhere a little positive too.

PS back garden very nice, not sure you'd like the house though - no central heating or, in winter, running water.I should think our individual carbon footprints are giant-sized compared with past generations, Jos. I doubt they felt they were locked up in a cold dark cupboard - even if from our advantaged but distorted perspective it might seem so. I suspect in terms of happiness rating they would probably beat us, who knows?

[Jos Stratford]

I should think our individual carbon footprints are giant-sized compared with past generations. I suspect in terms of happiness rating they would probably beat us, who knows?

Provided they hadn't died of tuberculosis or other illness that resulted in the lower life expectancies of these past generations. Provided they didn't live and work in the heavily polluted airs of some of our industrial cities and valleys that blighted certain of our earlier generations.

Ah well, seems we're drifting a bit from the core issue of the thread now, but should I have to rate myself on that happiness scale, I'd put myself pretty near the top, I'm content with my lot.

[scampo]

Provided they hadn't died of tuberculosis or other illness that resulted in the lower life expectancies of these past generations. Provided they didn't live and work in the heavily polluted airs of some of our industrial cities and valleys that blighted certain of our earlier generations.

Ah well, seems we're drifting a bit from the core issue of the thread now, but should I have to rate myself on that happiness scale, I'd put myself pretty near the top, I'm content with my lot.
As I said earlier - the West is the best of all possible worlds. At the cost to other parts of the world, of course, but no matter of that.

As you say we drift.

[Karl J]

This Story (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local/display.var.836136.0.street_lights_to_be_turned_of f_overnight.php) was on the news again tonight and it seems relevant enough to post on here

Turning off the street lights - any takers ?

The local council reckon it'll save up to 25% on the lecky bill for lighting and the reduction in energy use has to be good too doesn't it. Personally though i wouldn't fancy it around here (Not In My Back Yard, i suppose) -

i bet the villains can't wait

[Mickymouse]

Well I am not going to take a stance against Nuclear energy because I can't see any rational alternative. Wind, Bio, both have a huge environmental impacts and the impact of Nuclear is hugely overstated in my opinion.
Cutting down on wasteful use of energy would be a good thing but how are we going to start doing that in a meaningful way, one group of pundits crack on about turning off the little dinky pilot light on your tele to save the planet and my local Tescos is selling Patio heaters, I despair for the human race.

Mick

[Tyke]

Hi again Laura, In post ~37 Scampo points out that there are a number of nuclear power plants worldwide already.This is a link to a list of them :-

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

So we have over 400 plants which have been operating for decades with a cumulative operating experience of 11,000 plant years.THe safety record for this scale of operation would seem to be reasonable .
I wondered then if your objection to nuclear power extends to these plants, and if you should-logically- be pressing for their closure?....because if there is a risk to humanity from this technology ( & who could argue that there isn't?!!) then it is surely on a global scale.
One further thought Laura-& I may be wrong here-my understanding was that the UK Government's Energy review proposed that existing plants would be replaced, rather than closed. I am not aware that they plan to increase the nuclear component of UK electricity generation. ( personally I would) There is also a proposal that the replacements be built alongside existing ( decommissioned) plants.
I live near Dungeness & can see no logical reason not to replace it.
I wondered if you were aware of this & whether you are against replacements-or just additional plants?

So, I and the majority of others who share this real world make decisions - sure we're environmental sinners on some issues, but at the same time I would hope we leave something elsewhere a little positive too.


Jos- I have agreed so much with your posts here.
From what I have read of your liittle eden you are certainly paying your environmental "debt" back.
If only the rest of us were living your way.
One thought occurred to me-if Lithuanians start to leave your country on the scale that Poles are doing, Lithuania & Poland will be able to close half their power plants-whilst UK will be building them like crazy.

Has anyone seen the massive amount housing being built on green fields around Ashford? Bye Bye SE Kent!!

Colin

[turkish van]

Sorry for the convenvient timing, but I'm away on holiday in a couple of hours so there won't be anymore input from me....

It's been fun. Enjoy ;)

[Osprey_watcher]

Sorry for the convenvient timing, but I'm away on holiday in a couple of hours so there won't be anymore input from me....

It's been fun. Enjoy ;)
Hope you're going on a push bike and not flying or driving. ;)

[nigelblake]

Personally I think nuclear is the only option at the moment, it is interesting to note that one of the biggest greenhouse gas problems comes from farting cattle, 15% worldwide (25% in UK) of greenhouse gases, methane in this case, comes from cattle flatulence!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3005740.stm
http://www.rense.com/politics6/peee_u.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,905199,00.html

[Jos Stratford]

One thought occurred to me-if Lithuanians start to leave your country on the scale that Poles are doing, Lithuania & Poland will be able to close half their power plants-


They are leaving on a greater scale than the Poles - population was 3.6 million when I arrived, estimates put it at 2.8 million now. Perhaps more, perhaps less. Population of Lithuanians in London thought to be somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000, on a par with the size of the second city here. Plenty more in Dublin.

[Tyke]

They are leaving on a greater scale than the Poles - population was 3.6 million when I arrived, estimates put it at 2.8 million now. Perhaps more, perhaps less. Population of Lithuanians in London thought to be somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000, on a par with the size of the second city here. Plenty more in Dublin.

The Civil Service predictions were for 15,000 imigrants from the Accession countries!!
Contemplating the resources required to meet the consumption of this tidal wave of people is pretty frightening.
The sooner we start building those power plants the better!!

Colin

[abagguley]

...population was 3.6 million when I arrived, estimates put it at 2.8 million now.


Time to try a new brand of aftershave, Jos? ;)

[Vultur]

(Disclaimer: The following post is not intended to anger anyone who holds an opposing opinion)

There has been only one nuclear-power accident that has harmed civilians - Chernobyl, and as was pointed out before, this was due to inexcusably sloppy design, construction, and operation.

We could bury waste several hundred feet deep in barren desert (Nevada in North America, the Atacama in South America, the Gobi and Rub-al'Khali in Eurasia, the Sahara... etc.) where it would never be encountered by our descendants.

Nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases.

It might cause problems with our descendants 10,000 years down the line, but if we don't solve our current problems, we won't have any descendants!

Most "green" energies (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) can't produce mopre than a (relatively) tiny amount of energy in the foreseeable future.
So, IMHO, while I believe conservation measures are crucial, nuclear is our best shot.

[Mickymouse]

(Disclaimer: The following post is not intended to anger anyone who holds an opposing opinion)

There has been only one nuclear-power accident that has harmed civilians - Chernobyl, and as was pointed out before, this was due to inexcusably sloppy design, construction, and operation.

We could bury waste several hundred feet deep in barren desert (Nevada in North America, the Atacama in South America, the Gobi and Rub-al'Khali in Eurasia, the Sahara... etc.) where it would never be encountered by our descendants.

Nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases.

It might cause problems with our descendants 10,000 years down the line, but if we don't solve our current problems, we won't have any descendants!

Most "green" energies (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) can't produce mopre than a (relatively) tiny amount of energy in the foreseeable future.
So, IMHO, while I believe conservation measures are crucial, nuclear is our best shot.Doesn't anger me, I agree entirely and evidence seems to be emerging that the effects of Chernobyl have been vastly overstated.

Mick

[Collster]

Its alright if people are not keen on Nuclear power, but realistically what are our alternatives

[Jane Turner]

I hate the idea of nuclear (fission) power but can't see any way to avoid it.

[Pluvius]

I am all for nuclear. What people dont seem to realise is that the nuclear industry is in someways like digital cameras(as an analogy) Despite the bad press that nuclear reactors earned in past years, more and more people are reconsidering nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel. The primary reasons for the shift in opinion stem from concerns for the environment and interest in enhancing national energy self-sufficiency. At the moment, nuclear and hydroelectric power are the only technologies that can generate large amounts of energy without emitting copious greenhouses gases. Although dams may initially seem more appealing than nuclear reactors, hydroelectric power plants are impractical in the many regions that lack adequate sources of flowing water. That means nuclear power stands alone as a practical and environmentally friendly resource that is not tied to local geography.

Although efforts are just beginning to ramp up, a handful of modern nuclear reactors, known as Generation III devices, are being planned or built today in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. First generation reactors were the research devices that proved nuclear energy could work in the lab as well as on the chalkboard. Second generation reactors took the technology one step further, demonstrating that the machines were economically feasible power plants. Emerging, third generation reactors are equipped with advanced features, such as safety systems incorporating passive energy dissipation or natural processes, simplifying their design and allowing them to cope with malfunctions without the need for operator action.

Generation IV machines now in development will provide dramatic improvements in reactor design. "They're going to mean significant improvements in economics of their performance, in safety, and in waste minimization, as well as being more resistant to attempts to divert material for illegal weapons manufacturing.

Some advanced design concepts include high temperature reactors that are 2-3 times more efficient than contemporary reactors, mechanically simpler machines with fewer moving parts for improved reliability, and nuclear plants that would process their own waste. Unlike earlier designs that were intended simply as electricity production facilities, the additional heat from high temperature reactors could provide hot water for nearby communities or energy for seawater desalinization. An important benefit of the reactors of tomorrow might be cleaner cars, because hotter, Generation IV nuclear plants could produce fuel for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

It will be another twenty-five or thirty years before fourth generation nuclear reactors come into service, but improved third generation reactors, Generation III+ designs, may be in operation by the end of this decade.

So basically the science is improving the technology all the time.

[Tranquility Base]

Nuclear power is the ONLY viable alternative to fdossil fuels (unless someone makes a fusion breakthrough...)
You can't have it both ways! CO2 or nuke: wind power is NOT an option, just a sop to the yoghurt knitters. Energy policy?
1) Hydrogen fueled cars/ trains /buses
2) H2 / O2 scramjets for aircraft
3) Nuclear power pro tem for domestic power

[Helenelizabeth2]

Nuclear power is the ONLY viable alternative to fdossil fuels (unless someone makes a fusion breakthrough...)
You can't have it both ways! CO2 or nuke: wind power is NOT an option, just a sop to the yoghurt knitters. Energy policy?
1) Hydrogen fueled cars/ trains /buses
2) H2 / O2 scramjets for aircraft
3) Nuclear power pro tem for domestic power

Agree about nuclear - there are no real alternatives that can produce the volume. Transport tho is much harder - H technology is still a long way from real commercial viability - it's been 15 years away for much longer than 15 years and never getting any closer. Road transport is the 2nd largest emissions sector and the fastest growing - with no real solutions. Almost (but not quite) keeps me awake at night. Seems to me critical that road usage is reduced but am ashamed to say I am not really doing as much personally towards achieving this as I should be.

Helen

[nirofo]

Just imagine how many windmills we would need to replace the amount of electricity that's produced in the UK by Atomic Energy, there would be hundreds of thousands of them, every spare piece of ground would need to be used, what would happen to the wildlife then? There would be nowhere to go in the UK where you could get away from windmills, they would dominate your very existance, the constant low frequency sound from all these whirling blades would have a terrible effect on your peace of mind. It's a non starter, anybody who think's we can produce the power we need without Nuclear Energy is living in cloud cuckoo land.

nirofo.

[Tranquility Base]

:clap: Just imagine how many windmills we would need to replace the amount of electricity that's produced in the UK by Atomic Energy, there would be hundreds of thousands of them, every spare piece of ground would need to be used, what would happen to the wildlife then? There would be nowhere to go in the UK where you could get away from windmills, they would dominate your very existance, the constant low frequency sound from all these whirling blades would have a terrible effect on your peace of mind. It's a non starter, anybody who think's we can produce the power we need without Nuclear Energy is living in cloud cuckoo land.

nirofo.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Gregmik]

Absolutely agree.

The Yanks are majoring on bio-ethanol just now. Someone calculated how much land would be required to replace all their oil-the answer is a crazy number.
There is no such thing as "clean" energy, or "green energy" . There is an environmental cost for the extraction of all energy.

Colin

Colin,
We could convert all our fields to bio-fuel production and still not meet the needs. Plus in order to produce it you have to heat it with fossel fuels. It takes just about as much fuel to produce it as what is produced. The only reason it is pushed is because it is subsidised by the gov't at the moment.

Then how would we produce any food stuffs?

Greg

[Helenelizabeth2]

Colin,
We could convert all our fields to bio-fuel production and still not meet the needs. Plus in order to produce it you have to heat it with fossel fuels. It takes just about as much fuel to produce it as what is produced. The only reason it is pushed is because it is subsidised by the gov't at the moment.

Then how would we produce any food stuffs?

Greg

Hi. You're completely right about the land implications of biofuels. Realisitically, it looks like no more than 5-10% of the world's current fuel needs could be provided by biofuels without having serious implications on habitat via the extension of agricultural land or affecting food supply and demand by competition for existing agricultural land.

However, just have to pick you up on the energy in/energy out argument. The 1:1 ratio is only true in the US where many of the factories are out-of-date and no effort has been made to make them environmentally-friendly. In Brazil, the ratio is 1:8 and even in the UK it would be more like 1:2.

Helen

[Tyke]

Helen & Greg-Yes I agree. There are no quick fix solutions. How can there be ?. The highly concentrated energy we use currently ,derives from millions of years of processing by nature & geology. What makes us think we can reproduce this in processes lasting weeks, months or years.Man's insistence on unfettered population growth is the problem.

Nirofo-I so much agree with your post #76- (and with the thoughtfull posts of Pluvius & Tranquility Base.)
I know that we agree on the high environmental cost/low energy gain reality of wind power-certainly in respect of on-shore turbines.
And I too see no alternative to nuclear power-in my view this is as much driven by the known depletion of fossil fuel reserves as it is by the apparent need to reduce fossil fuel derived greenhouse gasses.
In the cause of even-handedness though, it is relevant to highlight the danger of nuclear waste. Although it's incarceration seems to be relatively low on land usage-certainly compared with wind or bio-fuel -we have to recognise that it's adverse environmental effects might not be limited to it's storage location.
I don't know enough about the state of play on safe waste disposal technology. Perhaps there isn't such a thing as safe nuclear waste.

In #70 Mickeymouse mentions that the effects of the radiation from Chernobyl have been "overstated". Certainly there are reports on the internet highlighting the wildlife in the area-seemingly unaffected. But the lifespan of small mammals & birds is a good deal less than ours. How many generations of wildlife in the high fallout area suffered massive mortality before Darwinian adaptation began to click in? The damaging effect on humans has been more visible.

Don't get me wrong-I think worrying about "another Chernobyl" is a bit like worrying about "another Titanic"-technology has moved on.
But we can't ignore the risk from waste.

Colin

[scampo]

...Don't get me wrong-I think worrying about "another Chernobyl" is a bit like worrying about "another Titanic"-technology has moved on.
But we can't ignore the risk from waste.

Colin
BP recently had to shut down the largest US oilfield owing to an unforeseen problem with a highly technical piece of equipment called a "pipe".

I take your point, but, I just don't know - I doubt that we can ever be as safe as necessary when it comes to something as potentially catastrophic as a nuclear accident.

[alcedo.atthis]

"So, erm, is there anyone out there who agrees with me?"

Do you intend switching off the Sun as well??

Nuclear is the only viable process in/for the near future. Without the present nuclear, we will not be able to change between fission and fusion in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

It's only my opinion, and probably quite a few others as well.
Look at the money being spent on it at present, and what they intend spending in the near future.

Regards

Malky

[turkish van]

"So, erm, is there anyone out there who agrees with me?"

Do you intend switching off the Sun as well??

Nuclear is the only viable process in/for the near future. Without the present nuclear, we will not be able to change between fission and fusion in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

It's only my opinion, and probably quite a few others as well.
Look at the money being spent on it at present, and what they intend spending in the near future.

Regards

Malky

Do I intend switching off the sun? No... Why would I?

It would appear a lot of others share your opinion (still not including me), especially on here, and had you not replied to me I probably wouldn't have added to this thread again - my hope is ebbing away as it is, and this definitely isn't the place to get it back! Energy is better spent on more positive things I think.

But all I do when I think about the money is wish it was going into other renewables - I know what others probably think of me and my opinions, but I just can't see myself ever believing nuclear is the (and certainly not the "only") way forward. But what the hell do I know. There are far more respectable and knowledgeable figures on here who think the opposite, which probably means you're right.

Maybe I'll just stick to my wildlife clubs!

[Jos Stratford]

There are far more respectable and knowledgeable figures on here who think the opposite, which probably means you're right.

Maybe I'll just stick to my wildlife clubs!

Though I might disagree with your view on this issue Laura, I'm not sure anyone is more respectable ;) All equals here, please do stick around.

[Tyke]

Yes-please hang around Laura. There's nothing quite as effective as youthfull idealism for testing an argument to destruction.

Scampo-yes I agree that given an exposure of the core in a nuclear plant, there will be risks. I just believe ( maybe hope is a better word !) that Chernobyl no longer represents the likelihood of such an occurrence.

Ref. the BP pipeline , the problem was a metal eating bacteria....thinks!-wonder how soon an extremeophile micro-organism could adapt to chomping it's way through a nuclear reactor??!!

Colin

[Collster]

"So, erm, is there anyone out there who agrees with me?"

Do you intend switching off the Sun as well??

Nuclear is the only viable process in/for the near future. Without the present nuclear, we will not be able to change between fission and fusion in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

It's only my opinion, and probably quite a few others as well.
Look at the money being spent on it at present, and what they intend spending in the near future.

Regards

Malky
Yes Malky i agree with you. It seems the only viable solution. Only pie in the sky dreamers think that wind energy is the answer. All clean technology needs to be looked at, perhaps then people will come around to the idea. At the moment the prospect of half our uplands covered in turbines is their only alternative and it stinks

[harry eales]

A lot of people have had their say, so I thought I'd throw in my two penneth.

Until fairly recently Britain was well off in terms of energy reserves, we had our own oil, natural gas and coal. However these reserves are now limited and cannot keep up with the demand for energy.

Coal is expensive to extract, open casting destroys landforms that have existed for thousands of years. The mines have virtually gone and we are now an importer of coal.

North Sea Gas and Oil are running out and we currently use more of these two products than we can produce ourselves.

Agreed we can import fuels from contries where they are still abundant, sadly many of these are countries with governments that do not always look kindly upon us. The Arab states control most of the worlds oil and those of us who drove or flew during the 1970's will remember that the Arabs and other oil producing nations hiked up the price of oil to twice what it cost the previous month. There is a finite supply of oil and when the stocks get lower the Arab nations are suddenly going to realise that their 'Golden Goose' is dying and the flow of cash into their coffers is going to come to a halt. So it is likely the price of crude oil will continue to rise slowly and erevocably until there isn't any left. After that the Arab nations will quite frankly be stuffed, they don't produce anything else the world wants. Should the Muslim fanatics currently loose in the Middle East take control of states like Saudi Arabia, our oil wil be cut off, even faster than we think

On the matter of Gas, we have recently started to import vast amounts from Russia, and we have already seen them raise the price to far higher levels than it was, even recently. They have demonstrated that they are quite willing to stop supplying any country that will not pay the asking price. I for one don't want to have to rely on Russia for my hot water.

Wind power only works when the wind blows, that isn't 24-7-365 I see many windmills in my area and half the time they are stationary and producing nothing. No substancial wave power machines have been developed and its consequences have already been pointed out by other posters.

Solar power at a household level may slightly warm your water, but thats about all, unless your willing to spend several thousands on a decent set up.

Biofuels may provide part of the answer but the volume needed would destroy an awful lot of habitats. They also deplete the soils continuously of nutrients and its no good saying fertilise the soil. Most of the current fertilisers are oil based, and as we know, that's runing out.

No matter how you look at it, for the best part of the next 100 years we are going to have to rely on Nuclear Power. There isn't at present a viable alternative. We know the dangers, but with some 50 years of experience in the handling and design of reactors there has only been one serious accident.

Yes there is a problem with Nuclear Waste, but that will have to be overcome, newer designs of reactor will produce less and less waste in future years. I'm well aware of the long life of radio-active waste, and yes at some time in the very distant future there may be problems.

But unless we go down the nuclear power route for the next century at least you'd all better get used to intermittent power supplies of gas and electricity.
Your car will get less and less use, as you won't be able to afford to buy petrol to put into it or the Arabs may cut it off all together.

Anyone got a horse for sale? I want to get in quick, before the rush.

Harry

[Mickymouse]

Agree with everything you say Harry, I would like to add that considering all the chemicals and plastics etc we get from oil and coal, future generations will curs us for burning it all when there is Uranium laying there, no good for anything else.

Mick

[colonelboris]

Ah, there are several strains of bacteria that positively thrive on radiation, but none of them eat metal. Yet.
There's quite a bit of progress on nuclear fusion and there's several test-bed reactors being built, too. Vast quantities of energy for very little input - kicks the bum off of fission, and with very little waste to process. It's quite hard to get a fusion reaction going, so it's also farily easy to stop one, as long as it doesn't get a ton of reactant dumped in it - you'll have had it then...
Just for giggles, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXOKz1QRlvQ)'s the biggest nuke test to date, which would be substantially larger than a fusion reactor going off.

[Tim Allwood]

yes, go Nuclear

there's no other viable option

That's what the media tell me anyway

hah

Nuclear? No thanks. No need.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gp_nuclear/nuclear_power.cfm

Tim

[Collster]

Whats the answer then TIM, whirly wind farms on all our most sensitive mountains and moors

[Tyke]

yes, go Nuclear

there's no other viable option

That's what the media tell me anyway

hah

Nuclear? No thanks. No need.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gp_nuclear/nuclear_power.cfm

Tim

mmmm-interesting :-

"Building ten new nuclear reactors, as Blair wants to do, would only cut the UK's CO2 emissions by 4% by 2024 "

But these are REPLACEMENTS for the existing nuclear power plants-what should we replace them with?...wind=10,000 turbines-so where will they go?
Gas=MORE CO2.& more imports.

"Nuclear power also can't bridge the energy gap; it only contributes 3.6% to UK energy supply."

Neat sleight of hand there-"UK energy supply" =EVERYTHING-ie cars, lorries, planes-none of which will be powered by nuclear means-they use oil . The REAL point is nuclear is 20% of our electricity output RIGHT NOW. Demand for electricity is going UP. Close down 20% of our electricity capacity and replace it with what exactly?
The "energy gap" will be CREATED by the closure & non-replacement of our nuclear power plants.

Colin

[abagguley]

Here's a couple of thoughts, then:

We waste something like 35% (I think) of our electricity due to generation/transmission losses.

Generating all of our leccy at the 'Point of Use' could therefore cut our needs by the best part of 35%.

OK - it's not practical to do that - but how close can we get to 100% P.O.U., and how much public money would we need?

If we took x% of the budget of the nuclear build (or ROC subsidies, or whatever source you find politically acceptable) and used it to heavily subsidise people's purchase of, say, Ground Heat Pumps (just to name one possible renewable) you would obviously get a much higher take-up.

Now, I don't know the amount of subsidy it would need to tip the balance to renewables, or what x% actually is, but I bet there's some point where the CO2 saving per pound spent is higher with this approach - I'm not aware of any studies where this has been calculated (for a start, you'd have to canvass people about how much of their own money they'd be willing to put in, to get the level of subsidy correct).

Just to throw in another - the DTI estimates that 6% of our electricity is wasted by appliances left on standby. That seems a tad high to me, but if it's right, why don't the government pass a law that electrical appliances sold in the UK must have the standby functionality disabled?

There are huge potential savings in reducing wasted power, which could probably outweigh everything generated by nuclear and windfarms combined, but it seems that nobody has the imagination or drive to push these measures through.

RE: most of the above posts:
There must be an almost infinite number of permutations of a non-nuclear energy policy, when you think of all the possible energy-saving legislation, different types of subsidised renewable schemes, plus the different percentages of electricity which could be generated from onshore/ offshore wind / clean coal / (and yes, dirty coal, too) / solar / micro-generation / bio fuel etc.

How can anybody claim to have even listed all these permutations, let alone proven them all unworkable? Yet most of the pro-nuclear posters have stated quite unequivocally that nuclear is our only option. End of discussion.

How have you all eliminated so many possible non-nuclear options? Surely it's not just opinion stated as fact? That would never happen on BF. :D

Regards,

Curious of Cloud-cuckoo Land :hippy:

[scampo]

yes, go Nuclear

there's no other viable option

That's what the media tell me anyway

hah

Nuclear? No thanks. No need.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gp_nuclear/nuclear_power.cfm

TimWell said, Tim. Good article.

[nirofo]

yes, go Nuclear

there's no other viable option

That's what the media tell me anyway

hah

Nuclear? No thanks. No need.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gp_nuclear/nuclear_power.cfm

Tim

Hi Tim

Whilst I have every respect for Greenpeace and SOME of the things they are for and do, you certainly don't want to take everything they tell you to heart, especially when it comes to NUCLEAR!! Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, unfortunately most peoples opinions of Nuclear Energy are based on fear, myth and a misunderstanding of what it's about. Today's Nuclear power generating systems are a whole world removed from the old systems, which were designed primarily for one purpose only, (regardless of what they would have you believe) and that was the manufacture of weapons grade Plutonium and Uranium. We've moved on a fair ways since those dark days, we no longer have this desperate need for Atomic weapons, we already have all the material we need anyway! Safety and safety systems are a whole new ball game these days, nothing happens today unless it is accountable for and risk assessed beforehand. Waste management still provides us with a problem, yes, unfortunately most of these problems are caused by environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and other politically correct establishments that put a veto on anything they don't understand or doesn't meet with their criteria. This prevents the people that do know what they are talking about from implementing storage methods that will work and would be safe to the population. There is no other power generating system at present that comes anywhere close to providing us with the amount of power we need now and will need even more so in the future.

nirofo.

[scampo]

...most of these problems are caused by environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and other politically correct establishments that put a veto on anything they don't understand...
nirofo.I would like to hope that there's a bit more to it than that - and I'm not sure what "political correctness" has to do with it in this context. I suspect the folk at Greenpeace have thought this through long and hard - not fools, are they?

I was disappointed to learn that rather than wait just a little longer to use the safest "pebble bed" reactors, the government are planning on using older, less safe techniques.

[Tranquility Base]

There really is no alternative at the moment to the building of more nuclear reactors. Trouble is the main 3 parties think only of the future six years ahead: to them energy is like employment / education/ immigration / invading the Falklands,Iraq, Afghanistan: just things they espouse in the hope of re-election. If even a fraction of the revenue from the North Sea had been spent on research into fusion, we'd probably be there by now.... And we'd still have some petro-chemicals left rn into medicine, plastic, pesticides etc.
The way things are currently heading, you better get used to a future with no cars or planes (apart from American H/O scramjets) and no plastics.

[Tyke]

"There must be an almost infinite number of permutations of a non-nuclear energy policy, when you think of all the possible energy-saving legislation, different types of subsidised renewable schemes, plus the different percentages of electricity which could be generated from onshore/ offshore wind / clean coal / (and yes, dirty coal, too) / solar / micro-generation / bio fuel etc."

Not sure if they are "infinite" Abagguley, but you make a fair point.
No one seems to want to major on energy saving in a big way- a combination of the "want it all want it now lifestyle" & timid politicians perhaps?
Offshore wind looks better than onshore in many respects. Certainly the projects in planning for Liverpool Bay & Thames Estuary are for major capacity installations -around 2000MW in each area from only 7 installations. This is twice the total wind currently installed!...but at 30% load factor these installations will constitute only 2.5% of our electricity requirement...and do we know what the environmental impact of 1000ish turbines in each location will be ?
Clean coal is being pursued I believe-but won't that reduce emissions from dirty coal plants rather than increase capacity?
Don't know what sort of acreage you need to produce any meaningfull amount of power from PV ( solar) but I understand its not a big prospect in UK!
Micro seems to be gaining strength-but what sort of output are we talking from small domestic installations?
Bio fuel is being pursued by at least one major power plant in Wales for co-burning with coal....but again what sort of acreage do you need to make significant impact-and where will it be cultivated?
You didn't mention Combined Heat & Power & Energy from Waste.They seem pretty good ideas to me & meet your Point of Use criterion. A number of Local Authorities are looking at this & some are installed...but I know of one county at least which has met with stiff opposition from FoE etc.on these schemes because they say they aren't "renewable".
Coming back to Nuclear, We have 23 plants with a combined gross capacity of 12,000MW. In 2005 they produced around 20% of UK's total electricity output.
They are due to be closed down by 2020.
What are we to replace them with?
Sometimes I wish politicians were taken out of this problem & engineers could decide!

Colin

[Karl J]

...Trouble is the main 3 parties think only of the future six years ahead: to them energy is like employment / education/ immigration / invading the Falklands,Iraq, Afghanistan: just things they espouse in the hope of re-election...

Wise words indeed, sad but so very true

Not that i've changed my opinion though - as i said before, at the minute i can't see any option other than nuclear. Unless we all cut down...

[scampo]

...Unless we all cut down...
And would it really be that hard?

[Karl J]

And would it really be that hard?

Nope. Can't see it happening though

[turkish van]

Hi Tim

Whilst I have every respect for Greenpeace and SOME of the things they are for and do, you certainly don't want to take everything they tell you to heart, especially when it comes to NUCLEAR!! Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, unfortunately most peoples opinions of Nuclear Energy are based on fear, myth and a misunderstanding of what it's about. Today's Nuclear power generating systems are a whole world removed from the old systems, which were designed primarily for one purpose only, (regardless of what they would have you believe) and that was the manufacture of weapons grade Plutonium and Uranium. We've moved on a fair ways since those dark days, we no longer have this desperate need for Atomic weapons, we already have all the material we need anyway! Safety and safety systems are a whole new ball game these days, nothing happens today unless it is accountable for and risk assessed beforehand. Waste management still provides us with a problem, yes, unfortunately most of these problems are caused by environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and other politically correct establishments that put a veto on anything they don't understand or doesn't meet with their criteria. This prevents the people that do know what they are talking about from implementing storage methods that will work and would be safe to the population. There is no other power generating system at present that comes anywhere close to providing us with the amount of power we need now and will need even more so in the future.

nirofo.

Hi,

Interesting point when you say "most peoples opinions of Nuclear Energy are based on fear, myth and a misunderstanding". Are you talking about those with a pro or anti viewpoint? I can see it both ways: fear of climate change, electricity demands not being met (pro), possibility of accidents, what to do with the waste (anti) etc; myths that nuclear power will solve climate change, nuclear is the only possible option, nuclear is safe, nuclear is renewable, nuclear is non-polluting, radioactive waste can be dealt with safely (pro) etc.

The arguments I've seen from those pro-nuclear mainly come under one (or more) of these 'myths' I've mentioned. Not all of them on here - I'm sure we all realise nuclear isn't the solution to climate change (electricity production only contributes something like 9% of global GHG emissions, nuclear power in most stages is highly polluting itself, nuclear will undoubtedly cause a reduction in resources given to the development of renewable technologies and will likely prevent the imminent need to reduce energy demand etc - see section 5., page 23 of Is Nuclear Power a Solution to Climate Change? (http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reports/Nuclear_Power_April_05v2.pdf) ). Neither is nuclear the only possible option, as everyone insists is the case (well said Abbaguley) - combine a policy of energy efficiency, energy demand reduction, more use of currently available renewables and development of others and there's no reason why we can't avoid new nuclear (see eg. Tackling Climate Change Without Nuclear Power (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/climate_chnge_without_nuke.pdf) ). Nirofo, you can say it again and again, but the bottom line is nuclear will never be completely safe. Too many things can go wrong (and there is a truly massive paper I could show you to prove this, but no-one will read it) and human error will always be a factor. See THIS (http://www.million-against-nuclear.net/background/accidents.htm) page as a selection of the accidents which have occured since Chernobyl (yes, I know it's not an unbiased source, but the facts don't change). I've already described the fact that nuclear isn't renewable - usable uranium will run out in a maximum of 50 years. I've also described the fact that nuclear is far from a clean energy source. I have noted that none of you pro-nuclear folk have admitted that these last two points are true. You have admitted that waste disposal is a problem though, so I won't go into that again, though your reasoning is extremely strange...

That'll do for now I think...
(Thanks to Jos, Colin and one other (you know who you are!) for the encouragement)

Anyone anti nuclear please take a look at the link in my signature....

[Tyke]

Welcome back Laura-great stuff which I want to take time to read,
Just now though-your assertion that uranium resources will "run out in 50 years". If this were anywhere near the truth it would shoot a big hole in any nuclear power plan.
RECOVERABLE Uranium resources-as for any mined commodity -are a function of price as well as physical presence. ie as the costs of fossil ( competitive) fuels rise , uranium miners will go after reserves which are more costly to extract.Remember that as Carbon Trading takes off , fossil fuel costs will rise due to the penalty for their carbon content-this in addition to the rise in costs due to their increasing scarcity.
So it is probably not possible to state what the extent of recoverable uranium ( or oil-or gas!) reserves actually are yet.
In addition -for uranium-fast breeder technology extends the usefull life of the fuel.
In this assessment -by IAEA- effective recoverable reserves of thousands of years are postulated:-

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html

Colin

[turkish van]

Welcome back Laura-great stuff which I want to take time to read,
Just now though-your assertion that uranium resources will "run out in 50 years". If this were anywhere near the truth it would shoot a big hole in any nuclear power plan.
RECOVERABLE Uranium resources-as for any mined commodity -are a function of price as well as physical presence. ie as the costs of fossil ( competitive) fuels rise , uranium miners will go after reserves which are more costly to extract.Remember that as Carbon Trading takes off , fossil fuel costs will rise due to the penalty for their carbon content-this in addition to the rise in costs due to their increasing scarcity.
So it is probably not possible to state what the extent of recoverable uranium ( or oil-or gas!) reserves actually are yet.
In addition -for uranium-fast breeder technology extends the usefull life of the fuel.
In this assessment -by IAEA- effective recoverable reserves of thousands of years are postulated:-

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html

Colin

Hi Colin,

There seems to be a lot of variation in the stated figures for the amount of uranium in the world - the majority of what I have come across suggests around 5 million tonnes of 'recoverable uranium (ie what is financially viable, and does not require more energy to extract than it will eventually produce), with around another 10 million tonnes (this figure varies the most - some say it is larger) of uranium which is too energy intensive and expensive to extract it is not worth using. Using this 5 million tonne figure (which your link -very interesting - also uses), and a current usage of 67 000 tonnes per year (reference to follow), that leaves 75 years of use - at current levels. The 50 years I quoted accounts for a smaller figure of recoverable uranium.

Regarding the fast-breeder technology - as far as I understand this has been in the pipeline for a good few years with no success so far, and requires specially designed reactors. I haven't come across anything that suggests these are ready to be built - do we have time to wait?

See eg. section 4, page 12 of Nuclear Energy as a Solution for Climate Change? (http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/621-22/621-22_en.pdf).

[abagguley]

Hi Colin

I'd use a combination of power sources:
1 Tidal lagoons,
2 Offshore wind (spread over as far a length of seaboard as possible to reduce the chances of the wind failing simultaneously everywhere, hence less back-up needed, but still not perfect, of course)
3 Onshore wind – not my favourite power source, but it’s cheaper to build & maintain than off-shore, so I think there’s a place for it, albeit not in many of the locations currently proposed.
4 Clean coal - retro-fitted where possible, but I'd also build new plants - I think there's enough coal left to last their lifetimes. I know it isn't 100% clean, but somebody's going to burn that coal - it may as well be us doing it with better technology, rather than the Chinese (or Germans, for that matter) burning it the old way. No energy security, of course, but we’re not exactly mining our own uranium, are we?
5 Local generation - there's a multitude of technologies that can be used here - but it's the 35-40% efficiency increase compared to Power Stations that's important here (IMHO) - not so much the method of generation. I take your point about FoE objecting to 'non-renewable' form of this – that seems crazy to me – you still get your 40% saving, regardless of whether it’s renewable, so I’ve got no objection to, say, burning gas or waste in a CHP unit. Whilst I agree there’s no major role for solar in this country, I think it can form part of this domestic solution – eg driving a Ground Source Heat pump. This is the main area where I can see us improving - I see no reason why we can't incorporate it in new-build housing, put it into at least 90% of public buildings, and use grant subsidies to help people retro-fit it to at least 30% (just to pick a random figure) of existing houses. It wouldn't be cheap - but what is? Nuclear? I don't think so.

…and on top of this, of course, there’d need to be major government-driven energy saving measures – the current legislation governing the energy efficiency of new-build housing is way short of what is technically possible – the only obstacle to increasing requirements is cost. Given the profit margins that construction companies are enjoying with current house price levels, it should be easy to raise standards. And incorporating renewables into new-builds is much cheaper than retro-fitting.
There are too many energy-saving possibilities to list here, some might contribute less than 1% to savings, but I think they all need to be considered – that nuclear budget could fund a lot of alternative measures.

That all sounds a bit woolly, vague & incoherent compared to a straight-forward ‘X nuclear plants = Y megawatts = Z% of our requirements', and I think that’s part of the problem. People don’t want to consider a holistic solution, with 10’s of components working in conjunction with each other – it’s too hard to see if it will work. Who knows - perhaps it won’t – I don’t have the data to know for sure.

However, I don’t think we should be saddling future generations with nuclear waste until somebody has sat down & done the sums to see if we absolutely have to do it. Sadly, I don’t think the recent Energy Review has done those sums – it just looks like a knee-jerk reaction to GW to me.


I'd also have no objection to continued research into Fusion, BTW - we'll need something when fossil fuels run out, and I can't see that being 100% renewables, so at that point it will have to be either Fission or Fusion.

Adrian

[colonelboris]

Hi Colin

I'd use a combination of power sources:
1 Tidal lagoons,


Only if you want to kill off all the wildlife on that patch of coastline... It means that the waves tides are badly affected in that area, so killing off rock pools and reducing the amount of tidal shoreline for waders, etc.

[Tyke]

Hi Laura-re your #102 & 104:-

*Uranium resource-The IAEA statement describes the 4.7mt as "identified"-in addition they state 35mt is geologically known to be "available" for exploitation.They describe increases in energy output per unit uranium of x30.for new technology.
Are breeder reactors only in the "pipeline"?:-

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm

I guess on this one Laura if you are correct at 50 years then there is an almighty global cock-up taking place. China is to build 20 plants. USA looks like returning to nuclear build.There is a worldwide shift to nuclear electric plants. If IAEA are on the ball then these countries can have confidence in long term uranium supplies.If not the lights will start going out!

*Nuclear isn't the "solution" to Climate Change...electricity generation is only=9% of GHG emissions
Absolutely agree Laura.The thrust of the so-called "renewables" movement in UK is in fact wind power-which produces electricity -so as you say it saves little CO2. THis is one of my objections to wind power-along with its very high footprint to output ratio & resultant environmental impact.

Do you think there is a "solution" to Climate Change Laura? There may not even be a "solution" to Global Warming -supposing there is a cyclical element which we cannot control. Supposing the man-made element is now too entrenched to reverse. Do we know for sure that ALL Climate Change features are SOLELY due to the man-made element of GW?


IMHO we need to find a means of producing electricity which avoids using fossil fuels-not ,as you rightly observe , because it will make major savings in GHG, which it won't-but because we need to find alternatives to gas & coal.
Nuclear allows us to do this with very low footprint to output ratios, thus avoiding any more damage to our precious countryside & wildlife. And in the process we will make a start on moving to GHG free electricity production.

Modern society simply cannot function without electricity.

As for the major GHG producer-oil-I don't know if there will be a viable alternative soon.Bio fuels have massive footprint to output ratios-& anyway they are carbon neutral, not carbon reducing..Hydrogen fuel cells are in their infancy ...& hydrogen extraction has a nasty little secret-its being extracted from Hydro-carbons in many instances!

Maybe Laura nuclear will prove to be the saviour for transportation fuels-nuclear powered ships are not new .Pebble Bed Reactors can plausibly power transportation systems!:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

On the safety front-yes I agree with your statement that nuclear will never be "completely safe". Nothing is, is it? Oil & Gas plant explosions kill people. Tankers spill oil all over the sea bed. What does a LNG Tanker explosion look like I wonder? -no doubt we will find out in due course.Coal mining is killing 8000 people pa in China alone-wonder what the Global total deaths from coal mining is?-hundreds of thousands?-who makes a great fuss over that except coal mining families?

Sorry but I think the fear of nuclear, which seems to be at the core of objections to it, -whilst understandable- is overstated and very very subjective.

Cheers
Colin

[abagguley]

Are you sure, Colonel B?

This is what Friends of the Earth say about them:

'The technology is a new approach to tidal power conversion, which does not have the environmental or economic problems of the tidal barrage.

Tidal lagoons will have benign or minimal impacts on marine environment and will foster biodiversity by creating new habitats for fish, birds and marine wildlife. Situated a mile or more out to sea, the structures have a low profile and look like a rocky shoreline or island.'

They could be wrong, of course.

Adrian

[Tyke]

Hi Colin

I'd use a combination of power sources:
1 Tidal lagoons,
2 Offshore wind (spread over as far a length of seaboard as possible to reduce the chances of the wind failing simultaneously everywhere, hence less back-up needed, but still not perfect, of course)
3 Onshore wind – not my favourite power source, but it’s cheaper to build & maintain than off-shore, so I think there’s a place for it, albeit not in many of the locations currently proposed.
4 Clean coal - retro-fitted where possible, but I'd also build new plants - I think there's enough coal left to last their lifetimes. I know it isn't 100% clean, but somebody's going to burn that coal - it may as well be us doing it with better technology, rather than the Chinese (or Germans, for that matter) burning it the old way. No energy security, of course, but we’re not exactly mining our own uranium, are we?
5 Local generation - there's a multitude of technologies that can be used here - but it's the 35-40% efficiency increase compared to Power Stations that's important here (IMHO) - not so much the method of generation. I take your point about FoE objecting to 'non-renewable' form of this – that seems crazy to me – you still get your 40% saving, regardless of whether it’s renewable, so I’ve got no objection to, say, burning gas or waste in a CHP unit. Whilst I agree there’s no major role for solar in this country, I think it can form part of this domestic solution – eg driving a Ground Source Heat pump. This is the main area where I can see us improving - I see no reason why we can't incorporate it in new-build housing, put it into at least 90% of public buildings, and use grant subsidies to help people retro-fit it to at least 30% (just to pick a random figure) of existing houses. It wouldn't be cheap - but what is? Nuclear? I don't think so.

…and on top of this, of course, there’d need to be major government-driven energy saving measures – the current legislation governing the energy efficiency of new-build housing is way short of what is technically possible – the only obstacle to increasing requirements is cost. Given the profit margins that construction companies are enjoying with current house price levels, it should be easy to raise standards. And incorporating renewables into new-builds is much cheaper than retro-fitting.
There are too many energy-saving possibilities to list here, some might contribute less than 1% to savings, but I think they all need to be considered – that nuclear budget could fund a lot of alternative measures.

That all sounds a bit woolly, vague & incoherent compared to a straight-forward ‘X nuclear plants = Y megawatts = Z% of our requirements', and I think that’s part of the problem. People don’t want to consider a holistic solution, with 10’s of components working in conjunction with each other – it’s too hard to see if it will work. Who knows - perhaps it won’t – I don’t have the data to know for sure.

However, I don’t think we should be saddling future generations with nuclear waste until somebody has sat down & done the sums to see if we absolutely have to do it. Sadly, I don’t think the recent Energy Review has done those sums – it just looks like a knee-jerk reaction to GW to me.


I'd also have no objection to continued research into Fusion, BTW - we'll need something when fossil fuels run out, and I can't see that being 100% renewables, so at that point it will have to be either Fission or Fusion.

Adrian

Yep agree with most of those Adrian-with the exception of NEW coal plants.!!!
I really dont see how it is morally possible to start burning more coal. How could we defend the deliberate increase in GHG output which would result. Are you seriously suggesting that we close & not replace our nuclear plants, cover the Welsh & Scottish hills in wind turbines-AND build more coal fired plants?

Colin

[abagguley]

Are you seriously suggesting that we close & not replace our nuclear plants, cover the Welsh & Scottish hills in wind turbines-AND build more coal fired plants?


Hi Colin

Some slightly emotive language in there - 'covering the Welsh & Scottish hills in wind turbines' isn't exactly what I had in mind - but inevitably there would be some turbines on some hills, yes.

On the coal front, I'm proposing building new, clean coal plants with Carbon sequestration incorprated - the Germans are building one next year, the Americans already have one, albeit only as a 'pilot'.

The technology isn't exactly widespread on an industrial scale (to put it mildly), but we've got until 2020 before the nuclear plants go.

The world probably has enough coal for the next 150 years - what do you think will happen to it all if Western countries (who can afford cleaner plants) don't burn it cleanly? It'll still get burnt by somebody, somewhere, and the GHG's will almost certainly vent straight to atmosphere.

Good point in your ealrier post about mining fatalites, BTW - I hadn't realised the numbers were so unacceptably high.

Adrian

[Mickymouse]

What about the chemicals etc we get from coal, should we burn it at all? Never mind carbon sequestration which we should use for oil burning plant, oil is different to coal
inasmuch as the stuff they burn in power stations is the sludge that is left after all the goodies have been removed, you have got to do something with it.

Mick

[Collster]

Hi Colin

Some slightly emotive language in there - 'covering the Welsh & Scottish hills in wind turbines' isn't exactly what I had in mind - but inevitably there would be some turbines on some hills, yes.

On the coal front, I'm proposing building new, clean coal plants with Carbon sequestration incorprated - the Germans are building one next year, the Americans already have one, albeit only as a 'pilot'.

The technology isn't exactly widespread on an industrial scale (to put it mildly), but we've got until 2020 before the nuclear plants go.

The world probably has enough coal for the next 150 years - what do you think will happen to it all if Western countries (who can afford cleaner plants) don't burn it cleanly? It'll still get burnt by somebody, somewhere, and the GHG's will almost certainly vent straight to atmosphere.

Good point in your ealrier post about mining fatalites, BTW - I hadn't realised the numbers were so unacceptably high.

Adrian
Its not slightly emotive language though is it, as it looks as if most of the Welsh hills will be covered in turbines. Thats the trouble with so called clean energy, someone has to have it on their doorstep, and it aint so clean at the point of source. They have just spent millions regreening the valleys after coal and now we are expected to have (along with Scotland) the bulk of these windfarms, when lets face it , it aint our part of the country that needs this electricity. We are just the scapegoats in Wales , as is nearly always the case.Want more water, go flood some valleys in Wales

[turkish van]

Hi Colin (re #107)

Ok, it seems 'pipeline' was a little inaccurate. Have a quick look at this though - Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm) - and scroll down to a little under halfway till you see the section on 'Fast Neutron Reactors'. It gives an over view of this technology in the last few decades - not all success stories, though more progress than I realised. Even so, does a new generation of these in the UK within the next 10 years seem likely?

Almighty global cock-up.... I really hope I'm wrong (believe it or not) but that's exactly what I think is happening!

Do I think there is a solution to climate change? That's a big question! I think realistically (see, I'm not always idealistic) we are well past the solution stage, and are rapidly moving out of the 'slowing down' stage. Obviously, climate change on a huge scale is completely natural and constantly in progress (the 'UK' for example has seen everything from ice ages to arid deserts), but not at this speed - and yes I do believe man has had (and is having) a major impact on it. You can't expect to screw around with the world as much as we have and not see any consequences. Do we leave it to take it's current course and accept that very few species in the world are as adaptable as we are, or do we make an effort now to try and preserve the world as we know it just a little longer? Maybe we are already too late, but the latter is the only option for me. I'm sure you won't disagree with that.

Can't agree with your statement that nuclear has a very low footprint though - this just isn't true. Take the millions (20 is a figure that comes to mind) of tonnes of CO2 released in the construction of each reactor. Millions of tonnes of steel and concrete manufactured and delivered by lorries - think of the fuel and pollution caused by this alone, which continues at all stages of the mining and processing of the uranium. Mining involves blasting the gound open with explosives, the rock then taken to the mill (/chemical plant) to be broken down and leached (eg with sulphuric acid), extracting not only uranium but several other constituents including lead, arsenic and selenium. The uranium is then separated from this solution, leaving a waste sludge untreated and dumped. The 'yellowcake' (containing the uranium at low concentrations) then has to be enriched - an equally polluting and wasteful process. You get my drift. Give me an example of another renewable energy which causes a greater 'footprint' than this and I'll happily be proved wrong, but I haven't come across one. Windfarms on hills don't... ;-)

I think we're agreed on a lot of things though, which is always a good thing!

[scampo]

"...leaving a waste sludge untreated and dumped."

Just one of several parts of the nuclear equation that is usually kept quiet...? There are highly toxic wastes at both ends to deal with and, still it seems, no satisfactory way of doing so. To blame GreenPeace for holding back the safe dumping of these toxic wastes seems rather an odd assertion.

[Collster]

Hi Colin (re #107)

Ok, it seems 'pipeline' was a little inaccurate. Have a quick look at this though - Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors (http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm) - and scroll down to a little under halfway till you see the section on 'Fast Neutron Reactors'. It gives an over view of this technology in the last few decades - not all success stories, though more progress than I realised. Even so, does a new generation of these in the UK within the next 10 years seem likely?

Almighty global cock-up.... I really hope I'm wrong (believe it or not) but that's exactly what I think is happening!

Do I think there is a solution to climate change? That's a big question! I think realistically (see, I'm not always idealistic) we are well past the solution stage, and are rapidly moving out of the 'slowing down' stage. Obviously, climate change on a huge scale is completely natural and constantly in progress (the 'UK' for example has seen everything from ice ages to arid deserts), but not at this speed - and yes I do believe man has had (and is having) a major impact on it. You can't expect to screw around with the world as much as we have and not see any consequences. Do we leave it to take it's current course and accept that very few species in the world are as adaptable as we are, or do we make an effort now to try and preserve the world as we know it just a little longer? Maybe we are already too late, but the latter is the only option for me. I'm sure you won't disagree with that.

Can't agree with your statement that nuclear has a very low footprint though - this just isn't true. Take the millions (20 is a figure that comes to mind) of tonnes of CO2 released in the construction of each reactor. Millions of tonnes of steel and concrete manufactured and delivered by lorries - think of the fuel and pollution caused by this alone, which continues at all stages of the mining and processing of the uranium. Mining involves blasting the gound open with explosives, the rock then taken to the mill (/chemical plant) to be broken down and leached (eg with sulphuric acid), extracting not only uranium but several other constituents including lead, arsenic and selenium. The uranium is then separated from this solution, leaving a waste sludge untreated and dumped. The 'yellowcake' (containing the uranium at low concentrations) then has to be enriched - an equally polluting and wasteful process. You get my drift. Give me an example of another renewable energy which causes a greater 'footprint' than this and I'll happily be proved wrong, but I haven't come across one. Windfarms on hills don't... ;-)

I think we're agreed on a lot of things though, which is always a good thing!
Windfarms on hills dont produce a fraction of the energy a nuclear plant would either.In fact they rarely work, the ones i actually watch, not just read up about. What people are saying is this , we all agree that we need to produce more renewable energy .The fact is that the powers that be seem hell bent on windfarms and little else as i see it.

[Tyke]

Hi Laura-re#113:-

Thanks for the link on new nuclear technology.I've been Googling like crazy on Breeder technology since your post!! Yes- I think it will come through quickly because it provides almost limitless fuel resource. I believe we are already well down that road.

So whilst I cannot prove that your cock-up theory is wrong,I find it hard to believe that IAEA would get it so wrong. I guess we will see ( well your generation will-I won't!!)

On climate change I agree with much of what you say. Not sure though that I agree homo sapiens is more "adaptable" than many species. Seems to me the GW problem arises largely because we have refused to adapt! Evolutionary effects will select those species in the natural world which make it-many will ,like they have done before time & time again. Biodiversity may reduce for a while , but will burgeon again as it has done before time & time again...and possibly without us in a position to try to reduce bio-diversity to a species count of one.!

RE "footprint"-yes of course any manufactured product causes damage to the environment right back through the supply chain. This is as true for Wind Turbines as for Nuclear power plants.-steel & concrete take you back through manufacturing processes to mineral extraction -just the same.Their erection requires lorries , quarries, roads etc-just the same-plus , MW for MW they occupy hugely more land than nuclear reactors ( or gas / coal powered plants )-plus they are being erected in pristine landscapes. Anyway, musn't debate that here-its all on another thread!

Yes-if there were truly a "renewable" source of energy which had a benign environmental effect-or at least offered significant power outputs relative to its adverse environmental impact I would vote for it.I don't believe that there is a renewable source of power that comes anywhere near the sort of output we need to replace gas & coal ( sticking to electricity for the moment-oil/transport is a whole other can of worms!!)
Nuclear worries me too Laura , but I,ve been trying to put the perceived risk of human deaths from nuclear into some sort of context. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that this is your main concern)

As already mentioned China kills 5000 or so people in coal mines each year.In USA 3600 to 7300 deaths pa arise through silicosis. Air pollution from coal burning kills 10,000 people pa in USA .8000 USA deaths pa occur from diesel fumes ( asthma etc. ) USA estimates that fossil fuel particulates kill 100,000 people every year. The death toll from the use of fossil fuels EACH YEAR is enormous.
In India , in 1979, 15,000 people died following a hydro-dam failure . Globally there are many Hydro Dams, whose failure would kill at least 250,000 people .

Nuclear may not be entirely safe -as you say-but does it cause this sort of carnage?

I read one avid anti-nuclear claim that 1lb of plutonium would kill 8bn people!
Now , over the last 50 years, 10,000 lbs of plutonium have been released into the atmosphere from weapons testing.....but we still have 6 bn people on the planet. I accept that this is an extremist speaking Laura, but I honestly cannot find any record of human mortality from civil use of nuclear energy which comes anywhere near justifying the "scare" stories one reads ( not from you I hasten to add). And for sure the appalling carnage to human kind from the use of fossil fuels is of a different magnitude entirely...but it never gets mentioned!!?

For your interest this is a record of Civil Nuclear accidents :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

There are 450 ish nuclear plants in 32 countries , and over the last 50 years or so they clock up 10,000 reactor years of commercial operation. I wonder if the accident record looks too bad?

One thing that sways me is the French experience ( first time for everything I suppose!!) :-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
This is a nation which heads for the barricades at the first sign of upset to it's bucolic life of leisure & comfort...& they seem pretty happy with all their nuclear plants.

Yes I think we are agreed on a lot of things Laura , which is certainly a good thing! I applaud your youthfull idealism & determination. For sure it's your generation which will hold the emerging nuclear industry to account ( God help them!!). At my time of life I'm more worried about the power going off than a nuclear holocaust!

Colin

[turkish van]

hey

Interesting that you don't consider humans to be more adaptable. I'd give us a bit more 'credit' than that! And yes, I realise life will flourish again - and that's where I'm still in a bit of a pickle. Is it better that we continue in this downward spiral in full knowledge that many species (hopefully including us) won't come out the other end, but that given time biodiversity will take over - hopefully not leading to another species in any way similar to us. Or do we use our intellect and try to amend some of our wrongs? It seems to me nature would follow the first option - every species exploits it's environment until the population becomes so large it cannot be supported, at which point the numbers reduce until a balance is reached. That's exactly what we are doing - but on a massive and unsustainable scale, and I can't even see us reaching the point where our population naturally drops. But maybe that's 'meant to be' and we've naturally reached the end of this cycle of life. I just can't help feeling a nagging sense of responsibility...

Unfortunately I have to confess that human deaths is not top of my list of worries! Nor am I particularly worried about the terrorism issues. Yes, your figures are shocking and unacceptable - and I'm not going to dig out any nuclear figures to counter them as I doubt they'd be as 'impressive' and are generally estimates. So what does bother me? Well, the waste for a start - do what you like with it and claim it's safe, but I'm worried and ashamed that we are even considering leaving this stuff behind for future generations. I wouldn't like to be the one to face them with our reasons - and I wouldn't even try the 'we had no choice' excuse. I also worry that nuclear will take the heat off other renewables in a big way - we'll have the government telling us there's no money for research and development, and the public believing all is well again - that nice new nuclear power station is just up the road, so why bother switching everything off when we leave the room? What difference does it make if I boil the whole kettle for one cup of tea? I just want to see us harnessing the natural energy that is already out there - the sun, the wind and the tides. What does life on earth live off? The sun, ultimately. Don't tell me there isn't enough energy out there to power our ridiculous lifestyles!

Quite surprised at your comment that you're more worried about the lights going off. Maybe that's part of our difference - I'm more worried about the legacy we leave behind. I want our descendants to be proud and thankful, not disgusted.

Anyway, sorry for the over-thoughtful post, not many facts or much relevance in there. I'm sure those who think emotion has no place in this are laughing!

And by the way - I never understood the French...

[scampo]

... At my time of life I'm more worried about the power going off than a nuclear holocaust!

Colin
It's the unimaginably long half-life of the radio-isotopes from fission that puts fear into my heart. Particulates, air pollution, coal dust... all have very short "half lives" indeed - with these we poison ourselves not our children's children's children...

We should at least wait for pebble-bed technology if not fusion.

[Tyke]

hey

Interesting that you don't consider humans to be more adaptable. I'd give us a bit more 'credit' than that! And yes, I realise life will flourish again - and that's where I'm still in a bit of a pickle. Is it better that we continue in this downward spiral in full knowledge that many species (hopefully including us) won't come out the other end, but that given time biodiversity will take over - hopefully not leading to another species in any way similar to us. Or do we use our intellect and try to amend some of our wrongs? It seems to me nature would follow the first option - every species exploits it's environment until the population becomes so large it cannot be supported, at which point the numbers reduce until a balance is reached. That's exactly what we are doing - but on a massive and unsustainable scale, and I can't even see us reaching the point where our population naturally drops. But maybe that's 'meant to be' and we've naturally reached the end of this cycle of life. I just can't help feeling a nagging sense of responsibility...

Unfortunately I have to confess that human deaths is not top of my list of worries! Nor am I particularly worried about the terrorism issues. Yes, your figures are shocking and unacceptable - and I'm not going to dig out any nuclear figures to counter them as I doubt they'd be as 'impressive' and are generally estimates. So what does bother me? Well, the waste for a start - do what you like with it and claim it's safe, but I'm worried and ashamed that we are even considering leaving this stuff behind for future generations. I wouldn't like to be the one to face them with our reasons - and I wouldn't even try the 'we had no choice' excuse. I also worry that nuclear will take the heat off other renewables in a big way - we'll have the government telling us there's no money for research and development, and the public believing all is well again - that nice new nuclear power station is just up the road, so why bother switching everything off when we leave the room? What difference does it make if I boil the whole kettle for one cup of tea? I just want to see us harnessing the natural energy that is already out there - the sun, the wind and the tides. What does life on earth live off? The sun, ultimately. Don't tell me there isn't enough energy out there to power our ridiculous lifestyles!

Quite surprised at your comment that you're more worried about the lights going off. Maybe that's part of our difference - I'm more worried about the legacy we leave behind. I want our descendants to be proud and thankful, not disgusted.

Anyway, sorry for the over-thoughtful post, not many facts or much relevance in there. I'm sure those who think emotion has no place in this are laughing!

And by the way - I never understood the French...

Laura-what a smashing post.
Your first para rings lots of bells for me-very nicely put if I may say so.

Guess we have debated to a standstill so will leave energy conundrum alone now!!!!

Don't be surprised-I'm a lot older than you & my horizons shorter than yours. I have people dear to me who absolutely rely on a supply of electricity.But I also want to leave what's left of our countryside alone-this points me to a few nuclear plants rather than thousands of turbines .

I,m not laughing either Laura-keep being thoughtful.

Colin

[Tim Allwood]

climate change is a global problem

Nuclear is far, far from even a regional solution

I hear the Iranians are in favour though

Tim

[Tyke]

It's the unimaginably long half-life of the radio-isotopes from fission that puts fear into my heart. Particulates, air pollution, coal dust... all have very short "half lives" indeed - with these we poison ourselves not our children's children's children...

We should at least wait for pebble-bed technology if not fusion.

Yes I understand entirely . But the question is what is the actual probability of poisoning future generations?.
It isn't as if we currently bequeath a planet free of toxic waste of every conceivable description is it? I mean is nuclear realy a different order of magnitude to the stuff we are leaving around now?
You just have to read the latest information on the net & make your mind up I suppose !
Pebble Bed certainly looks a bit less scary!!
Colin

[Mickymouse]

But the question is what is the actual probability of poisoning future generations?.

ColinWith Global warming running away, what future generations might that be?

Mick

[Jos Stratford]

I hear the Iranians are in favour though


And biting your hook Tim, why shouldn't they be? Better that than their remaining wintering populations of Siberian Cranes get sliced and diced for no difference.

[Collster]

Lets face it the way the worlds going we'll destroy each other long before we run out of fuel

[scampo]

...
You just have to read the latest information on the net & make your mind up I suppose !
Pebble Bed certainly looks a bit less scary!!
Colin
Indded, Colin. But I do wonder what kind of information I am reading at times - its source and slant. A difficult one. Wikipedia is an excellent source, I find - but not without problems.

I was angry to hear on the radio that the governmemt won't wait for the "pebble bed" technology despite its apparent safety. That's what worries me - decisions being made by politicians so heavily influenced by PR and lobbyists. The power of organisations such as GreenPeace pales into insignificance compared to the power of the multinationals and there PR machines.

[Nick Elliston]

Human technology is improving at a rapid rate. Nuclear fuel stations take many years from plan to implementation, and who knows how far technology will have improved in the meantime. In the short to medium term though (and that is still a few decades) nuclear seems the best option.

Most fuel sources create some risk/hazard - it's just that the potential consequences from a nuclear accident are somewhat more worrying than the others. However, most of our European colleagues seem keen on producing nuclear fuel stations like rabbits and I doubt whether the stretch of water between us will offer much protection. I cannot say that I am completely happy about nuclear but no-one has yet convinced me about a better option.

On a smaller scale, why aren't all new houses built with solar panels? It isn't a big picture solution but every little helps.

[Helenelizabeth2]

Lets face it the way the worlds going we'll destroy each other long before we run out of fuel

Based on some of the threads on BF (but not this one) that's an absolute certainty!

Helen

[Tyke]

Indded, Colin. But I do wonder what kind of information I am reading at times - its source and slant. A difficult one. Wikipedia is an excellent source, I find - but not without problems.

I was angry to hear on the radio that the governmemt won't wait for the "pebble bed" technology despite its apparent safety. That's what worries me - decisions being made by politicians so heavily influenced by PR and lobbyists. The power of organisations such as GreenPeace pales into insignificance compared to the power of the multinationals and there PR machines.

Yes Steve.
I,m surprised the government is involved in specifying the technology. I don't know how the system works.
No doubt we'll get the worst solution possible !

Interesting article re China & India :-


http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/powerful-argument-for-nuclear/2006/09/19/1158431711366.html


I was struck by this statement in it :-

"There might be some squeamishness now about China and India's nuclear programs, but if their use of fossil fuels continues to grow exponentially then it may not be long before the world actually begs China and India to build more nuclear reactors"

Colin

[scampo]

"There might be some squeamishness now about China and India's nuclear programs, but if their use of fossil fuels continues to grow exponentially then it may not be long before the world actually begs China and India to build more nuclear reactors"

ColinDoesn't bare thinking about, does it? Presumably that's partly behind the West's push for nuclear. India seems to be ahead of the game with a pretty much self-sustaining so-called safer "fast breeder" reactor based on their own science and technology using locally derived thorium. You just have to believe it's really safer - we have no idea really.

Some posters here exhibit more faith in the powers that be than I am able to muster, and faith, I believe, is what many of these arguments are based on, rather than knowledge - despite claims to the contrary.

[Tyke]

Doesn't bare thinking about, does it? Presumably that's partly behind the West's push for nuclear. India seems to be ahead of the game with a pretty much self-sustaining so-called safer "fast breeder" reactor based on their own science and technology using locally derived thorium. You just have to believe it's really safer - we have no idea really.

Some posters here exhibit more faith in the powers that be than I am able to muster, and faith, I believe, is what many of these arguments are based on, rather than knowledge - despite claims to the contrary.

Yes it is a bit scary Steve-but it's going to happen I think.
Seems to me human error rather than technology failure is the main risk from malfunctioning plants.
Re Waste, many countries seem to be using vitrification. Don't know how secure this is-again it's the cavalier idiots who just chuck it anywhere that will no doubt let the genie out of the bottle!

[scampo]

Yes it is a bit scary Steve-but it's going to happen I think.
Seems to me human error rather than technology failure is the main risk from malfunctioning plants...
Well - we've all seen The Simpsons!

http://gurkbasurken.blogg.se/images/homer_nuclear_1146071715.gif

[Osprey_watcher]

Well - we've all seen The Simpsons!

http://gurkbasurken.blogg.se/images/homer_nuclear_1146071715.gif
But its not real!!!!!

[turkish van]

Ok, here's a fresh slant. Colin you're right - I think we've debated nuclear to the ground! (thanks for the comment on the post though) I'm going to switch from the negatives to the positives - suggesting other possible ways forward. If the nuclear downsides still aren't convincing you, I guess another tactic is needed...

Thanks to a very good friend for pointing me towards this (maybe he'll introduce himself one day...) - something I haven't really come across before:

Tidal stream energy (http://www.yfinnie.demon.co.uk/contents9/gentec.htm)

It's a couple of pages, but worth the reading. Especially by those who hate windfarms (which in some cases does include me!) - it spells out very carefully and convincingly just how and why they are completely useless and a waste of money. This technology is very interesting, potentially very promising, and I can't think of a way it would be particularly detrimental to the environment, but I'm going to do a bit more googling so will maybe find something to keep you pro-nuclear folk happy! ;)

[Jos Stratford]

I'm going to do a bit more googling so will maybe find something to keep you pro-nuclear folk happy! ;)

Ar, but Laura, we are already happy ;)

[turkish van]

Ar, but Laura, we are already happy ;)

Despite my best efforts! 3:-)

That's no worthy substitute for your faulty station then no?

[Tyke]

Ok, here's a fresh slant. Colin you're right - I think we've debated nuclear to the ground! (thanks for the comment on the post though) I'm going to switch from the negatives to the positives - suggesting other possible ways forward. If the nuclear downsides still aren't convincing you, I guess another tactic is needed...

Thanks to a very good friend for pointing me towards this (maybe he'll introduce himself one day...) - something I haven't really come across before:

Tidal stream energy (http://www.yfinnie.demon.co.uk/contents9/gentec.htm)

It's a couple of pages, but worth the reading. Especially by those who hate windfarms (which in some cases does include me!) - it spells out very carefully and convincingly just how and why they are completely useless and a waste of money. This technology is very interesting, potentially very promising, and I can't think of a way it would be particularly detrimental to the environment, but I'm going to do a bit more googling so will maybe find something to keep you pro-nuclear folk happy! ;)

Hi Laura-yes I agee -tidal & wave have potential I think & the Gentec Venturi looks very interesting....however you rightfully observed a few posts back that electricity generation is not the key problem & we concentrate on it too much -it's the burning of oil-ie in transportation systems which produces most CO2.
On your theme of positiveness , I have just watched Branson & Clinton on TV announcing they are going to save the planet. Either of these two set my hackles rising so was in a cynical mood when it was clear that the money Branson intends to invest is in Ethanol research...ah I thought, save the Virgin Transport Companies , chop down forests & plant Corn & Soya-however the Bearded Messiah then said that corn ethanol could only go to 10% of oil replacement because it takes too much land...so he is backing "Cellulose" ethanol which ....& I quote- can substitute 90% of petroleum fuels from forestry/agricultural/domestic WASTE PRODUCTS !!!!!
So I,ve been Googling like mad-here's some stuff on the magic substance....can Branson ( or indeed Clinton!!) be right about this ?
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/20-09-06_22

....& will it make Virgin trains run on time ?

Cheers
Colin