To Nuclear or not to Nuclear

[Mike]

What does everyone think about the prospect of a new wave of nuclear power stations?

I am against - think they should plow the money into renewable sources!

[Lizzie]

Nuclear power scares me !!!

[Mike]

More nuclear power seems silly. In an era when internet and other technology means knowledge and work has the ability to be spread across the whole world why not do the same with power generation? At the end of the day you have no targets of attack or huge environmental issues with solar collectors / wind turbines connected to each property!

[mr_e]

Most people have missed the fact that we have enough uranium to last about 40 years. That's if usage stays the same, and everyone doesn't switch to it. Haha...welcome to the shittiest power source on earth. We're about to see how strong the pro-nuclear lobby is, methinks.

Edit: Interesting linky: 50 year figure may be incorrect. Although I don't see how they can extract it without fossil fuels, which are going to run out.

[TAOWBST]

I don't see much reason not to use nuclear power. With the exceptions of nuclear waste is renedered useless, and risks (Chenoble).

Not to say I am for the use of nuclear power, but it is more practical than installing solar units to every individual building. As for world-wide cooperation on the matter, do you really think places like America are going to bat an eyelid over such things. As far as they're concerned, the system works as it is so why change it? (this attitude I am strobgly opposed to btw)

On the flip-side of the coin, places like Japan pump money into research for alternative fuels no end. So it is fair to say not every nation shares the same attitude.

[Mike]

If you put solar panels on each and every building then you would have very little requirement for powerstations. You could then use the wind farms to help the solar energy in winter.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic item you can get. It will be dangerous for thoasands of years. I think that it is imoral to inflict that on future generations who might not necessarilly know why they are becoming ill. . . . . :(

[mr_e]

*snip* I think that it is imoral to inflict that on future generations who might not necessarilly know why they are becoming ill. . . . . :(

I think there were consultations with archeologists and other various professionals to try to devise some kind of system to warn future generations about this if they ever try to excavate a toxic waaste dump. What the result was, I do not know.

[Lizzie]

I have to agree with Mike -chernoble and 100's of children with luekemia is a very big risk to take. Esp when there are other forms of energy which don't have this side effect.

To be honest - I'd rather go without my lights for a day than see a child die for the sake of our increasing relaince on nuclear energy.

[Mike]

I bet that Woody is clapping his hands with glee though. A new generation of powerplant are going to keep him employed for the rest of his natural life. Not to mention his un-natural life. . . .

[Fez]

could i draw your attention to some other facts that mr blair is trying to con us with? the core of his nuclear argument is tied to the need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions for 2010 as laid out in kyoto argreement. however, don't be fooled as the overall reduction when compared to coal-fired power stations would be only 6%, and then of course there is the face-melting joy of toxic waste to deal with.

and to counter-argue you amatuer eco-freaks - wind power cannot supply enough power to count for even half the needed energy for the national grid. there simply would not be enough produced even with the infrastructure in place and running at full capacity. keep in mind that wind farms have to be huge and the land is not available, not unless you plan on covering Wales with them.

this countries electrical power will always be an amalgamation of different energy sources, i agree that fossil fuels and nuclear should not be apart of this, and the best answer at the moment seems for britain to be natural gas because the waste carbon dioxide can be pumped directly back under the north sea out of harm's way - sweden is already doing this.

of course, for all you budding tecnho-geeks the ultimate power source is still nuclear and greenpeace would agree; nuclear fission is a process that produces no waste product at all except water, but at the moment is beyond science's grasp.

[Mike]

of course, for all you budding tecnho-geeks the ultimate power source is still nuclear and greenpeace would agree; nuclear fission is a process that produces no waste product at all except water, but at the moment is beyond science's grasp.

Fusion dear boy, Fission is what we have at the moment.

The solar ideology is not a bad idea, with the number of buildings in the UK it is like every inch of the UK being a solar electric generator. There are also other ways of reducing the requirement for electricity and gas, there are solar water heating panels which can reduce the water heating loading for each property. This solar collector can provide 100% of the water heating requirement for residential properties in summer and about 60% in winter, this can be a massive saving to everyone's fuel bills (over a 10 year pay back period, including servicing etc)

[Fez]

Fusion dear boy, Fission is what we have at the moment.

d'oh, knew it was one of the other.

anyway, this whole debate about nuclear is linked to britain's need to cut co2 emissions, and like the rest of the world our need for power is only going to increase in future. a big help would be if individual households started to think greener.

how many of us leave our tv's on standby, our videos/dvd players and stereos on "energy save" mode - save more energy, pull the bloody plug out!

[johnriley1uk]

It seems quite ironic in a way, that we are looking to power our high-tech requirements (computers, TV, audio, etc.) with low-tech energy sources (wind, tide, solar panels, etc.)

If the waste could be handled, the terrorist threat didn't exist and human beings could be relied upon to operate the safety protocols correctly, then nuclear power would be a logical and clean choice. Probably fusion reactors for the greatest efficiency.

Unfortunately, things aren't that simple....

How about geothermic energy? The centre of the earth in actually very hot - can't we utilise this as a power source? Perhaps we could have controlled volcanic eruption plants.

[mr_e]

Erm, natural gas is a really bad one: we're seeing huge price rises because north sea gas production is rapidly declining. This will leave us dependent on foreign energy sources, and subject to the insecurity that that brings. The more energy we get from within the country (and from renewables) the better, as far as I'm concerned.

[TAOWBST]

I don't there will ever be a time when this country is solely dependant on a single energy source, (be that from here or elsewhere). Nor do I think there will be a single perfect source of energy providing enough energy to fulfil the needs of the national grid.

Wind and wave power would seem the most logical way forward but hundreds of thousands would be required to meet demands. Nuclear power is no help as there is no use for nuclear waste. I doubt pumping gas into the oceans is really going to solve the problem either. Yeah sure other places do it but I ask you are we sheep? How long do you think it will last? Of course lets not forget the ocean is bottomless and will of course pumping gas into it will never have negative consequences. (*sarcasm*).