I cannot believe that, in these 'greener' times we live in now, the government is seriously planning to build more nuclear power stations!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1582577,00.html

What does everybody else think?

What is the answer?

Nuclear power IS relatively green though because it's so efficient. The only problem (and quite a large, dangerous one) is disposing of the waste.

I know one thing that would help, If people would stop complaining about windfarms being built and then complaining that we don't have enough green alternatives.

In order to urgently reduce the effects of global warming, nuclear energy is the only option. Go for it.

(I'm a Green Party member, btw)

It's the 'not in my backyard' brigade that bug me.

There's an objection to a windfarm in Cambridge. I assume they prefer their coal-fired electricity to be generated on somebody else's doorstep.

In my opinion, the only people who can object to these things are those who are completely self-sufficient for electricity - solar panel and windmill equipped themselves :mad:

A nuclear power station produces no greenhouse emissions, no particulates, doesn't clutter up the landscape / seascape for miles with relatively inefficient turbines and uses relatively well known technology.

However, the impact of 'major' accident is widespread and long lasting, as is the waste management problem.

The solution to our energy problems is NOT to just blindly produce more power; it's to conserve more energy. If projections are such that energy consumption will increase then we should be aiming to reduce our consumption before we start building new capacity.

It should be easier for people to put solar cells / heat panels on their rooves with only a limited need for planning consent, it should be easier for people to sell energy back to the grid, etc.

Joe

Build 'em all in Wales. No harm done if there's a leak. :hihi:

Exactly Strix, I agree completely :) , glad to know someone out there thinks like me.

The problem with windfarms is that they require large open spaces, often high up. This usually means the countryside. We've already spoilt most of the country so it would be a shame to ruin the remains. Personally I think more sea wind farms and at least 50% self sufficient new housing as standard would be a good way forward.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
, it should be easier for people to sell energy back to the grid, And more financially viable. The purchase/sell ratio is shocking

The solution to our energy problems is NOT to just blindly produce more power, it's to conserve more energy.

True, but it just isn't happening. We're just a few short years from the point of no return, but who's listening? Until the government takes dramatic action immediately, we're screwed. Tony Blair has made the most effort of all our premiers in the last fifty years, but it's still inadequate.

Originally posted by t020
at least 50% self sufficient new housing as standard would be a good way forward.
At least. And it is only really financially viable on newbuild. There should be tax relief on 'green' desiged housing.

Not just stuffing more insulation into them, but creating heat sinks and utilising soar heated water, orientating windows and walls for solar gain....

Of course we are all debating this topic whilst idly consuming power on an 'appliance' that wasn't available to a household 30 years ago :hihi:

If someone could come up with a definitive solution to all the security problems, I'd be all for using nuclear power plants.

The problem is we wouldn't know if it were the definitive solution until it was too late....Again :sad:

Originally posted by Ant
In order to urgently reduce the effects of global warming, nuclear energy is the only option. Go for it.

This is a common misconception. If you take into account the mining, logistics and disposal of nuclear fuel/waste if we increased our production fourfold (what would be required) we would actually create more greenhouse gases than if that power had been provided by gas or oil.

The main reason for this is the inaccessibility of uranium ore that is easy to refine into nuclear fuel. Our production at the moment would not be able to cope with the increased demand and we would be forced to mine for uranium that will be much harder to refine. The uranium refineries used in creating this fuel are the main cause in the nuclear process of greenhouse waste and their increased time refining is the major drawback to nuclear fuel.

Nuclear power as an environmental defence against the greenhouse effect is, at best, a 5 year plug, nothing more. This country should no be investing down a short term reprisal when the main issue is not being taken seriously.

To add insult to this, if roman Britain would have had nuclear power, the waste from their reactors would still be active today. We cannot keep burying this highly dangerous material in the ground and cross our fingers, it is irresponsible.

Wilf

Originally posted by Strix
At least. And it is only really financially viable on newbuild. There should be tax relief on 'green' desiged housing.

Not just stuffing more insulation into them, but creating heat sinks and utilising soar heated water, orientating windows and walls for solar gain....

How about no council tax for self sufficient houses? 2 birds, 1 stone.

Originally posted by Ant
In order to urgently reduce the effects of global warming, nuclear energy is the only option. Go for it.

(I'm a Green Party member, btw)

I'm with half of the greens and Jim Lovelock on this, go nuclear

or

the austere greens say -
drastically curb our energy expenditure.

Thing is the austere greens are probably right because as nuclear science progresses and as fusion reactors start to come online (no hideous waste) we may reasonably expect, in the industrialised world, boundless cheap energy (cue hollow laughter).

Nevertheless, its dubious whether this is a good thing, as more plentiful, cheaper energy will encourage us all to use it sequestering planetary resources in useless, polluting waste. Removing mountains and draining oceans suddenly becomes a lot more cost effective than it used to be....

And
it can cost between 10 and 30,000 quid to setup PV rooftiles.

They produce quite a bit of energy - 100w /m2 - in bright bright midday sunshine . Not a solution in itself, but a contribution. A very costly one however.

Originally posted by t020
How about no council tax for self sufficient houses? 2 birds, 1 stone.

I do think there should be a reduction for eg recyclers :thumbsup:

Nuclear power as an environmental defence against the greenhouse effect is, at best, a 5 year plug, nothing more.

I'm in total agreement, but a 5 year plug is urgently required given the continuous dramatic shortening of the point of no return.

You can't, of course, compare the dire state of the current climate with that of Roman Britain. The Romano British weren't within a decade or so (according to many estimates) of plunging the world into a global ice age.

I think the attitude to new forms of energy has to change before we can get anywhere. I have recently invented a hat that has electrodes that hang down and attach to the wearers eyelids. It harnesses blink energy and can produce enough energy over a day of wearing, to power a small digital watch for one hour.

When I pitched this to the energy corporation they just laughed me out of the boardroom! If you think about it, it is one of the only truely green forms of power - although the excess 'sleep' produced by the heavy eyelid action can be a bugger to get rid of when collected in huge vats!

They have no idea these power companies do they? I expect it'll be a different story when the oil runs out. Remember, BlinkPower by Miniminch

Originally posted by Ant
True, but it just isn't happening. We're just a few short years from the point of no return, but who's listening? Until the government takes dramatic action immediately, we're screwed. Tony Blair has made the most effort of all our premiers in the last fifty years, but it's still inadequate.

I agree, but we don't need to wait for permission. So much of it is in our hands - whilst the vast majority of energy consumption isn't under our direct control we can all contribute by saving energy and consuming less goods and services.

As for a point of no return, I'm not sure; we don't know enough about the way in which the planet deals with things to know whether it can or con't deal with the 'abberations' that we as a species cause.

Of course, there's always the option that Gaia might stuff us if we go too far. Remember 'Edge of Darkness'?

Joe

So much of it is in our hands - whilst the vast majority of energy consumption isn't under our direct control we can all contribute by saving energy and consuming less goods and services.

I still agree, but again, it isn't happening, not in anywhere near enough numbers, anyway.

The trouble with having a dismissive approach towards the point of no return is that it's a catastrophic gamble we take, hoping that our planet can deal with the filth we're spewing out. The consequences are appalling if we ignore the figures and hope for some gaia-like self-healing.

Originally posted by Ant
I'm in total agreement, but a 5 year plug is urgently required given the continuous dramatic shortening of the point of no return.

You can't, of course, compare the dire state of the current climate with that of Roman Britain. The Romano British weren't within a decade or so (according to many estimates) of plunging the world into a global ice age.

It will need to be a longer plug than that, and it will be increasingly hard to justify denial of 'peaceful nuclear technolgy' (as if there was such a thing) to rapidly industrialising areas.

But beyond that, it will still be nuclear, or rather geosolar - as we create small suns in powerstations.

Other, more radical renewable sources are available.

Solar is really only viable in sunshine rich regions, and photovoltaic cells are still expensive and inefficient.

I quite like the idea of atmospheric tower generators

here - http://www.visionengineer.com/env/solar_flue.shtml

Wow. A Solar Flue. I thought it was a joke when first saw it - it's new to me.

It'll still upset the anti-windfarmers for the same reasons ( I bet there's a howling wind that whistles up that mighty pole). A perfect way to upset Middle England. Bring it on.

...a small number of Solar Tower power plants can even replace a large nuclear power station.

That's the killer line.

Ant,
You are so right re the plainly silly belief in a 'gaia-like, self-healing'. Too many people seem to have this faith in the Earth as some kind of being, a social actor with the 'agency' to heal itself. I am glad that there are some level-headed realists, like your good self, in the ranks of the Greens.

Originally posted by timo
Ant,
You are so right re the plainly silly belief in a 'gaia-like, self-healing'. Too many people seem to have this faith in the Earth as some kind of being, a social actor with the 'agency' to heal itself. I am glad that there are some level-headed realists, like your good self, in the ranks of the Greens.

It's not the earth that's at risk. It's quite capable of erradicating the vermin upon it's surface (us) and carrying on.....

I Know! Leg warmers and bad mullets...

Oh wait.

I should have read the Thread before posting about the Title!

He he he.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
A nuclear power station produces no greenhouse emissions, no particulates, doesn't clutter up the landscape / seascape for miles with relatively inefficient turbines and uses relatively well known technology.

However, the impact of 'major' accident is widespread and long lasting, as is the waste management problem.
Exactly.

Go for nuclear.

The major incident factor worries me!

I just had radioactive iodine treatment for thyroid cancer and had to stay in isolation. Not only that but the bedding I'd used in hospital would have to stay 'buried in the basement for 3 months'!!!!

I think some people under estimate the potential damage from nuclear waste.
Incidences of thyroid cancer in Chernobyl went through the roof after their 'major incident' and thyroid cancers over here and in the US are steadily rising yet the only known causes of thyroid cancer are excessive x rays to the neck area or exposure to nuclear fallout!!!!! Neither of which I've been exposed to. Could the fallout from Chernobyl have had further reaching consequences than first thought?

Originally posted by timo
Ant,
You are so right re the plainly silly belief in a 'gaia-like, self-healing'. Too many people seem to have this faith in the Earth as some kind of being, a social actor with the 'agency' to heal itself. I am glad that there are some level-headed realists, like your good self, in the ranks of the Greens.

You seem to reject the gaia hypothesis. A little hastily perhaps- have you played with daisyworld? What's your broad understanding of the hypothesis?

The man who invented the Gaia hypothesis, Jim Lovelock, has long been a proponent of nuclear power, suggesting that a 'pile' at the bottom of the garden would be useful for all sorts of things, not just generating heat.

Originally posted by karenjane39
The major incident factor worries me!

I just had radioactive iodine treatment for thyroid cancer and had to stay in isolation. Not only that but the bedding I'd used in hospital would have to stay 'buried in the basement for 3 months'!!!!

I think some people under estimate the potential damage from nuclear waste.
Incidences of thyroid cancer in Chernobyl went through the roof after their 'major incident' and thyroid cancers over here and in the US are steadily rising yet the only known causes of thyroid cancer are excessive x rays to the neck area or exposure to nuclear fallout!!!!! Neither of which I've been exposed to. Could the fallout from Chernobyl have had further reaching consequences than first thought?

I had this treatment (ablative radiotherapy) to destroy the remaining thyroid cells after a full thyoroidectomy.

I also spent a lot of time in Sweden, and was there during Chernobyl. I understand thyroid cancers in men are even more rare.

However, you were not given nuclear waste, and the reason you were in isolation is because of theorhetical risks. The risks are small enough for you to swallow the material with no ill effects.

Fusion Power, the next generation of nuclear power, does not generate nuclear waste in the same way and much much much less. Because of the nature of fusion reactors, catatrophic failure is far less serious than when a fission reactor goes critical.

Originally posted by karenjane39
The major incident factor worries me!

Incidences of thyroid cancer in Chernobyl went through the roof after their 'major incident' and thyroid cancers over here and in the US are steadily rising yet the only known causes of thyroid cancer are excessive x rays to the neck area or exposure to nuclear fallout!!!!! Neither of which I've been exposed to. Could the fallout from Chernobyl have had further reaching consequences than first thought?

There are some amazing photographs of Chernobyl here:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

I would have said that it could be Soviet-era economy and cost cutting that contributed to the accident, but I seem to recall Sellafield has 'lost' a substancial amount of nuclear material in the past,