Hey guys,

This is my first time posting here so hello everyone! I'm currently studying Web Journalism at Sheffield Uni and have to do a news website. One of the ideas I had would be to get Sheffield residents to comment on Blair's nuclear energy proposals. What do you think of them? Do you think nuclear energy is the right way forward for Britain?

I would be extremely grateful if you replied and include your name, age, and occupation (you can PM me if you like) as well.

Cheers,

Quas (Mike)

P.S. Plus, if anyone has any scoops that would be fantastic!

Its very much needed, our oil resources are strained because of depletion. Nuclear energy is very clean, but very dangerous if not maintained correctly.

The bad side is that Nuclear waste isn't the easiest to dispose of and Nuclear Power stations require lots of maintanence. This maintenance isn't cheap and requires the use of oil. So unfortortunatelt as oil becomes less and less available, because of Geological reasons etc. then Nuclear Power could become a very dangerous asset, on our door steps too.

Wrong wrong wrong = nuclear power.

Easy option for short term thinkers.

Renewable energy is the key. We're an island surround by waves and we have wind and sometimes some sunshine.

I think the best idea I've heard is to generate power locally useing the resources we have locally. That way it is a lot more efficient and a lot more reliable.

Nuclear energy still produces carbon and as much as in the mining for it so it's not very clean. That'd be what the corporate government would want you to think though.

name: Adam
age: 25
occ: self-employed

I am rather sceptical about the reason's behind the recent push for nuclear.

It appears that the decision has already been made, and now we're simply being 'conditioned' to accept nuclear power.

In theory, there was no law to stop new nuclear reactors being commissioned, but the reason why there hasn't been any planning applications is simply cost.

Nuclear energy is more expensive to produce, and in the world of Market forces, in which we find ourselves, it is just not a cost effective way of producing energy. ( I wont even talk about the waste problems, nor the risk of terrorism which our beloved Prime Minister has placed us under).

What we seem to be experiencing in energy pricing this winter reminds me of what happened in California a couple of years back, and in that case it was shown to be suppliers hiking up prices to boost profits.

It seems that nuclear power can only be achievable in a market with high energy prices, and whilst many may mistakenly use that as an excuse (i.e. higher energy prices will reduce consumption and hence save energy), I believe this is simply the Nuclear lobby creating the market conditions to get govt contracts.

Even as far back as 2003 the Govt said that Nuclear wasn't a viable option due to its high costs. All of a sudden Blair has a reverse gear......

Why can we for instance simply invest in clean coal technology ?

If we think about it logicaly it would seem to be the only way forward, fossil fuels are now getting depleted, unless someone finds a way of burning coal that does not produce carbon.
Its highly worrying to me that our gas and oil supplies for the future are reliant on pipe lines from countries that can best be described as "less than stable".
Renewables, although highly desirable, will never produce enough energy for our needs, and allthough the public say they would like renewable energy, as soon as a wind farm is proposed a huge outcry starts about not in our back yard etc, is this a classic case of double standards?
Certainly, the quicker hydrogen fuel cell cars become a reality the better, this would go a long way toward reducing greenhouse gasses, but I cant help feeling that the big oil companies are doing as much as possible to slow this development down.

Hydrogen cars already exist but governments - especially the american one doesn't push as much money into it's development as it does push money into helping cut the costs of oil companies. Hydrogen is hard to produce in large amounts safely at the moment. The more reseach into it tho the better. But the money needs to be there. The eventual electic car seems the best idea to me. If energy was renewable..

Once a renewable network is put up, it's there, wind, waves and sunshine is not gonna run out. They came to this conclusion 2 years ago. Why the government have decided this is now the wrong conclusion is highly suspect.

There is no need for nuclear. There is no need to produce it, use it, mine for it for commercial or political reasons. Scares me that more of those in power aren't worried about having radioactive material on its land.

The widespread recognition of the energy crisis - obvious though it has been for yonks - has only been a relatively recent event, at least in terms of a sense of urgency.

This means that serious research and technological funding investment into renewable / better energy sources has only been going for a short time - but already it has opened up several leads and given a bit more time it seems very likely that something far better and cheaper will be developed.

I think that because of the cost of building and maintaining nuclear stations, the risk involved in using radioactive materials and the difficulty of disposing of the waste (some of this stuff will be hanging around for a million years) we'd be regretting building any we build now in even 10 years time.

The waste does seem the major issue with nuclear to me - wherever it goes it's going to do damage, dumping it in the ocean could destroy fragile, beautiful and largely uncatalogued ocean floor communities, burying it deep into rocks could kill off biolithic bacterial assemblages which have been found up to 4000 metres below the surface and may have a function in shaping geological events... it's the sort of thing which will be hanging around on our doorsteps forever and would still be a problem when we've managed to clean up our energy supplies.

Seems like we're rushing into this far too fast, holding out for a few years to see what comes along would be a wiser strategy.

Originally posted by Gethical
Renewable energy is the key. We're an island surround by waves and we have wind and sometimes some sunshine.


But while people keep objecting to wind turbines simply because they don't like the look of them they will never get a fair chance.

Originally posted by nick2
But while people keep objecting to wind turbines simply because they don't like the look of them they will never get a fair chance.

Stick them out at sea. More expensive to place but keep them quiet.

I think they look funky anyway, imagine sheffield with a wall of wind farms around it's hills. It'd be classed as art no doubt.. People had doubts about the angel of the north, which now is regarded by most as some decent art. Plus it'd put sheffiled on the map. I dunno which map but some map some where :)

I don't like the look of nuclear power stations much though, but that is just me...

Originally posted by Gethical
People had doubts about the angel of the north, which now is regarded by most as some decent art.
I still think it's blooming ugly.

But I like the look of wind turbines, and think the countryside should be filled with them.

i think its agood idea to go nuclear

i even think we should have our own little nuclear power plants in our gardens its very safe nowadays.


peoples perception of nuclear is a very bad one, but it can also be used for good aswell.

Just done a few "back of an envelope" calculations.

To supply the current electricity needs of the UK would need 120,000 wind turbines. If located on the coast, there would need to be one every 160 metres around the whole coastline.

The construction costs would be paid back in less than 2 years.

But you don't need to put them round the whole coast line in a line of one. Once the wind hits the turbine it doesn't suddenly stop. Still that is less wind turbines than I thought it would be and I was all for it before...

But you could use wave and solar power as well. Why has it got to be one or the other? Why not serveral options?

is that 120k in ideal conditions?

We can expect 60% to be non operative at any time due to lack of wind or too much wind (and this is still far better than most of our continental cousins).

Originally posted by Cyclone
is that 120k in ideal conditions?

I think that it is an average throughout the year. Would need some kind of storage (hydrogen?) or excess capacity.

Nuclear energy has always had tons of research money. The only reason alternative technologies get any research funding at all is because of pressure from groups and individuals who have been saying for decades what governments are only acknowledging now: Massive energy consumption is wrecking the environment.
It will cost £56 billion to hide - not get rid of - the nuclear waste
we have ammassed so far.
If only this money was given to wind and solar technology research, there's a good chance it could be made as cost effective as nuclear.
Another problem is we can't believe the information we're are being given.
Blair now claims nuclear is the only practical solution. That means it's probably a lie. What more evidence do we need that when their's lots of cash involved our PM is on the side of big bussiness and the military/arms production gang.

Finally, it might get us out of a hole in the short term, but after 50 years research there has still not been one practical solution to the safe and permanent - up to 500,000 years - storage of nuclear waste.

Don't really know enough about nuclear power stations to do a really in-depth reply to this....

What I do worry about is what happened at Chernobyl... If that happened here in the UK, and the wind was blowing inland, we'd be f****d!

And what if some plank decided to drive a jumbo jet into one of our power stations? Would it be strong enough to take it?

And where does all the old uranium go after it has been used? And how long is it until its safe? And what happens if this stuff gets into the wrong hands? Can that mean a 'dirty bomb' can be produced with other materials?

I know that inventions come and go.. Like the water-powered/rechargable car engine which suddenly 'went missing' after one of the big oil companies bought the design for it..

:suspect:

Let's not forget that we still need to import all our nuclear fuel from countries that are even less stable than our gas suppliers.

And it is an exhaustible resource.



As for storing renweable energy such as wind, this technology is very well established. Pump storage - using excess supply to pump water uphill, which can then be released through turbines to produce energy at times of low or no production.

This allows renewables to operate with constant output. Local conditions dictate where this sort of thing is possible.

The other main idea is to move to a less centralised production system, and encourage more local, renewable production to offset consumption.

PV roof tiles, heat exchangers, heat storage tanks, windmills, etc could all offset the consumption of energy from the national grid quite considerably.

Fission is a dirty stopgap measure that needn't be taken, but the legendary size of grants and subsidies to the nuclear industry will persuade many people it is the only choice.

Originally posted by Gethical


I think the best idea I've heard is to generate power locally useing the resources we have locally. That way it is a lot more efficient and a lot more reliable.

name: Adam
age: 25
occ: self-employed

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Total sense, this is the real key to future survival, a return to Localization. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by Gethical
Hydrogen cars already exist but governments - especially the american one doesn't push as much money into it's development as it does push money into helping cut the costs of oil companies. Hydrogen is hard to produce in large amounts safely at the moment. The more reseach into it tho the better. But the money needs to be there. The eventual electic car seems the best idea to me. If energy was renewable..


A Hydrogen Economy I really believe is false hope

"Hydrogen: Hydrogen is regarded as a clean and efficient energy source. It is net energy loser though because of the energy input needed to produce Hydrogen Power. Some figures claim it is in the region 3 units of energy used to produce to 2 units of Hydrogen energy. There seems to be a lot of speculation about moving towards a Hydrogen Economy following the depletion of Oil. Thus many car companies are constantly producing prototypes of Hydrogen cars, unfortunately they always prove to be far too expensive for mass production. The real reason behind Car companies interest in developing the Hydrogen Car is the Government Grants company’s receive and the Tax rebates because of their research in to Alternate transport and energy. The unknown issue regarding Hydrogen is Hydrogen’s by-product waste, which is Water Vapour. This sounds like a clean enough waste when compared to Petrol and Diesels Carbon Dioxide and other harmful gasses. What could happen though is if all motor vehicles converted to Hydrogen, then the amount of Water Vapour being sent in to our atmosphere could turn our Planet in to an unliveable swamp".

ok, secret source here so no links etc.

nuclear fusion is a reality. two atoms meging together with no wastage under a laser.

there is hopefully billions of funding ahead but it is going to take at least 10 years.

Originally posted by robbie
ok, secret source here so no links etc.

nuclear fusion is a reality. two atoms meging together with no wastage under a laser.

there is hopefully billions of funding ahead but it is going to take at least 10 years.

Of course Fusion is a reality, hence THE SUN!

Trouble is we've been 30 years away from cracking the Fusion Code since we split the atom. We may make it one day, but I feel Nuclear Fusion is the same as Nuclear Fission, it requires Oil for some sort of maintanence. The downside of Fussion is, is that it may and probably would cause more mayem and distruction than any Nuclear Resource we have now.

The way forward is maybe to powerdown and naturally reduce the population. At the same time, we should continue to search for a clean, renewable energy source, which fully replaces Oil in all aspects! Can it be done? I don't know, can time travel be accheived?

I would LOVE to see the UK getting all its power from a range of renewable energy sources.

However, it's simply not feasible yet - we use too much energy as a nation, and renewable sources simply cannot take up the slack without massive costs. Costs not solely due to the development, production and building of the vast amount of machinery required, but also to deafeat the NIMBY lobbies who agree with alternative/renewable energy in principle, but won't have it on their doorstep.

Until times and people change, we're going to need nuclear power as well.

Of course, a lot of people don't like this very "safe and efficient" technology, and they probably have some valid reasons for doing so.

But I'd like to ask you all these questions, if you disagree with the policy of going nuclear in order to ward off an energy crisis.

Are YOU energy efficient? Is your house fully insulated, do you turn off unused lights and appliances? Do you always buy energy efficient products? Do you try and avoid overly processed products, all of which use more energy in producing the extra packaging and the extra factory work involved. I could go on...

We live in an incredibly wasteful society, and until we can all use energy responsibly we can't justify demanding copious amounts of it, cheap, on the one hand, while decrying the use of nuclear power on the other. If we want a green society, we have to get there from both sides of the equation - energy production AND energy use.

Why don't Russian power workers wear Boxer shorts?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because Chenoble fall out.

Originally posted by wayne72
Of course Fusion is a reality, hence THE SUN!

Trouble is we've been 30 years away from cracking the Fusion Code since we split the atom. We may make it one day, but I feel Nuclear Fusion is the same as Nuclear Fission, it requires Oil for some sort of maintanence. The downside of Fussion is, is that it may and probably would cause more mayem and distruction than any Nuclear Resource we have now.

The way forward is maybe to powerdown and naturally reduce the population. At the same time, we should continue to search for a clean, renewable energy source, which fully replaces Oil in all aspects! Can it be done? I don't know, can time travel be accheived?

fusion is a reality. to put into practice would take 20 years but we can do it on a very small scale now.

I think the best option would be to provide half the energy from fussion and half from natural energy (wind, sea etc)

Originally posted by AstroKath
I would LOVE to see the UK getting all its power from a range of renewable energy sources.

However, it's simply not feasible yet - we use too much energy as a nation, and renewable sources simply cannot take up the slack without massive costs. Costs not solely due to the development, production and building of the vast amount of machinery required, but also to deafeat the NIMBY lobbies who agree with alternative/renewable energy in principle, but won't have it on their doorstep.

Until times and people change, we're going to need nuclear power as well.

Of course, a lot of people don't like this very "safe and efficient" technology, and they probably have some valid reasons for doing so.

But I'd like to ask you all these questions, if you disagree with the policy of going nuclear in order to ward off an energy crisis.

Are YOU energy efficient? Is your house fully insulated, do you turn off unused lights and appliances? Do you always buy energy efficient products? Do you try and avoid overly processed products, all of which use more energy in producing the extra packaging and the extra factory work involved. I could go on...

We live in an incredibly wasteful society, and until we can all use energy responsibly we can't justify demanding copious amounts of it, cheap, on the one hand, while decrying the use of nuclear power on the other. If we want a green society, we have to get there from both sides of the equation - energy production AND energy use.

I lived in a viilage without mains for years. For £500 you can power a tv, computer, sounds and a couple lights with solar panels, batteries and an invertor - to convert the power to 220.
Obviously you can't use them all at once, but - once you're forced to - it's suprisingly easy to plan how you use your power, without missing out on anything.

If the government were serious about energy consevation they could encourage eveyone to have a setup like that, and only use mains for things which draw more power.

You could have a system of mains rationing with different bands of pricing.
eg once you use over areasonable ammount, in a given period, it becomes much more expensive per KW.
You could use as much as you liked but, if you were frivolous it would cost you dear, and it would be well cost effective to have solar panels and a wind turbine on your roof, to save you from going into a more expensive electricity band.

This would be even more feasable in five years time, as there is a new type of solar panel being developed which has been demonstrated to give out loads more power, even putting out a charge in the dimmest light.

So why don't the Gov do something like this.
I think it's fairly obvious that they're more interested in generating vast sums of cash than they are in generating clean electricity.

That is why thay want to go nuclear.

I think nuclear power is :-
http://dts.ystoretools.com/1025/images/200x200/simrbuexma.jpg

Why cant we just use clean coal technology ? Its both cheaper and safer than nuclear!

Originally posted by wolfman
Why cant we just use clean coal technology ? Its both cheaper and safer than nuclear!

And another natural resource that will eventually run out...isn't the whole debate about nuclear usage as an alternate rather than a complimentary power source to burning stuff

Uranium is scarcer than coal. Especially good quality stuff. I still can't quite believe that they're seriously considering building all these things.

I used to be in CND, and against nuclear power. But as you get older, you mellow.

Still against nuclear weapons but coming round to the idea of nuclear power now. My only reservation is taking care of the waste. The reactors would now be safe. I like the idea of wind and wave power, tidal barrages etc, but it will not produce the amount of power we need. Photo electric cells are becoming very efficient, but we would need so many we may loose our farm land altogether! The 'free' options would be best, but I think the impact on our environment in terms of ascetics would negate the advantage.

I'm from a physics background and know what it would entail.

Fusion is the dream option, but it is so far down the line, we can't consider it for our forthcoming power crisis yet.

In fact, I'm surprised the major oil companies aren't piling their funds into researching this instead of trying to find the last drops of oil. Who ever gets this to work on an industrial scale will probably be richer than Bill Gates ;) What will they do when they can't find any more. Sign on?

Here is a problem for chemists/thermodynamicists if we have any.

You know the hydro scheme in Wales, where they generate electricity from gravity ie drop water with a massive head of pressure through turbines. Well, at night when electricity is 'cheap' they pump it back up again. This has to be a net loss in terms of energy. Always seemed stupid to me.

So, if you split water with electrolysis and burn the hydrogen produced to provide electricity to power the electrolysis, is there a net power gain? If so, its a winner! And we get free oxygen.

But probably not as the hydrogen will burn with the oxygen and you just get water again.

Ho hum.

Nuclear fission for the short term I reckon.

Originally posted by GabbleRatcht
[B]

Photo electric cells are becoming very efficient, but we would need so many we may loose our farm land altogether! The 'free' options would be best, but I think the impact on our environment in terms of ascetics would negate the advantage.



I agree. Imagine these guys cluttering the countryside!

http://www.jainheritagecentres.com/asceticsphotos/ascetics0004.JPG

if you're a physicist then you should know that there is no 'net power gain' in any conversion process. The absolute best you could ever hope for would be 100% efficiency, ie all the energy put in comes back out again.
But no system is 100% efficient, so any form of conversion for storage or other purposes always looses (wastes, as energy is not destroyed, just made non useful to use) energy.

What is a net gain with the hydro electric pumping and gravity system is economically.

Originally posted by GabbleRatcht
I used to be in CND, and against nuclear power. But as you get older, you mellow.

Still against nuclear weapons but coming round to the idea of nuclear power now. My only reservation is taking care of the waste. The reactors would now be safe. I like the idea of wind and wave power, tidal barrages etc, but it will not produce the amount of power we need. Photo electric cells are becoming very efficient, but we would need so many we may loose our farm land altogether! The 'free' options would be best, but I think the impact on our environment in terms of ascetics would negate the advantage.

I'm from a physics background and know what it would entail.

Fusion is the dream option, but it is so far down the line, we can't consider it for our forthcoming power crisis yet.

In fact, I'm surprised the major oil companies aren't piling their funds into researching this instead of trying to find the last drops of oil. Who ever gets this to work on an industrial scale will probably be richer than Bill Gates ;) What will they do when they can't find any more. Sign on?

Here is a problem for chemists/thermodynamicists if we have any.

You know the hydro scheme in Wales, where they generate electricity from gravity ie drop water with a massive head of pressure through turbines. Well, at night when electricity is 'cheap' they pump it back up again. This has to be a net loss in terms of energy. Always seemed stupid to me.

So, if you split water with electrolysis and burn the hydrogen produced to provide electricity to power the electrolysis, is there a net power gain? If so, its a winner! And we get free oxygen.

But probably not as the hydrogen will burn with the oxygen and you just get water again.

Ho hum.

Nuclear fission for the short term I reckon.

Originally posted by GabbleRatcht
I used to be in CND, and against nuclear power. But as you get older, you mellow.

Still against nuclear weapons but coming round to the idea of nuclear power now. My only reservation is taking care of the waste. The reactors would now be safe. I like the idea of wind and wave power, tidal barrages etc, but it will not produce the amount of power we need. Photo electric cells are becoming very efficient, but we would need so many we may loose our farm land altogether! The 'free' options would be best, but I think the impact on our environment in terms of ascetics would negate the advantage.

I'm from a physics background and know what it would entail.

Fusion is the dream option, but it is so far down the line, we can't consider it for our forthcoming power crisis yet.

In fact, I'm surprised the major oil companies aren't piling their funds into researching this instead of trying to find the last drops of oil. Who ever gets this to work on an industrial scale will probably be richer than Bill Gates ;) What will they do when they can't find any more. Sign on?

Here is a problem for chemists/thermodynamicists if we have any.

You know the hydro scheme in Wales, where they generate electricity from gravity ie drop water with a massive head of pressure through turbines. Well, at night when electricity is 'cheap' they pump it back up again. This has to be a net loss in terms of energy. Always seemed stupid to me.

So, if you split water with electrolysis and burn the hydrogen produced to provide electricity to power the electrolysis, is there a net power gain? If so, its a winner! And we get free oxygen.

But probably not as the hydrogen will burn with the oxygen and you just get water again.

Ho hum.

Nuclear fission for the short term I reckon.

We have the ability to do fusion on a small scale but we need billions of investment in order to have it in place for 20 years time

I think the way this story has been presented in the media is quite ridiculous.

We are supposed to believe that Tony Blair has suddenly had a brainwave that we can reduced our CO2 emissions if we invest in more nuclear energy as if this possibility has never occured to anyone before, and whatsmore that its going to happen because Tony Blair has suddenly decided its a good idea.

I think what is needed is a combination of less energy demands by the general public (which I can not see happening to any great degree) and us making the things that use energy more efficient (this is happening all the time).

We will carry on using oil and coal and gas before it becomes unprofitable to extract, and then we'll move onto the next easiest option, which is quite likely to be nuclear unless any of the crackpot perpetual motion machines start working.

Incidentally on a related topic, anyone know much about "Blacklight Power"? It is based on a theory that there is a ground state of the Hydrogen atom at a lower level than was previously thought which could unlock a huge amount of energy. You'd think it was some crackpot scheme, and certainly a lot of scientists think it is, but maybe one of these type of things will work one day.....

Atomkraft; nein danke. Or that's what the stickers in the 80s used to say.

Not for me thanks, I'd like to have grandchildren with only two of each limb/ears/eyes, etc and just the one head. And with all internal organs, and blood in correct working order.

Renewables are the way to go. We need to look after the planet, it's our only home.