Sustainable energy without hot air

[LegalEagle-ish]

All of the above, plus, unsutainability, massive cost to public (don't beleive the crap about it being funded privately), length of time to bring anything online - when we could be using all of that money and a much shorter time frame to utilise all of the various renewable sources with less negatives such as all of the above!

[????]

mmmmmm..and you think renewables are going to provide 60 million people with their energy?....if our pop was about 3 million I'd buy that

[Marmora Man]

Answers:

1. Impossible.

2. Extremely unlikely - careful selection of location makes plane crashes, earthquakes, tsunamis a minimal problem, this along with correct design that will ensure automatic shutdown.

3. Proper design should ensure automatic shutdown in event of any problem - no mater how created.

4. The actual quantity of truly radioactive waste is tiny - and there are ways of storing this safely.

Cost - renewables have high costs as well. Only tidal power, and to a lesser extent, wave power, is reliable enough to work in our part of the world. Forget wind & solar power.

[Asset]

why don't they shoot the radioactive waste into the sun?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I agree the challenge is to develop new sources of energy, or improve existing methods but my bottom line problem with nuclear is that unless you can guarantee 100% (and no such guarantee exists in any walk of life) the consequences of that 0.0 whatever % of something going wrong (and that could be leakage, attacks or general malfunction) render the benefits moot

Quids - I took issue with you earlier because you bemoan a certain viewpoint and generalise to an offensive extent. Not everyone on the left is against nuclear energy.

I want energy. I want clean energy. Why would I adopt an anti-nuclear stance because of left-leanings? It makes no sense. But no, I don't trust the general argument that the lessons of chernobyl have all been learned, applied and it's all ok now. If someone can reassure me my mind is open to change.

[Marmora Man]

Sean,

You're almost falling into that "cautionary principle" again. As you remark nothing can be 100% safe - but we can be pretty damn sure.

One of the problems with nuclear power is the perception that it is, somehow, more dangerous / evil / horrendous than everything else. Only a vet small % is highly radioactive with long half lives - the majority of the "nuclear waste" is things like gloves, protective clothing / materials, containers and so on that have been contaminated (but not rendered absolutely and lethally poisonous) through proximity.

A submarine nuclear reactor is not a lot larger than a domestic dustbin and would provide sufficient power for a town of about 100,000 people. It has a working life og about 30 years and, once finished with, only the nuclear core (maybe 10% of a domestic dustbin is highly radioactive - tho' parts of the primary system are also radioactive to a lesser extent. That's not a huge volume of nuclear waste in return for 3 million person years of power.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I've been a fool all these years - there was me thinking nuclear power was a potentially dangerous number, aggressively pushed by the tobac... i mean nuclear industry and it's cronies when it tuens out it's just lovely and cuddly and gives you nectar points!

I'm sorry for cheap sarcasm MM, but when you say "we can be pretty damn sure" I just reach for the valium. You know.. as mums were encouraged to..

I don't think nuclear power is evil! Horrendous maybe potentially but I like all of the upsides. But saying I or opponents brand it evil is craw-tickling. What is with the cutesy "somehow" oppenents thing it dangerous? Somehow??? If it was safe and as easy to look after as you claim it wouldn't cost so much would it?

as for "cautionary principle", give 12 random people on the street the keys to your house and see how allied you become to the "cautionary principle"

[skidmarks]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK - to put the question more clearly to anti

> nuclear team:

>

> What are your concerns?

>

> 1. Likelihood of a reactor turning into a bomb?

>

> 2. Likelihood of a major disaster creating major

> nuclear fallout?

>

> 3. Likelihood of it becoming a terrorist target -

> with effect of 1 or 2 above?

>

> 4. Long term "pollution" of storing nuclear

> waste?

>

> 5. Something else entirely?

>

> Once the questions are posed rationally then

> brational answers can be providedd.

5. Security of supply. We do not have our own source of uranium so we can be held to ransom as with Russian gas. Especially when the world shifts to nuclear power as an easy fix for reducing CO2 the price will go through the roof. We need to invest in ?free? energy

Other than that I have no problem with nuclear, I?m an engineer and I trust other engineers to be capable?.I don?t trust politicians and career managers though not to meddle.

[Marmora Man]

Investing in nuclear energy now would give us a 30 year + respite to develop "free" energy as long as we ignore inefficient landscape destructive wind farms.

[skidmarks]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Investing in nuclear energy now would give us a 30

> year + respite to develop "free" energy as long as

> we ignore inefficient landscape destructive wind

> farms.

MM. Are you a politician? You seem to keep avoiding the issue of security of supply. You made a list of questions for us to answer. Uranium is a commodity on the open market and prices go up as well as down and be diverted to the highest bidder. We?ll end up with the same problems as we did when Russia turned the gas off to Europe.

Also have you seen the damage open cast uranium mining does to the landscape or does that not matter as its in another country?

[Asset]

What about the news this morning that Faslane nuclear submarine base has suffered several leaks over the last few years?

Article here

[LegalEagle-ish]

I thought about that when i heard it on radio 4 this morning. This is not a safe technology and the impact of errors in the nuclear machinery is far more serious for far more people than any other way of producing energy so this should not be expanded without taking into consideration the views of all potential victims.

[Marmora Man]

Answers:

1. I'm not a politician.

2. I recognise the issue regarding security of supply - but if UK bought enough uranium now it would give us a 30 year respite to develop other sources of energy and release UK from that problem. It doesn't take too much U235 to fuel a reactor.

3. I wasn't aware we were discussing environmental damage of open cast mining - but there's lots of experience around in recovering to the natural state previous open cast mines for all sorts of minerals.

4. I saw the Faslane article. No damage to the environment, no damage to human life. Primary coolant is water - and difficult to make radioactive - very little particulate would be in that coolant.

5. There is no such thing as 100% safe technology - but there are acceptable levels of risk that we all live in other spheres. EG: Cars at speed are unsafe, at lower speeds they are safer. Parked at 0mph they are safe - but useless. Ditto aircraft, some crash, most don't - we use them regularly. Hot water scalds - but we all boil kettles. Life & technology use is a trade off.

[skidmarks]

I just discovered that the UK does have a substantial supply of uranium ore in the Orkney Isles but this has not been mined due to environmental impact as its very volume intensive mining owing to the low concentration of the metal in the ground. Environmental damage aside, if we could tap into this and not import uranium I would be more confident of the nuclear option as a sustainable option.

[david_carnell]

I guess one of the things that worries me about nuclear power is that, and as a military man mamoraman you should recognize this, is that the power stations will be built by a a corporation who put in the lowest bid in order to win. Now, is it just me, or does a company looking to cut costs to be competitive not make a particularly pleasant bed-fellow for nuclear power.

[Huguenot]

I'm with Marmora Man on this one; I prefer modern nuclear technologies to the older ones, they're a vast improvement.

As MM says, modern technologies mean that Three Mile Island or Chernobyl won't be repeated again, as the systems have built-in redundancies.

Whilst there are no 100% risk free enterprises, nuclear presents a better option than fossil fuels for the next 50 years.

I think there's a list of energy sources in increasing appeal: coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, tide, solar. I don't see solutions coming quickly enough in the last three, and don't see power reductions coming quickly enough to reduce demand for the first four.

Hence the balance of judgment sits with nuclear.

[skidmarks]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I guess one of the things that worries me about

> nuclear power is that, and as a military man

> mamoraman you should recognize this, is that the

> power stations will be built by a a corporation

> who put in the lowest bid in order to win. Now, is

> it just me, or does a company looking to cut costs

> to be competitive not make a particularly pleasant

> bed-fellow for nuclear power.

You could say the same for nationalised industries, they?re not exactly known for splashing out.

[Marmora Man]

DC - lowest cost bids are bad news if that's the only criteria. Unfortunately, very often that's how governments prefer it. However, the nuclear industry is mature and, I assume, understands its cost base well as well as the risk matrix. It is very unlikely in this modern litigious climate that any company would cut costs to a point where it endangered life and limb and therefore, by proxy, company existence and profits.

Nuclear fission energy is the necessary stopgap - to allow all to gather thoughts and time to develop more sustainable energy sources for the future. Who wants to bet on useable nuclear fusion energy within 50 years?

PS: It's interesting that a number of us, more usually in opposition, have come together to agree, broadly, on this particular point. Discussion and debate is a good thing.

[david_carnell]

skidmarks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You could say the same for nationalised

> industries, they?re not exactly known for

> splashing out.

Really? I'd say nationalised industries, whilst having certain failings, were certainly not cost cutters. If anything the lack of strict budget and timescale leads to project failings when run by the state, not penny-pinching

@MmamoraMan - I hear you and broadly I agree with you. And tbh, if push came to shove I probably would get on board with nuclear power. But, when run and built by a private company, whose sole motive is shareholder profit, I fear long-term thinking is put aside for short term gain. If less concrete to build reactor cores (or whatever) can be used I worry it will be used.

"Hey, Trev, isn't this incredibly vital piece of wall meant to be 2.5 meters thick? It seems to be only 2.4 meters thick"

"Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that Bob. The bosses said we're over budget and to save some dosh we're using a little bit less concrete when building this incredibly important piece of wall - but it'll be fiiiine."

Tell me I'm imagining this scenario and it would never happen. Then I'd be a LOT happier.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Thinking about it, recent corporate history has been nigh-on perfect and my doubts are being assuaged

Oh no, wait...

[skidmarks]

Mature?that is not the word, I would say retired. We do not have the skill base in the UK anymore. We will probably have to rely on the French to design our new plants. My company is chomping at the bit to get in there, which will probably mean that the work will go out to the States. It?s a shame.

I was never against nuclear as an option. I still think wind turbines are a good cheap option to remove energy from the atmosphere even on a small scale such as connected to a charging point for an electric car.

There has been lots of debate about the proposed tidal barrage in the Severn in my trade magazine. I just can?t see this getting the go ahead. It will take more than one government term in office to design and construct and its not proven technology so I cannot imagine a politician committing billions to it. There will be lots of studies into it though!

[skidmarks]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> skidmarks Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You could say the same for nationalised

> > industries, they?re not exactly known for

> > splashing out.

>

> Really? I'd say nationalised industries, whilst

> having certain failings, were certainly not cost

> cutters. If anything the lack of strict budget and

> timescale leads to project failings when run by

> the state, not penny-pinching

>

A nationalised industry can cover things up as in effect they are run by the government just like the situation with the ministry of defence is getting away with the leaks in Scotland. Would you trust the local council to run a nuclear power plant? Nationalised industries to me say inefficiency, laziness, jobs-worths, strikes, budget cuts, could-do-better, over-spends?

At least with a private firm they can be regulated. How do you regulate the government?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't trust this species to run nuclear stations - nothing to do with private v state.

regulators don't come out of thin air either- they are appointed either by the industry itself (hmmmm) or the government

Governments should be regulated by the people who vote them in. That's democracy.But human beings are lazy so we prefer to bitch about them instead

[david_carnell]

Regulated? Like say....banks?

As someone who has worked in both public and private sectors for large organisations I can anecdotally say that all your public sector criticisms could also be levied at Private Company Plc.

And for every state run Chernobyl there was privately-run Three Mile Island. Swings and roundabouts. But I'd rather give a not-for-profit organisation the reins of a potentially dangerous power station, than one dedicated to making a profit. But it won't happen. We couldn't afford publicly built nuclear - certainly not now - and so will be reliant on private companies (from overseas) building these things with huge subsidies since they never actually recoup the money the cost to build.

[skidmarks]

Yes, I have worked in both sectors as well?I think Sean has hit the nail on the head. You can?t trust this species to run something so potentially dangerous.

Weren?t the banks under regulated?