UK nuclear plants must go ahead, says EDF

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Until cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells come along, this will have to do.

 

Ironically Japan is the world leader in hydrogen fuel cells and magnetic drive for cars.

I see the Nissan Leaf went on sale here today.

 

10 hours charging for 100 miles driving, the range goes down by 10% if its cold, 25% if you put the heater on and 45% if you put the A/C on. Would take over a week to get from London to Edinburgh. Marvellous.

 

And they were calling it 'zero emissions' on the news. What? If you plug it into a socket fed by a fossil-fuel power station it actually produces more co2 per mile than a 1.6 diesel.

 

 

Early days and all that.

The electric car is an absolute dead duck imo. They should concentrate on small capacity turbocharged combustion engines until the infrastructure is there for hydrogen.

[Park Life 71]

The only thing that could go wrong with nuclear power in the UK is manual error, and even then the chance of it is remote.

 

More nuclear power stations please.

 

Indeed. And fossil fuels are fucked and renewable resourcing just doesn't have the infrastructure or means to power the entire UK so nuclear is the only viable consideration.

 

Lot of hot air about it recently for obvious reasons but in respect of the Fukishima plant, it's 40 years old and was built to standards that are a fraction of what is allowed these days.

 

It's the most expensive, uneconomical, dangerous and madly subsidised way of boiling water ever devised by man or sparrow. Why you have to ask yourself has it become seemingly the only answer?

 

Come on then Parky, what's the alternative?

 

 

China and India are 10-20 years away according to this article.

 

Thorium

 

http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968

 

 

"The advantage of using thorium over uranium-only-fuelled light water reactors (LWRs) is that the raw material is found in quantity around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests that it is between three and four times more abundant than uranium and also much more efficient in the fuel cycle, too – potentially between 100 and 300 times more fuel efficient than a standard light-water reactor, for example, in terms of material usage. It also generates less waste as a result of this efficiency.

 

In addition, once started, the reactors work at low pressure, minimising the risk of catastrophic accidents – such as Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Most of the waste will have a much shorter half-life, requiring storage for just a couple of hundred years instead of the thousands of years that standard nuclear waste needs to be stored for. This fact alone could drastically slash the costs associated with nuclear power."

 

 

I guess that's the end of the alternative sheep bleeting noise in here and it only took me 2 mins of cursory lazy googling...

 

Yes James you totally destroyed the 'what's the alternative to nuclear fuel?' argument by replying 'cheaper, cleaner nuclear fuel'.

 

This is not an anti-nuclear thread, just a nuanced debate about improving the efficiency of nuclear fuel?

 

 

I did have Japan and the UK in mind. The rest of the world WILL find alternatives, but it is harder for little islands who aren't allowed to go back to coal.

 

Think the 200 year storage compared to 20,000 year half life is a massive plus point and makes it almost non nuclear.

 

In the future all our energy will probably come from either man made tiny black holes or lightning, we just need to get through the next 50 without destroying the oceans with leaking nukes and such.

 

If I had the funding all the worlds problems would be solved in a matter of weeks.

 

But as you know there is no money in solving the energy crisis, the energy crisis is a big money maker.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Park Life

[Renton 21685]

What's the alternative?

 

http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2968

 

Only a 200 year storage cycle against the massively long half lives of uranium or plutonium.

 

Smaller amounts of fissile material needed

 

100 times more efficent.

 

So when asked what's the alternative to nuclear energy, you do a Google search and cite an experimental non-commercial different type of nuclear energy. Genius, even by your standards.

 

How about you say what viable alternatives are available now, today? Thorium reactors, nuclear fusion, blackhole and lightning 'technology' are not viable options today afaik. Mind you, since you believe 'they' have built space bases on Europa I am sure they must be available, but are obviously being covered up in some global conspiracy because there is money to be made in nuclear fission.

[Renton 21685]

Did you know coal power stations release more radioactivity than nuclear?

How so?

 

Because coal contains trace amounts of radioactive thorium and uranium, but it's not contained as it is in a nuclear power station. The result is if you get your Geiger counter out you may detect ten or even a hundred times more radiation at Drax than Hartlepool.

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

I'm prepared to believe that nuclear can be made to work in some safer format - just not the current one, or one that has been designed yet.

 

Why do the pro-nuclear crowd believe what they're told?

 

The same people and methods projecting energy needs, are the same people and methods used who thought the economy was great in 2007.

why is it assumed that when the nuclear crowd weigh up the pros and cons they "believe what they're told," but when the anti-nuclear crowd do the same, it is in their considered opinion? considering that the nuclear option has long been the controversial one?

 

I'm interested in your opinion of the cross over of opinion with the economy in 2007, because it seems like you must be looking at a very small cross section of opinion to reach that conclusion...

 

Because in 2011 its an engineering impossibility to handle nuclear safely.

 

The politicians want to turn it into a cost analysis of Pros and Cons where they feel happier and the public can be shell gamed.

[Renton 21685]

I'm prepared to believe that nuclear can be made to work in some safer format - just not the current one, or one that has been designed yet.

 

Why do the pro-nuclear crowd believe what they're told?

 

The same people and methods projecting energy needs, are the same people and methods used who thought the economy was great in 2007.

why is it assumed that when the nuclear crowd weigh up the pros and cons they "believe what they're told," but when the anti-nuclear crowd do the same, it is in their considered opinion? considering that the nuclear option has long been the controversial one?

 

I'm interested in your opinion of the cross over of opinion with the economy in 2007, because it seems like you must be looking at a very small cross section of opinion to reach that conclusion...

 

Because in 2011 its an engineering impossibility to handle nuclear safely.

The politicians want to turn it into a cost analysis of Pros and Cons where they feel happier and the public can be shell gamed.

 

Who says? The reactors in the Japanese disaster were nearly 40 year olds and have been hit by just about the worst natural disaster imaginable. Yet still there has been no catastrophe despite what the antinuclear lobby like to scaremonger. Chernobyl aside - which demonstrated the incompetence of soviet union more than anything else - the safety record of nuclear energy is pretty good I'd say.

 

I'm not taking a partisan view in support of nuclear power here because frankly I couldn't give a shit where our energy comes from, I've no vested interests. It's just that I simply can't see a viable alternative to nuclear fission if we want to keep the light bulbs on. Hopefully one day something better will come along and when it does it can compete for market share just like all the other technologies with their pros and cons. No conspiracy is needed.

 

And wtf does 'shell gamed' mean any way?

[adios 717]

The politicians want to turn it into a cost analysis of Pros and Cons where they feel happier and the public can be shell gamed.

that's an awesome sentence, do you mind if I use it?

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

And wtf does 'shell gamed' mean any way?

 

That Scotch guy does it on the Real Hustle all the time. Put coin under a one of three cups and swap them around.

 

 

that's an awesome sentence, do you mind if I use it?

 

For another poster on this forum ..anything bra, anything at all.

 

Lets keep the North East royalty free.

[Rob W 0]

whatever energy sources we use have costs - financial, environmental , human

 

You just have to balance the risks

[Anth 113]

When do the scientists reckon they'll have fusion sorted out so we dont have to rely on fision?

[NJS 4391]

When do the scientists reckon they'll have fusion sorted out so we dont have to rely on fision?

 

I keep reading "within 50 years" = not sure how concrete that is.

[Renton 21685]

When do the scientists reckon they'll have fusion sorted out so we dont have to rely on fision?

 

I keep reading "within 50 years" = not sure how concrete that is.

 

Not concrete at all, nobody can predict what the technology of 50 years time wil be like. Fusion may never work for all we know.

[Craig 6682]

When do the scientists reckon they'll have fusion sorted out so we dont have to rely on fision?

 

Parky's probably tailored Wikipedia to make sure it's sorted next week

[Rob W 0]

When do the scientists reckon they'll have fusion sorted out so we dont have to rely on fision?

 

 

in my lifetime it's always been 10 years and $10 bn for research away