Nuclear Power should the UK go nuclear?

[Mike567]

I've scrubbed up on my nuclear knowledge, and I say hell no.

[CurlyWhirly]

I've scrubbed up on my nuclear knowledge, and I say hell no.

What's the alternative?

With all this talk of global warming, I can't see the Government giving the go ahead for coal powered nuclear stations

[doug]

What's the issue after all we are nourished and warmed by the nuclear processes in the Sun, in addition we are heated by the radioactive processes down in the earth.

[Mike567]

By 2012 nuclear power will not be enough to power our ever expanding power hungry lives.

Yet we can build enough wind turbines by 2012 to power more than what we need.

Wind turbines can be run with little maintenance yes a power plant takes thousands of workers putting tax up even more.

If you will notice, the other day I got a letter from the government telling me i should purchase a house turbine, which goes to show they really cannot power our homes by 2012.

Plus after they bring in the power plants they will begin taxing solar panels and also house hold turbines!

[CurlyWhirly]

Yes that's a solution but loads would have to be built and they are an eye-sore so best build them in rural areas

[Mike567]

I don't mind the look of them :).

I think its better than burying nuclear waste in rural areas and then having army surround the area with a 4 mile radius.

The fact is the UK has too much nuclear waste and we cannot handle it, and the main problem is they cannot even store it properly.

[catgate]

The sensible way is to build large cargo rockets and send the spent fuel back to the sun. It would only need sufficient energy to get the rocket out of the earth's pull and it would then "fall" into the sun. In fact the elastic worn by some of the ladies I have seen lately could well provide the motive power without bothering about rocket propulsion.

It was calculated, by a professor of physics at Princeton, that there was a point where the number of windmills needed to generate sufficient energy, became so great that the speed of rotation of the earth would be reduced adversely. The day could become up to 31.5 hours long. this in turn would slow down time, and we would all live longer. This would result in our needing 9.7% more fuel per lifetime and would necessitate even more windmills which would again lengthen the day..

[Mike567]

LOL, so we can slow down the earths rotation some how I cannot see that being a fact.

Would be cool to have a 30 hour day though, imagine the work you would get done.

[andsome]

I don't think many of us know enough about this very complex subject to have a valid opinion. Even if we did, who would take any notice of us? :D

[doug]

I'm sorry - no I'm not - to try and introduce a bit of reality into this topic but no one mentions the "Total Energy Cost". Most people are aware of the total financial cost of ownership but I thing it's about time we started to consider the total cost of energy. Briefly everyone is encourage to change over to using low energy light bulbs. However, energy has already been consumed in the manufacture of the working bulbs already in situ. I agree that it would be environmentally beneficial to replace these with low energy types but ONLY when the present bulbs expire, otherwise we are discarding the energy consumed in the production of the present ones before time. Also the low energy bulbs are manufactured with and contain toxic pollutants while the present incandescent bulbs are much mire environmentally friendly in this respect.

Along these lines why should we procede headlong in knocking down perfectly usable buildings and replace them with new ones, especially those containing high proportions of cementacious products. Doesn't anyone realise that in the production of cement vast quantities of carbon dioxide are emitted! To think of all those sea creatures that passed their lives in consuming carbon dioxide to produce their skeletons and shells thus changing the atmosphere to that which we presently enjoy beggars belief. Just an example to go along with the nuclear reactions we are dependent upon. Remember that we are the result of a previous first generation star/stars that reached the end of their nuclear lives then exploded to produce us.

I could go on at length. What I am saying is don't jump on the latest environmental band wagon, please step back and take into account the conditions which resulted in the formation of our planet, the evolutionary processes that occurred and resulted in the equilibrium that we "enjoy" today. when I say equilibrium also remember that if it wasn't for the changes that have occurred we wouldn't be here now.

I favour the Gaia concept.

[catgate]

I thought that The Total Energy cost was the reason governments around the world are being pushed by their backers into doing something. (It does not matter what, as long as it makes some more money for the backers and environmental experts.)

The nuclear lobby, so far, seem to have put up the strongest case, as far as most industrialised country governments are concerned, however ill conceived parts of it are.

[Tankus]

If the government was really honest with the true costs to the enviroment and and us monkeytaxpayers ( which included start up shutdown , waste disposal , and feather bedding ), noooks wouldnt even get a look in ....

Stupid way to boil a kettle

[AlanHo]

My knowledge of atomic power is rather coloured by an unfortunate incident which happened to my brother in his youth.

An atomic blonde he had a fling with claimed she had been blasted into maternity by his guided muscle.

On a more serious note - if I had to vote on the topic it would be for a mixture of wind, tide and nuclear generation.

[andsome]

I'm sorry - no I'm not - to try and introduce a bit of reality into this topic but no one mentions the "Total Energy Cost". Most people are aware of the total financial cost of ownership but I thing it's about time we started to consider the total cost of energy. Briefly everyone is encourage to change over to using low energy light bulbs. However, energy has already been consumed in the manufacture of the working bulbs already in situ. I agree that it would be environmentally beneficial to replace these with low energy types but ONLY when the present bulbs expire, otherwise we are discarding the energy consumed in the production of the present ones before time. Also the low energy bulbs are manufactured with and contain toxic pollutants while the present incandescent bulbs are much mire environmentally friendly in this respect.

Along these lines why should we procede headlong in knocking down perfectly usable buildings and replace them with new ones, especially those containing high proportions of cementacious products. Doesn't anyone realise that in the production of cement vast quantities of carbon dioxide are emitted! To think of all those sea creatures that passed their lives in consuming carbon dioxide to produce their skeletons and shells thus changing the atmosphere to that which we presently enjoy beggars belief. Just an example to go along with the nuclear reactions we are dependent upon. Remember that we are the result of a previous first generation star/stars that reached the end of their nuclear lives then exploded to produce us.

I could go on at length. What I am saying is don't jump on the latest environmental band wagon, please step back and take into account the conditions which resulted in the formation of our planet, the evolutionary processes that occurred and resulted in the equilibrium that we "enjoy" today. when I say equilibrium also remember that if it wasn't for the changes that have occurred we wouldn't be here now.

I favour the Gaia concept.

It's like I said Doug, I don't think any of us are aware of all the facts to make a real judgement. :D

[Mike567]

The fact is running costs of nuclear is much much higher than wind turbines.

One thing I do not understand is the idea that they are placing the power stations next to the sea, now if the ocean was rising why would they risk putting billion of pounds worth of buildings next to the sea?

I want to know what they know :lol:.

[Tankus]

cheaper easy access heat dump

plus its a 50/50 innit ...

same reason why most of the French fast breeders are built near to her boarders .... If they blow , depending on prevalent wind conditions , the fallout could be someone else's problem

[Mike567]

hmm... it is a good idea but billion pound buildings going underwater isn't good either.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/eco-stuff/50-of...wind-331729.php

interesting read, more turbines coming :).

[catgate]

hmm... it is a good idea but billion pound buildings going underwater isn't good either.

[

May be not but think about it. It's not their money...its yours.

[Mike567]

LOL :lol:.

thats so true.

[Tankus]

2006 The burial site for Britain's stockpile of nuclear waste should be decided by a country-wide contest in which regions bid to become home to the hole, a government advisory panel said yesterday.

In return for housing the underground repository, which would remain radioactive for centuries, the winning region would receive compensation in the form of improved roads, schools and other facilities. Better emergency services and expertise to monitor the long-term environment and health of the population would also be on offer.

Guardian

2008 Nuclear alert: PM's bribe boosts dumping of waste

Nuclear chiefs are to give Britons millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to accept the dumping of radioactive waste near their home.

The operators of the controversial Sellafield nuclear complex have agreed to pay local people in Cumbria some £75m for expanding the only national dump for low-level nuclear waste, in a move that has surprised leading experts.

The unprecedented deal – which is being called a "bribe" – is widely thought to be the precursor of a payment of at least £1bn to the community that agrees to take a much more controversial planned repository for infinitely more dangerous waste that will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

Independent

Last night environmentalists denounced the payments deal – the first ever agreed in Britain – as "development by bribery", and as a breach of undertakings not to subsidise the industry. But the principle of compensating local people for taking nuclear waste is now accepted by ministers, and councils are making it clear that they will not give planning permission to new facilities unless they get the money.

Under the agreement – quietly endorsed by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will ultimately provide the money – the state-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield and operates the country's radioactive waste disposal programme, has undertaken to make indefinite payments to the people of west Cumbria, in return for extending a waste dump near the small coastal village of Drigg, a few miles from the complex.

It has agreed with the local Copeland Borough Council and the Cumbrian County Council to make a £10m down payment – half of which will be paid as early as this summer, followed by annual fees of £1.5m a year for as long as the dump is in operation. If it closes in 2050, as one inquiry predicted, the total sum will just exceed £75m.

The village – with only 300 inhabitants – will receive a guaranteed £50,000 a year which could exceed £2m over the lifetime of the dump. Copeland Council plans to put all the money into a special "community interest company" and says it will be focused on attracting business, on environmental improvements and education, and on social projects and sports facilities.

I'm amazed this development in not right across the mainstream media ... It sets a hell of a precedent , open to some serious council abuse .... and broooon's paper enveloping under the coffee table.

Come out during political recess again ! ...

Sellafield does not have advantageous geology for long term deep storage ...It needs to be impervious , that prevents groundwater creep .....

Politically expedient rather than a view to safety .

scary stuff

[Tankus]

reliable ?

ELECTRICITY generated by nuclear power has fallen by a quarter in Scotland because of poor reliability, figures have revealed.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform found that electricity generated from nuclear power in Scotland decreased by 24%, mainly due to "unplanned outages". The figures came as the UK Government prepares to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Scotland on Sunday

[catgate]

2006 The burial site for Britain's stockpile of nuclear waste should be decided by a country-wide contest in which regions bid to become home to the hole, a government advisory panel said yesterday.

Politically expedient rather than a view to safety .

scary stuff

Surely "are bribed" would be a more realistic than "bid"

The council that "wins" will not be re-elected thats for sure.

It is just the sort of responsibility dodging scheme that governments are good at, particularly this one.

It would be better to put it into a big rocket and fire out into space. It would then free fall in to the sun and simply send it back to its origin. With luck it might blow up the sun and put an end top global warming.

[Scarthy © ® ™]

A big NO to this form of power please !!!!!!! There is enough damage to the environment through nuclear testing and Chenoble already. We need to look to renewable sources that don't f*** up our environment for future generations!!!!!

Did you know that we all now have radiation inside our bodies (all living creatures on Earth!!!) that can cause cancer because of all the co*k ups and testing done to date!!!! Does it really have to get dire before they sit up and take notice????!!!!!?????

I, personally, would rather go back than take a BIG risk and mess it all up for us all! There is/should be more to life than ferkin profit margins!!!

[Tankus]

5 albert halls worth in volume of the nasty stuff ...means a lot of rockets ..... kiss goodbye to the ozone layer (something NASA never talks about , but every launch puts pollutants into the ozone causing damage ) and just one "Atlantis/Challenger" would be some heavy s**t

The council that "wins" will not be re-elected thats for sure.

I'm sure the councillors would be well compensated out of the tax payers nuclear disposal slush fund

[Tankus]

Scarthy © ® ™

Did you know that we all now have radiation inside our bodies (all living creatures on Earth!!!) that can cause cancer because of all the co*k ups and testing done to date!!

Also from places you would not expect

The Queens death star

Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from

Battlefields in the Middle East

and

shed load's here mindfully .org

enjoy