hedgehog

I think it interesting that the announcement that we are going to go nuclear didn't even warrant a mention on SN. It has been an education watching the PR machine move slowly in this direction to create an atmosphere where the population were ready to hear something that might have caused riots on the streets only a few years back. It has also been quite entertaining to watch the green nutters get suckered into the man made global warming lie and then be presented with nuclear as the only solution. Greenpeace and others don't have a leg to stand on and their credability has been totally destroyed by this; they oppose nuclear and yet all their policies now leave it as the only option. The government have given them the rope and let them hang themselves.

I'm pro-nuclear by the way. let's face it what other option is there, but even so I was a bit uncomfortable to note that the day after the government said it was going nuclear the BBC broadcast a Horizon documentary, clearly some months in the making, which put forward the case that exposure to radiation may actually be good for you. Now the BBC might argue that it was just responding to topical events but I am still somewhat unhappy about how it all fell into place so neatly.

I also wonder what will happen to the man made global warming lie now that it has served it's primary purpose? I'm sure it will continue to be used against motorists as it is still a useful excuse in the battle to gain more control of the citizens without them objecting too much. Even so I can't help but think that many of those in office who were keen to shove man made global warming down our throats last week might have lost interest in it by next week.

It is amazing the workings of a wheelbarrow.

coolangatta

I'm not convinced by your 'global warming lie' to get nuclear back in pole position theory!
Surely if nuclear was the only realistic option, which it is, then the lie, if it is one, was not necessary. Don't forget that a lot of scientists who are in no way linked to nuke or are even anti nuke believe that global warming is man made.
The 'greens' hung themselves with lies and rumours that most with the ability to think can see through. The tree huggers have cost us many years of CO2 reduced power generation by rattling on about how nuclear power will kill us all
If all industries were as well regulated as the nuclear industry the world would be a cleaner and safer place to live.

OllyK

The greens won't be happy until we're all sitting in caves

Shiraz_khan

www.japaneseauctions.co.uk/forum
every body is kidding

OllyK

And what, they're doing nuclear powered cars?

David Lock

In 100 years it'll be mostly nuclear and waste will be blasted off into space?

OllyK

I suppose firing it at the sun is the best bet, however, I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, somebody hasn't found a way to re-use the waste

^Qwerty^

Nuclear is all well and good for the UK, but what about the rest of the world?

OllyK

France seem to do alright using it. Or are you referring to places like China or India and Pakistan which all use it?

speedking

The announcement wasn't really much of an announcement though was it? Not "We willl start building six new stations in five years time", more "Nuclear will probably be part of the mix." A nuclear reactor produces the equivalent electricity to 600 windmills, and the greens don't want to see those either. The quantity of concrete required to support 600 windmills is huge, and for three months of the year they produce very little power.

I too am firmly convinced that nuclear is the way forward. It really annoys me when politicians and the press choose statistics to 'prove' their case. A cost of £50bn has been put on building a fleet of new station. Sounds a lot until you realise that over 10 years that is only £100 per head of population.

Similarly the number of deaths attributable to the nuclear industry is far fewer than attributable to the coal mining industry.

But a poll on Radio 1 showed 80% against Nuclear Power Hopefully Horizon allayed some of those misconceptions.

Shark Man

Fine, as long as its not in my back garden

I'll await the boom in the red wine industry when they announce it helps prevent radiation absorption

Diablo

There are people living on the sun Still, I suppose its better that they can re use the crap we send them than just leave it lying around

Butty

iTrader: (2)

Like making the waste into discs and putting them in drinking water to "perk" you up?

Injection of radioactive waste into the Earths subduction zones would be my idea - the ultimate recycling.

Nick

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

Bury it in 3rd world deserts in return for aid money

^Qwerty^

I was thinking of any of the other 192 who currently don't have a nuclear capability. (figure from google).

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I saw a thing in the paper the other day where a Sikh guy was cremated on a pyre despite the Cremations act, normally they are flown back to India but his body was in an unfit state (doesnt bear thinking about, airline says we arent taking that, its oozing), perhaps then instead of wasting fuel we could cremate dead Sikhs to create energy, perhaps make it multi cultural so that every faith can do their bit, I personally would burn for ages and generate enough electricity to power Scoobynet for a year. Provide a dead relative or pet to Npower and get a rebate off your bill !

Hospitals would become become energy self sufficient due to MRSA and tired doctors.

See, two issues solved in one, the Sikh's community is happy that they can send their loved ones off in a traditional manner and we get cheap leccy, I should be Prime Minister.

Alternatively reinstate Longbridge as a nuclear facility, re employ all the talented Rover designers to design the reactor, all fake wood and leather, imagine the reactor hall with the 'Rover' logo proudly displayed in 20 ft high writing on the side, imagine what that would do for house prices in the area.

Leslie

The Horizon programme was interesting last night. It examined the Chernobyl accident and eventually concluded that exposure to radiation was not as dangerous as we all think, unless you get a humungus dose of course.

I would not like to risk it though.

Les

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Nuclear power? Windmills? What the fek happened to tidal power, FFS?

We live on an island with ginormous tides. Thirty years ago, scientists reckoned that FOUR tidal barrages wiould provide almost all the electricity we needed. Have any BEEN BUILT? Nope, not one:MAD:

And think of the other benefits, better transport with etsuaries crossed, an end to estuarial flooding, and jobs for people to build them, and they create NO WASTE!

Alcazar

EddScott

There are new reactors in the pipeline which actually produce more fuel than they use in the reaction process. These could power other reactors but the fear there is that the fuel could fall into the wrong hands.

Think these types of reactor (or one being researched) also generate Hydrogen which could power cars.

Interestingly enough since the fall of the USSR, IIRC about 60% of US reactors are powered from HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) which once sat atop Soviet ICBMs.

The hope is that new reactor technology will mean they use less fuel, produce much less waste, re-use waste in the reaction process. And finally hope that the building of new reactors doesn't bankrupt the country. There was one article regarding the near collapse of a US power company after building one reactor and they've never since had the spare cash to finish their 2nd reactor - and this was in the 70s!.

Personally, I think all research efforts should go towards developing the technology to drill down the the warmth of the earth and use that.

Edit - Chernobyl was a mix of poor design and buggering about with it to see how few rods they needed to use in order to control the process. It all got out of hand, they put the rods back in but it wasn't having any of it. They then poured lead powder, sand etc into the hole to reduce the radiation but it exploded again the following day and spat all the radioactive lead over a wide area.

At the very bottom of the reactor, to this day, there is white hot soup of fuel, concrete and metal. The largest moveable structure will shortly be started to replace the existing containment block which is slowly falling apart. The new structure will be X number of metres higher than the Statue of Liberty.

pwhittle

I'm not sure the thausands of Russian kids who will die of cancer, and weren't even born at the time would agree though

Dr Hu

re: Tidal Barrages....

I heard a Radio 4 interview about the ecology changes from these tidal barrages - they built a big **** off one in France.....

Yes it creates ooodles of power BUT it completely sterilised the river basin and for MILEs upstream - the whole wildlife spectrum of the river was pretty much wiped out.

So they have a massive impact if you like fishy wet things.......

tis a conundrum alright - I would have thought the tidal range idea could work, just dont block off the entrance to an entire river to do it.

OllyK

I hope what you mean is that the reaction process is so inefficient that there is sufficient reactant left to be used by other means, otherwise you will be in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and are thinking about Free Energy machines which are bogus!

logiclee

Lets not get carried away.
Has anybody bothered to reed the Governments energy review, all 218pages of it?

Nope everyone is acting on the news headlines.

Nuclear acounts for around a fifth of electricity generation in the UK and the new nuclear plant is expected to fill the same gap and perhaps a bit more.
Britian is not suddenly going nuclear.

The plan is for a mixed and secure energy mix.

Renewables will play a part but nothing spectacular in the short to medium term.

Measures will be put in place to reduce demand. Expect smart meters, new tarrifs and equipment without standby.

Gas will play a major roll so pipelines and relations with the eastern countries will be important. The review intends to limit the UK's reliance on gas.

Coal accounted for 50% of the UK's generation last winter as it's the cheapest form of generation and will play a major part in the short to medium term. The Government will set up a coal forum with suppliers and generators to maximise the UK's cheap reserves and to secure imports.
The future of Coal generation will depend on CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), our empty gas and oil fields can be filled will the CO2 emitted from fossil fueled power stations.

One thing is for sure, bills will rise. Cabon based fuels will be made artificially expensive by the EU to make renewables and nuclear cost effective. Rising scale electricty tarrifs will also sting high users.

One thing is for sure We can't sit back and do nothing

It's going to be interesting

Cheers
Lee

EddScott

Only repeating what I read in National Geographic.

They are called Breeders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

^Qwerty^

It's a shame they didn't think of that just as the caps have gone, or are going on the shafts at the former Thorne Colliery. That, in one single action has just "put beyond use" the largest coal reserves in Britain.

Leslie

pwhittle,

They were saying that will not necessarily be true about the children. They also had a woman on who lived in sight of the reactor and got a fair dose of radiation. The doctors were trying to persuade her to abort her unborn child but she refused and gave birth to a healthy child who was also on the programme. They have an active programme going on at the moment to detect thyroid cancer which is the most likely type they may be in danger of contracting.

Maybe the programme was sposored by Billy to persuade us that Nuclear is the way to go!

Les

logiclee

I agree, it's a case of we told you so.

Thorne's shafts were not filled with the usuall concrete and chippings but with fines and they are supposed to be recoverable but we will have to wait and see. There are other big coal fields in the UK such as Witham and the Vale of Belvoir but again this would require CCS to work and the commitment to build new Coal fired powerstations.

Unfortunatley we have the current situation where a French company EDF own coal fired stations and are refusing to buy UK coal even at far cheaper prices than imported coal. EDF have consistantly pushed the Nuclear route as it will be the French EDF that build the new UK nuclear stations and that's were they will make their money.
Fortunately it looks like the energy review is fair and balanced but there are futher reviews and the white paper to come out yet.

Cheers
Lee

OllyK

Ah - my former comment then, the output is a fuel that can be used by something else, not a case of getting more "energy" out than was put in. But fast breeders aren't exactly new, although the technology will no doubt have improved over the years, and they are still nuclear.

EddScott

Well done, have a gold star.

OllyK