Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 5,262
It's not actual loss I'm talking about, it's the impact to the environment of accidents, which makes it unsuitable for human habitation ... not exactly green, is it?
Great British Nuclear - UK's Push To Include Nuclear Energy
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
It's not actual loss I'm talking about, it's the impact to the environment of accidents, which makes it unsuitable for human habitation ... not exactly green, is it?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
The issues of nuclear waste and issues had decreased enormously. Even Japan has gone back to nuclear. Their HTTR has been demonstrated to be one of the safest designs, and as an offshoot they're able to create significant amount of red hydrogen. It's win win.
Until fusion becomes a more realistic capability nuclear is an absolutely viable alternative. SMRs can also be deployed quickly, are seismically safe and can help boost UK economy significantly and create an export capability.
The one issue we do have is the amount of nuclear fuel available. However I'd rather nuclear fuel be used for power than for weapons.
Until fusion becomes a more realistic capability nuclear is an absolutely viable alternative. SMRs can also be deployed quickly, are seismically safe and can help boost UK economy significantly and create an export capability.
The one issue we do have is the amount of nuclear fuel available. However I'd rather nuclear fuel be used for power than for weapons.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Oil leaks
Oil/gas platform fires
Mining incidents
Lithium and cobalt excavation
Gas explosions
And a a lot of other waste powered power stations have cause significantly more issues over their lifecycle than nuclear ever has.
Last edited:
As I said, do some research instead of being led by your emotions.
If your metric for being green is the affect on the enviroment when something in the chain fails then there is no green energy.
Think about all the chemicals and resins used in the production of wind turbines and solar panels. Any one of them could get out into the enviroment and posion an eco system.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
If people were to cast emotions aside the answers are obvious, get the bloody world population down to a sustainable level, stop sending aid and food to regions where the natural food and water balance needs adjusting to support unnatural population levels, clamp down in an utterly Draconian way on illegal migration. Stop financing parenting by governments giving child care support so two parents can off their responsibilities to dubious third parties, the options are many and simple...
The Greens have done more damage to the environment (especially Germany) than the actual O&G sector has done. They have a lot to answer for with the current climate crisis. I hate the Greens, hate them.
Nuclear waste is not an issue. The amount produced that actually needs to be long term stored and cannot be reused is tiny (most plants keep it all on site). The US has a bigger problem with waste, but that is because of a Carter-era policy that forbids reuse of nuclear waste, due to some dumb nuclear weapon fears or something. Furthermore, we are getting to the point where we can turn the waste that needs to be stored into 'glass', which removes the problem of it seeping into groundwater.
Accidents are not an issue. Safety design has come leaps and bounds since the 60s/70s. Meltdowns are virtually impossible, barring freak accidents like Fukishima (which was an old 70s design and was built in a terrible location). You could have a Fukishima level event once a decade and it would *still* be less damaging to the planet than what we do with fossil fuels.
We are a very stupid species. We harnessed the power of the atom and then let ourselves become afraid of it. The current climate crisis is a direct consequence of our ineptitude. We could have been focusing on issues such as pollution and plastics by now, instead we're still hoping we don't all kill ourselves with climate change.
Nuclear waste is not an issue. The amount produced that actually needs to be long term stored and cannot be reused is tiny (most plants keep it all on site). The US has a bigger problem with waste, but that is because of a Carter-era policy that forbids reuse of nuclear waste, due to some dumb nuclear weapon fears or something. Furthermore, we are getting to the point where we can turn the waste that needs to be stored into 'glass', which removes the problem of it seeping into groundwater.
Accidents are not an issue. Safety design has come leaps and bounds since the 60s/70s. Meltdowns are virtually impossible, barring freak accidents like Fukishima (which was an old 70s design and was built in a terrible location). You could have a Fukishima level event once a decade and it would *still* be less damaging to the planet than what we do with fossil fuels.
We are a very stupid species. We harnessed the power of the atom and then let ourselves become afraid of it. The current climate crisis is a direct consequence of our ineptitude. We could have been focusing on issues such as pollution and plastics by now, instead we're still hoping we don't all kill ourselves with climate change.
Last edited:
Accidents with nuclear are more a human issue than technical - if Fukishima had been retired once it reached the end of its design lifetime + extensions enabled by modernisation, rather than trying to extend it beyond that using computer simulations to play cute with failures, the incident likely wouldn't have happened (even then it largely survived one of the most extreme situations a nuclear power station can experience). Unfortunately money talks and there is the enticement to extend nuclear beyond sensible limits.
(I'm absolutely for leveraging nuclear power however).
Something commentators on Ukraine often seem to ignore is that post Chernobyl there have been significant changes in designs to remove the potential sources of material for runaway burnoffs like Chernobyl.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Foolproof and failsafe are terms that any sane person should laugh at, they have been cited for generations yet constantly proven to be gross exaggerations if not downright lies.
I feel as if one of the reasons they try to extend the lifespan of the nuclear power plants is because of the push back they would get in trying to construct a new one. Push back that comes from the fear of potential disasters caused by these old designs. Designs that would have been replaced for newer safer designs if it wasn't for the push back. An ironic cycle.
Last edited:
They are not a target except in the sense that it could disrupt power production. A 747 flying into a nuclear reactor would not leave a scratch.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,893
i wish it wasn't needed but for the medium term I think a nuclear backbone is needed. am cheesed.of more research was not put into thorium. you don't get the runaway reactions and the half-life of the waste is in the 100 year realm rather than 1000
but we are where we are and fusion has been 40 years away for as long as I can remember and is it even certain it can ever come?.
maybe 30 years from now we will have solar in space beamed down or actual nuclear fusion but until then I think we need nuclear fission globally. (and UK wise as well as probably doubling the off shore wind and another 1000 in shore wind turbines and add to that as much tidal as we can possibly fit, and geothermal as well where possible
no one renewable source can do it all (we have been spoiled by burning dinosaurs, it's been easy) but by combining the lot and adding in storage hopefully the nuclear backbone can be as small as possible.
but we are where we are and fusion has been 40 years away for as long as I can remember and is it even certain it can ever come?.
maybe 30 years from now we will have solar in space beamed down or actual nuclear fusion but until then I think we need nuclear fission globally. (and UK wise as well as probably doubling the off shore wind and another 1000 in shore wind turbines and add to that as much tidal as we can possibly fit, and geothermal as well where possible
no one renewable source can do it all (we have been spoiled by burning dinosaurs, it's been easy) but by combining the lot and adding in storage hopefully the nuclear backbone can be as small as possible.
Last edited:
Nothing is totally safe or clean but nuclear is relatively safe and relatively clean compared to all the other energy sources.
Fusion has a basic problem: how do you start energy production without an external power source?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,072
So let me get this straight, no grants or incentives to insulate homes no investment in onshore wind no investment in tidal only subsidise imported fossil fuel energy payments by borrowing even money and their idea of a solution is the most expensive energy there is once you take in building, decomissioning and waste storage into account?
Millennials have no memory of chernobyl, three mile island, Windscale, etc, etc. Its a wonder material with no drawbacks.
Apart from the nuclear waste which is dangerous for thousands of years and and enormous cost eh? Nuclear is now green? Utterly risible from this govt.
Indeed. You also just have to look at france to see how unreliable Nuclear is, when half the capacity was offline for much of the last year
But as always the problem with nuclear is the cost and timelines. The UK gov talk about 2050 to get only 25% of the load from nuclear, while many EU countries will use 100% green energy by 2030-2035 because wind and solar can be rolled out within months.
Yet again UK energy policy is going to be highly detrimental. The UK could be a world leader in renewable energy and create massive revenue exporting wind energy to the continent. Instead hundreds of billions will be wasted on dead technology that won't solve any immediate problems but instead create more nuclear waste which will cost hundreds of millions a year to store for thousands of years to come
a complete pipedream
ot really, a few decades too late, and so late it is a massive waste of money