Go ahead for new Nuclear Power Stations

[Gromit]

A new generation of nuclear power stations is expected to get the formal go-ahead from the government later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579 .stm

Can we do without them?
Is there an alternative?
Can we afford them?
Can we afford not to have them?

What do you think?

[Loosehead]

No
Yes but much more effort + cost is needed, not realistic at the moment,
Yes the amounts being bandied about sound a lot but are only 1 years NHS budget.
No

It's the only way. Renewable sources may one day be up to the job at the moment forget it.Fossil fuels, short term only, In 50 years time we may be able to harness Wave/Wind/Sun at the moment it's a pipe dream. I don't often agree with the French but they are correct this time, they generate75% of their power from Nuclear reactors. Who knows we(that is the world) may even crack the fusion problem then it's all bets off!

[Gromit]

So you support Iran's efforts to do the same, Loosehead?

[Loosehead]

Where did that leap of illogic come from then Gromit.

[Loosehead]

Well I hoped you where intending a serious debate about energy but it seems you cannot resist more bashing of the West. Why do you hate it here so much? To continue in your vain, are you happy with Iran having Nuclear weapons?

[jake-the-peg]

I'm afraid I kind of agree with Loosehead.

We can't store electricity efficiently enough to rely on renewables to plug the gap when the wind doesn't blow etc and relying on gas won't hit our carbon targets and the supply is increasingly likely to be from Russia with all that that entails.

However the big question with nuclear has always been who picks up the decomissioning bill.

The Government has said it won't and I can't see private industry building nuclear power stations with that sword over it's head so there's an impasse.

That's pretty much been the situation for the last 20 years and I've not yet heard anything that makes me think it's changed.


But if anybody thinks they can do better than the government - use the BBC calculator here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/el ectricity_calc/html/1.stm
to say what energy mix we should use and let us all know the settings

[kwicky]

It worries me more what we can do in the meantime. Maybe we could build more facilities to create bio diesel from plants as the USA is doing. Many fields in UK are unused and farmers getting paid for set aside (or doing nothing)

The first nuclear power station is not due for another 12 years and they always run late. Good for the long term though!

I believe they may have tackled the problem of nuclear fusion by then giving free cheap energy.

[kwicky]

Regards to the nuclear waste problem. I'm surprised some destitute country does not offer to accept other countries waste to booster their fragile economy. They could make a mint!

[Gromit]

kwicky

They did, it is called the Thorp Reprocessing plant in Cumbria. So far 5644 Tonnes have arrived from all over the world. Very good for the balance of payments and all that.

[gravytate]

i was on a nuclear powerstation last summer and they are FREIIIKY places. BAN them AAAALLLLLL

[kwicky]

I didn't realise that we were that destitute?

[buildersmate]

There's a world of difference between the UK with dwindling oil reserves, coal reserves in narrow seams deep underground and Iraq with shed-loads of oil reserves. Every nation in the world aspires to be energy independent.
When Iraq's reserves start diminishing, I for one will have no problem with them setting up a few nuclear power stations around the bazaars (so to speak). Until then, I don't trust their motives.

[dinsdale]

I work at sellafield in west cumbria, used to be a nuclear power station (calder hall first in the world) obviously Calder hall is undergoing de-commisioning and is currently inactive. The Thermal Oxide Reprossing Plant (THORP) is used for the reconditioning and reusing of old nuclear wase into new fuel for current power stations, less than 4% of it is real waste. It is true that at the moment we do need new nuclear power stations in order to cut the more pressing issue of climate change.

As for the iran question, the fuel needed to produce electricity is of a far lesser degree than that needed to be used in WMD. Though they could be refined using a reactor, this activity would be simple enough to detect using regular inspections.

Nuclear is the answer for the short term (40 years or so) by which time renewable sources can be advanced to take over

[Teddio]

Iran is oil-rich and its motives for developing nuclear power stations must be obvious. Enriched Uranium is needed as a fuel source and U-235 can be used to make a fission bomb. The fission process in a nuclear reactor generates Plutonium-239 which can also be used to make a fission bomb.
The UK should follow France's example and have the majority of its electricity generated by nuclear means. There is no medium term alternative.