.... I'm just annoyed that we didn't go ahead in the 1970s and '80s thanks to the anti movement.

 

Totally agree with you flecc - never had anytime for the anti nuclear bunch then or now.

Probably find the one's that shouted the loudest are all millionaires now (big shares in BP, ESSO, etc)

We are all going to pay for those idiotic political decisions based on emotion instead of logic

.

Sorry guys I have to disagree. If we cant deal with the waste then we shouldnt use it. And that stands for everything in my book. This idea that, 'we can deal with the problem after I am dead' is just wrong.

 

I understand that nuclear power stations generally produce about 100Kgs of waste per day. Not a lot, and as Flecc says, IF encased in glass then it SHOULDNT be a problem. But how much glass does it take to render this 100KGs of radioactive waste RELATIVELY harmless, perhaps 1KG waste to 100Kg glass, so 10,000KG of glass, per day, per reactor?

 

I dont trust that all countries around the world will adopt such measures to deal with their waste either, and even if every single one did, thats going to be one hell of a stockpile after 25 years of growing energy demands!!

 

There is no easy answer, but we wont find it if we arent looking, and we should be putting all our eggs in this basket.

 

John

1) In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life.

.

I have to disagree that long-lived wastes are not highly toxic, they're just toxic in a different way.

 

Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,110 years. Radiation from Plutonium-239 comes primarily from the emission of Alpha particles, which only travel short distances (less than a metre), but will cause extreme damage to any living tissue they pass through. Contamination of water courses through leakage of this type of material would be extremely hazardous. Transporting this stuff around by road, rail or sea is very safe... unless an accident results in broaching of the containment vessels. Burying it is extremely safe... as long as the setting is geologically stable for several 10's of 1000's of years, and as long as the containers in which the waste is sealed remain intact for those 10's of 1000's of years.

 

Heres a quote from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Radioactive Waste Project:

Irradiated nuclear fuel rods discharged from commercial nuclear power plants are highly radioactive, a million times more so than when they were first loaded into a reactor core as “fresh” fuel. If unshielded, irradiated nuclear fuel just removed from a reactor core could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to a person standing three feet away in just seconds. Even after decades of radioactive decay, a few minutes unshielded exposure could deliver a lethal dose. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millenia.

 

Highly radioactive wastes are dangerous and deadly wherever they are, whether stored at reactor sites (indoors in pools or outdoors in dry casks); transported on the roads, rails, or waterways; or dumped on Native American lands out West.

 

Regards,

 

Elephants

We, and the planet are in a mess because we are using the planet unsustainably, due both to our number and way of life. And climate change is by no means the only problem caused by this. Is it sensible therefore to turn to nuclear fission, yet another unsustainable technology with it's own consequential problems? There may be a short term argument for nuclear in some countries, but Britain has much greater renewable resources than many. If we don't embrace renewables then who will? So lets show the rest of the world the way to go.

Edited August 6, 200817 yr by john

Flecc's right when he mentions population. Our environmental impact as nations and as a species in general is the product of the way we way and the number of us. If population keeps rising, our use of resources must fall. If use of resources (whether that's oil, gas, phosphorous, etc.) is forced to fall due to scarcity then war and famine become more serious risks.

 

Remember that all artificial nitrogen fertiliser is made from natural gas, and the price of that is rocketing...

The big question is what is ultimately sustainable for 6 billion people on this planet? What way of life doesn't take from the land more than what you are putting in and is that achievable?

I have to disagree that long-lived wastes are not highly toxic, they're just toxic in a different way.

 

Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,110 years. Radiation from Plutonium-239 comes primarily from the emission of Alpha particles, which only travel short distances (less than a metre), but will cause extreme damage to any living tissue they pass through. Contamination of water courses through leakage of this type of material would be extremely hazardous. Transporting this stuff around by road, rail or sea is very safe... unless an accident results in broaching of the containment vessels. Burying it is extremely safe... as long as the setting is geologically stable for several 10's of 1000's of years, and as long as the containers in which the waste is sealed remain intact for those 10's of 1000's of years.

 

Regards,

 

Elephants

 

Firstly, alpha particles are slow and have very poor penetration, unable to pass through our outer skin layer, so they are only dangerous internally.

 

Secondly but much more importantly, plutonium 239 isn't waste since it's well worth storing. As I said earlier we will need that when the supply of readily obtainable uranium runs low, since it will then be used as seed in fast breeder reactors in combination with bulk from our other uranium wastes.

 

Nuclear waste warnings like those you quote are like the many warnings on medicines, worst case scenarios and vague possibilities rather than likely outcomes, All our fuels have risks, and the far worse one of burning carbon fuels is that we may wipe out all biological life on our planet. Against that the nuclear risks are insignificant, incapable of such a catastrophic outcome.

.

The big question is what is ultimately sustainable for 6 billion people on this planet? What way of life doesn't take from the land more than what you are putting in and is that achievable?

 

There have been estimates that our modern way of life is only sustainable for a maximum of 1.5 billions, so we need to downsize long term for viability. It means harsh population control, but the alternative could be nature's even harsher penalties.

.

All our fuels have risks, and the far worse one of burning carbon fuels is that we may wipe out all biological life on our planet. Against that the nuclear risks are insignificant, incapable of such a catastrophic outcome.

You may well be right.

 

I agree that a drastically lowered population is probably essential, although its hard to imagine mechanisms to achieve this that would be palatable to Joe Public.

 

In the meantime, as well as looking for new, clean, sustainable energy sources, I think there needs to be far more emphasis on using less energy. The amount of energy we waste by leaving electronic kit on stand-by, over-heating our homes, not insulating our homes, flying, using air-con, driving 2 tonne cars around, etc. is unbelievable.

 

Regards,

 

Elephants

Secondly but much more importantly, plutonium 239 isn't waste since it's well worth storing. As I said earlier we will need that when the supply of readily obtainable uranium runs low, since it will then be used as seed in fast breeder reactors in combination with bulk from our other uranium wastes.

 

Fast breeder reactors have not proved a viable technology and have been all but abandoned by just about every country in the world. As the cost of renewables falls, particularly solar, they are unlikely ever to be able to compete at any kind of acceptable level of safety.

Fast breeder reactors have not proved a viable technology and have been all but abandoned by just about every country in the world. As the cost of renewables falls, particularly solar, they are unlikely ever to be able to compete at any kind of acceptable level of safety.

 

This is not the case John, they aren't used because they haven't been economic against PWRs and non nuclear generation, but the two French and two Russian fast breeders have worked well considering their early stage of development, especially both the later ones. In fact some while ago the USA nominated the Russian fast breeder BN600 as the model for their future reactors. As energy costs continue to rise and uranium extraction gets more difficult I believe they'll become economic.

 

Whether solar or other technologies reach a lower cost by then is a matter of conjecture and opinion of course, we cannot possibly know at present.

.

This is not the case John, they aren't used because they haven't been economic against PWRs and non nuclear generation, but the two French and two Russian fast breeders have worked well considering their early stage of development, especially both the later ones. In fact some while ago the USA nominated the Russian fast breeder BN600 as the model for their future reactors. As energy costs continue to rise and uranium extraction gets more difficult I believe they'll become economic.

 

Whether solar or other technologies reach a lower cost by then is a matter of conjecture and opinion of course, we cannot possibly know at present.

.

 

The French Superphoenix reactor closed in 1998 after generating for just 6 months. I won't mention how much electircity Japan got out of their reactor. If France cannot get this to work with their commitment to nuclear then who can? As for Russia, I think we know their record on nuclear.

 

In theory, FBR's are a good way to dispose of waste, my point is that this doesn't work in practice. France is no longer considering this option, they plan to bury their waste (if they can find anywhere to put it).

 

As for costs, of course we cannot know future costs, but we can estimate, and estimating solar is much easier than estimating nuclear.

The French Superphoenix reactor closed in 1998 after generating for just 6 months. I won't mention how much electircity Japan got out of their reactor. If France cannot get this to work with their commitment to nuclear then who can? As for Russia, I think we know their record on nuclear.

 

Sorry John, but that's an incredibly biased view.

 

As I'm sure you know the Superphoenix was their second, the first smaller Phoenix working for very much longer. As I've said, it closed for economic reasons.

 

Japan has experimented with a variety of nuclear technologies and has had many failures on record in various designs, so they are hardly a basis for judgment.

 

That comment on Russia was not called for. The Chernobyl acident came from an ill chosen testing routine, not normal working, and the RBMK reactors are excellent, running to this day including the world's two largest and so efficient that they can run on the waste from PWRs. Russia's PWR design is also an effective and reliable one. Research on improvements continues with the BN800, though held up for a while after the breakup of the Soviet union by the lack of funds at that time. In a related field, Russia's Tokamak fusion reactor design is the only one of the world's three designs to be of any use to move forward in this field. In an askance reference to Chernobyl, the Tokamak is also by far the safest design to date, and that's why all the fusion research reactors are to this design

 

Hardly things to be so casually dismissive about, and the US choice illustrates their much greater respect for Russian nuclear technology.

.

Sorry John, but that's an incredibly biased view.

 

Flecc, if mine are biased, perhaps yours are just a little rose tinted

The thing with all of this nuclear tech is the incredible cost. We really should be making this investment in renewables first, and then supplementing as we need to. Not the other way round, its just a recipe for disaster environmentally and economically.

 

I say environmentally because we will have tons of waste that we will have to deal with, and we dont have a solution for, and because this tech has an extremely hazardous nature.

 

I say economically because apart from the unbelievable huge initial investments to start up, once you start using this tech, you are tied to the companies that make it, and their extortionate contracts and sub-contracts, and all your resources have to be invested in it to keep it going.

 

We dont need another big bang one stop shop approach. Reducing what we need by being responsible, and investing in every single green tech we can is the way forward.

 

John

Flecc, if mine are biased, perhaps yours are just a little rose tinted

 

That's for you and others to judge John, but my view in that last post is expressed by nothing but quoting factual information, so any tinting isn't mine.

 

I do take a more optimistic view of such matters though. I fall out completely with most of the environmental lobby including many members in here over their blinkered support for renewables only, with a completely negative view of anything else.

 

My view is inclusive, using human ingenuity to take advantage of all methods and technologies, including renewably sourced energy.

.

The thing with all of this nuclear tech is the incredible cost. We really should be making this investment in renewables first, and then supplementing as we need to. Not the other way round, its just a recipe for disaster environmentally and economically.

 

John

 

Oh dear, this old chestnut trotted out again!

 

Things change John, modern nuclear stations are cost effective, almost approaching even dirty coal in this respect and certainly far cheaper than gas and oil now, including allowing for waste disposal. Most of the many low cost South Korean products we buy are produced with nuclear power, and to deal with another objection, they build their PWR stations to internationally licenced standards in as little as two years each, never more than four.

 

I've never promoted only having nuclear, as seen in my reply to John above, but I'm not so blinkered as to shut out anything else.

 

It's not me who's putting all the eggs in one or few baskets, it's you and the environmentalists. We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.

.

We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.

.

 

We will most certainly use every option available to us and that means extracting every last possible drop of oil be it from the Tar Sands or opening up the ANWR.

 

Economic growth is the religion!

 

The human species is a blight on this planet, our greed will ensure we never reach an equilibrium with it.

Just a thought - nuclear power provides electricity, and what we're short of is liquid fuels and natural gas.

 

Yes, we can use vehicles running on batteries or hydrogen, but there are several problems:

• to replace the energy currently used in transport in the UK we would have to increase our electricity supply by something like four times
  
• over the next 10-15 years we're going to be struggling to keep our existing electricity generation capacity, with nuclear stations reaching the end of their lives, coal plants shutting down due to the EU LCPB and North Sea gas declining fast
  
• it will take years to replace all our oil-fuelled transport with electric, and doing so will cause a massive rise in the prices of the raw materials (i.e. catalysts or battery chemicals)
  
• the infrastructure for charging batteries or supplying hydrogen will also take years to build
  

 

There's also problems like the efficiency of using hydrogen - from power station to traction, the efficiency can end up being 50% or lower, requiring even more power stations to be built. And all this is before we start to think about the practicalities of moving hydrogen around, whether fuel cells are up to the job physically, and whether there's enough platinum and other exotic elements available.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't have electric cars, hydrogen fuel and nuclear power - these can all play a part in mitigating peak oil, but they will not provide the same amount of energy or convenience of use. We will be forced to reduce transport use - going slower and not as far. Electric bikes help here, but moving goods is the killer - hence the need to re-localise food production, etc.

 

And remember we still have that issue of making fertiliser from natural gas...

 

Oh, and aeroplanes need oil-based fuels. Biofuels freeze at high altitude, and hydrogen is too bulky, so we're going to be flying a lot less in future.

 

But this isn't all doom and gloom - I think we will probably be a happier society if we lead less hectic lives and are more involved with the people we actually live near. As has been pointed out, endlessly chasing economic growth will have to stop, but from the point of view of people's happiness and the survival of the environment that's a good thing.

 

The key point is that these changes are going to happen anyway - there isn't an endless supply of oil, gas, phosphorous, iron, copper, etc. The choice we have is this:

• Do we plan ahead and start changing our way of life and national infrastructure to be ready for what's coming (and there is not much time left to do this...)
  
• Or do we just sit and wait, and leave it to "natural process" like famine, poverty, disease and war to bring the numerical size and way of life of our species back in line with what the planet can actually support long term.
  

 

I realise discussions like this are maybe a bit big and off-topic to have here, another place to go is the PowerSwitch forum, where this kind of stuff is discussed in much more detail.

 

Just a thought - nuclear power provides electricity, and what we're short of is liquid fuels and natural gas.

 

 

Electricity in large quantities is needed to produce hydrogen Mike, and that hydrogen can replace the liquid fuels used in most transport. That's where nuclear comes in, producing the electricity for the hydrogen production.

 

There's also a chemical method of direct hydrogen production from nuclear reactors which would possibly become the primary means over time.

.

It's not me who's putting all the eggs in one or few baskets, it's you and the environmentalists. We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.

 

I think you are missing the point Flecc. If we invest whole-heartedly in nuclear (as we are going to), it leaves little to nothing left to invest in renewables.

 

If this wasnt the case, we would see a much higher percentage of our electricity today coming from renewables. The reason we arent investing in them is simple greed on the part of the energy companies.

 

I am not ruling out nuclear, as I stated earlier if you read my post, but I dont want to use it. If we are getting all that we can from renewables and supplimenting that with nuclear, then thats fine with me. But what we really have despite the pro-nuclear lobbies best attempts to show nuclear as a 'perfect' solution (maybe for their bank balance), is the complete opposite.

 

John

I think you are missing the point Flecc. If we invest whole-heartedly in nuclear (as we are going to), it leaves little to nothing left to invest in renewables.

 

John

 

Sorry John, but that simply isn't true, government policy isn't to invest wholeheartedly into nuclear, the policy is only replacement of the original nuclear, i.e. 20% of our generation. It's not me missing the point, the point being that there is no choice, since renewables cannot match our needs in time in the quantities required.

 

Nor can renewables do the future job, the quantities of electricity needed to generate hydrogen are far in excess of what we have now, and we need the hydrogen to cleanly replace our present oil consumption. At best renewables could only reach about 20% of our present electricity needs within a lifetime, and just maybe 30% eventually. The quantities needed for hydrogen production can never be met that way, and that's why we must go ahead with nuclear, now and in the future.

 

If the budget doesn't stretch far enough, it's renewables which will have to take a back seat since their very high cost and very poor return are unacceptable as a primary way forward.

 

I know you don't agree with that, but like the majority, I don't want a primitive "hair shirt" future but one of continuing advancement. Whether thats motivated for some by profits, I don't care, I'm happy for them to profit.

.

I appreciate you point of view Flecc, and I think we arent going to agree on this one . I just dont take for granted that our (UKs) decisions have been made with either the best intentions, or that our vision of the future is remotely accurate. If we believe that we will need triple our current energy consumption in 10 years and so build for it, then you can guarantee that we will use it all too, and be looking at a new energy crisis 10 years from now. I see our energy usage akin to our road usage, build more roads, get more bigger cars.

 

I think we need a step change in our philosophy, as thats why we are where we are now with resource issues and waste problems.

 

Sorry John, but that simply isn't true, government policy isn't to invest wholeheartedly into nuclear, the policy is only replacement of the original nuclear, i.e. 20% of our generation.

 

I also understood that the end goal was to reduce CO2 and that going Nuclear was seen as a 'green' way of doing this. I dont believe that it will stop at 20%.

 

Nor can renewables do the future job ...At best renewables could only reach about 20% of our present electricity needs within a lifetime, and just maybe 30% eventually.

 

I think that they can, although as we have had such small investment in comparison to Nuclear over the past 50 years I can see how people might think it impossible. I agree using solar panels and wind that thats all we could achieve today, but this doesnt include any of the projected returns from tapping tidal and ocean currents, nevermind the potential micro-hydro returns that are as yet uncalculated and not considered. Nor how we could reduce our consumption by using newer technologies like underground heat-sumps for all new buildings in the UK, commercial or private.

 

...the quantities of electricity needed to generate hydrogen are far in excess of what we have now, and we need the hydrogen to cleanly replace our present oil consumption. The quantities needed for hydrogen production can never be met that way, and that's why we must go ahead with nuclear, now and in the future.

 

I agree with you here Flecc. If we move to Hydrogen then we will still need massive amounts of energy, and we wont change our 'car' culture, in fact it will reinforce it. Not sure where that leaves us bikers then

 

If the budget doesn't stretch far enough, it's renewables which will have to take a back seat since their very high cost and very poor return are unacceptable as a primary way forward.

 

I agree with this if your comparing todays solar and wind technologies vs todays Nuclear. If you were to consider the last 50 years RnD into Nuclear vs the last 10 years RnD into renewables AND include the 100years waste management costs, then I dont think renewables are anywhere near as expensive in the longer term.

 

I know you don't agree with that, but like the majority, I don't want a primitive "hair shirt" future but one of continuing advancement.

 

just let me take my Jesus sandals off ....

 

I firmly believe in a future of continued advancement, but I want a future 'on earth' too

 

Whether thats motivated for some by profits, I don't care, I'm happy for them to profit.

 

They are all motivated by profits, and thats absolutely fine and proper, but its the tiny handfull of companies that profit from Nuclear initiatives compared to a vast number of companies that could profit, and be competitively priced with renewable investment that gets my goat. Normally these Nuclear 'corporations' end up having directors by the very ministers that have the deciding vote to go Nuclear, nice for them!

 

I am just not keen on 'fat cats' getting fatter.

 

John

I agree with you here Flecc. If we move to Hydrogen then we will still need massive amounts of energy, and we wont change our 'car' culture, in fact it will reinforce it. Not sure where that leaves us bikers then

Which is why as soon as my pair of bikes arrive I'll be buying a suitable inverter to run the charger from my off-grid solar system as a backup. I'd need to get some more solar panels if it was going to see regular use though, as at present they're just for backup lighting and charging small batteries.

John, I agree on many of the points you make. Nuclear is unlikely to stop permanently at that 20%, at some point it will take off again for hydrogen production since at pressent no alternative can be seen for transport.

 

That won't be a problem for e-bikers though. There have already been three hydrogen powered fuel cell electric bikes, two corporate and one privately made. Since the one man privately built one was demonstrated to do 30 mph with a range of well over 50 miles, we'll be better off than at present, since the corporate ones would probably be better.

 

I'm certain that we can only go the green renewable route if we have a wholesale change in the way our society is administered, by taking away many of the rights people have today. Many of the methods you propose would currently be delayed for years and possibly dropped in many cases because of the planning opposition that inevitably occurs with each and every one. The more diverse the schemes, the more impossible things get at present.

 

Just look at the massive objections to tidal generation in the Bristol Channel and you can see what I mean. It's such an obvious case for generation, and in fact if we got really bold in the Chinese fashion and threw everything at the idea, we could have two barrages utilising almost the whole of that intrusion in our coastline. With power stations in each barrage utilising a reciprocal flow between the three "reservoirs" to generate continuously for 24 hours a day, we could supply at least a third of our entire present national requirement.

 

Yes, I've actually designed a proposition on this basis, even to the point of outline planning for the huge migrant workforce needed for such an immense project, taking around 15 years. That should show you just how seriously I've considered the available green options, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone on the "green" side who'd thought anywhere near as deeply about nuclear provision.

 

The government sees that they can achieve the 20% nuclear replacement simply by using the existing sites, and thus avoid all the objectors, since those areas are very favourably disposed due to the employment prosperity the present stations have given them, and that's why they are going that route, it doesn't lose votes. The green options would by contrast be opposed at every step with every scheme, wind, wave, river and stream, there would always be some group of NIMBYs determined to stop it.

 

To achieve it we'd have to do one of two things. One, convert our national character into the French one where they welcome the new with open arms and towns compete to get each new thing. Or two, remove many of todays rights and use alien oppressive methods to prevent and overrule objectors.

.