User login
Navigation
Search
Nuclear energy
5 July, 2009 - 20:17
Nuclear energy - are you for or against it - why or why not - speak up now!
5 July, 2009 - 21:14
#2
No takers yet - how dissapointing!
In January 2008 the Government decided that nuclear should have a role to play in the UK's future energy mix along side other low carbon energy sources and that it would take active steps to facilitate the construction of new nuclear power stations. The Government is undertaking a process (called the Strategic Siting Assessment) to identify sites which are suitable or potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025.
Is nuclear energy really low carbon then? (NP)
Nominations for sites for new nuclear power stations were sent to the Government on March 31st 2009. The Government published the nominations for comment between 15th April and May 14th May.
Wow - they gave us a whole month to comment! - Did you know that? (NP)
5 July, 2009 - 22:02
#3
Am I talking to myself? Or just to the 1 in 500 people in the UK that the Government asked whether or not more nuclear energy was a good or bad idea? - from which the they concluded that "The majority of the public felt that nuclear energy could help to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions as it is a low carbon energy source."
Hello - is there anyone out there?
5 July, 2009 - 22:14
#4
Maybe other users don't want to engage in this discussion much or at all on this forum because of the strength of differing views among fellow campaigners, including some being strongly undecided. But it has come up here before.
6 July, 2009 - 17:11
#5
"The strength of differing views".Wow, Jim, you mean we all know instinctively that we cannot resolve the issue and so just avoid it as, perhaps, it's not the crucial topic and don't directly come under the Climate Change heading?
Personally I reckon we'll get them by default if we don't take a view one way or the other. I know Lovelock et al feel it's the way to go as it's the only tried and tested means of generating large amounts of energy without fossil fuels. "And we need that energy." they say. But will we really need it or can we transform our energy demands over the next few years? Further, we do have a wealth of alternative energy sources that could be pursued with far greater vigour and enthusiasm. After all nuclear has a not insignificant carbon footprint in addition to it's colossal "financial footprint" and physico-chemical-biohazard legacy.
I think we should have a view.
[PS : Are we a "we"?]
5 September, 2009 - 13:13
#6
Dear Chris Hemmings,
Seems it's just you & I that have decided about the benefits(?) of nuclear power then!
I thought this site would be a good forum for open discussion amongst those who care about climate change. Do they not exist? Do they not care? Or perhaps this is just an unknown forum for the general public to air their views on?
Chris, are you having more success contacting anyone that actually gives a damn anywhere else on the web? Do tell.
Best wishes, Neal Pearson.
5 September, 2009 - 20:09
#7
Hi Neal, no you're not talking to yourself, and yes people do care :-)
I'm against nuclear power. I gather it has a slightly smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels, even once all the uranium mining, refining, enrichment, transport and the like has been taken into account, but it has a number of drawbacks.
It's not renewable. Just like fossil fuels, there's only a finite amount of uranium in the ground. I read in a book called "Energy Without Oil" by Paul Mobbs (sorry, can't find the book at the moment) that if we were to stop using fossil fuels right now and replace them all with nuclear, the remaining uranium would only last a few decades at our current level of energy consumption. It's just delaying the problem for a while.
What to do with the highly radioactive waste? I know a lot of the waste is fairly low level stuff, but there's a small amount of highly radioactive waste (such as some of the products of fission within the reactor core) which will remain radioactive for longer than our civilization has lasted. Until there's a foolproof way of ensuring that the highly radioactive waste cannot possibly turn round and bite our great great great great (you get the idea) grandchildren in the metaphorical bum in future centuries or millenia, I can't possibly sanction any action which would bequeath them such a legacy.
Nuclear power stations are horrendously expensive to build, they seem to operate for a comparatively short time, then they are horrendously expensive to decommission. Expenditure on something like this can only serve to divert much-needed funds from research and development of truly renewable energy sources (wind, tidal, solar and the like) and their implementation in the form of products and services which are attractive to Joe and Josephine Bloggs in the street regardless of their opinions on climate change and whether they ought to do anything about it.
Ultimately, I think people are asking the wrong question in this debate. Instead of asking "How can we supply our current energy demands without burning fossil fuels?" we should be asking "How can we reduce our energy demands to a level which can be sustainably fulfilled?"
Just my two-penneth :-)
Simon
5 September, 2009 - 22:28
#8
Hi and nice to see ideas coming in. Maybe folks been out on summer camps? I have. Anyway Neal, there are others out there but I'd just like to return to add support to Simon's point about reducing demand. I tried earlier in the year to point out how many houses could be fully insulated for the cost of one new nuclear power station. They were just back of an envelope calculations but it's so true that if serious money, billions of pounds, such as it costs to put up a nuclear power station, is directed to reduce energy need in this way then these power stations are just not needed. And with all new housing being "zero carbon", we'll move into an era of far lower energy need which we should be able to provide from renewables.
I'm sure the Green Party are atuned to these ideas so if you can track down your local/area/regional group they could be useful to talk these ideas through further. Sadly Greens can be quite rare - they are in my bit of the World!
6 September, 2009 - 19:08
#9
To anyone who objects to ANY non-CO2-emitting source of energy such as nuclear or wind turbines or any other, I would strongly recommend the book "Renewable Energy without the Hot Air" by the Cambridge physicist David Mackay. It is free on the internet.
He does thoughful calculations on the assumption that we could halve our energy use by 2050. In his chapter 227 he comes up with five schemes that at first reading seem crazy. But he says "Make sure your policies include a plan that adds up!". The book can be read with chapter 27 first, or all the first set of chapters, or the first set of chapters with the second set of chapters of justifying physics.
"And here is the scale that is required if we wanted to get one third from each of these sources: we would have to build wind farms with an area equal to the area of Wales; we would have to build 50 Sizewells of nuclear power; and we would need solar power stations in deserts covering an area twice the size of Greater London. It's not going to be easy to make a energy plan that adds up; but it is possible. We need to get building."
Find his book 10 MB at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf
I suggest that any objector to almost any non-CO2 energy source has not seen the seriousness of the problem in quantitative terms.
8 September, 2009 - 21:19
#10
Here's a good ,quick and sane source, which gives a balanced energy strategist organisation's summary:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php
I will kick off by saying that I fervently object to any further nuclear power-generating stations being built in the UK with the possible exception of one being constructed immediately underneath The Houses of Parliament in London. But what do you think?
Neal Pearson