New nuclear power plants in the UK, and the downfall of humanity

[Hero in a half shell]

It seems to me like you're splitting hairs, and it appears that you're diverging a bit from the topic at hand.

Sure, there are drawbacks, but I would hardly go so far as to call them, "Horrific."

For instance, tidal power is more reliable than you let on. It's not about waves in the strict sense, but rather about tidal fluctuations; a rather predictable and constant phenomenon. Solar energy may requier rare earth metals, but what other piece of technology doesn't these days? Your cell phone has gold in it, so does your PC along with a host of other metals. That's just how things work.

Are some of those drawbacks you mentioned bad? Sure, they can be, but to call them horrific... That's a stretch.

Just in case I missed it, what are your feelings on nuclear power? I want to be clear here.

On a small scale it is splitting hairs, but these small drawbacks become huge problems when you scale them up to international level, which any power source that wants to adequately replace fossil fuels will have to do.

Rare earth minerals are an interesting issue, China currently has a monopoly on virtually all of them, and although there are still a huge amount in the earth we have already used up all the easily accessed ore and are resorting to more and more challenging and difficult remote deposits to keep up with the demand for them: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/ This is causing more and more environmental damage (potentially in the most fragile, remote and important ecosystem on earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21774447)
The issue is that, while we may not run out, firstly the cost of these minerals will increase to points that using them in renewable energy turbines becomes too costly for anyone to afford, and secondly their damage of the ecosystems and environment in their retrieval completely negate any good that may come from not using fossil fuels.

Your actually right about tidal energy being reliable, I forgot about it! There is a difference between tidal and wave energy, and I just focused on wave energy (which while efficient, does require waves to work and is therefore unreliable)

Tidal is reliable, but again to harness it on a national scale would again require building huge-ass reservoirs in the sea or across rivers that would be very damaging to local sea and wildlife (It had a pretty immediate and noticeable bad effect on the fish/birds around cardiff with their barrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Bay_Barrage) and putting one on the River Severn has been twoing and froing because of this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage)


Honestly, I'm very much undecided about nuclear. As an energy source it is one of the most reliable and efficient there is, and there is plenty of uranium to supply many plants for many years, but the potential hazards associated with it just keep it back. I think there is no right answer to this problem, except Nuclear Fusion, and that'll be 2030ish at least before it could become commercially viable and work would begin on creating nuclear fusion reactors (which would take around 10 years before they come online, so it's about 2040 at least before that'll make an impact) It's better to consider it a pipe dream at the moment and focus on what gives us the best reliable energy to base a national grid on, with a long term focus on still being viable in 20/30/40/50 years, for the least negative tradeoffs... whichever one it is I have no idea, but I'm of the opinion that every choice has huge drawbacks, it's just choosing the least objectionable.

 

[Meatspinner]

To be the voice of reason, even if a slim chance of it happening, a Wind turbine can't explode and kill millions of people.

Neither do nuclear plants, or any of the 440 -ish plants that are operating this very minute

 

[Calcium]

Whilst I acknowledge that there is the possibility of nuclear power being unsafe: Terrorism, Natural Disaster, etc... I also realsie that I'm more likely to die from falling down my stairs and breaking my neck. But just because that possibility exists, it doesn't mean I insist on laying blankets and cushions at the bottom of my stairs.

So in other words, I'm fine with nuclear.

 

[Woodsey]

I find the wind power suggestion equally hilarious because I know many areas around Yorkshire who don't want them because they would destroy the local area/ no one wants to look at a big ass white windmill while on lovely country walks (you might, most people in the area don't). The amount of windfarms we would need would destroy the few beautiful parts of the countryside we have left

I think Nuclear is the way forward, just get it built and everyone will move on to complain about something else.

That or the whole tidal power thingy.

As far as I remember there's a huge fucking nuclear plant in Yorkshire already, and it's horrendous. I always think wind farms look pretty nifty. I sometimes wonder if there'll come a time when they're begging for those (totally cool looking) windmills instead.

 

[Cabisco]

I find the wind power suggestion equally hilarious because I know many areas around Yorkshire who don't want them because they would destroy the local area/ no one wants to look at a big ass white windmill while on lovely country walks (you might, most people in the area don't). The amount of windfarms we would need would destroy the few beautiful parts of the countryside we have left

I think Nuclear is the way forward, just get it built and everyone will move on to complain about something else.

That or the whole tidal power thingy.

As far as I remember there's a huge fucking nuclear plant in Yorkshire already, and it's horrendous. I always think wind farms look pretty nifty. I sometimes wonder if there'll come a time when they're begging for those (totally cool looking) windmills instead.

True but to build enough wind farms to make a significant impact on the national grid you'd have to pretty much lay waste to the entire county.

Strange really, when I was younger I couldn't care less but now I'm slightly older I really do like the scenery, the outdoors and I don't want it getting screwed up by big ugly turbines.

Part of the problem living in a cramped country I guess, whatever you do it's going to ruin an area for a large amount of people.

 

[Do4600]

I don't know what's to say against <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages>Generation IV reactors.


> Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
> 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
> The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
> Improved operating safety


If anything, they are actively combating existing nuclear waste dumps.

They are efficient to the point of being elegant.

Those energy yields are incredible, we're finally beginning to use fission in a sane way.

 

[Do4600]

To be the voice of reason, even if a slim chance of it happening, a Wind turbine can't explode and kill millions of people.

Nuclear plants can't explode, they can melt down, the ones that have melted down are all generation I&II plants. Nuclear plants use a different enrichment of fuel than bombs, they cannot explode in the same way a nuclear bomb can.

 

[Seydaman]

Nuclear power isn't the answer.

Its just trading one finite resource (oil/coal) for another (fissile material).

It's reliance on water to cool the plants can be a weak point during heatwaves/droughts, although this issue can be mitigated somewhat.

The trick is to keep trading off until we can figure out a relatively infinite source of energy, so think of it as an extension rather than a solution.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Fun fact: coal plants produce more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Also, people in this country need to get over their dislike for wind-farms. Aesthetically i really like them, whenever my parents took me as a kid to see my cousins in Yorkshire we used to drive past this windfarm in the Pennines and that was one the highlights of the journey for me. To me they're symbols of modernity and technological progress. We should have more of them. The countryside is criss-crossed with motorways, farms, electricity pylons and enclosed fields. There isn't anything "natural" about the English countryside anyway, so i don't see why i can't include wind-turbines. And even if people can't learn to like them, the environmental and economic benefits i feel outweigh aesthetic dis-taste.

Aesthetically, I couldn't give a toss about them.
Environmentally? Much like electric cars, wind turbines produce more pollution through the nature of their construction and the acquirement of the materials required to make them, than they offset during their active lifetimes.
And, to be commercially viable, we would need great swathes of them all across the country, which would make the aforementioned ecological impact even worse.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I'm not going to read through the comments past page one. Sorry, all.

My take in brief:

~ Well engineered nuclear reactors are fairly safe. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was as bad as it was because Japan was hit with the FIFTH BIGGEST EARTHQUAKE IN HISTORY.

~ Nuclear power, relatively speaking is incredibly clean for the power produced, mostly because it produces a lot of power (the waste IS really nasty, but you get a lot for it).

~ Enriched uranium is expensive and is not a renewable source. That said if your current power sources are running off coal or oil, it's a significant step up.

~ CURRENT wind and solar technology stinks. It's way to expensive for the output. On the other hand, development of these is something in which we can AND SHOULD be dumping money into.

~ And then there's the ITER, which is probably going to change the entire power market. Still experimental, but we have high hopes for it.

238U

EDIT: spelling correction.

 

[T3hSource]

Yes, people are dumb, what a revelation...
In my country there was a referendum to ask either to active our brand new constructed power plant, I didn't vote, mostly because I'm a lazy apathetic sod, but my opinion on the matter was "I don't mind the existence and possible risks of the nuclear power plant itself, I just don't trust my people to handle it properly." -while a somewhat ignorant statement, it is the harsh reality that most smart people who study sciences leave the country for much better opportunities.
Besides we already lend power from our 2 reactors from our still working nuclear power plant that's been built since the communist regime days, not only that but it provides power for all regions in the northern half of the territory.

 

[Darknacht]

Fun fact: coal plants produce more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.

Neither produce radioactivity, but coal plants release far more radioactive material into the air.
It is kind of odd how many people are afraid of nuclear power but not coal when coal is dangerous to mine, both for the miners and the environment, burning it is very toxic to the surrounding area and it releases radioactive material into the air, and it creates large amounts of toxic waste that can cause disastrous coal ash spills contaminating large areas.

 

[Nickolai77]

Also, people in this country need to get over their dislike for wind-farms. Aesthetically i really like them, whenever my parents took me as a kid to see my cousins in Yorkshire we used to drive past this windfarm in the Pennines and that was one the highlights of the journey for me. To me they're symbols of modernity and technological progress. We should have more of them. The countryside is criss-crossed with motorways, farms, electricity pylons and enclosed fields. There isn't anything "natural" about the English countryside anyway, so i don't see why i can't include wind-turbines. And even if people can't learn to like them, the environmental and economic benefits i feel outweigh aesthetic dis-taste.

Aesthetically, I couldn't give a toss about them.
Environmentally? Much like electric cars, wind turbines produce more pollution through the nature of their construction and the acquirement of the materials required to make them, than they offset during their active lifetimes.

Wind turbines off-set the CO2 emissions produced in their construction within a couple of months, that's not really a problem. The only serious issue is that wind-turbines use a certain rare earth material called Neodymium which is mined in China and hence environmentally damaging because the Chinese are mining it. That's however a obstacle that can potentially be solved.

And, to be commercially viable, we would need great swathes of them all across the country, which would make the aforementioned ecological impact even worse.

Well i've explained why wind turbines don't really cause any environmental problems to begin with (unless you believe whatever the Daily Mail writes) and the technology for them is continually advancing and so wind turbines are going to become more efficient in the future. Plus, green energy's an area which the UK can potentially take a leading role in because its a still a new industry. If the government was more proactive in green energy it would really be helping re-balance the economy towards high-tech manufacturing.

 

[Tiger King]

I have worked in the "green energy" industry and from my experience wind turbines are not the answer.
wind turbines are the poster boy/front man of an industry trying to solve a big problem.

sadly the better alternatives are left in the dark.
TIDAL turbines create much more power and although an industry still in its infancy, this is what should be publicised, not a big prop in a green field with happy cows running round.

the uk is an island nation surrounded by water and thus current, it makes sense to invest in tidal energy rather than wind.

personally I know nuclear is the short term answer we need.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I live an pay bills in the UK and i am glad for these Nuclear power plants. Electric bills have risen to stupid amounts and we need power to enable this country to work. In the UK now people are going hungry just to pay for the electric. To pay for heating. Its disgusting.

The UK has done so much to be green energy wise which is worthless when countries like USA, China and India pollute this world way more than us. So fuck you all. Fuck the world. Its time to look after our poor people, the old and any one dealing with criminal fuel rises in the UK.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I love that this is another 2 pages in, I'm an Mechanical Engineer on a IMECHE and IET aprroved couse (so I would like tot think I can offer some first hand info outside of the usual wiki and MSN new references) had the good fortune to be present at a presentation with a Nuclear Engineer that has worked globally. So offered up a useful insight of an unfortunate intrinsic flaw in converting to nuclear power.

But people still prefer to bicker in a total maelstrom of unreliable sources, hearsay and opinions.

I'll try put some quick info and explain it encase anyone still wants to, you know listen.

Wind
Produces a very very small amount of energy in relation to the resources, provides a very inconsistent feed of power due to fluctuation in wind. Very expensive set up. Take's decades to pay for itself, require ALLOT of maintenance. My opinion, very nice if you want to pay your electric bill (by setting up a mini one in the garden, if you have that kind of space) for the next 20 years without having to pay the inflation, powering the nation, no.

Water (tidal and dams)
Dams have been proven to work extremely well, but there's like a handful of appropriate locations in the UK. Tidal, extreme set-up costs in relation to power, seriously you don't have to be an engineer to figure this, your building generators underwater, possibly miles of underwater cables and then this all needs to be maintained. Again inconsistent power supply, as tidal means tidal. My opinion, not viable to power the nation.

Nuclear
in relation to the amounts of power, very cheap, undeniably safe (sorry but unless you work in some sort of engineering I don't think you can appreciate the kind of safe guards that go on in UK engineering, next time you meet an aeronautical engineer as them about some of the tests they do to planes). Unfortuantly they require a Metric fuck tonne in investment to get built, requires allot of experts that are in limited supply. My opinion, impossible to get the things built as quick as we need them, very viable to prop up some of the grid, take the whole load not so much.

Gas/Coal
Cheep, Easy to build, maintain, system already in place, in every environmental respect, negative. My opinion, the only Viable way to power the majority of the grid, thats why it does, the only economically viable way.

Personally my ideal world we power the whole nation on nuclear until we come up with something better, but that's just not viable to set that infrastructure up any times soon. There is not perfect answer. If eccentric billionaires want to think they are saving the planet by building wind/tidal farms an sell the power to the grid, good on them, but anyone who thinks it's any better for the environment is fooling themselves, nuclear is the only option where the effect on the environment can be 100% controlled.

(didn't address solar, because, this is the UK not the Sahara.)

 

[Jeff Gennick]

For one thing, and forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but Nuclear power plants are held to a very high standard.

For one thing all that "smoke" coming out of a Nuclear power plant's "chimney"? That's not smoke, that's 100% steam. Nuclear power is far cleaner than most other forms of power.

Now let's look at safety, If you look at the statistics, (And the ones my Physics teacher had are a bit dated so the plants are even safer now,) You get more radiation from the exhaust from cars than living 24/7 next door to a Nuclear power plant. You get so little a day from a plant that your body would just get rid of the radiation before it could do any harm.

Now let's assume your body couldn't get rid of radiation for some reason, some simple math told me that you would have to live next to a Nuclear reactor for 300,000 years to get enough of a radiation dose just to make you sick. Not even an instantly lethal dose.

And finally, coal plants, which are still widely used. Coal plants are very prone to explosions, again, looking at the statistics, more people have died from coal explosions and coal plant related accidents in one year, than in all previous Nuclear meltdowns combined.

Food for thought.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Fun fact: coal plants produce more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.

Neither produce radioactivity, but coal plants release far more radioactive material into the air.
It is kind of odd how many people are afraid of nuclear power but not coal when coal is dangerous to mine, both for the miners and the environment, burning it is very toxic to the surrounding area and it releases radioactive material into the air, and it creates large amounts of toxic waste that can cause disastrous coal ash spills contaminating large areas.

Ah thanks for catching that, I meant to say radioactive material.

And on the topic of coal, I read a article that the average U.S. plant produces 600,000 tons of ash through a year of operation, whereas a nuclear plant produces 400 tons of waste, some of which might be able to be reused in the not-distant future. Sad to think that people still opt for coal.

I think its just "fearing the unknown" for these people, and it'll decrease as nuclear energy becomes more prevalent.

 

[Tiger King]

I love that this is another 2 pages in, I'm an Mechanical Engineer on a IMECHE and IET aprroved couse (so I would like tot think I can offer some first hand info outside of the usual wiki and MSN new references) had the good fortune to be present at a presentation with a Nuclear Engineer that has worked globally. So offered up a useful insight of an unfortunate intrinsic flaw in converting to nuclear power.

But people still prefer to bicker in a total maelstrom of unreliable sources, hearsay and opinions.

I'll try put some quick info and explain it encase anyone still wants to, you know listen.

Wind
Produces a very very small amount of energy in relation to the resources, provides a very inconsistent feed of power due to fluctuation in wind. Very expensive set up. Take's decades to pay for itself, require ALLOT of maintenance. My opinion, very nice if you want to pay your electric bill (by setting up a mini one in the garden, if you have that kind of space) for the next 20 years without having to pay the inflation, powering the nation, no.

Water (tidal and dams)
Dams have been proven to work extremely well, but there's like a handful of appropriate locations in the UK. Tidal, extreme set-up costs in relation to power, seriously you don't have to be an engineer to figure this, your building generators underwater, possibly miles of underwater cables and then this all needs to be maintained. Again inconsistent power supply, as tidal means tidal. My opinion, not viable to power the nation.

Nuclear
in relation to the amounts of power, very cheap, undeniably safe (sorry but unless you work in some sort of engineering I don't think you can appreciate the kind of safe guards that go on in UK engineering, next time you meet an aeronautical engineer as them about some of the tests they do to planes). Unfortuantly they require a Metric fuck tonne in investment to get built, requires allot of experts that are in limited supply. My opinion, impossible to get the things built as quick as we need them, very viable to prop up some of the grid, take the whole load not so much.

Gas/Coal
Cheep, Easy to build, maintain, system already in place, in every environmental respect, negative. My opinion, the only Viable way to power the majority of the grid, thats why it does, the only economically viable way.

Personally my ideal world we power the whole nation on nuclear until we come up with something better, but that's just not viable to set that infrastructure up any times soon. There is not perfect answer. If eccentric billionaires want to think they are saving the planet by building wind/tidal farms an sell the power to the grid, good on them, but anyone who thinks it's any better for the environment is fooling themselves, nuclear is the only option where the effect on the environment can be 100% controlled.

(didn't address solar, because, this is the UK not the Sahara.)

good to hear an educated response but if tide goes in it goes out. a lot of the company's I have worked for allow for this. by no means its perfect but it generates more than wind