h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Should the UK build more nuclear power stations

*dons flame retardent suit*

Depends what you mean by "should". We may have to...

also

No.

We now know that it costs too much to decommission them afterwards, and we don't have anywhere to put the waste.

I do think we should run the ones we have until the end of their natural life span though.

sprout

Yes.

We now know enough to build ones that don't cost a fortune to decommission. All the bad ones were built decades ago, to designs chosen for political rather than engineering reasons. Designs exist which work better as power stations because they work worse as sources of fissile material for weapons. If we disconnect our defence policy from our energy policy, we can have the nuclear power we were promised in the fifties, cheap, clean and practically limitless for the foreseeable future.

H.
Former nuclear fuel plant decommissioning engineer.

thta's what it comes down to really...politics, not need

I disagree with that. We probably will *need* nuclear power in the future. So called green energy sources such as wind, hydroelectric and wave power are very unlikely to ever meet our requirements. Gas and coal are far dirtier than nuclear ever was, let alone will be in the future. Given that it would avoid the dangerous scenario of almost entirely depending on foreign gas supplies in the future I definitely think we should.

Of course the words nuclear and radiation have somehow been rendered equivalent to the sixteenth cetury WITCH somehow so serious reeducation of joe public is needed for it to be likely in the foreseeable future.

That's not to say we shouldn't concentrate on getting as much non-depletable energy as possible. More wind farms and tide farms and solar collectors would be a good thing.

Hmmm

To be a bit cynical, it feels like a long time now that nuclear engineers have been promising us cheap nuclear power. All that public money put into research into nuclear fission etc, and for what?

Who knows what kind of solutions might be found through renewable energy if the same kind of money was put into that?

As far as I'm aware the only European country where a new nuclear power station is seriously on the cards is Finland. Again, in my understanding this is just an updated version of a pre-existing French design. It's certainly not a technological leap forward. What's the time line for something that is really a major improvement?

Also, Orcus, you're right to say there is a big credibility gap with the public, but this is not just down to ignorance. Even if nuclear power stations in Europe are really fairly safe, the way that the nuclear industry sometimes conducts itself doesn't help the image of nuclear power. Secrecy, sloppy 'incidents' and then cover ups have all been fairly frequent unfortunately.

Finally, the waste issue is a real stopper. Where would you put it in the UK - nobody wants to live next to a nuclear waste dump and you can hardly blame them - even if it is safe, it's hardly going to do much for house prices and tourism, is it?

sprout

Agreed renewables are the way to go, but...

I am pleased (and ever so slightly surprised) that our government seems to be taking its carbon reduction commitments seriously, and in the absence of a credible alternative is looking at new nuclear plants.

A major concern is the terrorist threat which is almost impossible to counter and no matter how safe the plant itself is designed, could result in another Chernobyl (Shameless plug - A2851751). Having said that, we already have a whole bunch of inviting targets so a few new ones shouldn't make much difference as long as they site them carefully.

"even if it is safe, it's hardly going to do much for house prices and tourism, is it?"

Neither do wind farms - everywhere they spring up there's enormous local opposition, saying they spoil the landscape and make a noise. And they do.

As for the idea that more research is needed - well, yeah, but you're up against the laws of physics. EVEN IF wind turbines and solar energy collectors were 100% efficient - the unattainable goal of any research you may suggest - the actual density of the available energy simply isn't that great. Even if you covered every hilltop in windmills, every rooftop in solar panels and barraged every estuary with 100% efficient tidal power collectors (let's not get into the environmental impact of *that*...), you'd meet no more than a large fraction of our energy demand *today* - with absolutely no prospect of being able to expand it in the future.

Renewables have their place, don't get me wrong. They are useful in limited local applications. But there's a fundamental reason why they're not useful in the long term for wide application, and the reason is as fundamental as things falling down when you drop them. It's just a law of physics, you can't create energy from nothing and there simply isn't that much energy in the wind and sun.

Yes, we've been told all sorts of things by scientists about nuclear power. But we don't listen.

For instance - did you know there is considerable evidence that exposure to low level radioactive waste is GOOD FOR YOU? (I'll find a link to the research and post it).

The main reason nuclear power has performed so badly is that its development has in all cases been tied to politics and specifically defence. We will get away from that, because we'll have to. There simply is no option. The oil/coal/gas WILL run out, the renewables WILL NOT be enough, so nuclear energy WILL be back on the agenda, perhaps sooner, probably later. This is not really something that one can debate sensibly, because
(a) it's emotive and
(b) it's inevitable.

H.

"no matter how safe the plant itself is designed, could result in another Chernobyl "

False. That accident could not happen on a UK reactor design. It's physically impossible. Yes, accidents could happen, but not of that type or on that scale. It's that kind of misinformation which distorts the debate.

H.

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Radiation%20-%20Miller.htm

H.

Sorry, should've made that clearer. I meant another Chernobyl in terms of the scale of contamination that could be released in the event of a terrorist attack such as a plane crash. I fully agree that a similar "accident" could not occur with UK designs.

(IMO)

If an accident on the scale of Chernobyl happened somewhere in the world every year it would still be insignificant by comparison with the effects of global climate change which is the inevitable outcome of continued fossil fuel use.

There is plenty of scope for growth in solar, wind, tidal and especially geothermal energy use but I'm inclined to agree with Hoo; these will not fulfil the needs of the present, let alone the future.

F

But that's exactly the kind of emotive language that distorts the debate.

Nearly 3,000 people died on 11/9/01. Many, many more will die in years to come from the asbestos they inhaled that day (not heard about that on the evening news, have you?). Has anyone suggested we should stop flying planes? Or stop building tall buildings? Hell no. A terrorist attack on any bulk chemical plant could produce far more, and far more horrific injuries and deaths than Chernobyl, but you don't see us going without soap and detergents. I could personally wipe out the inhabitants of an entire housing estate very easily without any weapons at all - I won't say how.

It's always difficult to keep the debate to the issues and not let language get in the way. It sometimes helps to have someone who knows the score keeping score. Anyone else care to join me on the scoreboard?

H.

'As for the idea that more research is needed - well, yeah, but you're up against the laws of physics.'

As someone said in another thread somewhere, that should be written in letters of fire 20ft. high.

Wind and wave power *cannot* provide enough energy for what we desire. It really is that simple.

As to the house price issue, well that's down to the WITCH brigade isn't it.

No the nuclear industry hasn't been perfect. Well, whoopsy doo, that'll be the same as *every* other big business then.
Also, name me another big business which has more lies, damn lies, over exaggeration and general crap tossed at it over extremely minor incidents than that under discussion.
There is so much hokum talked about the dangers of radioactivity (and some governments are guity of this) that its not entirely surprising that they're a little sensitive about safety issues is it?

Jeez, I seem to have found myself on the other side of the debate from whence I started. Nevermind, too late now.

9 people will die in the UK in car accidents today. Few, if any, will make the news. A single coal-fired plant will indirectly cause more deaths over its lifetime than Chernobyl. Not one of these will make the news. We live in a media-driven, poorly-scientifically-educated political society. Whether it's deserved or not, nuclear power is unpopular and politically sensitive. Soap factories are not. That's life. The killer is that this directly translates to cost. Also (at the risk of labouring the point, and it shall be mentioned no more) terrorists have political aims.

Back on the pro-side, the best we can achieve is to try to make people believe that global warming really is *that bad*, and engender the same distrust of fossil fuels. To answer the original question, I do believe we should build more nuclear plants, but only as there is no real alternative.

Do not get me started on global warming. If environmental science has been responsbile for one atrocity it is the spread of 'Global Warming' misinformation.

B

By the way, I work in the Naval defence industry, sometimes on Trafalgar and soon-to-be Astute class submarine platform data and command systems, and would be happy to help keep score .

I suggest we instead debate the dangers of nuclear submarines, as we spend billions actively trying to destroy these and sink their reactors to the bottom of the ocean.