The Energy Debate

Do you believe nuclear power is the best solution to the impending energy crisis ?

  • No- After Chernobyl - No Way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only if safety can be guaranteed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    827

CheefTiff

Lantern Swinger
In the current climate of uncertainty over future national energy plans and requirements. As one who works in the industry and sees little alternative to the nuclear option, I would be interested to hear the views of others here both serving and non serving.

From a technology standpoint, nuclear is probably the only option capable of replacing the ageing base stations in the UK. IMHO all the nonsense about wind farms, micro generation etc etc, although it has a place in helping, can never be a replacement for the big stations.

Your thoughts please guys
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Chief

Not stalking you honest! Agree totally - there's just no way to replace the terawattage required in any other way.

Left to the hippies we'd all be living in teepees and smelling like Frenchmen, although loss of power would kill off Eastenders & all the reality TV sh1t. Can't quite see the social fabric surviving without all the current home comforts though.....

BUT, as with the boats, we'd better crack on and get it done, as the expertise to design, build and operate is rapidly fading. My mate's dad was an ex-bomber Chief tiff from the R-boats and commissioned the last lot of AGRs. I've just terrified myself with the realisation that was 25 yrs ago........

Need the deep waste disposal facility to get sorted as well and win the PR battle. Left to the enviro-loons the general public will believe that these stations will be producing gazillions of tonnes of highly radioactive waste with half-lives in the million years. A simple table of what constitutes low, medium and high-level waste, the relative quantities of each and the decay times for them ought to be up front and central to defuse that argument.
 
I think it has to be nuclear at the end of the day even if they went back to coal,it will runout sometime or other.

Thank god for Edison or we would be watching television by candlelight.
 

lesbryan

War Hero
There is enough coal under my feet for the next 40 tears or so never mind elswhere in britain and a big hungry mouth to take it |||||||||
 
I'm quite happy with the nuclear option. Never had any problems with nuclear submarines: lots of power, lots of (hot water), lots of space... My only caveat is religious fanatics crashing a plane into the installation, but that's not a good enough reason not to build them. As for the waste, well the high level stuff could be shipped to the Falklands and stored there - the ideal place! :wink:

If we do have power cuts I have literally hundreds of candles bought from Denmark and Norway (enough to sink a stone frigate), numerous woolies and my home is very highly insulated. My real concern is the water shortage, or to be more precise, the amount of it leaking from Thames Water's aged pipes!
 
Dont worry about water shortages,Nozzer,save all your buckets and barrels,and top em up in the winter when youre, flooded.There is an abundance of coal but they wont do anything about it.Wasnt it muted that they could get all the coal out and bury the nuclear waste in the mines?
 

Scud

Badgeman
I don't see the problem - the main arguments against seem to be ideological arguments - it's wrong, what if this? what if that? Most of the objections seemed to be centred around the likes of chernobyl. Is it really right to be basing our quest to fulfil our future energy requirements around an accident in the less than safety conscious Soviet Union 20 years ago?

The simple hard fact is there isn't anything that comes close to nuclear power in terms of output, sustainability, or lack of environmental impact. Nuclear waste is a bit of a hot potatoe, but are there really any particular environmental concerns by sticking it under 50m of concrete in some desert somewhere?
 

CheefTiff

Lantern Swinger
Something rarely factored into the cost of fossil fuel generation is the cost in pollution gases and other human costs. If you are asthmatic and your medical bills are higher because of that coal plant upwind, the cost to you is not included in the calculations.

If your son is killed fighting in the middle east trying to safeguard fuel reserves there, your personal cost is not included. And in China, if you're a coal miner certain to die in the mines in the next few months or years, your personal costs and those of your family are not included.

Nuclear technology has advanced tremendously in the last 20 years. It is cheaper, more efficient and the latest fuel pellets rather than rods make disposal an absolute doddle. The fact is the spent fuel can be safely handled with little more than a pair of special gloves on and is therefore easily disposed of.

Advances in other areas also reduce initial build costs the most expensive items obviously being the core and the generators. My only concern, as stated earlier by not a boffin, we are fast losing the expertise to build and operate this equipment. Its no good those idiots in Westminster forming more committeess and discussion groups, we need to act now and get on with it.
 
Top