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

[Comando96]

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.

Yes, additionally they are looking into how to use Polonium as a nuclear fuel source, which would mean less waste and even more fuel.

Honestly in Reguards to Nuclear nowerdays there is very little that can go wrong if all the saftey precuations are followed. I mean, unless there is natural disaster like a Earthquake, followed by a Tsunami, or a Volcane, or a bloody meteorite... short of that there isn't much that will cause a problem.

So yeah. Nuclear power is great! Unless you're Japan, or Indonesia, East India or anywhere in general which is ar risk of huge flood or any fault line of significance. It can be done. We have the technology

It should be mentioned that Nuclear power isn't a solution. Its a bridging method. We switch over to electricity, to get off of oil and coal, Nuclear steps in as a quick fix, but we still need other solutions.

 

[Loop Stricken]

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.

Windfarms also happen to be shit.

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.

You mean like building it near an ocean?

Yep, just watch out for tsunami's and freak storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I was actually thinking along the lines of placing any reactor in the cooler parts of the country so events like this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/12/france.nuclear

don't happen.

Yeah, all those damn tsunamis we get here in England.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Yeah, all those damn tsunamis we get here in England.

The most probable vector would be something from Iceland (even then it would be a long shot) but a storm surge is both a viable and serious threat.

 

[Kolby Jack]

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.

You mean like building it near an ocean?

Yep, just watch out for tsunami's and freak storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I was actually thinking along the lines of placing any reactor in the cooler parts of the country so events like this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/12/france.nuclear

don't happen.

In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable. They indicated that a Japanese baby's cancer lifetime risk would increase by about 1%.

That's from the wikipedia page on Fukushima that you linked. So even when the workers at a nuclear power plant do just about everything wrong, the damage isn't that great. I'm sorry, but linking to Fukushima is no way to convince people of the dangers of nuclear energy. Chernobyl was a once-in-a-lifetime disaster that was caused due to Russia's poor nuclear safety standards and general incompetence, and it was a long time ago. Nuclear energy has risks, but so many advances have been made that those risks are minimized and the rewards are even greater than ever before. Everybody who grew up in the Cold War needs to hurry up and die so we can leave their backwards, overly paranoid thinking behind and move on.

 

[Ryotknife]

Tis a shame. It is hard to start a new nuclear power plant here in the US too, and we have much better conditions. dont have to worry about droughts/tsumamis on the Great lakes, and there is a lot of open space pretty much everywhere in the country.

But when you say "nuclear power plant" the first thing that pops into people's heads is Chernobyl. Not to mention, driving for more nuclear plants comes with some extra benefits. More research into radiation and how to protect people from it, something that the space program could use once we start sending people out into the void again.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

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.

You mean like building it near an ocean?

Yep, just watch out for tsunami's and freak storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I was actually thinking along the lines of placing any reactor in the cooler parts of the country so events like this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/12/france.nuclear

don't happen.

In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable. They indicated that a Japanese baby's cancer lifetime risk would increase by about 1%.

That's from the wikipedia page on Fukushima that you linked. So even when the workers at a nuclear power plant do just about everything wrong, the damage isn't that great. I'm sorry, but linking to Fukushima is no way to convince people of the dangers of nuclear energy. Chernobyl was a once-in-a-lifetime disaster that was caused due to Russia's poor nuclear safety standards and general incompetence, and it was a long time ago. Nuclear energy has risks, but so many advances have been made that those risks are minimized and the rewards are even greater than ever before. Everybody who grew up in the Cold War needs to hurry up and die so we can leave their backwards, overly paranoid thinking behind and move on.

I linked to Fukushima to point out that sticking a nuclear complex by the sea isn't a viable long term option (with salt water damage, both general and storm generated) and pointed out that strategically placing reactors in cooler areas of the country would reduce heat related shutdowns that France suffers during bad heatwaves.

 

[Abomination]

It takes an earthquake-tsunami combo of incredible magnitude to cause a LEAK in Japan.
A meltdown in a Soviet Union satellite state which had terrible operating procedure and next to no central or official oversight.

The first shows that yes, they can be dangerous when MASSIVE and terrible thing occur nearby one. The second shows you need to be careful with them and taught us a lesson on why one needs to be careful with them.

It's been damn well near 27 years since Chernobyl. The amount of progress made in safety and accident prevention methods has been incredible both naturally and BECAUSE of Chernobyl. Nuclear power is dangerous, but so is coal, gas and hydro-electric (an earthquake can cause a nuclear reactor to leak - an earthquake can cause a dam to break, goodbye all the towns downstream).

 

[Lieju]

Silly people say silly things about a scary subject on the Internet.

I'm shocked.

 

[elvor0]

Oh fuck people. We don't want wind farms, we don't want nuclear power, next it'll be we don't want cold fusion damn it! Yeah wind farms are ugly and a nuclear station /might/ explode, even the one in Japan was very well contained considering there was an earthquake and a tsunami, but so can coal and gas stations. We haven't got many resources left, what do you people want?! We need to get power from somewhere.

 

[UltraPic]

See, there's this term we use in this country. NIMBYs. It stands for "Not In My Back Yard"s, which I find odd since we Brits don't particularly use the term 'yard'. but I suspect 'Garden' wouldn't be so pithy an acronym, but I digress.

In the U.K they speak english, in fact it's where words like yard come from , and nimby is an overused thrase here too .

It takes an earthquake-tsunami combo of incredible magnitude to cause a LEAK in Japan.
A meltdown in a Soviet Union satellite state which had terrible operating procedure and next to no central or official oversight.

The first shows that yes, they can be dangerous when MASSIVE and terrible thing occur nearby one. The second shows you need to be careful with them and taught us a lesson on why one needs to be careful with them.

It's been damn well near 27 years since Chernobyl. The amount of progress made in safety and accident prevention methods has been incredible both naturally and BECAUSE of Chernobyl. Nuclear power is dangerous, but so is coal, gas and hydro-electric (an earthquake can cause a nuclear reactor to leak - an earthquake can cause a dam to break, goodbye all the towns downstream).

You forgot to add that green peace backs nuclear energy.

 

[AngloDoom]

Comments like these are just lessons in sensationalism.

"Only in the UK could we considering giving up radiation - the same stuff we use to run harmless microwaves on a daily basis - to fuel the country on dead animals! What has this gunk ever given us? BP spill anyone? Only a lunatic would stop using radiation to fill our wires with exploding dinosaurs."

 

[Abomination]

You forgot to add that green peace backs nuclear energy.

I was trying to say favorable things about nuclear power. Greenpeace is not an organisation I agree with - not for their message but for their methods.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I think anyone who complains about new power sources from increasing nuclear and wind energy has a fair point but considering we are building these facilities now for the survival of modern human society the look of a wind farm or the potential danger of nuclear power will have to be tolerated.

Also screw just complaining about nuclear and wind, someone needs to get their head out of their ass and get the electric car business moving along, can't mount reactors inside cars when oil goes out the window.

Anyone who campaigns against renewable energy or nuclear energy advances to cover the decline of fossil fuels ought to be forced to live only on energy created from fossil fuels, lets see them complain when they have expensive/no energy in 20-50 years...

 

[Toilet]

I like when people bring up Fukishima because I can counter it by saying that "Shit went down in Fukishima because of the Japanese way of everyone being formal and polite. Nobody was correcting their superiors when they made a mistake (because it could be perceived as rude and informal) which lead to more mistakes which lead to even more mistakes."

 

[UrinalDook]

Hmm. Yes, I think I see the problem here. You're reading the comments on a BBC news article! Seriously, I'm convinced the place is a breeding ground for idiots. The vast majority of people that post there are exceptionally bitter individuals who despise change yet hate inaction. The absolute last straw for me was the appalling cascade of offensive posts after the BBC's entertainment section posted it's list of musicians to watch in 2013.

All the comments that weren't simply lambasting the BBC for daring to post an article related to music (again, I stress this was in the entertainment section, way down the page), rather than some invented global tragedy were adamant that modern music is awful, that not a single one of those artists could hope to compare with the music of their generation, and no that's not just because they're old and the music that dominates the charts doesn't have them as an intended audience, thank you very much. Not a single person willing to listen to reason, or allow their opinion to be swayed. It's an awful, awful corner of the internet.

As far as nuclear power goes? About sodding time! There was talk a while back that we might simply buy our energy off the French in a clueless attempt at saving on infrastructure investment. I'm very, very glad to see that we can start generating our own, cleaner energy without resorting to useless onshore wind farms and without putting ourselves at risk of paying out the ear for the privilege of 'importing' it.

All we need now is some regulation to prevent the energy companies from charging whatever the hell they want for this and curtailing the ridiculous spiraling cost of electricity.

 

[Frungy]

The problem with Fukushimas wasn't the earthquake, it wasn't the tsunami. The problem with Fukushima was that it uncovered just how amazingly little maintenance had been done on the nuclear power plants country-wide, how safety and upgrade recommendations had been ignored in favour of increased profits, and how generally placing something as sensitive as nuclear power in the hands of a corporation more interested in profits than in people was a very, very bad idea.

Those commenting here are focusing on the dramatic external parts of the Fukushima story, while ignoring that if there hadn't been the earthquake and tsunami then it would have been something else in about another decade as safety standards slipped lower and lower, and maintenance was ignored.

The point that most people are ignoring is that this problem isn't unique to Japan, the same pattern can be seen in many countries. Safety standards are set... and then ignored. The problem with nuclear power is that if something goes wrong it isn't just one building that is affected, it is an entire side of a country.

Frankly, until governments and companies become more responsible I just don't trust them with nuclear power.

 

[Zinzinbadio]

If there is one thing I learnt from the new SimCity is that eventually wind doesn't cut it and you just have to go nuclear.

 

[Ironside]

I for one am extremely glad that our government is finally doing something to tackle the impending energy shortage we are about to face instead of completely ignoring the issue like they have been doing for the last ten years. I imagine we are still going to see our lights go out in the next few years though especially if this is the only plant they plan on building. As for the people complaining in those comments I imagine they will be singing a different tune when they find all their precious electrical equipment stops working, because we didnt bother building anything to replace our old power stations.

I agree a distributed wind turbine system would be fantastic, but most people seem opposed to building one near their house. The amount of wind turbines needed to power 5 million homes would be massive. For reference, offshore wind turbines produce about 5MW, about enough for 4000 - 5000 homes, assuming peak wind conditions and regular usage.

Well most of the prime areas for building wind turbines are in our coastal waters or in places like the Scottish highlands where there are virtually no houses, so I dont really think that would be a major problem in the deployment of wind turbines. Wind power has far more problems than looking ugly (although I actually kind of like how they look) such as the fact that they only operate for about 20% of the time, have appalling efficiency, they are very expensive (especially the bigger turbines using permanent magnet machines, which are essentially being held to ransom by the chinese atm) and they need traditional power stations to be built anyway to cover the periods when they cant operate. Personally I am of the opinion that tidal would be a much better stopgap alternative to wind at least until we can get thorium reactors or hydrogen fusion off the ground.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

We can always rely on gas from fracking with the Health and Safety Executive who don't inspect well integrity and are underfunded anyway.

Yeah, Switzerland are doing it and I've only heard good things about their new earthquakes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/fracking-earthquake-conne_n_1752414.html

Of course the answer is in renewable energy! Because they are 100% environmentally friendly and the materials to make them will never run out like fossil fue... oh wait: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/27/rare-minerals-global-renewables-industry

But it's ok, we've found plenty of new deposits of these rare earth materials, and they're only located around one of the most remote, fragile and unspoilt areas of our planet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21774447 So attacking them with giant mechanical hoovers is completely environmentally sound!

All energy production has absolutely horrific downsides. Our best chance of mitigating them to an acceptably safe, and reliable level is nuclear fusion, which may be an impossibility, but we won't know unless we give it a go and... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-fusion-project-struggles-to-put-the-pieces-together Oh for Pete's sake!