What do you think of Hutton's plan to start building nuclear power plants again?

Question

- in order to reduce global warming and reduce reliance on foreign oil?

Answer 1

I'm afraid that it is the only realistic solution despite the dangers of radiation pollution and waste disposal. Imported oil and coal supply are likely to be too unreliable - held to ransom by the Russians - I think not!. Wind , wave and hydro are not going to be anywhere near enough - unless we destroy the environment totally by covering everywhere with windmills and tidal barriers. It doesn't matter what you suggest - there will always be those who oppose it .

Answer 2

Beg to differ on the wind turbines front. Lots of oil platforms offseas with no oil underneath them anymore and lots of sea winds flying over them. There's nothing wrong with nuclear power, I just think wind's an option that needs to be heavily explored as well.

Answer 3

I am very disappointed with the UK Government decision to back nuclear power.   Even the financial viability of nuclear is in doubt because the cost of disposing of the waste (including worn out reactors) is still a huge unknown. Nobody has yet solved the technical problems of disposal which is why the UK Government has spent billions storing nuclear waste in above ground containers that have to be under constant guard and which present a target for terrorists and the risk of accidental leaks.

The UK Government announced that it intends to encourage energy companies to invest in new nuclear reactors and it is seeking parliamentary approval for a Bill that will enable it to over-ride local objections.  It says that the costs of nuclear power will be met be the energy companies but admits that, if necessary, the Government will have to intervene if public safety is at risk.  I do not think it is cynical of me to believe that it is likely that the taxpayers (via the Government) will eventually be lumbered with the cost of disposing of future waste just as we have with the cost of waste already created.  And these costs have meant that the nuclear power which we had thought would be cheap has proved more expensive than any other.

It is my belief we have two problems to overcome. One is global warming and the other is the depletion of non renewable resources.

Clearly the burning of carbon based fossil fuels is a cause of global warming and nuclear power is cleaner in this respect. However, it is not entirely clean because a great deal of fossil fuel is burnt in mining the uranium, transporting it, building the reactors (which have a short life) and dealing with the waste.  Energy from wind, wave, tide, solar, geo-thermal and hydro sources are the best alternatives from this point of view. I have not included energy crops (bio-energy) because of the fact that they employ land needed for food production or cause land presently under trees to be cleared with disastrous global warming and biodiversity implications. I would, however, accept that bio-energy from wastes may have a role to play.

The resource depletion issue is, I believe, just as important as global warming and in fact unless we act on both problems the social and economic impact of global warming is likely to hit us at around the same time as fossil fuels become hugely more expensive because of scarcity.  Here it important to recognise that nuclear energy is based upon a non-renewable fossil fuel (uranium) just as much as the carbon fossil fuels.  Again wind, wave, tide, solar, geo-thermal and hydro sources of energy provide alternatives.

Of course there is one alternative to fossil fuels that I have not mentioned yet and that is to use less energy. We should not be looking for ways to carry on with business as usual because our lifestyles are simply unsustainable in every sense. As well as developing less damaging sources of energy we need to develop less damaging lifestyles that involve more walking and cycling, more insulation, less flying and less stuff generally. The good news is that those who adopt such lifestyles enjoy better health, less stress and more fun than those who are beating themselves up to keep up with the neighbours.

Now to deal with economic viability.  I have already dealt with the high cost of nuclear power (which has always been born by taxpayers, particularly in dealing with waste).  We are about to be bombarded with assurances from the UK Government that the waste problem is solved but they told us that before and were proved wrong.  The only way I would believe them now is if they were to show me a parcel of waste that had been kept safe, cheaply until the radioactivity had decayed to a minimal level (which would take hundreds of years). Until then estimates of the cost of achieving safe disposal are just guesswork and are likely to be influenced by the desire to prove the policy that they have already chosen right.

Until recently the economics of sustainable energy generation have looked unfavourable compared with the carbon fuels.  But that is rapidly changing as the cheap sources of carbon fuels run out.  Already the oil prospectors have had to turn from land based oil wells to deep sea and from there to arctic and now they are looking at oils sands that are extremely expensive and environmentally damaging to exploit.  Similarly coal, gas and uranium is becoming more expensive.  As these fuels overtake the cost of sustainable sources then we will turn to the new sources with urgency.  The social and economic upheaval of the switch to more expensive but sustainable sources of energy will be very severe unless we do more to anticipate the need and develop those resources and simplified lifestyles now.

I hope you will find this answer helpful. I have outlined what is needed (simpler lifestyles and sustainable sources of energy) and I have shown why nuclear does not fit the requirements. The good news is that a growing number of people are recognising the need for change and governments will recognise it too when they realise that there are votes to be had in sustainable policies rather than sticking plaster solutions (nuclear) to permit business as usual for a few more years.

Best wishes

Answer 4

As long as you take up one of the Governments posts to take Nuclear waste away efficiently then I'm all for it!!!...

As long as you emigrate to Ascension Isles.

Answer 5

Good one Gaby. But the envirotards will never see it that way.  They're too busy having "feelings"

Answer 6

Inevitable given the competence of this administration

Answer 7

I think it is a wonderful idea. Wind and Solar also will help some and should also be promoted, but only Nuclear Power can provide the enormous amount and with the reliability we need to continue our way of life.

Wind does not blow 24/7, and the sun does not shine 24/7. We need power 24/7. Wind and solar require enormous space for a little power. Nuclear - small area, cheaper, and 24/7 reliability.

"Environmentalists" along with our ignorant liberal media DID kill our nuclear power program. Even when our engineers and scientists tried to explain that we had no other viable options. I am a Nuclear Engineer, and have been for 35 years. I stood and watched as these idiots sent us to what we are now trying to dig ourselves out of, while countries like France are now 80% Nuclear and their CO2 "Footprint" is very small.

Don't ever trust the media or "Environmentalists". They are not bad people, they are just not interested in Chemestry, Physics, Mathematics, and Economics. They just "Feel" their way through life.

Answer 8

Excellent idea

Answer 9

good, about time one of them had the guts to stand up and say lets get on with the building program.

We are never going to get all the power we need from wind turbines

Answer 10

I think that anyone who advocates the building of any type of nuclear facillity should be imprisoned for treason against the people, the state, and the world for the destruction and death that these ticking bombs have created, continue to create and will continue to create, in the future, unless people come to their senses.

Everybody and his mother seem to have nuclear weapons these days and what do you think their favourite targets are going to be, the desert?, no, it's going to be the nuclear power stations in your neighborhood, do you want your familly to live in such a hot area, do the owners of these facilities live near them or send their kids to school there?

No matter how much propaganda the pro nuke loby pump out  they cannot change the fact that nuclear power creates a waste that takes over ten thousand years to degrade to the state where it becomes someone elses problem, every country that uses nuclear power is sat on millions of tons of radioactive waste that they don't know what to do with, why do you think that all of the amunition used during desert storm and the iraqui invasions, afghanistan was stuffed full of radioactive material?

I wonder how many tons of nuclear waste are being    redistributed to the deserts and cities  of those foreign shores, as we sit? and don't forget redistribution is big business.

In the UK they disolve the rods in acid and then pump it into the North Irish sea and their tame eccologist sees no evil and the government hears no evil and the scientists speak no evil.

the corruption goes deep.

and don't get me started on the water and the air pollution it causes.

No to nukes, theyre nasty.

Answer 11

To coin a phrase, it sucks the sweat off a dead dog's [parts].

People keep touting nuclear power as 'zero carbon'. Absolute rubbish. What about all the embedded carbon in the concrete used to construct the building, shield the reactor and, let's not forget, encase the spent fuel for the next x00 years? Concrete production requires huge amounts of heat (more than can be generated on an industrial scale using electricity?) and generates enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Why, if it is as commercially economically viable as we are led to believe, are customers going to have to pay a premium on each unit of electricity to cover the costs?

We have been sold a puppy by big business whose interest is purely in making money. Again.

I would be very interested to know how much money is invested each year in R&D for truly renewable energy sources and, perhaps more importantly, reducing energy consumption, and how this compares with the amount the nuclear industry annual spends annually lobbying government. Something tells me those figures would make interesting reading.

But I suppose it's too late, because apparently we have been consulted, and have been found wanting.

Answer 12

With current technology, the cost of power from new nuclear plants would probably be less than tha tproduced by burning coal--and we know how to deal with the safety issues now.

That's actually been true for years--the problem isn't the technology. nor is it environmentalists--unless you are naive enough to think the environmental lobby has all that much influence with the neoconservatives that controlled Congressfor 12 years!

But the coal companies don't want the competition--and they are the ones who have been blocking new construction of nuclear  power plants.

Answer 13

I'm afraid I'm with Lovelock on this one.

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/arti...

If we think that global warming/climate change issue is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity this century then we have to start biting the bullet.

I've given up my car and driving - but I don't see many others doing it. I'd have more respect for the alternatives argument if FoE hadn't objected against the Severn Barrage  when first proposed and when even modest proposals for wind farms in the Lake District meet such unanimous objections from 'environmental' organisations.

Yes, concrete produces CO2. (Glad to see that recognised.) Yes, there are issues about disposal of waste. I think safety wise another Chernobyl is unlikely. But lets face it nothing we humans do seems to be without risk of some sort, we need energy, we are not moving forward fast enough so for the time being I do see nuclear (and associated risks) as an acceptable option.

Yes, bring on the alternatives. A lot is being done, a lot is being invested - no it can never be enough - and I hope to live to see another technological revolution. But for the time being I can and will support the nuclear option in western countries.

I know the contradictions about proliferation in the third world, but its the time factor that persuades me. I hope its short term, a few decades, but read Lovelock, he convinced me.