Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Go go nuclear

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nuclear is the daftest, most unsustainable, its the biggest short term solution, so is easier for our goverment to pass. think of all that nuclear waste bubbling under the surface for millions of years.
    agreed wind cant provide all the power needed, but theres wave, solar and geothermal!
    if we all had solar panels on our roofs we wud be sorted, the gov offers grants for doing so!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Solar panels require a lot of energy in their manufacture. I think nuclear is inevitable - at least until nuclear fusion comes along. It's our insatiable appetite for energy that is destroying the planet, not the nuclear energy companies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Excellent news. :D

    All this talk about renewable energy is tedious, people whine on about wind power but the benefits are at best spurious. If the global warming brigade are right nuclear seems the sensible option. Although we should look into cleaner coal too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently energy conservation itself would be far easier and more effective than the building of nuclear stations. According to a Lib Dem MP on TV today Britain's future energy needs could be perfectly met by a combination of energy saving and renewable energy sources.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And it would save about a £100 billion....which could be spent elsewhere
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Excellent news. :D

    All this talk about renewable energy is tedious, people whine on about wind power but the benefits are at best spurious. If the global warming brigade are right nuclear seems the sensible option. Although we should look into cleaner coal too.


    it's efficient having to dig through get over approx. 900 tonnes of uranium ore to get fissionable uranium, and to produce the chemicals to purify it, and to build the stations, and then to dispose of the waste, which we areyet to do


    if they embark on building nuclear power stations at least work how where and how to do it, which they are yet to do

    just a reminder, if the romans used nuclear power, we'd still be looking after it's waste storage
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I accept nuclear power has flaws and like almost all the opponents to nuclear power I share their ignorance of the science behind nuclear power...But in spite of my lack of knowledge on the science behind nuclear power it seems rational to me to trust the judgement of respected scientists at Imperial or MIT or wherever over the rantings of some bearded anoraks at the CND who are little more than overgrown student union leaders...With the proper precautions nuclear energy seems genuinely preferable to fossil fuels; it certainly does not make sense to use natural gas with spiralling costs and worries over supply - and coal is dirty. Renewable energy... cannot realistically meet our energy needs in a stable and reliable manner. And it's also a lot easier to talk about energy conservation than actually put it into effect and I'm unconvinced as to the results of some expensive advertising campaign to tell people to switch the lights off or whatever.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    YAY!

    :D Now we will have a decent power network. So we won't end up buying it off the French because we suck at things. Thank god for that...

    Well, get building ASAP I say. I am fed up with the shoddy national grid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Solar panels require a lot of energy in their manufacture.

    But surely in the long run, after the panels have been manufactured, the savings would be greater than manufacturing energy used? And building the nuke power station would use up vast amounts of energy itself wouldn't it? Not that I know much about these things ....

    What does it cost to install solar panels in, say, a two bedroomed home these days then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The disposing of the waste generated is another massive headache to consider- and a rather expensive one at that.

    Did you know that we would no longer need to use our existing nuclear power stations today (which provide 20% of our energy needs) if we were to replace all our light bulbs with energy efficient ones?

    If we were to be a little more careful around other areas of our homes there would not be a need to have nuclear power stations any more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote:
    But surely in the long run, after the panels have been manufactured, the savings would be greater than manufacturing energy used? And building the nuke power station would use up vast amounts of energy itself wouldn't it? Not that I know much about these things ....
    You'd need guaranteed sunshine to even consider solar power as an alternative to conventional power generation. That or customers who are willing to live without electricity during the winter.
    What does it cost to install solar panels in, say, a two bedroomed home these days then?
    My parents spent £6000 on solar panels to heat the water but they're not photovoltaic so they will only do water - they couldn't boil a kettle. My dad reckons it will take 20 years to pay off, but that's assuming energy costs continue to rise.

    Photovoltaic cells are a lot more expensive, and use expensive components. They also require servicing and cleaning - a bit of a pain if they're on your roof.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was my understanding that most modern solar panels work perfectly well on daylight, even if it is cloudy or raining. I could be wrong though.

    There have been various interviews on the press of ordinary folk who have put solar panels in their home and they all seemed to say not only was the energy provided sufficient, but as often as not they would have a surplus of energy which they sold back to their electricity supplier at a profit :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    It was my understanding that most modern solar panels work perfectly well on daylight, even if it is cloudy or raining. I could be wrong though.
    They do work in cloudy conditions, but not as well. Logical really.
    There have been various interviews on the press of ordinary folk who have put solar panels in their home and they all seemed to say not only was the energy provided sufficient, but as often as not they would have a surplus of energy which they sold back to their electricity supplier at a profit :)
    That's wind turbines I think. There's no way you could provide all your electricty needs from solar panels.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nuclear is not an option, the amount of uranium in the world is finite and some reports and studies show that by 2050 we would have ran out. If we increased the number of power stations then it probably be used up quicker...
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    J wrote:
    You'd think they'd work out something with hydrogen and oxygen wouldn't you seeing as 70% of the earths surface is covered with water made of those two elements.

    The problem is - splitting Water into the two component substances is highly expensive, and the process itself pollutes an amazing amount, making it highly un-green. If we found a way of cheaply generating Hydrogen, and indeed, a way that is actually EFFICIENT - they problem would be well and truely over!

    Homever, we haven't even got close yet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote:
    But surely in the long run, after the panels have been manufactured, the savings would be greater than manufacturing energy used? And building the nuke power station would use up vast amounts of energy itself wouldn't it? Not that I know much about these things ....

    What does it cost to install solar panels in, say, a two bedroomed home these days then?


    the amount of energy that goes into the purifying the silicon and other materials, and then the manufacture is greater than that they produce in their lifetimes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    The problem is - splitting Water into the two component substances is highly expensive, and the process itself pollutes an amazing amount, making it highly un-green. If we found a way of cheaply generating Hydrogen, and indeed, a way that is actually EFFICIENT - they problem would be well and truely over!

    Homever, we haven't even got close yet.


    thing is burning it makes water, thus its a net loss of energy as all processes are never 100% efficient

    HOWEVER

    using that hydrogen in nuclear fusion, very good energy return :thumb: it's only 50odd years way at the moment

    we should replace the current coal and almost useless nuclear stations, with new nuclear stations (and should be nationalised due to fact its not a profit making exercise but a stabliity one) and our increasing usage of energy should be countered by renewables of all sorts, and research into renewables - and more importantly, CUTTING OUT WASTEFUL USE of energy, people under estimate how much they can save, they really do but people always wanna pass the buck
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    using that hydrogen in nuclear fusion, very good energy return :thumb: it's only 50odd years way at the moment

    25 at the soonest they reackon with lots of funding and works... maybe even 20!

    I am jsut glad either way I get to see it in my life (I hope)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So which one of you pro nuclear guys would like the nuclear power station in your area?
    These old power stations like Sizewell are getting old....
    Do you trust there is enought regulatory procedures in place to monitor these stations and make sure everything is tip top?
    Say one day a valve that cools the whatitsname in the reactor breaks and radiation starts spurting out slowly?

    Say all these new stations are built...and in a few years someone comes up with an idea to harness power from a renewable source and makes all these stations obsolete?

    So Tony and the Old new labour is listening to it's customers who are saying oh there isn't enough power so tony and his buddies start to think, well we are living in an on-demand world, lets build some more stations, privatize them and charge the people even more....

    Surely it would be better and cheaper for the government to educate people on energy consumption and give grants on inulating your house better and thing like that?
    Surely these top scientists if there are any fuckers like that can, instead of working on top secret weapons, find ways to harness the power of the sun, wind, whatever....

    Just think about the world your kids and grandkids are going to be living in..
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    migpilot wrote:
    So which one of you pro nuclear guys would like the nuclear power station in your area?

    I'd rather that than live near a coal one. So yeah, OK.
    migpilot wrote:
    These old power stations like Sizewell are getting old....

    In nuke plant terms, sizewell is still young! I have done a tour of both Sizewell and Bradwell when Bradwell was active. Sellafield/Windscale has been going since the motherfucking 50's!
    migpilot wrote:
    Do you trust there is enought regulatory procedures in place to monitor these stations and make sure everything is tip top?

    Yup, I am quite confident in that.
    migpilot wrote:
    Say one day a valve that cools the whatitsname in the reactor breaks and radiation starts spurting out slowly?

    The chances of that are quite fucking slim. If radiation is going to come out, it is likley to blow the fuck up. Especially if the cooling system breaks, and for some reason it doesn't auto shutoff, and for some other reason they don't use the backup system, which for some reason fails, and then for sme reason they don't shut it down manually.

    Chances are kinda slim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:

    Chances are kinda slim.

    Absolutely.
    But they are not zero.
    And I don't have as much faith in the regulatory bodies as you do.

    My main point, can any of you explain to me the rush and the big need for these stations? I do not understand.
    And why we are being reactive and not proactive.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    migpilot wrote:
    Absolutely.
    But they are not zero.
    And I don't have as much faith in the regulatory bodies as you do.

    Don't kid yourself - the people in these bodies don't want to die either.
    migpilot wrote:
    My main point, can any of you explain to me the rush and the big need for these stations? I do not understand.
    And why we are being reactive and not proactive.

    Because:
    A) We need LOTS of power SOON. We can't wait much longer, we are having problems with cuts already. And usage is only going to increase.
    B) There is not a better choice investment or output wise.

    The two add up together well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Don't kid yourself - the people in these bodies don't want to die either.

    Fair enough, I am sure they don't.
    Because:
    A) We need LOTS of power SOON. We can't wait much longer, we are having problems with cuts already. And usage is only going to increase.
    B) There is not a better choice investment or output wise.

    The two add up together well.

    SO we are being reactive.
    The total UK demand at the mo is between 350 and 400 billion Kwh. About 60-65% of that comes from fossil fuels, about 22-28% from Nuclear power, only 3-6% from renewable sources and the rest we import.
    The usage is expected to increase by some 20-25 billion Kwh in the next 15 years.
    Why do we need lots of power soon?
    WE are having problems?
    Well, if we gotta have cuts to get the point through to the people that don't give a shit, that's fine by me... I know how to build an electric motor, I'll attach to my bike and make my own electricity if I have to!!
    We need to decrease the usage first!!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    migpilot wrote:
    SO we are being reactive.

    Why shouldn't we be in a situation like this? We need power, make plants.
    migpilot wrote:
    The total UK demand at the mo is between 350 and 400 billion Kwh. About 60-65% of that comes from fossil fuels, about 22-28% from Nuclear power, only 3-6% from renewable sources and the rest we import.

    We are trying to cut down fossil guel use. It pollutes badly and will run out faster than uranium by far. IT is the only option at hte minute.
    migpilot wrote:
    The usage is expected to increase by some 20-25 billion Kwh in the next 15 years.
    Why do we need lots of power soon?
    WE are having problems?

    Quite a fair bit, and you know they always get estimations well short. Problems are not good. Things don't just turn off, they often get damaged. Sometimes hospitals and police stations lose power, and backup doesn't often come on instantly.
    migpilot wrote:
    Well, if we gotta have cuts to get the point through to the people that don't give a shit, that's fine by me... I know how to build an electric motor, I'll attach to my bike and make my own electricity if I have to!!
    We need to decrease the usage first!!

    Any idea how little pwoer that would produce? You'd need either majour gearing and fucking strong legs, or a motorbike to try to produce enough.

    Or a cocking huge generator.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Why shouldn't we be in a situation like this? We need power, make plants.

    We are trying to cut down fossil guel use. It pollutes badly and will run out faster than uranium by far. IT is the only option at hte minute.

    Quite a fair bit, and you know they always get estimations well short. Problems are not good. Things don't just turn off, they often get damaged. Sometimes hospitals and police stations lose power, and backup doesn't often come on instantly.

    Any idea how little pwoer that would produce? You'd need either majour gearing and fucking strong legs, or a motorbike to try to produce enough.

    Or a cocking huge generator.

    Actually when I think how much power I used, according to my last bill, in the last 3 months, yeah I can produce that much power (not by electric motor, that was a joke) by creating something. Done this experiment in high school, anyway...

    The hospitals and other emergency buildings are a priority, damn right they should be, but I am not talking about them!! Tell me, if every household in the world turned off all their appliances apart from the fridge and freezer obviously, for one night, how many kWh would that save?

    Oh and if everyone thought that the Nuclear Power is the only option, they would have been built already! ;)
    Have you got any energy saving lightbulbs in your house?
    Is your broadband modem on all night and when you are not using it?
    Do you turn off the water when you wash your teeth?
    When you get your car, are you gonna do loads of high revs getoffthelines?
    Every little helps (sorry tesco)....

    Surely there is always another way.... :)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    migpilot wrote:
    Surely there is always another way.... :)

    Wouldn't they use if it there was? They want to save as much mnoey as possible... hence build a nuclear plant. It is cheaper in the long run.

    IF a good, clean, cheap source were availible they'd make it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Wouldn't they use if it there was? They want to save as much mnoey as possible... hence build a nuclear plant. It is cheaper in the long run.

    IF a good, clean, cheap source were availible they'd make it.


    Would they?
    Can this government be trusted to make the right choice?
    They want to save money?
    it's gonna take at least a £100 billion to recondition the old ones and build the new ones...and then the running of them and the waste....Normally these figures are not correct and in this country everything always costs more than they said it would!

    Show me an incentive for a student, professional, scientist to come up with a renewable source of energy...
    Even if I agree to building the new stations....why aren't the people educated on energy consumption and stricter laws introduced?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My real problem with this is the hypocrisy of our government. We have the cheek to tell Iraq, Iran and North Korea that they must not hold a nucleur deterrent yet are perfectly happy to hold one ourselves. It seems ridiculus to me
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i believe that the main reason of building nuclear plants in ur country isn't ecology,but the price of oil. in last few years it doubled. and it seems it will rise further. also, as i heard, ur oil reserves on northen sea are olmost out...
    is it possoble that this campaign is first step in uk's leaving the iraq advanture.
    leaving americans alone in their oil war? :chin:
Sign In or Register to comment.