Advanced search

That nuclear power is carbon free and miss understood

(86 Posts)
Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 03:17:58

Nuclear power is very efficient, very safe and carbon free. Accidents like Chernobyl won't happen again as that type of reactor isn't widely used

New reactors are being built that use radioactive waste from older reactors, or use nuclear weapons as fuel.

The UK should be building more as part of moving away from fossil fuel.

ColouringMandalas Sun 02-Apr-17 03:27:20

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 03:37:42

The safety features in a nuclear reactor are all encompassing. It will shut itself down using gravity alone.

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 03:43:59

Fukushima Was different the engineers designed the plant to withstand an earthquake and tidal wave. What happened was over the design specifications

ColouringMandalas Sun 02-Apr-17 03:45:49

Yup, because real life never exceeds design specs and black swans don't exist.

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 03:55:01

All power plant now have been upgraded to Fukushima specification

Mysterycat23 Sun 02-Apr-17 03:58:57

Where does the enriched uranium fuel come from? How about the materials to build the plant?

Oh... carbon heavy mining and processing... imported internationally via carbon heavy ship and plane...

Come on OP it's not that simple.

ColouringMandalas Sun 02-Apr-17 03:59:47

Well that's fine then isn't it? No jihadi will get a job at a power plant/no satellite will come crashing down from the sky smack bang into one/there won't be any disturbance on the San Andreas fault etc...

Jog on Homer. Keep on taking the pills. There are doughnuts 🍩 thataway --->

why can't I just remember that you can't argue with stupid and crazy

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 04:06:51

A reactor I suspect protected by a concrete structure designed to withstand a airliner hitting it.

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 04:07:44

Typo I know its containment is built to withstand

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 04:09:36

Having worked in a nuclear plan s there is no way anyone could cause any kind of problem

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 04:10:56

Sisemic testing is undertaken before any plant is built so, so no that won't happen

WaegukSaram Sun 02-Apr-17 04:13:43

Homer Simpson, sector 7G?

Greatwhiteworld Sun 02-Apr-17 04:17:08

Lol no, I won't say what department. Homer was a reactor safety officer which is a £70k a year job!

wevegottobeathemdown Sun 02-Apr-17 04:37:44

Having worked in a nuclear plan s there is no way anyone could cause any kind of problem

This just isn't true.

ClopySow Sun 02-Apr-17 07:34:00

Go to bed China, you're drunk.

JeNeSuisPasVotreMiel Sun 02-Apr-17 07:38:38

Go to bed China, you're drunk.


FinallyHere Sun 02-Apr-17 07:39:31

And let's not forget the small matter of the left over radio active waste.


LostSight Sun 02-Apr-17 07:43:34

The UK should be building more as part of moving away from fossil fuel.

The Chinese can just pop over and build it, then the profits can go to France. In a few years, the waste can be buried in Scotland.

OP, you're a genius!

Kennington Sun 02-Apr-17 07:50:31

Well the French have nuclear used a lot. They have reactors in the south which makes me smile.
They seem to manage well.
Fossil fuels won't last forever and wind energy is inefficient so I would agree OP.

insancerre Sun 02-Apr-17 07:51:37

We shouldn't be building more
We shouldn't be building any
We don't need them
They are an environmental disaster just waiting to happen
As is fracking

PetalMettle Sun 02-Apr-17 08:09:07

OP is right about the Fukushima design not being used over here although I believe Hinkley is same design as flammanville which has had some non crucial issues.
Renewables provided more power than nuclear in 2015.
Whilst they are variable, advances in making the grid smarter and storage can to some degree counter that.
Nuclear is not carbon free (no source of power is due to carbon needed in manufacture) but they are pretty good. From memory on life cycle only wind beats them out, solar doesn't because there's a lot of carbon used in the manufacture.
I think if we don't get on and smarten up the grid and build storage, there's a debate to be had about nuclear, but it's a massive financial commitment as well as the safety aspects and it's also not very flexible - some of grids biggest problems in recent years have been when big nuclear power plants have fallen over. They can normally cope with variability in wind

Orlantina Sun 02-Apr-17 08:20:04

We should be looking at efficiency as well. A lot of potential power that could be generated does not get to the end users and is wasted.

Micro generation, storage solutions as well as much more efficient generation, transmission and use of power in the home and industry.

Still - when you have people and media who don't seem to understand what electrical efficiency means and blames Europe for 'attacking kettles, hoovers and toasters' - when the aim is to make them more efficient and waste less power, we can't have a serious debate.

Nuclear power is a good option. Just one thing in the mix. But when accidents happen, it's very dangerous. France seems to do ok though.

Orlantina Sun 02-Apr-17 08:22:09

Current live energy supply and demand

Nuclear 28%
Gas 43%

CasperGutman Sun 02-Apr-17 08:37:32

You're being a bit simplistic in some respects:

They're not carbon-free, as there is plenty of carbon emitted in their construction. They're still lower carbon than almost anything else (renewables included) though.

And they're not risk free. They just kill fewer people per kilowatt-hour than e.g. wind turbines!

So on balance, YANBU.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: