That nuclear power is carbon free and miss understood

[Greatwhiteworld]

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.

I think that's just an artefact of the miniscule numbers killed in nuclear accidents LH. More people die putting their socks on or visiting petting zoos but we're not banning them (though we are imposing higher safety standards for petting zoos).

But truly enormous numbers do die as a result of the coal/gas/oil industries, even before you count climate change.

The dangers of the waste last forever. We R hoping that future generations will somehow manage to maintain security over very toxic waste, effectively for much longer than human civilisation has previously existed.

The subsidies required to get nuclear to run are collosal. If it's such viable industry, why the need for such massive subsidies & the govt. has to take on burden of huge future risks.

The raw fuel (uranium) can't be sourced within UK... or western Europe. Oh look, Russia is a key world supplier. Love to have a dependence on Russians for energy, they are so nice about sharing.

Ties betw. civilian & weapons industry are real.

We're stuck with some nuclear 2 have any energy security, but it's not a great option.

In terms of long-term risk profile, I'd rather have nuclear for baseload than coal or gas.

Yanvvvvvvu. Nuclear waste will be around for many hundreds of years. Storing up problems for the future.

Carbon neutral ignores the bigger picture, just like what happened with disel cars.

Thing is you're up 150 metres building a wind turbine. If you were constructing anything that high if you fell there would be issues.

Regarding the baseload argument I think yes, that's the thing, we need to get away from baseload. Storage, demand management, interconnectors

Yes, but we have to be sure that we can supply energy needs into the future. We can't assume that the storage etc tech will be developed and deployable to replace all of the coal and gas that will be coming off line in the coming years.

The only feasible alternative to nuclear that I can currently see I see a combination of wind power and gas turbine power plants to provide base load.

Just need to negotiate with NIMBYs to build enough turbines - can't see that happening.

Totally happy with nuclear for the time.

Yes I'd like a mix of remewables and gas - which obviously isn't zero carbon but a lot better than coal.
Commission a load of tidal lagoons together to reduce cost on them and also do a load of storage and smart grid stuff e.g. Frequency response.
NIMBYs are generally (Dorset aside) more chilled about offshore

What do you think of the possibility of deliberate sabotage

Very hyperbolic article is what I'd say. How many nuclear sites in their entire history have been compromised by terrorists so far? I doubt people who are more at home hacking peoples heads off with swords and videotaping it are going to remotely cause a nuclear meltdown in a first world nation anytime soon.

When the nuclear industry has solved the problem of radioactive waste disposal, then it can start to sell the idea of nuclear reactors.

Good point biker. I guess if it was that easy it would've been done during the Cold War or by North Korea

I wasn't drinking last night unfortunately. I am in a different time zone currently.

There have been a lot of interesting points

Renewables? Have you heard of the RHI scandal 😂

As we are talking about power and not heat, Rhi is utterly irrelevant. In any case that's about a badly designed and administered incentivisation scheme,not an inherent failing with a technology, in the same way that hinkley's horrendously expensive cfd doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the technology they will be using

I think it is a bit misunderstood. We should be going more for renewables though, and reduction in energy consumption. All homes should have adequate insulation, we should stop putting the clocks back in the winter, and there is no need for larger engine cars at all (a 1.4 litre engine will easily get you to 70mph with a full load). To name a few means of energy saving.

forallthesaints

And we should have incentivise electrical goods manufacturers to make their goods more efficient.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/669099/european-union-eu-referendum-commission-jean-claude-juncker-kettles-toasters-ukip

Onshore wind is a stupid idea with the standard UK winter wind patterns ,lots of still cold days. Overly breezy days and the turbines can't cope.

They only get built because of subsidies. The operators can leave them to rot after their short life. And don't forget the diesel needed to keep them operational.

Nuclear power works.

The main problem with nuclear is cost. It is cheap once built but comes with a very long pay back time.

Also it does create plutonium when u238 undergoes fission, which is highly toxic and radioactive.

The main problem with nuclear is cost

Some might say climate change will be a cost as well so nuclear is a price worth paying to reduce the cost of climate change.

Sigh. And we have a troll in the building. It is still relatively rare that it's an entirely still day across the whole of the uk, but that is of course why we need a balanced mix, not just wind.
Yes they only get built because of subsidy, every new form of generation capacity in the uk gets some form of subsidy payment. Developers only get paid for the power they generate. Youneed to read something other than the mail

There are problems with it, but I don't think it deserves to be automatically discounted. At least not to the extent that anyone who dares defend it is immediately called a smug glib motherfucking idiot.

Fusion is the way ahead...maybe not so far off either.

Trouble with wind turbines is that lots of people don't like the look of them so don't want them where they live. (There was a petition against a local wind farm) You also need a lot of them to produce even a fraction of what a nuclear reactor generates.

Every wind turbine needs a fossil power station as back up for when the wind does not blow. They kill birds (lots of them) and are visually polluting. Currently it costs about 3x gas per kWh and is responsible for a huge tax on those who can least afford it. And the tax breaks are making a very few very wealthy.