Does anyone agree with Tony Blair on Nulcear power?

[rosycheek]

I'm finding it very hard to understand why anyone would want to build more nuclear power stations. They may reduce CO2 but then you are left with radioactive waste!!

We live on an island FFS. We are surrounded by all this natural energy. Is it just people's NIMBY 'ism that it stopping us from harnessing it? What it so wrong with wind farms ...at least you can remove them with out leaving future generations with the problem of radioactive waste.

Am I in the minority with this, or do people think nuclear is the way to go?

BTW, I love the environment topic, feel much better now for my rant!

Oh yes, and let us not forget our commitments to Kyoto. That too is driving the nuclear industry. Personally, I think it's a foregone conclusion. I think nuclear is returning. ANd it isn't going to start or end with Tony Blair. If you search the news you will find lots of countries talking about nuclear, in and out of Europe.

An exerpt from \link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4699942.stm\BBC News Russia Energy Overview}

After a 20-year lull following the Chernobyl disaster, Russia announced ambitious plans for new nuclear facilities. Russia is set to increase the proportion of its energy that is nuclear-generated from the current 16% to 25% by 2030 and build at least 40 new reactors. Costs are estimated at $60bn.

Russia currently has 31 reactors at 10 plants and is building three more at home and another five abroad, including the controversial site at Bushehr in Iran.

Whenever I read something about nuclear power I find myself swayed towards thinking it might be the least worse option.

well my major gripe with SUV's [as well as the environment issue] is how dangerous they are to pedestrians -having been hit by a car as a child and in hospital for three months, I wonder if i would have survived if I had been hit by an SUV. And my computer is part of the BBC climate change experiment, so i can feel semi virtuous about being on MN all the time!

problem with nuclear power is we really don't know how to handle the waste long term - how come that issue just gets pushed to the side? Pretty fundamental if you ask me.

i know the HA that i work for incorporated a turbine on top of a block of plats, has done an eco build with solar power and is thinking of another turbine.

its very small scale but a step in the right direction

i think i read somewhere that soon everyone will have water meters. and i thank the lord my kids will have left home by the time it gets round to us in at least 5 years - which is my assumption of time based on beaurocracy.

but new builds could incorporate this stuff as standard. and all refurbs of properties ( as this is a highly massive - i can explain how massive) govt programme that all social housing should be up to a certain decent homes standard they have set out - which means that there are massive refurbs going on - my dh is working on one - and the waste is outragous - all down the landfil - loads of wood and everything - whereas if all contractors had to recycle then no one is out doing the other on the tendering process.

thats Flats not ..err.. plats

Pagan brings up our imports of food, as if they were a bad thing. This is a miniscule component of global energy consumption, especially if you take into account many of these places can grow crops with less use of energy.

Also we have conflicting goals. A lot of stuff comes from developing countries for whom these exports are critical for any hopes of survival or even advancement. The long range food imports often come from the poorest countries. Are we prepared to let them die back ?

We have builders in, and yes it does produce waste, but the idea of local authorities being competent to monitor this stuff is to put it mildly, rather ambitious. Also looking out on the waste, hard to see how much of it can be recycled, and many quite sensible rules on the dangerous substances involved. Big lumps of wood are often recycled, but most I can't see much use for beyond burning.
The rules on Asbestos are tight. For builders.
A recent site my lot were at had levels of contamination control that aren't much short of those used for radioactive waste. Pressure gradients in the building, air locks, disposable work monitoring, and of course the bad stuff had to go in highly specified containers with lots of warning labels.
Then the local council took the stuff the the standard landfill...
My builders thought this was well out of order.
When they checked, that is apparently the norm.

Also one has to look at the effect of regulations, not their intent. If you make builders waste disposal much more expensive, you won't like the other places they find to put it.

Regulations are often simply a way of allowing government/council suppliers to charge more and their bureacracy is oftend welcomed by the large suppliers because it reduces competition.

Custardo, my local council is fab at the water meter thing: as soon as a house changes hands (bought or rented to someone new), a water meter is put in. Makes me v pleased as I think we should only pay for what we use.

i agree completely - we are so very wasteful in this house

Food imports and SUVS a tiny % of global energy consumption? Nah, have to disagree.

SUVs usually do around 21 mpg, compared to an average of around 28mpg for most cars. This means they are a THIRD less fuel efficient than normal cars. And there are now quite increasinly many SUVs in America that actually only achieve around 12 mpg.

\link{http://teachers.net/mentors/events/topic139/7.13.05.21.42.02.html\Here} is what some americans think of environmental issues surrounding SUVs.

But I agree that the issue of SUVs is probably less pressing that that surrounding air freighting of food. That is a significant use of precious oil. Amd it is unecessary. What figures are you using here?

We will be in true crisis if we do nothing, wait for peak oil then have no resources to build (plastic) solar panels, transport windmills, etc.

So SUVs use 1/3 more energy.
But they are a minority of cars, America uses about 25% of world oil, transport is about 10% of that.
So we're talking 2.5%. Replace SUVs with minis and you save perhaps 0.2% of world oil usage. That's about less than 0.1% of totlal world energy consumption.
I call that tiny, what do you call it ?
World energy comsumption goes up by more than 0.2% a month, short version. Replace SUVs with minis buys us two weeks.
You wont even get that. Many SUVs are actually working vehicles used by farmers etc.

You might come up with slightly different numbers, but you won't make it all the way to big.
I buy the road safety argument and I'd happily ban them for that, but most anti-SUVs is green tokenism and anti-american bigotry.

Air freighting is indeed wasteful for food.
Personally I'd bring back airships. Very low energy consumption, very little noise, and since they can take off locally, your round trip time isn't much more than driving to an airport to fly to a place that isn't very near where you want to be.
OK, I like airships as well as windmills, but I think aircships are viable.

We're going to hit peak oil.
Here's some maths you won't see on the BBC.
The BBC will tell you that America uses 25% of world oil production.
It won't tell you what happens if America simply stopped consuming oil tomorrow.
Depending on whose numbers you believe, and your model of elasticity of demand under rising prices world energy consumption is rising at 3-4%.
Kill everyone in America and you buy the world 5-6 years. Less, because to all intents and purposes all the research for methods to get us out of this mess happens there.
Do you really think that China, EU or India is really going to do much with an extra 6 years ?
If the USA consumes less, the price won;'t go up as fast, and others will consume more.
Economics 101.
Ask yourslef what degree you need to hav to be BBC economics editor at the BBC. Hint: It doesn't involve maths.

If the USA consumes less, the price won;'t go up as fast, and others will consume more.

this arguement basically holds that we are all driven to consume as much as we can, so if the equilbibrium price of your supply and demand falls, there will be more consumption.

I don't agree with this analysis of how people behave, but really, its irrelevant, we actually cannot continue consuming at this rate and if people cannot act responsibly, goverments are going to have to seriously act.

here, I think, is the absolute crux of why I disagree with you. and esentially that comes down to faith and political standpoint.

Don't agree with those figures and ntl is down so i can't search to back myself up.

Also, a third of 2.5% is around 0.8 %, not 0.2%. Of course, suvs would not just be replaced in america. Say it gets you to 1%. Given how much oil is being shifted a year, thats worthwhile. Actually, any save is worthwhile, especially since the real problem is co2 emissions and the US is responsible for 55% of those.

That article is written by a red neck moron and is hardly representative of the American population. However, I think if we are rating SUVs on their fuel economy, we should also take into account that they take more passangers/cargo. So, if the alternative would be to take two cars, then perhaps they aren't so bad. HOWEVER... I personally hate SUVs (and pick-up trucks). They obstruct my view and make the road unsafe. I used to live in Texas and SUVs/pick-up trucks are the things I miss second least (roaches I miss the least).

I think it's important that we remember freighting food also supports countries whose population would otherwise starve to death. It is vital income for them. There needs to be a balance here I think. Like, say, put that food on flight that are already flying but not full.

Fillyjonk, what do mean by "wait for peak oil..." Do you think the oil supply is going to peak and then suddenly it will all be gone? I don't.

I think that if we want to watch who is going to consume how much oil/gas/nuclear power we should set our sights in the like of China and India. These are massive markets just waiting to flourish. The consumtion in America is not likely to change much.

If we want to explore reducing the world's consumtion, I absolutely think it is down to government to put controls on the masses. Individuals simply won't do it.

Now, can we talk about nuclear power? We seem to have gon off on global wastefulness.

At last! A snide remark about arts graduates that made me laugh DC!
Unfortunately i have to agree with DC about buying the world 5-6 years because of China, India, etc. I heard about a new scheme developed where fossil fuel emissions from coal fired power stations are actually buried in the ground, and it was hailed as an important step for cutting greenhouse gases. But it seems to have sunk without trace, and can't see China bothering to take it on. Anyone know anything about this?

i think it is accepted that oil will run out certainly in our children's life time, if not ours, no?

Oh Oh, I forgot to add. For those of you who want to support local produce (and they do not freight anything), I got a fab leaflet through my door last night. The food is all organic. Have a look at \link{http://www.abel-cole.co.uk/content/homepage.htm\Abel Cole}

Ruty, I think you are talking about CCT (Clean Coal Technology). Another suggested use for the gas is to inject it into oil wells to icrease the pressure so more oil can be extracted.

I'm far from convinced that we will run out of oill in the next 50 years. Nobody really knows. What I hear touted around is our current reserves will last for 50 years. Yes, this is about the life of an oil well (quite a long life actually). But, in the next 50 years, I expect we will have discovered many more wells. I think 50-100 years is a very pessimistic forecast. I'm more concerned with the affordability than I am with the existance of the supply.

I don't want nuclear power because it is dangerous...and because it doesn't really address climate change fast enough.

Sustainability in reducing consumption and wind/water technology could make changes faster and much more safely. Scotland is one of the best places in Europe to develop energy schemes.

The Severn barrage would provide employment for 30,000 people once built. And the energy of two/three nuclear power stations.

Also schemes developed here could be replicated in other parts of the world, much better for us than a proliferation of nuclear power.

yes that is it Uwila - thanks.

I agree zippi - the problem is motivation - there is so much money invested in nuclear power [and oil] that the motivation is not there to develop other energy sources. Saving the environment is a weak motivation.

All energy is dangerous, that is it's very nature.
More energy is more dangerous, and that doesn't change much by adopting non-nuclear sources.

Yes, Scotland has some nice resources, and it's rational to have diversification. Thoug for reasons I rather think you would reject out of hand.

I can't see how you can think that these are quick fix. You may not care about the horrible environmental damage from dams, nor the large scale risks to life they present. But they are not quick things to build. It is also the case that many of the best sites are already used. Globally something like 12% of all fresh water passes through dams. Humans really like bulding dams. Children will build them as a game. I don't know why but it's deep in our evolution. Thus we already build far more dams than is rational.

Wind isn't a quick fix, we don't know how to make them reliable enough, and research is needed on efficiency. Also they are big consumers of oil based lubricants for their machinery. Would take decades to build enough.
You could genetically engineer rape or corn to produce lubricants but the greens will throw a fit at that, and even if viable, is not going to be ready any time soon.
Also if you built that many windmills the effect on bird life would be catastrophic. I'd go for that if we were up against the wall, but nuclear has less effect.

That's not blind faith in nuclear. We are going to have a major (>5,000 dead) event in Britain when we go nuclear. We don't know how to rid ourselves of the waste, and we can expect at least one major spillage in the next couple of decades.

Every other option we know of is worse, or simply can't work. Some like bio fuels actually manage both to not work and have horrible environmental impacts.

Blocking up the Severn may have terrible ecological effects, but yes that might be worthwhile. The 30,000 jobs sounds rather silly, was that a mistype ?
If it were true, then in wage costs alone, the power generated would be something like 50 times more expensive than any other source.
(30,000 * 50K per year = 1.5 billion quid per year in wages).

Actually with 30K people you could generate the output of a small nuclear plant simply by treadmills.

In any case, the Severn is an unusual formation. We actually don't know what the ecological effect is, and even if we did, it's only 2-3 power plants. We need a lot more than that ?

my dreadful grasp of English there..30,000 jobs generated not running the Severn Barrage but as a result of its existence

\link{http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/t0900212rep.pdf\ interesting report here}

nuclear would have less of an effect on bird life? That's the funniest argument I've heard in favour of nuclear power for a long time!

I don't think we are looking to for the one best solution to provide us with power. I think we need a vriety so we have something else to lean on when one goes belly up. The more appropriate question is probably how much nucleaar power do we want? How much wind? How much should we spend on developing new technologies? And what if oil does run our on 75 years? These are the question I hope Mr. Blair (and other world leaders) are asking.

We have nuclear power now. And we are very likely to get more of it.

Say we do have more nuclear power..and god forbid something went wrong ...whether mechanical or human error, or terrorism... just imagine what WOULD happen (remember Chernobyl?). Is that a risk we are really willing to take?