Nuclear power?

[winebeforepearls]

The French are keen to help us build third-generation nuclear power stations. With global warming and the insecurity of Russian and mid-east oil, should we just get on with it? Or do you think they are too dangerous?

(That's the power stations, not the French )

On one of my training courses we did a great analysis of what would happen to Plymouth if there was a reactor accident in the dockyard.

Even a huge event like Chernobyl is actually only going to have killed 200 or so people - which when you look at deaths from coal mining to fuel power stations is very small.

Am not quite a nuclear scientist, but have MSc in Radiation Physics, and have hung out with the nuclear guys a lot. Also grew up in the nuclear triangle of Harwell, Culham, Aldermaston - first boyfriends dad was a reactor designer.

aha, cmot, we have an-almost-nuclear-scientist ! Yes, I read that about Chernobyl - no statistically significant increase in cancer, etc.

But still no informed and passionate argument against nuclear power, which was what I was hoping to flush out ... ho hum

I think there's a silent majority who really don't give a monkeys -- unless a new reactor's going to be built at the end of their road of course.

The only increase in cancers is childhood thyroid cancer, which is easily treated. Certainly no huge increases in birth defects like some people claim - and when you do the math, you know that those are impossible anyway.

The vast majority of people want to use electricity, know that fossil fuels won't last, but don't want to be looking at a wind farm. So they know nuclear makes sense - but awful reporting (the Guardian in particular) preys on the remote possibility of things going wrong.

my arguement against having further nuclear lants is that we haven't found a sites for getting rid of the 'spent' radioactive material yet... *

most are in 'temporary storage' since the seventies. if they leak, we could all be drinking radioactive water in no time!

say 'no' to nuclear!

• except by killing off ex-russian spies of course!!

We have found suitable sites, but the NIMBYs make such a fuss each time that they don't go ahead. The government needs to just get tough and make a decision

Most radioactive waste is very stable physically, and just needs to be shielded whilst it decays. Certainly no danger of water getting contaminated in a big way

these 'tempoary storage' units will have to be in operation (and not saboutaged/earthquacked (sp?)/sufficient) for thousands of years.

AND we take on other countries nuclear waste.

it's just too dodgy for my liking!

the gov. needs to make green issues a fundamental process in decision making.

Casbie, are they likely to leak?

cmot, that's what I understood from James Lovelock's book, that properly stored they're not a danger, hence having them buried under his compost heap.

Thing is, Casbie, the alternative to having the waste in storage is rather worse than the chance they might leak in 1000 years. Like a lot of the UK underwater.

Industrial windfarms are even more difficult to get through planning (cf Lewis) and wouldn't produce the same amount of power as nuclear even if they did.

no geologist is going to guarantee a site for thousands of years, and think of all the containers still sitting around since nuclear power has been established...

so i would say yes, it is possible for leakage.

does anyone remember 'acid rain' from the chenobyl fall out?
and apparently, children are still being born with defects.

i like the way that this nuclear contract between the french and the english has been shuffled to the end of every article i've seen. Almost every journalist has made out the Monsieur Sarcozy is coming to Britian on a state trip, to help improve his relations with the french at home. very slick Mr Brown!

wave power is the most productive answer for the UK... still we may still have a few blackouts as our power consumtion still goes up while our capacity for providing energy is going down.

nuclear power will not save the UK!

Well, it wasn't acid rain, which is what we sent over to Scandinavia from our dirty sulphurous power stations (probably still do).

It was radioactive rain that fell largely over the north-west I think.

But the thing is the whole disaster doesn't seem to have caused a huge rise in cancers. See here for example.

And I would hope that we could build and maintain them about 3 million times safer and better than Soviet Russia.

I'm all for wave power too. The point is that I feel it will be a combination of these renewable energies and nuclear that provides our energy in the next 50 years.

Thats why they will be permanent storage units, in a suitable site. These are chosen to be geologically stable, and are deep underground, both for shielding and security. Again, better than the current situation where sources are held above ground, waiting for a permanent repository.

We export radioactive waste to other countries right now - even if there were no nuclear power stations theres a lot of radioactive sources that have to be used for medical and industrial purposes.

Green issues are fundamental to decision making - but unfortunatly the 'greens' can't come up with a power source that is acceptable to themselves.

And I see people protesting about the effect of wave power stations on the marine enviroment too.

There was no acid rain or birth defects from Chernobyl. There was some iodine and caesium deposited from the cloud passing over us, but the effect on our food chain is well known and can be dealt with efficiently.

Nuclear power is the only option to take that will provide affordable energy in a shortish time span. Wave power won't generate enough, nor will wind turbines. I have no problems with nuclear power at all. The reactors will be well designed and safely built and more to the point, well operated and maintained.

winebeforepearls - i didn't say cancer, i said birth defects...

environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl1.html

cmotdibbler- the 'greens' are looking for a 'clean' technology... unfortunately, this is quite difficult to attain from cradle to grave cleanliness and gain maximum efficiency at the same time. as far as i know wave technology offers the best solution for the UK, whereas windpower might be a white elephant (output is very low). The grand scheme of 'carbon capture' is a fantasy and it seems that Mr Brown quite fancies that option or to revert back to 'dirty' technologies just to keep up with energy output!

I'm married to a nuclear power expert .
We have discussed it at length and (in awe at his expertise) I have reached the conclusion that there is no feasible alternative and is the way forward., Yes, alternatives are prefereable but not sufficent for the UK. I'd like to see them being used as a 'booster' but it's unfeasible that we can rely solely on them in the near future.
Plus it pays our mortgage

i think with all the indecision at top level, we should all expect power shortages in the near future...

just in time for the olympics

All it says about birth defects is

"The incidences of birth defects have increased in heavily contaminated areas. A condition known as "minisatellite mutation" in the Mogilev district of Belarus is "unusually high."

But he gives no references for these quotes and there are no figures.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that we would build and maintain them a lot better.

While the greens are looking, I think we need to get on with building ...

There is no good, peer reviewed, evidence that there is any rise in birth defects - a study over 16 regions of Europe showed this

I think we'd all like a totally safe, low carbon, enviromentally friendly power source that will let us keep going, but I just don't think that there will be a perfect solution

even if we built more nuclear power stations will not be able to match current energy usage...

it takes seven years to build one, and oil/gas prices are only going to climb higher.

buy yourself a woolen jumper and new blankets as it can only get worse!!!

Sorry, reading the article properly I grant that she makes it clear that some genetic mutations may not come out for another generation.

cmotdibbler - in 'western europe' we're okay - that's alright then. phew, for a moment i was really worried!

I like the idea of lots of pretty colored fans cleanly producing power - like fields of daffadils. The reality is huge noisy contraptions that will constantly require maintenance (more factories spewing smoke as they make millions of spare parts),and never work well enough anyway.

Wave power sounds a bit better (and maybe we can use that as well as) but what happens to them if global warming changes the coastline? I'd hate to have to move them in a hurry in 50 years time.

That's a bit depressing, Casbie.

Although any excuse to buy a new jumper

I'd rather risk 30 new nuclear power stations myself