New Nuclear Power Plants in UK

[ThomPaine]

Nuclear power station will avoid 'blight' of 30,000 wind turbines, minister says - Telegraph

Ministers said they want to build a new generation of 12 new nuclear reactors to ensure that people can "turn on the kettle" and to help "keep the lights on".

The Department for Energy and Climate Change said that Britain would need to build more than 30,000 onshore wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy, seven times the number currently in operation.


The government has disclosed that the new reactors at Hinkley B in Somerset alone will produce the same amount of energy as 6,000 wind turbines built on 250,000 acres of land.


Mr Davey said that building the power station will create jobs for 25,000 people, although he was unable to confirm how many will be for British workers.

[Plutonic Panda]

That's good. Nuclear power is the future of energy, IMO. If done right and properly maintained, there should never be a problem, pretty much every nuclear disaster including Fukushima, can be tied to human error.

[RadicalModerate]

That's good. Nuclear power is the future of energy, IMO. If done right and properly maintained, there should never be a problem, pretty much every nuclear disaster including Fukushima, can be tied to human error.

Keyword: If.
(apparently you know a lot more "perfect" people than I do =)

Hell . . . most people I metaphorically "run into" can't even make a proper left turn.

[ljbab728]

If we can just keep humans out of the equation...

And earthquakes?

[Plutonic Panda]

And earthquakes?

Power plants can be built to resist earthquakes.

[RadicalModerate]

It's no accident that the "nuclear plant incident" in Japan happened where it did.
Fukushima is Japanese for Fu-k U Shima.
And Shima is the name for The Goddess of Tidal Waves.
(actually, Shiva, only in a different form)

But all that is OK, because if there really was ever a "serious" nuclear plant "accident" everything would be back to "normal" in about 250,000 years or thereabouts. We ain't talking about some dude getting his hand stuck in Gutenberg's Abomination of God fer cryin' out loud. =)

Hmmm . . . Magnetism or Spider Webs . . .
Direct or Alternating Current . . .
Which shall it be . . .
To let there be electrical light . . . hmmm

[ThomPaine]

I think they are a viable energy source depending on where you live. I would like to see more here in the US, as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

[RadicalModerate]

I think they are a viable energy source depending on where you live. I would like to see more here in the US, as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

[ljbab728]

So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

You could certainly ask the same question about a wind turbine.

[ThomPaine]

So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

If you mean "literally" next to my backyard, then yes. Just as I would if they built a windfarm or a coal or NG power plant next to my back yard. However, lived about 20 miles (as the radiation flies) from one in the Pacific NW, so not that big a deal to me.

[ThomPaine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/us...wind-farm.html

Maybe he'd prefer a nuclear power plant nearby...

[RadicalModerate]

If the choice was between a wind turbine and/or a nuclear power plant, I think that even you, Sir, would admit that the choice is obvious.
(However . . . If a Within-Walking-Distance Braum's is brought into the equation . . . well, then it could be a toss-up.)

Therefore, I choose not to compare Wind Turbines with Nuclear Power Plants as it is a False Semi-Dichotomy. ain't it?
What's it take to fix-up a tipped-over Wind Turbine? A week and a half?

Especially in light of the fact that there is no certainty, whatsoever, involved in the impossibility of me ever asking the question you attributed to my ability to ask in the first place. In short, I would never ask that question. But thanks for askin' for me anyways. =)

[SouthsideSooner]

Sooo... I'll admit to a bit of ignorance because I'm a little too lazy to research it but have they ever figured out a way to dispose of the radioactive waste from reactors beyond burying it in a hole somewhere?

[Plutonic Panda]

Sooo... I'll admit to a bit of ignorance because I'm a little too lazy to research it but have they ever figured out a way to dispose of the radioactive waste from reactors beyond burying it in a hole somewhere?

As far as I know, not yet. But that can change, nuclear fission as well as cold fusion or just fusion, promises to change that, and then some. The only problem is that, is been 20 years out for 40 years. I happen to think there are other factors involved(yes yes, conspiracy theories), but I won't get into that.

The problem is investing money into it and putting the proper funds towards research, but that isn't happening. People keep seeing what is happening with Fukushima and look back on 3mile island(even not much even happened) as well as the most obvious one, Chernobyl. It's called fear and lack of education that keeps a lot of people against nuclear energy, and it's really sad.

[RadicalModerate]

I think Homer Simpson said it best when he said:
"Oooooo, CELEBRITIES. They know EVERYTHING."
(and he works at a Nuclear Power Plant!)

Celebrities would include musicians, at least in MY book . . .
Top Ten Antinuclear Songs | The Nation

[Just the facts]

The worst thing that can happen in a nuclear plant has already happened 3 times - and almost all of us are still here. As for a nuclear plant in my backyard - bring it on.

Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update)

[RadicalModerate]

The worst thing that can happen in a nuclear plant has already happened 3 times - and almost all of us are still here. As for a nuclear plant in my backyard - bring it on.

Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update)

What has happened at nuclear power plants (so far) is a long way from the worst thing that could happen.

What if there is a total economic collapse and nobody who "tends the fire" can get gasoline for their cars to get to work. Or what about a plague of some sort? Oh yeah. The plants will automatically shut down. And start to decay. In maybe 500 years they will start leaking . . . etc.

What's a little "whoosing" and a few dead birds compared to that scenario?

[Plutonic Panda]

What has happened at nuclear power plants (so far) is a long way from the worst thing that could happen.

What if there is a total economic collapse and nobody who "tends the fire" can get gasoline for their cars to get to work. Or what about a plague of some sort? Oh yeah. The plants will automatically shut down. And start to decay. In maybe 500 years they will start leaking . . . etc.

What's a little "whoosing" and a few dead birds compared to that scenario?

I don't think we'll be around to see that, neither will the Earth, in its present condition(before the fact) either.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here's the problem I have with nuclear...

I'm not an expert on the subject obviously so much of this is just conjecture on my part but...

Just about every spot in the world is "due" for something. A large earthquake, volcano eruption, massive hurricane, asteroid impact, Lost reruns, whatever... This world we live on is beautiful no doubt, but it is incredibly violent. Now some parts of the world are certainly more prone to these areas than others, no doubt. I get that. But it is only going to take one of these events to really screw you up if you near a reactor. In fact, screw everyone one up for a long ways away.

My concern is that we have a hard time remembering catastrophes just a couple hundred years ago. Catastrophes that are very cyclical. It seems like a big risk to me to be near one because if one of these 'once in every 1000 year' events occurs, you're pretty much guaranteed to be hosed. Which is what we saw in Japan really. A minimal risk given the known probabilities but even small probabilities eventually come true. So why take the risk?

30 years ago, it would have been harder to make that case but today, solar and wind are catching up like crazy in efficiency.

The cost alone per kwh to manufacture nuclear energy has gone up 50% as well. Indicating that it is quickly becoming an expensive proposition. Likely due to mitigations necessary as a result of other accidents, like in Japan, and terrorist threats.


Moore's Law will play a convenient factor with solar. I fully expect 3-5 cents per kwh within a generation. It is innovating rapidly. Wind is already competitive with coal, but not NG yet. Germany and other nations are gladly paving the way for us as well. Showing us how to do it and what they real-world returns are.

So I just don't see the point yet. It isn't cheap anymore and if we are honest with ourselves, it isn't worth the risk.

There is progress in fusion technology and so I'm not going to sit here and say that fusion or fission can't play a role in the future. I just wouldn't support the public policy for it today given what I personally know.

Sid, Fukushima was already in disrepair before the quake/tsunami hit.

I understand exactly where you are coming from and I share your concerns. This is exactly why I said they need to be built and maintained better. Also, more funding and research needs to be going into these. I have very ambitious plans for my life, whether they come to fruition or not is in a higher power than mine, but I do know, if I ever amass a fortune of billions of dollars, I would love to become a pioneer in nuclear energy. I truly think that is the entire future of energy. Wind is cool for remote areas and solar is alright on a small scale, but it can't come anywhere close to what cold fusion could do.

[HangryHippo]

I find wind turbines to be unattractive and they take up a lot of room and harm birds so I'd prefer to see something else. And I'm probably against increased nuclear power for the same reasons as Sid.

Honestly, I'd love for there to be a solar revolution, but we have a long way to go to get that technology where it needs to be. But it's unobtrusive to capture (unlike wind) and it's powerful and present almost everywhere.

[Just the facts]

To paraphrase Howard Kunstler - there isn't going to be a green energy revolution. We require far too much energy.

This was written in 2005 but got everything exactly right.

Kunstler Speech in Hudson NY 2005

[ThomPaine]

Please excuse me for a brief show of appreciation...

This discussion is a good example of why I joined/started posting on OKCTalk. I appreciate the opinions and views, and much of what is posted spurs me on to further reading and research.

Well done folks, thanks.

[RadicalModerate]

I don't trust anyone with the last name Kunstler.
(only libcompinko lawyers have the name Kunstler)
QED.

The same people who are for nuclear power are the ones who thought asbestos was The Miracle Fiber of The 20th Century.
(and have apparently been eating too many lead paint chips.)
(present company excluded, of course =)

This should put an end to all arguments on the topic.
With a Celebrity name like Fogelberg, you got to be good.


"Yeah. And that goes triple for me."

"Screw the bird casualties of wind turbines.
If they are blind and stupid enough to fly into the blades
It's just Darwin in action."

[Dubya61]

I think we should absolutely have more nuclear plants, and windmills, and solar PV cells, and geothermal heating/cooling. I know that solar and wind are considered inefficient, but what would that matter if each of us were to have a solar panel array on our rooves, maybe a string of small windmills in the rooves? Not pretty looking? May paycheck isn't a work of art, either, but it's mighty purty to me.

[RadicalModerate]

Rooves?

Solar is OK . . . But at night you need a house powered by Magnetic Gravity.

(and it's good to have a hand-cranked Grammophone to provide some background music)