Anti Nuclear protests in the news today

[mudmonkey]

I would love to see what the true cost of nuclear power is. Huge amounts have gone into nuclear R&D and subsidising building the plant, and whatever storage medium we come up with, we still need to store the waste an inordinately long time, which in the long term poses massive problems. Nuclear is an expensive stop-gap but may have a place as such.

Personally I hope fusion research comes to fruition before too long, the byproducts are markedly less toxic and have shorter lives. News reports seem to suggest it's coming close (relatively) - is there a place for fission reactors in the meantime?

 

[paul]

is there a place for fission reactors in the meantime?

Where do you think weapon-grade plutonium comes from...

 

[graham]

is there a place for fission reactors in the meantime?

Where do you think weapon-grade plutonium comes from...

Iran? :idea:

 

[cap n chris]

I would love to see what the true cost of nuclear power is. Huge amounts have gone into nuclear R&D and subsidising building the plant, and whatever storage medium we come up with, we still need to store the waste an inordinately long time, which in the long term poses massive problems. Nuclear is an expensive stop-gap but may have a place as such.

Personally I hope fusion research comes to fruition before too long, the byproducts are markedly less toxic and have shorter lives. News reports seem to suggest it's coming close (relatively) - is there a place for fission reactors in the meantime?

... Here's a thought - what's the true cost of power shortages or chronic failures - if the internet failed what would happen to industry?; what would happen to UK hospitals if there were constant black/brown-outs with no end in sight?; what would be the impact of week long power cuts in a harsh winter? - how many tens of thousands would die?...

I imagine the cost of NOT having power (not just in money terms) far outweighs the financial cost of providing it (by any method).

 

[darkplaces]

I thought I would post this as it seams to give a good intro into nukestations.
http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear_reactor

Important to have all the facts before a choice is made and what you support/dont support.

Lets hope Homer doesnt work at one of these atom smashing plants.

 

[AndyF]

Here is a good reason NOT to have nuclear power, it goes like this:

Nuclear power station are VERY expensive to build. The companies making the equipment have a very expensive product, and will try to make as much money as they can from it. They WILL sell the technology to tin-pot third world countries. In these plants, safety standards WILL be low and major accidents WILL happen, so look forward to few more Chernobyls. No wind turbine or foosil fuel accident can ever be so large.

And who will pay to clean up the decomiisioning mess for the ones that survive? Will it be the companies that sold it? Will it be the tin-pot regimes? No. It will be me and you. Its costing £3000 per family to pay for the present lot in the UK alone, that pays for a LOT of alternative technology.

The EU is already funding the clean up of most of the USSR reactors, so get ready for some big tax bills....

 

[Hughie]

Currently, under present legislation, farmers have to put 8% of their arable area into "set-aside" ie it sits there doing nothing. Defra even insist that any growth on this land is cut. I'm not sure of the national area that goes into "set-aside" but it must be colossal. It strikes me that this is a huge wasted opportunity.

I agree with all your points except this bit - i'd have to look it up to be specific, but there are many good reason for setting aside land - it protects our wildlife - not just plants, but the insects, birds and animals that live in them and the birds, animals that live off those...etc etc. Do we want to kill off all of the wildlife?

Those strips of set aside land support something like the top ten most endangered plants in britain, because hedgrows etc. are an archaic population of species that now only exist in these set aside areas.

Humans don't have some right to destroy everything in our path just to get what we want.

[/rant]

Sorry, Pisshead, but I think you're wrong. Set-aside is mobile thing. the area and location have to be decided on and notified by mid Jan, there is a compulsory cutting period, then back into production during the autumn. Do you really think the top ten most endangered plants in Britain would survive under those conditions? Hedgerows are now heavily legislated and protected along with a mandatory 2 metre strip of "untouchable" land either side of them. Set-aside was introduced as a method of production control.
You may be confusing them with the field margin boundaries associated with one of the several agri-environment schemes. These are most certainly beneficial to the environment, whereas set-aside probably isn't.

Have a look here for more info on the current situation.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/qanda.htm

Sorry - gone off topic.

I do agree though, we don't have the right to kill everything in our path to get what we want. But - as this thread is showing - we've all got different ideas and somewhere along the way there will have to be compromises and sacrifices.

 

[cap n chris]

Its costing £3000 per family to pay for the present lot in the UK alone, that pays for a LOT of alternative technology

£60 per week for a family (of four? = £15 per person per week) for power provision seems pretty reasonable to me when the alternative of unreliable/unclean (wind/coal) power provision is balanced against it. Or maybe I'm missing something

 

[pisshead]

Do you really think the top ten most endangered plants in Britain would survive under those conditions?

can't really be bothered to get into a big in depth arguement about whether or not these strips of land are wortwhile or not - for one thing i don't have enough information on the topic to make informed comments...however, endangered species often exist in the most apparently inhospitable conditions...for instance they invariably cannot survive if fertilised, and prefer acidic or nutrient poor soil. Disturbance (for example being mown down once or twice a year) is almost always beneficial to non-competitive species - it gives them a chance, as stronger plants can not cope with these harsh conditions so well...

...as i said, i won't go into it in depth...

i didn't study plant science at uni for 3 years for nothing...

 

[AndyF]

Its costing £3000 per family to pay for the present lot in the UK alone, that pays for a LOT of alternative technology

£60 per week for a family (of four? = £15 per person per week) for power provision seems pretty reasonable to me when the alternative of unreliable/unclean (wind/coal) power provision is balanced against it. Or maybe I'm missing something

Thats not the cost for provision of power, thats just the cost for cleaning up the mess afterwards. It dosen't include the costs of long term storage either.. Add to that the building costs in the first place, then the costs for the actual power itself... Who knows what the total figure is.

My argument is that we should invest instead in reducing power needs. For example give someone a couple of thousand to fit double glazing and insulation, then you don't have to build so many power stations...

 

[cap n chris]

Its costing £3000 per family to pay for the present lot in the UK alone, that pays for a LOT of alternative technology

£60 per week for a family (of four? = £15 per person per week) for power provision seems pretty reasonable to me when the alternative of unreliable/unclean (wind/coal) power provision is balanced against it. Or maybe I'm missing something

Thats not the cost for provision of power, thats just the cost for cleaning up the mess afterwards. It dosen't include the costs of long term storage either.. Add to that the building costs in the first place, then the costs for the actual power itself... Who knows what the total figure is.

My argument is that we should invest instead in reducing power needs. For example give someone a couple of thousand to fit double glazing and insulation, then you don't have to build so many power stations...

If your original stated figure is what's known as a fixed cost then there is no alternative to spending the £3,000 per family without it being additional spending, i.e. any alternative spending on other power provision is over and beyond the need to spend the £3,000 previously mentioned. This means that to do anything other than that which is already being done means every family will need to find £3,000 p.a. PLUS your alternative suggestion. Presumably this is not going to prove very popular. Just a thought.

 

[andymorgan]

I think the points about population size and energy needs are interesting

By not breeding like idiots and by not paying people to breed, like this goverment insists on doing. An off topic gripe I have of dont have kids till you can afford them but thats a different topic...

ahh but we need people of working age to pay taxes and to support the work-shy layabouts (pensioners).

Everyone's missing the main point. It isn't about power, it's about population. World population has increased ten fold in the last 150 years and is going to exceed 10billion by 2050. Fuel demand will outstrip supply by the end of 2009 and the poor will be priced out of the market, leading to increasing examples of unalleviable extinctions such as Darfur, Kashmir etc.. There is no solution other than to get used to it.

Absolutely, unfortunately this happens in most biological systems . They reach a high population size until the resources are exhausted and the populations crash. If resources can recover the cycle starts again.

what would happen to UK hospitals if there were constant black/brown-outs with no end in sight?; what would be the impact of week long power cuts in a harsh winter? - how many tens of thousands would die?...
I imagine the cost of NOT having power (not just in money terms) far outweighs the financial cost of providing it (by any method).

but if people die this will decrease the population size and decrease a burden on resources.... Also a smaller number of ill/elderly people in the population will mean taxes can be lower and smaller work force is needed., thus a lower birth rate is needed and the population can be decreased here.
This is of course a very hard nosed way of looking at things though. But of course these poeple are someones loved ones or ourselves who may die and so as the Capn said these costs far outweigh the financial costs. Therefore finding good energy sources is more practical than trying to reduce population.