Greens should go nuclear

warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Sixty-six heavyweight boffins active in the field of biodiversity conservation have pleaded with the world's greens to get over their objections to nuclear power, pointing out that renewable energy means terrible losses of endangered animals and plants.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/16/turn_to_nuclear_power_to_save_planetary_ecology_from_renewable_blight/
«13456710

Comments

  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    You are bonkers. No they shouldn't.
  • donovan5donovan5 Posts: 1,023
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They debated it at the last conference,many supported it as a lesser evil with the hope that future "green technology" could eventually replace it.
    The majority voted against it though.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We all need to embrace nuclear power because:

    1. It will be the first step toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels thus ending the virtual monopoly.

    2. It is the best solution available until we have a renewable source of energy that is actually viable.
  • warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You are bonkers. No they shouldn't.

    I will pass that on to the 66 scientists
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We all need to embrace nuclear power because:

    1. It will be the first step toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels thus ending the virtual monopoly.

    2. It is the best solution available until we have a renewable source of energy that is actually viable.

    agreed.......

    .......actually UKIP's energy policy is something along these lines:

    http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/energy-policy-2014-f-20-09-2013.pdf
  • ZeusZeus Posts: 10,459
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    warlord wrote: »
    I will pass that on to the 66 scientists

    :D I think the point though was that it would be a bonkers political strategy because the greens get a lot of their support from anti-nuclear campaigners, unilateralists and the like. if they embraced nuclear energy it might tear the party apart.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DadDancer wrote: »
    agreed.......

    .......actually UKIP's energy policy is something along these lines:

    http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/energy-policy-2014-f-20-09-2013.pdf

    UKIP's energy policy is based upon a denial of science. That doesn't mean that nuclear power isn't a decent option but it does mean that being a UKIP policy gives it no credence.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree and I'm a Green Party member.

    There was a vote within the GP not so long ago to decide whether the party should soften its criticism of nuclear derived energy.

    Unfortunately the party overwhelmingly voted 'No', but not all of us agreed with that outcome.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One option would be for dedicated anti-nuclear types to demonstrate their committment. Could make a card saying they refuse any and all nuclear medicine. So any diagnostics, therapies or treatments that use anything derived from the nuclear industry.

    Otherwise the Greens are just basically clueless. They have a dream of decarbonisation, which means electrification, which means doubling or tripling our supply. Which can't be achieved with 'renewables', despite what their donors/sponsors may promise them. The only real solution is based on maximising efficiency by using the most energy dense fuels, which is of course nuclear.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is a need for a proper party, the green party is full of new age hippies.
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    I'm kind of torn on nuclear power. Chernobyl lives long in the memory but on the other hand - don't France already have the north of their country pretty much littered with reactors. If anything ever did go "wrong" (and I'm not informed enough to know the real danger of that compared to 20 years ago) then the UK might be in a bit of trouble anyway.

    Looking at it that way then you might as well have them!

    Really I think you have to be quite informed to be able to assess the threat level versus the costs of alternate energy sources. I admit I simply don't know.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm kind of torn on nuclear power. Chernobyl lives long in the memory but on the other hand - don't France already have the north of their country pretty much littered with reactors. If anything ever did go "wrong" (and I'm not informed enough to know the real danger of that compared to 20 years ago) then the UK might be in a bit of trouble anyway.

    Looking at it that way then you might as well have them!

    Really I think you have to be quite informed to be able to assess the threat level versus the costs of alternate energy sources. I admit I simply don't know.

    The current reactor LWR designs were chosen because they also generated weapons grade plutonium. The new Gen4 reactors are genuine commercial reactors that are fail safe and can also consume all the current waste accumulated from the old reactors. Its a no brainer, if only to solve the nuclear waste problem.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm kind of torn on nuclear power. Chernobyl lives long in the memory but on the other hand - don't France already have the north of their country pretty much littered with reactors. If anything ever did go "wrong" (and I'm not informed enough to know the real danger of that compared to 20 years ago) then the UK might be in a bit of trouble anyway.

    Chernobyl's one example, but used a very old reactor design and safety controls were basically overriden by the operators in a 'wonder what happens if I do this?' kind of way. Modern reactors are far safer and can't fail the way Chernobyl did.

    Then there was Fukushima. A nuclear 'disaster' that killed a grand total of.. zero. Again old designs and issues that occured there have been factored into new reactor designs. But basically a bunch of reactors got hit by a very large earthquake and tidal wave, and most of them survived just fine.

    It's an incredibly safety conscious industry which leads to oddities like Black Cloud pointed out on another thread. Take a lump of Cornish granite into a reactor site and it'd probably end up classified as nuclear material. Decommissioning costs arguments are also usually bogus given the £70bn figure thrown about is for clearing up all our old sites. New reactor designs are easier and cheaper to decommission, and part of the price paid for electricity will go into a decommissioning fund.

    The challenge is still overcoming the fear of nuclear that the Greens have spent decades promoting.
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    The current reactor LWR designs were chosen because they also generated weapons grade plutonium. The new Gen4 reactors are genuine commercial reactors that are fail safe and can also consume all the current waste accumulated from the old reactors. Its a no brainer, if only to solve the nuclear waste problem.

    That's beyond me (I really know nothing about this issue at all) but it sounds as though you are saying that the technology is advancing so the threats could be less than they were?

    But we have chosen to build inferior reactors (in terms of energy production and safety) because of the secondary requirement (building nuclear weapons) which obviously the government doesn't want to highlight as the public is likely to be very split, if not anti, the benefits of a nuclear deterrent (my guess).

    So maybe there should be more choices if it were a poll, such as...

    What percentage of UK energy should come from nuclear sources?

    0%
    1-10%
    11-20%
    etc

    And then the separate question really which is, should the UK possess (build, hold on UK land) nuclear weaponry?

    Yes
    No



    I've blundered into a topic I know very little about so just trying to understand the issue in terms I understand.
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    Chernobyl's one example, but used a very old reactor design and safety controls were basically overriden by the operators in a 'wonder what happens if I do this?' kind of way. Modern reactors are far safer and can't fail the way Chernobyl did.

    Then there was Fukushima. A nuclear 'disaster' that killed a grand total of.. zero. Again old designs and issues that occured there have been factored into new reactor designs. But basically a bunch of reactors got hit by a very large earthquake and tidal wave, and most of them survived just fine.

    It's an incredibly safety conscious industry which leads to oddities like Black Cloud pointed out on another thread. Take a lump of Cornish granite into a reactor site and it'd probably end up classified as nuclear material. Decommissioning costs arguments are also usually bogus given the £70bn figure thrown about is for clearing up all our old sites. New reactor designs are easier and cheaper to decommission, and part of the price paid for electricity will go into a decommissioning fund.

    The challenge is still overcoming the fear of nuclear that the Greens have spent decades promoting.

    Interesting. Genuinely, thanks to yourself and BrokenArrow because this is an interesting topic. I just happen to have never really looked into it up until now (I'm not generally this thick, honest!). My knowledge thus far was seeing When The Wind Blows or whatever it was called back in primary school!
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We all need to embrace nuclear power because:

    1. It will be the first step toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels thus ending the virtual monopoly.

    We just end up with a different monopoly of uranium suppliers. They are a very similar mix of friendly, neutral and less friendly countries that has got us into so much global bother over oil.
  • apaulapaul Posts: 9,846
    Forum Member
    Strange how there are all these wonderful new reactors that will solve all the problems yet the reactors currently being built in Finland and France are years late and massively over budget. Apart from being relatively low carbon there is nothing Green about nuclear fission.
  • alfamalealfamale Posts: 10,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Something like 15% of our electricity comes from nuclear. All our remaining nuclear power stations are old and due to be decommissioned over the next 10 years though. So that figure could hit 0%. Looks like we were 10 years too late building new ones as we've got no money. Fingers crossed the chinese & EDFfinish our only new one on time and in budget and it produces affordable energy after the huge costs the chinese will be charging us for financing it.

    Nuclear fission is a very complicated process with a lot of nasty waste just to turn water into steam. But it does (or did, seeing we're decreasing our nuclear input) seem the most logical option short term. No need to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands or to take the bait with russia as they try to start a cold war over their natural gas and Ukraine's importance in them piping & selling it to the West. Being totally reliant on other countries for your energy is a bit disconcerting long term though.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    The current reactor LWR designs were chosen because they also generated weapons grade plutonium. The new Gen4 reactors are genuine commercial reactors that are fail safe and can also consume all the current waste accumulated from the old reactors. Its a no brainer, if only to solve the nuclear waste problem.

    There is NO such thing as a fail safe system, no mater what you are talking about
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    tim59 wrote: »
    There is NO such thing as a fail safe system, no mater what you are talking about but i do believe in nuclear power
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    warlord wrote: »
    Sixty-six heavyweight boffins active in the field of biodiversity conservation have pleaded with the world's greens to get over their objections to nuclear power, pointing out that renewable energy means terrible losses of endangered animals and plants.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/16/turn_to_nuclear_power_to_save_planetary_ecology_from_renewable_blight/

    I think it is up to the Greens to decide for themselves. There are obvious downsides to nuclear power to consider.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The current reactor LWR designs were chosen because they also generated weapons grade plutonium. The new Gen4 reactors are genuine commercial reactors that are fail safe and can also consume all the current waste accumulated from the old reactors. Its a no brainer, if only to solve the nuclear waste problem.

    You got a link for that?

    And even if true, what waste does the Gen4 create?
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The west should become no longer reliant on oil and gas. That means nuclear, renewables especially wave power for the UK and clean coal.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Interesting. Genuinely, thanks to yourself and BrokenArrow because this is an interesting topic. I just happen to have never really looked into it up until now (I'm not generally this thick, honest!). My knowledge thus far was seeing When The Wind Blows or whatever it was called back in primary school!

    That's the source of a lot of confusion/misinformation, ie conflating nuclear power with nuclear weapons. One's about releasing a lot of energy very quickly and doing a lot of damage, the other is basically building a high efficiency boiler.

    As a small child I remember visiting a nuclear site expecting to see the sun in a bottle and being quite disappointed about the temperatures inside a typical reactor core.. Not thousands of degrees, just a couple of hundred as it's basically a heater for a steam generator. Much of a nuclear power plant is similar to a gas or coal power station, ie make heat, make steam, drive turbines, make electricity. Then it's back to energy density of the fuel in the heater that's explained nicely here-

    http://xkcd.com/1162/

    Waaaay more energy in a kilo of uranium that a kilo of coal.. and a kilo of coal has waaay more energy than a.. err.. kilo of wind. Well, wind potential energy is basically a function of wind speed and blade size, but far less.

    On the radiation side, xkcd also did this-

    https://xkcd.com/radiation/

    showing typical risks/exposure rates. Which is where a lot of the nuke-FUD comes in, ie radiation is dangerous by default, yet we're constantly exposed to it from numerous sources ranging from your partner to bananas or just sun bathing. Ironically you'd be exposed to less radiation inside a reactor hall than outside given it'd shield you from the natural stuff.

    Other FUD comes from exagerating the risks of radioactive materials, so stuff like the half-life being thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Which usually means it's not that radioactive.. The nasty stuff is often the very short half-life materials because fast decay = more radiation emitted. But then it can depend on what kind of radiation, so alpha emitters would get blocked by clothing, skin, a sheet of paper.. Gamma radiation is where you want lead, and possibly a good chunk of it.

    But consider one of the world's most deadly substances, plutonium. Here's a safety sheet-

    http://science.energy.gov/~/media/nbl/pdf/price-lists/SDS/SDS-Plutonium_Metal.pdf

    SECTION 11: TOXICOLOGY INFORMATION

    PLUTONIUM-239:

    CARCINOGEN STATUS: None. However, exposure to ionizing radiation may cause cancer and plutonium may be carcinogenic when internally deposited.


    So basically if you handle it properly, don't eat it or inhale any dust from it, you can handle it fine with simple gloves. It's danger comes from improper handling, accidental or intentional, as section 10 explains-

    Care must be taken in the handling of plutonium to avoid unintentional formation of a critical mass (see SECTION 9, above). Plutonium in liquid solutions pose a greater criticality hazard than solid plutonium.

    So basically stack it carefully, don't juggle sub-critical amounts even if wearing gloves and you'll be fine. Some lessons were learned the hard way, like the story here-

    http://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/28/the-curse-of-the-demon-core/
  • megarespmegaresp Posts: 888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You are bonkers. No they shouldn't.

    No, he isn't. And yes, they should.
Sign In or Register to comment.