Like it or not, nuclear is the least evil of the currently available power generation technologies.

Let's show the world what modern reactors are like...

Er - and if they don't? Generally speaking I'm not against nuclear, especially if we actively pursue safe fast breeders to complete the system - but the potential massive detrmental effect on the public at large that could result from a serious screw-up is exactly the reason this sort of thing shouldn't be handled by the private sector.

Having said that, I don't think it should be handled by the British government either; although, having said that, they could just take care of the waste by posting it to the IRS...

Lucky we've solved the disposal of nuclear waste problem ... oh hang on. We haven't ... but at least we've got energy security ... oh hang on we still need to buy uranium from other countries.

Once the Chinese start building more nuclear power stations the uranium supply isn't going to be any more stable than Russian gas.

I'm glad nuclear electricity is going to be 'cheap'. It hasn't been in the past but I suppose the nuclear industry have got some secret magic technology that has suddenly made decommissioning and waste disposal that much cheaper. I'll look forward to hearing all about it. Or not, as the case may be.

Would that be the same EDF Energy that Gordon Brown's brother Andrew is the Head of Media Relations for?

This decision should have been taken ages ago. (No thanks to those at Greenpeace) This country is still facing a major shortfall in energy supply around 2015 and best extimates put the first of these 3rd generation stations opening around 2020.

And as for the Scottish Executive (as a Scot living in England I refuse to recognise them as a legitimate Government after that sham of an election) commenting that they will not allow new stations to be built north of the border, I am sure that will be of great comfort to the highly skilled and specialist working people of Torness, East Lothian and Hunterston, Ayrshire who can kiss goodbye to their job prospects after 2020. I never gave the SNP much credit, but never thought they were luddites.

"but at least we've got energy security ... oh hang on we still need to buy uranium from other countries."

Apparently we don't, according to some Guv'mint bod on the Today programme this morning, as we have our own deposits. Not sure *where* in the UK these uranium mines are or are going to be, though. Hopefully central Birmingham.

Nuclear power may well have a place, but I notice that the governments own figures

1) Ignore the cost of security (so they will be passed on to the public via tax),

2) Ignore the costs of waste disposal (no company in their right mind will sign up to dispose of waste without a huge subsidy)

3) That the stations to be built will be standard fission plants, for which we only have a maximum worldwide supply for 250 years of fuel (based on current consumption). If a lot of stations are built, it's feasible that we could run out before the end of useful life of the new stations!

4) Points out that we are at the end of the cycle of improvements for standard fission power - there's very little room left to make new stations more efficient (whereas we're at the beginning of the tech cycle for renewabls, so they'll get cheaper and better)

In other words, it's the most expensive and pointless option, and it's a plain stupid move.

On the other hand, if they went for breeder reactors, the fuel and longevity argument goes away (although the cost of security and waste processing still hit us all in the pocket), and hopefully, it won't discourage investment in fusion power.

Ummm....the waste from coal power stations is much worse than nuclear. The only advantage is that it's pumped directly into the air instead of needing burial somewhere.

As usual, ignorance is the biggest barrier to solving the energy problem.

I don't understand how the Energy White Paper in 2003 is ignored and they have to re-go over this again. If these papers are trying to predict energy policy for the next 20 years could they not forsee high oil prices and carbon credits in 2003?

Either these documents are not as well thought out as they should or maybe the future direction is already known and these reviews are purely there to back up a decision already made.

Regarding nuclear power I think it's a good way to generate electricity, certainly better in the long term than gas, oil or coal. (Bad decision in my view to go gas it was only ever going to be a short term solution). However how much does nuclear power truly cost? At the moment we will be storing this waste for 1000's years.

QUOTE Greenpeace, leading the opponents of nuclear power, predictably said the decision was wrong. "We can easily keep the lights on by investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy and decentralised energy as well as using fossil fuels more efficiently than we do now," the group said in its response to the government's plan. UNQUOTE

What was it that Greenpeace said last time someone suggested "using fossil fuels more efficiently than we do now" ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/03/coal_fired_plant/

Oh, that's right. They were against it.

"We should be concentrating our efforts on renewables and... carbon capture and storage as a safe, secure and flexible way of plugging the energy gap."

I think that's unrealistic, fossil fuel burning is basically complex carbon compound + oxygen to CO2, H2O, pollutants and Energy. Carbon capture is CO2 to complex carbon compounds, the reverse. It's going to take a lot of energy to do that reverse.

(I read about CR5 the other day on slashdot, but that's just catalytic cracking of steam. The discs are just a fancy heat exchanger.)

If we can at best get 50% of todays energy needs from renewables, how would be get the energy to recapture the carbon from the other 50%? All that renewable energy would have to go into sequestering the carbon from the 50% fossil fuel side!

That's ignoring the obvious you get from looking at the numbers. Those mega renewable projects could never be built. Just not enough copper, concrete and stone to do it, even if you could clear enough space to do them and had enough money. They've planned for 20% by renewables, but they'll be pushed to achieve that.

Then there's the oil problem, if oil has peaked we're sc*wed. We need to find 3x the energy fast.

Isn't that owned by the French Government, so not only will we as the tax payer have to subsidise building and disposing of the power plants operated by EDF, we get to subsidise the French tax payer. I wonder how much tax EDF pays in the UK?

"Having said that, I don't think it should be handled by the British government either; although, having said that, they could just take care of the waste by posting it to the IRS..." :-) LOL

AC,

That "Now you see it, now you don't" comment had me chuckling. It is strange though how we use radioactivity to create electricity and yet we still apparently can't recycle its radioactive waste to provide Core Ore.

"Would that be the same EDF Energy that Gordon Brown's brother Andrew is the Head of Media Relations for?" ..... Ouch, come on, ref, is that a low blow or not? Is there any truth in its message.

Apparently looking a gift horse in the mouth and thinking to refuse its gift of zero cost construction to generate Power has a voice. Would it be madness to listen to the voices in their heads? Obviously they're working to A.N.Other Agenda but there doesn't appear to be anyone willing to do it for free, which means that it will be more costly to the public. 0 marks out of 10 for that Path, methinks.

...and that's TODAY's energy needs.

The world population is growing fast and many countries are only beginning to buy cars and live in houses with climate control and other appliances.

Wind/solar/etc are good, but will never provide 100% of the world's needs.

Of all the other technologies, nuclear is the only sustainable one.

1. The current batch of nuclear power stations which are coming to the end of their lifespan were built by people who cared about quality. This was back in the day when British Standards meant workers having pride in their work. Now British Standards just means being able to put a tick in the right box. The new nuclear power stations will be build by the companies who give the best deal (we can read this as "the cheapest"). We have proved that we can't even build a football stadium on time and to budget - what possible hope is there that the same won't be true of a nuclear power station?

2. The British Government have cited carbon emmissions as one of the reasons why we have to go nuclear. This raises a dilemma. If we can't meet our commitment to reduce carbon emmissions without nuclear power then what right do we have to dictate to other countries that they are not allowed to persue a nuclear energy policy if they too cite environmental concerns as the reason? How then do we stop Iran building plutonium producing reactors without being completely hypocritical? (Yeah, I know that the British Government has no problems with being hypocritical - a planned 13% salary rise over the next 3 years when all other public sector workers get shafted and new laws to stop essential staff from striking so they can be shafted more... says it all really).

Come the revolution.....

Cornwall. Along with tin, radium and others. Perhaps the secessionists do have a viable plan after all...

Is carbon sequestration not similar to the nuclear waste problem?

Don't deal with waste now just leave it to future generations. Put all that CO2 underground in old oil wells and coal mines. X years into the future there is seismic activity that releases it. Ok, a big load of CO2 is not as bad as a big load of radioactive stuff but I can't think future people will be too happy about it.

Greenpeace need to face the facts and realise there is a big gap up ahead. That said, the government needs to help the public with efficiency savings. We are so inefficient in our usage of energy it's bonkers. Maybe making people pay the true cost of fuel, for all modes of usage, might help.

You have the reason right there. Sham consultations, ignorance of existing white papers, all the usual crap to porkbarrel his bro. At least he's looking out for his family, that makes him slightly less of a shit in my eyes.

...every time I hear/read/see "Green"-anything it translates to Luddite.

The Paris icon because even she'd be smart enough to realize that the opposite of a high energy civilization is the nasty, brutal and short life of the survivors of the die-off grubbing in the mud for their next meal.

"I wonder how much tax EDF pays in the UK?"

£58m in 2006, £145m in 2005. The 2007 numbers aren't out yet.

<a href="http://www.edfenergy.com/core/downloads/edfenergyplc-2006-financial-statements.pdf">from here</a>...

for the big contractors.

I think we need some Genetically Modified Nuclear Power.

Just so that the Daily Mail can spasm itself out of existence.

If Iran had gone for civilian, not dual-use technology to build their "peaceful nuclear program", they'd be far far less of the problem. Indeed I believe France and Russia offered to build and run a purely civilian plant for them...

As to supply? Yea, you need to get it from somewhere, but we're slightly better allies with Canada and Australia than the OPEC countries.

(from the BBC report)

Mr Webb's objections were given short shrift by Mr Hutton, who told him: "I'm all in favour of reducing emissions. I think we can start with what comes out of your mouth."

About time some of our politicians got a spine.

It'll go the same wasy as Scottish oil if they try - we'll use it all up before we give them any independence.

This should be interesting.

I'd be willing to bet Gordon Blair, err sorry Tory Brown, um no Gordon Brown, is eyeing up Scotland for a fair few of these new stations. For one reason they are nice and far away from middle England so when the local area starts glowing he's not going to lose a huge number of votes. Just Imagine if Douneray had been sited near London!!!!

The Scottish Gov have publically stated they will NOT allow any new Nuclear Power Stations to be built on Scottish soil, and I'm pretty sure they'll be backed up by the Lib Dems. As far as I understand energy is a UK issue however planning isn't and even power stations need planning permission.

As for the energy situation in Scotland, afaik the Scottish Gov can afford to be anti-nuclear as there is a fair bit of hydro, for example the new station comming online at Loch Ness which should be able to power the whole of Glasgow.

As for whether England needs fission or not, from what I've been told (my cousin is a researcher for JET) If countries (not just UK but USA etc) had put more money into fusion we'd be much further ahead than we are now. There's supposed to be a new station being built in, iirc, France but it wont come online for a few years yet.

@Chris Hamilton

Yes, that's right. For the sake of a handful of jobs Scotland should be forced to maintain/build more nuke plants that Scotland doesn't need as they currently export a significant amount of lecky. Great logic there mate.

@John Stag

You work in the nuclear industry? Erm, a 'modern' reactor looks and operates pretty much like those built in the 70s. Maybe they have a few extra little tricks in there and maybe a few 'go-faster' stripes but essentially they consist of a load of U oxide in a bath.

@Matt Hawkins

I think you missed the bit that said "especially with the prospect of coal and gas being forced in future to pay carbon emissions levies." So you see nuclear is very competative when the other options are going to be forced to be more expensive. I guess we can look forward to higher energy bills to cover the cost of 'cheap nuke energy'. Classic newspeak.

Given that the government has painted itself in to a corner regarding low-carbon generation (having pissed away the funds for renewables research), I have been resigned to new nuke build for a while.

What worries me is what Duncan mentions above, ie who picks up the cost if an operator goes tits-up. Also, how can operators be convinced to put safety before profit - unlike at TMI and Davis-Besse (to name the most famous ones).

As Andrew points out, there's nuclear power from Uranium that has been enriched to weapons grade and then there's weapons grade uranium.

Allowing nuclear weapons to proliferate is a *bad* thing. You may not like GW Bush but you can bet he's not going to use a nuke. Can you say that about other countries that have publicly announced their intentions and have called for the destruction of another country?

Until fusion is viable, nuclear is the cleanest power generation technology.

And we're going to need it. Think about the amount of additional requirements when there are more electric and hydrogen powered vehicles. (How do you think they'll make the hydrogen?)

Coal has more problems than just the carbon dioxide.

But where's the IT angle in all of this? (Other than the electricity we use for our computers. ... ;-)

but every time I see "Luddite" I think what a tw$t the author is.

Give me a luddite over the church of techno-utopia any day.

I would suspect the best place to look for deposits of uranium are the slag heaps of existing coal burning power stations. Coal has uranium in it in parts per million, which doesn't sound a lot but for every million tons of ash and slag you will have tons of uranium - should keep us going for quite a while. Plus apparently because of cosmic ray impacts and background radiation there is a slow conversion rate of some of the Uranium into plutonium, so the weapon mongers would be happy too.

All we need to do is dig up the slightly radioactive slag heaps and refine the Uranium out of them....... Oh hang on haven't we build massive housing estates on top of most of them. (I wonder if these proud householders actually realise what their house is built upon, but then again they shouldn't worry as its only NATURAL radioactivity nowhere near as dangerous as that man made stuff that nuclear power stations apparently produce :)

I really do wish that these greenpeace people would actually learn some physics but then what can we expect from tree-huggers (why do people listen to them?)

The French build some of the best fission reactors in the world, becouse unlike us Brits who pissed our pants at the idea of fission and went with gas instead, the French have been building, researching and improving on their designs for the past 50 years.

Only 250 years of Uranium left... How is that an issue??

Do you really think that these new power stations that are being built will still be in service in 200 years time?

I think not, they will have ben decommissioned and new plant will have been built (probably fission plants as well).

Amusing to hear whine like this that means absolutely nothing.

Oil hasn't peaked, they still haven't mined the Arctic amongst other places yet. Various countries are clamouring to lay claim to bits of it as we speak; so they must have found oil there.

Anyway, we need oil to make plastic for our computers etc. So you're right, if it has peaked then we're scr*wed.

I think Greenpeaced are quoted to make environmentalists look bad.

As for nuclear waste - what do France do with theirs? I think we turn ours into DU shells and fire it at people so that we can get their oil, we might also send some of it to Australia to be buried in the outback (one of their PM's offered this service, shipping not included).

"Only 250 years of Uranium left"

[renewables blah... carbon blah.. polar bears blah... end of world (TM) blah...]

No practical solutions to problems just sit on the fence quoting green "factoids"

at everyone.

There's a good reason Greenpeace are not in charge of our energy policy.

If the new nuclear powerstations will not be ready for more than 10 years surely pumping the £10s / £100s of millions into renewalables would make them as *cheap* as anything else?

Now i know that Solar is nearly pointless in the UK and wind is unreliable but what about tidal energy? Living in Cornwall you get to see the amount of power available there everyday (it's wicked watching huge waves breaking over rocks in a proper storm).

And before anyone says renewalables are not reliable i can assue you that the tides are very predictable (roughly every 5 3/4 hours) and reliable!!

Oh and there ain't much uranium in Cornwall....

Cheers

"Wind/solar/etc are good, but will never provide 100% of the world's needs."

They will have to when the oil and uranium run out. No one knows how many years worth of fissile material is left in the ground but there will be a point when it will take more energy to mine it then it will produce in a reactor. Fission is not sustainable because the earth is not creating more uranium. Long term we have no choice but to go 100% renewable energy, the smart money (Germany for example) is starting now.

"...but what about tidal energy? Living in Cornwall...etc"

Just you wait until the tree-huggers hear what you've got lined up for Cornwall's pristine coastline. Let's see how "green" your tidal power seems to them...

The tree-huggers have no reason to complain - i have been diving and snorkelling in the *best* locations and there ain't no wildlife to destroy....

also tidal is generally a little way of shore where they can be put out of site / harm from beach rocks and cliff collapses....

Its like burning your antique furniture to stay warm. All the fuel we use is in short supply, most of these fuels have valuable ingredients, so should not be wasted. when they have been used up they are gone, and gone for good. In less than a hundred years we will be subject to being virtually destitute due to the rising cost of living.

And its not just the fuel that is limited in its supply, all the other minerals are as well. The cost in real terms -energy -to get them and move them to where they are needed is counter productive. Even the arabs are short of sand! And we used to be the World's largest producer of salt, not any more.

Solution: stop wasting energy (and money), build machines to make use of renewable sources of energy, phrase out the internal combustion engine, make do with the roads we've got, restrict air transport to essential services, grow food locally, only make durable and useful products, ensure that work is a sensible really valuable activity, use extra clothing to keep warm, walk or cycle, . . .

Amazing how you cite the main reason againdst your argument wihtout even realising it.... Most engineering is a trade off between sensitivity and robustness, so a tidal generator that will reliably generate energy on all tides, will be ripped apart by the "proper storms", and the trade off for making them strong will be more cost, and less energy generation.

> tides are very predictable (roughly every 5 3/4 hours) and reliable!!

I thought it was about 12 hours and just under 20 minutes..... so much for reliability!

> Oh and there ain't much uranium in Cornwall....

We don't need much. And if they only need to run at 2% capacity, we don't need 98% of that.

And the bonus is that the more we use to power bloatware and stuff, the less there will be left over to make atom bombs.

"Oil hasn't peaked, they still haven't mined the Arctic amongst other places yet. "

I doubt they'll find much. Oil comes from vegetation growth from million of years ago, vegetation need sunlight to grow and so the poles won't be big sources of hydrocarbons because the sun doesn't shine so much there.

I guess that's why the biggest fields are in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Texas, Libya, Mexico, Iran etc, near the equator.

Oil discoveries fell below consumption back in the mid 80's, so short of a miracle we're sc**wed as far as oil is concerned. If there was oil they'd have found it.

@Tidal energy

The Severn barrage is on hold with environmental objections, but yes it could generate a lot.

Suppose we build dams from Scotland to Ireland, and from Wales to Ireland and sealed off the Irish sea. That's say 60000km2 of sea. We open the gates at high tide, it fills up by moon power, and we release it at low tide to generate electricity.

Say we can build up a head of 3 metres, (6 metre tidal difference, we fill up for half the cycle and generate power for half the cycle).

I work that out as 1.8e11 m3 water.

Which is 1.8e14 kgs water,

falling 3 metres is 5.4e15 Joules of work.

3.6 MegaJoules in a KWh,

So 1500000000 KWh

or 1.5 TWh per cycle.

Now were talking *365 *2 cycles a year = 1000 Terrawatt hours.

Now that *would* be worthwhile, it would be ours + Irelands current electricity consumption.

Perhaps I've missed something, Netherlands has a big outer enclosing dam but doesn't get much electricity from it, so not sure why. It could let the water in at high tide through generators, I know they have some capacity on those dikes so not sure why it's not generating much power.

If nuclear power is a good idea - where do you suggest we build the nuclear power stations and dump the radioactive waste ?

How about John Stag's front garden ?

Not one of you would want one of these dangerous money pits anywhere near you.

Anyone who thinks nuclear power is a good idea should be forced to spend the rest of the lives in Chernobyl.

</rant>

nucular waste is much more concentrated. The thousands of tons of purified uranium is far more than is needed for a spontaneous bomb, but it's kept in sub-critical ammounts to stop this. Nucular waste is much less concentrated than this, but the coal power waste is even more dilute.

What a long of crap from all sides ! Yes there's some informed, reasoned statements, but there's a lot more "oh my God, the Daily Wail said ..." crap !

Firstly, I think ANYONE who thinks we can solve the problem by simple economies in demand should stop right now and turn their electric (and gas) off at the main switch (and valve). They should not buy any coal, and they certainly shouldn't buy any food that wasn't produced locally. When they've demonstrated how easy it is to cut down so much, then they'll have reason to be listened to - if they haven't died of hypothermia or starvation that is.

Then we've got the "renewables can supply it all" camp - what complete and total b***ocks. Wake up, the greenies will NEVER allow that ! Someone asked who would be happy to have a nuclear station next door - well I do (sort of), Sellafield and the recently decommissioned Calder Hall are more or less next door to me and it doesn't worry me. Indirectly, some of my wages come from having them there. What's the environmental cost of covering half the land (and sea) with windmills, block all the estuaries with tidal barrages, ringfence the country with waves generators, etc, etc ? Actually, that's one area I partially agree with the environmental lobby - there is no such thing as green energy, even renewables have a cost.

Citing Chernobyl as a reason all nuclear is 'dangerous' would be like citing Takoma Narrows as a reason for never building any bridges ! Similarly, you can't compare the current costs of decommissioning & cleanup with the future costs of new builds. In the past no-one thought about how they'd deal with the stuff in the future, and they certainly didn't design for dismantlability - I would expect (at least if we don't force people into "bugger the future, lets do it cheap" mode) new designs to have some consideration for how they thing will be dismantled at the end.

We already have (I believe), in storage, enough Uranium to fuel one or two reactors for their entire lives. Some of it is 'ready to use', much of it needs processing. Others have pointed out that if we really cared we could build breeders that would actually REDUCE both the quantity and activity of currently stored 'waste' - though I gather that's not on the cards now.

SO it seems that we are faced with hard choices : burn coal (think of the CO2), build nuclear, sit in the dark. Lets start a register of "no nuclear" protesters and they can be first to have their lecky cut off when it comes to it !

I will happily live right next door to any modern (read post 1980) nuclear reactor in any Western Country you want! I would prefer this any day to living within 100km of even the newest, most efficient fossil fuel burning powerplant. And if you want i'll also live next door to the nuclear waste depot with its stringent protection measures.

I would happily live next to a reactor and waste depot where outputs are heavily monitored and controlled then within 100km of a coal powerstation pumping its dangerous/poisonous/polluting waste straight into the air we breath!

So here's the deal you go live next door to the coal plant, i'll live next to the nuclear plant and lets see which one of us end up with the health problems, yeah?

Quite simply, read up on base load. You cannot simply replace existing energy supplies with "renewable" sources on a 1:1 basis.

Chernobyl was a design obselete even for the day, dangerously designed so that the nuclear fuel could be removed quickly for various political reasons, with staff who completely misunderstood the situation and a very poor initial response.

INCLUDING Chernobyl, nuclear power plants are still far, far safer and caused fewer injuries and deaths than, say, coal fired power plants. And the proposed nuclear power plants are built on safe designs. You can see what happens if there's problems in America - remember a few years ago they had a big blackout when a lot of plants, including nuclear ones went safely offline because of a power surge? Yea, that's what happens these days.

Oh and Perry? Given we have a few centuries? Asteroid Mining.

""""We can easily keep the lights on by investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy and decentralised energy as well as using fossil fuels more efficiently than we do now," the group said in its response to the government's plan."""

All four of the statements there are 100% wrong.

Efficiency will get us a little ways, but it won't account for increasing population and world-wide increased access to electricity.

By all means if anyone can generate ~1.1GW of reliable baseline renewable energy for the price and environmental impact of a single nuke turbine, then that might be a good way to go. But they can't, not even close. We need some short term power help.

Loads of reports have come out recently to show that decentralized generation is crap, and it definitely can't support baseline loads.

And we already burn fossile fuels at damned near their theoretical maximum efficiency. Take an intro thermodynamics class and this becomes painfully obvious. 40% efficiency doesn't sound like that much, but its just about as good as it gets when converting heat (thermal gradient) to other sorts of energy.

I don't hate Greenpeace. Well I do, but not because they are Greenpeace. I just despise any person / group that preaches on subjects about which they are ignorant. The basic science / economics that go into energetics are rather trivial for anyone that cares. Read a few freaking books before you pretend to have and answer to a technical problem.

a) No, I wouldn't want a reactor in my front garden...because they're ugly.

If I was worried about background radiation I'd be looking at how much granite there was in the hills around me, not how close I was to a nuclear reactor.

Interesting stuff, background radiation. Maybe you could google it sometime.

b) Holding up Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad just makes intelligent people laugh at you. The only lesson to be learned from Chernobyl is not to build reactors with corrugated tin "containment vessels".

And the death and destruction from Chernobyl? Again the pesky facts intervene. Despite what Greenpeace likes to tell people, it simply hasn't happened. There were very few deaths (most were among the cleanup crew who went into the reactor to clean it up), there is no big increase in cancer, the wildlife in the abandoned town is thriving....etc.

It seems that nature has mechanisms to deal with low levels of radiation (presumably to help all those people who live near granite hills).

For more info in the long term state of Chernobyl see the BBC Horizon program "Nuclear nightmares" or read the WHO's report (on their web site).

Hey, conspiracy theorists! Have you heard that Gordon sister has shares in Clarks - and at Prime Ministers' Questions, Gordon ALWAYS WEARS SHOES. COINCIDENCE???!!!

Nutters.

.....shout at the telly/radio/american/idiot who uttered it

Apologies first of all for the anonymous post, but I don't want any dead relatives being dug-up. Tree-huggers and rodent-lovers are one and the same in my book.

The whole nuclear debate is a no-brainer.

We need leccy and we don't want to make CO2....even if we didn't mind the CO2 we've no idea how long the coal, oil and gas is going to last.

Nimbys and twitchers won't let us build windmills on our hills, besides they're too unreliable anyway AND need to use good old-fashioned electricity from a spinning magnet to make their spinning magnets work.

Surfers and nautical types aren't over joyed at having lumps of metal floating on the water, while some other environmental mob won't want us putting flappy things UNDER it. The sun doesn't shine on us enough to allow us to make electicity from that.

We don't have any rivers big enough to make hydro feasible...anyway that'd upset the tree-huggers again because we'd have to flood a valley to make the reservoir bit of it. We'd want to keep the trees anyway because that helps with the CO2 we don't want (keep up...there'll be questions later).

Pumped storage (Cruachan and the new Loch Ness place) only work if you've got a lot of left over power to pump the water back up-hill.

Fusion isn't ready yet (and probably won't be untill Bill Gates donates his entire fortune to the research...would be the first useful thing he's done).

That leaves men (or women...we're equal opportunities here) on bicycles attached to a big dynamo or.....wait for it....nuclear.

Ok, nuclear waste isn't cute. But at least you know where it is (mostly...sorry Dounreay and Sellafield...you may have dropped the ball here somewhat in the past). It is significantly less slippery than CO2 too.

Lets put a new station at Hunterston and Sellafield. These areas both have generally nuclear friendly populations and have the infrastructure in place to deal with fuel supply, waste removal and the grid connections to get the leccy to where it's wanted.

Incidentally I heard some politician make a good point on Newsnight Scotland tonight, if it weren't for Scotland's nuclear stations (Torness and Hunterston B) we'd be net importers of electricity. Alec Salmond (Scottish Nationalist Party chief nitwit and Scottish first minister) wants Scotland to be independent from England AND free from nuclear everything (weapons and powerstations). He can't have his cake AND eat it. If we switch off our nuclear power stations, we DEPEND on England (and subsequently France) for electricity. As for renewables...see above.

Learning physics, sounds lovely! You could start yourself, how about that? I mean, thinking that a million-fold diluted (by your numbers) radiation source and a very concentrated one are the same thing shows something's lacking there...

Anyway, I don't know why people fear nuclear so much, it's quite irrational, really... (remember how Spiderman was bitten by an irradiated spider? I mean originally. Well, nowadays people are scared of biotech too, so the new Spiderman was bitten by a GM spider instead...)

It's so much more blind allegiance to ideology than well thought out reasons, it seems. Yeah, there are challenges and one must be careful, but don't exaggerate.

Chernobyl poorly made poorly run. No regulator bodies to over see what was done . THe workers turned of the safety system to run a test. THe west actually has standard for how to build a reactor The walls of the Chernobyl were way to thin.

The problem of nuclear waste is one that has already been solved. Look at, for example, the IFR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Wastes become harmless within < 200 years. OK, that's still a while, but consider:

* There is very little of it by volume, so it's easy to deal with.

* It's concentrated in one place, unlike C02.

* No one is going to try to steal it - it's too risky for the thief.

Also, anyone who worries about terrorism in this context needs to have a rethink. A chain is as strong as its weakest link - and it's much much easier to release dimethyl mercury in a shopping mall than to bomb (and seriously damage) a concrete-encased reactor.

"I doubt they'll find much. Oil comes from vegetation growth from million of years ago, vegetation need sunlight to grow and so the poles won't be big sources of hydrocarbons because the sun doesn't shine so much there."

FYI:

1) The continents move about over millions of years - it's called plate tectonics.

2) During some peroids in the past the Earth was a lot warmer than it is today. Antarctica used to be covered in vegitation, and was inhabited by dinosaurs.

instead of Nuclear, lets burn Greenpeace supporters for energy (and for fun)

censured for reporting the cancer clusters near reactors... run off the road, death threats, strange charges made up and published scientific works suppressed.

BECAUSE YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Come to NZ when your dosimeter peaks.

Ok.... If I understand you correctly J you have just suggested a solution to our nuclear waste disposal problem, just grind it up and spread it really thinly through the topsoil of our fair country, we'll pick a really large dilution ratio say a million to one and everyone will be happy.

I think not !!!!!!

My point was that the greens love to berate the nuclear industry for producing nuclear waste products, which are tightly controlled but they conveniently ignore all the other sources of nuclear waste which are just discharged into the environment - they seem to promote this idea that there is a difference between natural radioactivity and man made radioactivity - get a grip guys its just radioactivity wherever it comes from.

Oh by the way "Learning physics, sounds lovely! You could start yourself, how about that?" - I have an Honours Physics degree from a major British university. Admittedly many years ago, but I think I do know the physics (my maths may be a bit rusty but.....)

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought this up.

There is no proof that there are such things as cancer clusters near reactors. The latest research seems to be pointing at agricultural fertilizers rather than radiation (however this has been conveniently ignored by the greens)

I seem to remember (only memory, could be wrong) that there was a really significant cancer cluster in East Kilbride however no one could get Nuclear Energy to admit to having built a reactor near there (sneaky off them to build one and not tell anyone)

One of the theories about cancer clusters was that it was due to large numbers of people moving into an area for large construction projects (new towns, new factories, new nuclear reactors etc) and exposing each other to virus's and bugs etc that they were not used to.

Just to back up my earlier post, I found this link

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/industry/Sparton_More_uranium_in_Chinese_coal_ash-020807.shtml

The concentration of Uranium in Coal tends to range from 1 to 10 parts per million.

The interesting thing is that once the coal is burnt the concentration seems to go up by a factor of approximately 20 to between 100 and 200 parts per million.

These are significant amounts !!!!

I am not sure but since Uranium is heavier than coal dust (and I think its non soluble) we could use panning techniques to extract and concentrate the uranium from the ash heaps (just like panning for gold - except at a certain point of concentration the water would start to heat up)

NO NO NO

let me educate you.

Free energy is here and has been for many years.

it has been hidden from us by the power and money hungry so they can 'use up' oil & coal supplies. yes, that's right. time to get angry!

http://www.rexresearch.com/adamotor/adamotor.htm

http://www.searleffect.com/free/overview.html

.. and that's just for starters.

Tesla discovered these principles all those many years ago also, but this was quickly covered up right after he died.

PS. i'll be amazed if this comment actually gets posted up.

will most prob be deleted immediately, like MOST of my comments.

"Ok.... If I understand you correctly J you have just suggested a solution to our nuclear waste disposal problem, just grind it up and spread it really thinly through the topsoil of our fair country, we'll pick a really large dilution ratio say a million to one and everyone will be happy.

I think not !!!!!!"

Why not? It's all about the dose, right? Isn't the uranium in the coal ashes there, with people living on top of it? Does it cause a significant problem? It's not one or another alpha particle (not ingested/inhaled) that will get you -- it's a LOT of them. Well, of course this would never be done, there's more than uranium in the power plant's trash -- plutonium and other transuranics. And obviously people would never accept something like this, even if proven completely safe (which I don't think it really is, but anyway)

Well, you were the one comparing coal ashes to a nuclear reactor's waste! Of course the "natural" x "artificial" radiation thing is stupid. But implying (as you might have done inadvertently) that people living on top of coal ashes should be as worried as people close to a relatively high concentration of nuclear waste that (they think) could explode does not help...

And amazingly enough, there is a crazy patent proposing just that...

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6597755-description.html

Or, from the Uranium Information Centre (Aussie Uranium Assn):

"The main objective in managing and disposing of radioactive (or other) waste is to protect people and the environment. This means isolating or diluting the waste so that the rate or concentration of any radionuclides returned to the biosphere is harmless. To achieve this, practically all wastes are contained and managed - some clearly need deep and permanent burial. None is allowed to cause harmful pollution."

http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:France_Lyon1.jpg

A photograph from Fourvière showing the Bugey Nuclear Power Plant in the distance, 30 km away.

Individual responsibility -

- collect and use your own rain water from the roof (NZ idea)

- generate your own power (wind and solar)

- process your own waste

Not always practical for some - but increases resilience and reduces need for ugly and expensive power stations and distributions systems, as well as reducing power losses from transmission over distances.

Power stations are bad news whatever fuel they use, but nuclear is damn crazy.

I didn't want GM food. ID cards, speed cameras, the Iraq war and a host of other things our lovely government have given us - I suppose nuclear power is just the next item on the list.