Nuclear Power; energy scenario

[root]

Please dont accuse me 'wow, misrepresenting the facts as if "only nuclear will save us" Its extremly rude and arrogent,

You did misrepresent the facts.

The uk has to go ahead with the proposed 10 new sites, if not we will have a large energy gap!

as the 10Gw of capacity they all currently produce wont be fully replaced by the 19Gw of the new EPR generation until 2025ish!!

you're pro nuclear, and you said there will be an energy crisis and that the UK HAS to go ahead with building ten more nuke power sites.
despite the fact that nuke is more expensive to build, and takes longer to build, and don't provide as much power (at the current average size) as regular burning stations.

you took a fact, (that if you turn off 10GW of generating power and don't replace it there sill be a shortfall)
and you said that only your chosen method would get us out of it.
you took a fact, added your own opinion and misrepresented it as a fact also.

I agree nuclear is not ideal, but atm we have no alternative, nuclear is the only clean resource we have that will help us meet are legally binding 2050 C-emissions. Renewables currently are simply not good eneough...YET

biomass is CO2 neutral. and it's easy to retrofit existing coal stations for burning what is essentially garden waste. it's a zero emission strategy that fits with all existing infrastructure methodology, and existing stations. it also allows for stations to be built quicker (as I said 3 yrs compared to 6), and even with zero risk of tsunami in this country it's still safer, with no radioactive waste left at the end of it.

sadly it's too late to build nuclear power stations, they just won't be finished in time given the current decommissioning timetables,

flame based power stations, can be built in half the time of the quickest ever built nuclear station, (six years is the fastest nuclear build in the UK so far, whilst a coal station has been built in three years with greater generating capacity).
the average time for building nuclear power stations is what 9 years? So if we start building all sites now they'll only just be finished in time. (early next decade)

you're saying that the crunch will really start in four years, so that's even less time... (unless you're considering trying to build ten power plants two years quicker than any other single nuclear plant has ever been built before in the UK or in half the average time to build) -personally I find the likely good of that happening unlikely for three reasons.

first, it's never been done before, just getting 1 plant finished in 4 years would be an immense undertaking. and wouldn't address the gap we'll be facing there.
second, we don't even have confirmed sites yet, so we can't even start right now even if we wanted to.
third the fact that an earthquake and tsunami knocked out a station on the other side of the world. something that has no relevance here but (in the same way that Germany just turned off all it's nuclear stations for "safety testing" (despite the infinitesimally small risk of either earth quake or tsunami)) factor in the anti nuke brigade will now call for 10 times the safety factors to be built in snagging up the process even more!

I don't think nuclear is "ideal". I think that coal is worse.
I think that coal is do-able in the given time scales, nuclear is not.
biomass seems to be the middle ground encompassing the best of both, -cheap and quick to build as coal, co2 neutral like nuke. and it's safer than both, (no mining accidents exposure to nuclear fuels, no possibility of explosion, no CO2 net output).
or bio gas would be a similarly good compromise.

renewable would be awesome, but are still at a foetal stage.
wind power is a non starter -not enough wind, not reliable.
solar is pathetically low return in this country.
hydroelectric isn't good enough, (we don't have the land to make large damns flooding acres of either habitable or agricultural land).
tidal is dependable and could have the capacity given the amount of coastline we have, but it's yet to be proven outside the lab/very controlled harbour settings.
geothermal is starting to be used, (for example they are currently boring under Newcastle in search of geothermal energy), but it's still so immature.

 

[alex_boothby]

I am mistaken, you are obviously an expert, who directly advises the government. Wow i really am thick.

 

[superman22x]

I am mistaken, you are obviously an expert, who directly advises the government. Wow i really am thick.

Oh come on. What kind of a debater gives up. I see what both of your points are here. I think Nuclear is the cleanest and safest power source that we can use right now and if we had military grade uranium and plutonium we would be getting a LOT more power. That's the only limit right now.

 

[berry120]

renewable would be awesome, but are still at a foetal stage.
wind power is a non starter -not enough wind, not reliable.
solar is pathetically low return in this country.
hydroelectric isn't good enough, (we don't have the land to make large damns flooding acres of either habitable or agricultural land).
tidal is dependable and could have the capacity given the amount of coastline we have, but it's yet to be proven outside the lab/very controlled harbour settings.
geothermal is starting to be used, (for example they are currently boring under Newcastle in search of geothermal energy), but it's still so immature.

This. And I also agree with root with regards to nuclear energy somewhat, for that specific purpose it is too late to start planning and building stations then have them ready in 3-4 years time. It's a hugely complicated and expensive task (and expensive doesn't exactly ring well with the government these days either.) I still think we should be building them as more of a long term plan, but no even if we do they won't be ready for a while yet.

To be honest, this really boils down to the government knowing sod all and making decisions as such. Unfortunately wherever technology is involved, it seems to be the way here!

People look at the energy issue one dimensionally. It's not all about innovating the way to convert energy into some useful. There is a lot of stuff we use that do not use energy efficiently. Making these things more energy efficient would go a long way in reducing CO2 emissions. With energy, you have to think outside the box.

In terms of making things that do the same job more energy efficient, I agree completely. I'll use energy saving this and that quite happily if it doesn't have any side effects (I hated those initially awful energy saving bulbs for instance.) But in terms of the government all urging us to switch our TVs off standby and never to leave our computers on when they're not being used for more than 2 seconds, again in my mind that's the government being thick. My PC stays on 24/7, it acts as a server sometimes, and that's the way I like it. I'm not going to be told by one of the most technologically inept governments going what I am and what I'm not allowed to turn on and keep on, quite frankly any idiot can work out that turning off a computer means it uses less electricity. It's a supply I'm paying for, so I'll use it how I please.

So yes, I'm all for cutting power when the effects are exactly the same. But demand for power is going to increase, not the other way round. We can mitigate that demand somewhat but if the government think that we can bring overall power consumption of this country down, they're just living in a big bubble...

 

[alex_boothby]

haha, yeh sorry, would love to argue, but got so much work on at the moment!

I agree, reducing demand would be the most ideal situation! BUT try and the whole of the UK into this. Most people do not know A. about climate change B.Where there electricity comes from.

Nuclear power has already been given the go ahead by the Uk government wether you like it or not, to fill the ENERGY GAP.

These are the plants that ARE going to be built

Proponent Site Type Capacity (MWe gross) Start-up
EDF Energyn
Hinkley Point C, Somerset EPR x 2 3340 End 2017 & mid-2019
EDF Energyn
Sizewell C, Suffolk EPR x 2 3340 2020 & 2022
Horizon (RWE + E.ON) Oldbury B, Gloucestershire EPR x 2 or AP1000 x 3 3340-3750 2022
Horizon (RWE + E.ON) Wylfa B, Wales EPR x 3 or AP1000 x 4 Approx 5000 2020
NuGeneration (Iberdrola, GDF Suez,
Scottish & Southern) Sellafield, Cumbria ? Up to 3600 2023
Total planned & proposed Up to approx 19,000 MWe

heres a little snippet from my current research.
The UK currently operates three types of civil nuclear reactors; Magnox, Advance gas-cooled and pressurised water reactors (POST, 2003). In total, currently there are 19 reactors in the UK generating approximately 18% of the total electricity, a 7% drop from the late 1990s electrical production in nuclear (Kennedy, 2007).
Total annual electricity generation from nuclear has declined as old plants have outlived their life lifetime or are no longer economically viable to extend. All but one plant is to be shut down by 2023, only Sizewell B (PWR reactor, 1.188 GWe present capacities) will be left generating electricity if nuclear plants are not replaced, this will leave a 9.7GW loss in net capacity of electricity generation. The companies decions on type of power they invest in will have significant implications to the energy security and carbon dioxide emmiions particularly beyond 2020 (BERR, 2007).
Without existing nuclear power plants the UK CO2 emissions would be 5-12% higher if coal station alternatives were used (SDC 2006). This is why we believe nuclear energy to be an indispensible asset for low carbon electricity production.

Sorry for my typing by the way, my keyboard has decided to experience some lag - how nice of it

 

[root]

I am mistaken, you are obviously an expert, who directly advises the government. Wow i really am thick.

I just gave an opinion. I've never claimed to be an expert, just pointed out a few things.

You're not an expert either, you don't directly advise the government either.
You're an undergraduate, who is studying climate science.

Advising the government?
No, I have never directly advised the government. (it's practically unheard of for a single individual to directly advise the government, most [technical] advice is done through committee).
however as a member of the IET (formerly the IEE) I am invited to contribute and comment on all kinds of issues, ranging from IT through to Energy, where the opinions of the members of the institute do directly contribute towards advising the government in policy decisions. (the government approach the institute directly ask for the advice of its members).

I never said that you were thick.
I have been somewhat confrontational though, so I will apologise and make an effort to tone down my responses in future.

Most people do not know ... B.Where there electricity comes from.

this is what frustrates me most about electric cars. the 0% VED(tax on emissions) for supposedly emission-less cars, that conveniently ignores the fact that circa 70% of UK energy is generated through burning stuff.
that and the smug attitude of the owners who think that they are doing their 'bit' for the planet whilst ignoring the fact that they are not zero emissions.

 

[alex_boothby]

ha, i know im not actually informing the government, its for a piece of work, in which we have to question the energy in the UK. All i am doing is describing the current plans of the UK government, due to the lengthy lead times to construction of ANY electricity generation plants, it would be somewhat backward in deviating from the already proposed plans. since labours switch in stance and now only the green party opposing nuclear, the liklihood of NPP not being built is minimal.

And yes i agree with the 0 emissions cars.... Not only the generation like you said, but also the construction and the C footprint from manufacture. These Pryus ore whatever they are called, their components are from all over the globe! hardly sustainable.

 

[Luke_Uk_Baggy]

10,000+ views for this thread? Is that a glitch or?

 

[iPwn]

I think Nuclear is the cleanest and safest power source that we can use right now

Wind?

10,000+ views for this thread? Is that a glitch or?

We're probably seeing a large influx of viewers due to the Nuclear crisis in Japan.

 

[Luke_Uk_Baggy]

Man Power!

Seems strange how the thread has over 10,000 views, yet not one of the new apparent viewers, has registered and / or voiced an opinion, would be nice to hear from others form other fields / interests, or maybe a few proffesionals.