Nuclear power is definitely one of the most viable solutions to the current energy crisis. The next generation of nuclear power stations will undoubtedly be safer than those built in the 50s and 60s. However there is still a great deal of progress needed, especially on the safe management of waste reprocessing, before the government can sell nuclear power as a "safe" option.

I absolutely hate that the argument about wind turbines being 'ugly' is actually given credence as a reason not to use them as a source of sustainable energy. It's a non-reason. I've not heard the one about migrating birds before but I'd say that any bird stupid enough to fly into a wind turbine needs culling anyway

And personally I think they look wonderful

There's a story in the Guardian today about a man who was involved in the post Chernobyl disaster cleanup and how he was exposed to 5 times the lifetime level of radiation during the cleanup but the military claimed that he was just under the same level so that they wouldn't have to pay compensation later in life when he got sick. Its tragic and the aftereffects are still ongoing. Nuclear power is not safe and much more efforts need to be placed into promoting renewable energy sources to the masses so that they don't think that 'ugly' is a good reason not to use something.

---

by Sydney
I absolutely hate that the argument about wind turbines being 'ugly' is actually given credence as a reason not to use them as a source of sustainable energy. It's a non-reason. I've not heard the one about migrating birds before but I'd say that any bird stupid enough to fly into a wind turbine needs culling anyway

---

Lol And also ditto.

I personally don't think they look all that bad. It's a miniscule price to pay for the wonders of sustainable energy.

Serious improvements and developments need to made in order for nuclear power to even be considered in my opinion. Sydney's example is just one of the many sad stories that still surround the Chernobly disaster, and we're 20 years down the line.

I read an interesting article on the BBC news site with pictures of the "graveyard" that the explosion has left in its wake. It still isn't safe to go into these zones!

---

by Sydney
I absolutely hate that the argument about wind turbines being 'ugly' is actually given credence as a reason not to use them as a source of sustainable energy. It's a non-reason.

---

Yet another NIMBY The argument of a wind turbine being 'ugly' is only the shortened version of the whole argument. Wind turbines are considered to be ugly by most people which means that if you build one next to my house it will depreciate faster than a 4 seater Ferrari which just hit a brick wall at 100 mph. So the argument is all about $$$ Same applies to Nuclear power plants nobody wants to have to built in a 30 mile radius from their house.

---

Nuclear power is not safe

---

What is 100% safe? Nuclear power is not safe is a very bold statement..... which is shared by many, but what do you base this on? Sure radiation is scary as it is a potential invisible killer, but can you recall any serious accident with a nuclear power plant in a Western nation in the last 25 years? I can't... Japan had some problems recently and in 1979 they had an issue with a heavy water reactor in the USA but thats more than 25 years ago. I would call 25 years without any major accident in the Western world pretty safe.

Of course a communist Russian built (heavy-water) reactor blows up due to human error in 1986..... but that doesn't make the modern (light water) reactors commonly used in Europe unsafe right? So I would say that modern Nuclear power plants are about as safe as they can be expected to be, so I think that the safety argument is a bit of a non-issue as they are safe.

(Edited by Chambler 26/04/2006 18:30)

one thing that youve got to remember about the chernobyl plant was that, in common with many projects in the soviet union, it was built on the cheap - so many shortcuts were taken that, quite frankly, im surprised that more of them didnt go boom!! - although it was just as likely that they wouldnt work at all.
the reactors built in the US/UK around that time had far more saftey restrictions that had to be applied - and with the increased levels of safety that would be demanded for any new construction, the chances of anything unfortunate happening would be far smaller than would ever be expected from existing installations.
then take into account that the latest generation machines produce more power from smaller amounts of fuel, and create less waste - which is obviously a much better way to do it.
then figure that the only emmissions from these modern nuclear plants are pure H2O, and compare it to the cocktail of toxic emissions from conventional coal, oil, or gas-fired power plants, and there is really only one way to go for non-renewable energy.
because lets face it - we're never going to be able to build enough wind/solar/geothermal/wave plants to power the country, so there has to be another way of doing things.

oh yeah - lets not forget that the inhabitants of aberdeen are exposed to greater levels of radiation from the layers of granite under the city than the people who live next door to reactors here in the uk

Personally Im for carefully maintaining what we have, closing down whats clearly past its viability, and pouring a lot of money in fusion. Fusion is a whole other animal to fission, and really would provide an answer to energy concerns.

Mad says it very well. If ugliness isn't a fair argument against wind turbines (making them prettier wouldn't hurt though chaps!), Chernobyl isn't a fair argument against nuclear power. The disaster says far more about the consequences of chronic underinvestment and non-existent safeguards than it does about the inherent danger of fission reactors.

Nuclear power is undeniably risky, but it's also the only viable large-scale Co2-free energy source we have. Global warming is a far bigger threat than another Chernobyl, so until we come up with something better, I say build where needed.

Spotted this and thought it was appropriate: Reuters: Cape Cod debates first US offshore wind farm

OK, I'll add my two cents on this.

I'm totally against expanding the use of nuclear power plants. I don't base my argument on fear that the plants will "blow up" or have a meltdown--although they could. My main problem with nuclear power is the long-lasting danger they pose to the environment and to people.

I think you have to look at nuclear "from cradle to grave" as they say. First you've got to mine the uranium for fuel. There are plenty of uranium mines in the US and plenty of horror stories about contamination of workers, of groundwater supplies near the mines that people use as drinking water or irrigation water for crops, of piles of radioactive tailings (the crushed radioactive rock that the ore is removed from) that sit around and contaminate the air and the soil in the area.

There's the transportation of the radioative fuel and waste which could endanger the public if there's an accident.

And maybe most importantly, there's the problem of what to do with nuclear waste that stays dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. We don't have a way to permanently store that waste, even as we're producing tons and tons of it. Here in the US, we've been trying for years to find a repository for our high-level waste. Not surprisingly, no one wants it. A place was found (Yucca Mountain) in Nevada, which the federal government wants to use. Of course, the people in Nevada don't want it, but Bush is ramming it through anyway. Still, we have no idea whether that waste we store now is going to stay put. Will the containers leak? Will leakage contaminate groundwater supplies? It's a huge problem we're handing off to future generations.

IMO, we really should shift to sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric power, and so on. They have their downsides, but not as bad as the downside of nuclear. We also need to practice more conservation and make our cars and such more efficient. I think that's the only safe way to go for the future.

Oh, and I agree with those above who said wind turbines can be attractive. We have some fairly large wind farms, as they're called, in the US. I drove past one in the mountains of California--just hundreds of wind turbines cranking away in a very windy mountain pass. It was a beautiful landscape of rolling hills covered with short, wheat-colored grass. The windmills just added to the beauty of the scene--at least I thought so. Anyway, I'd like to see more wind power. And those folks at Cape Cod annoy me. They're liberals who'd support wind turbines anywhere else--just not where they live.


(Edited by Sandia 27/04/2006 14:14)

---

by Sandia
I think you have to look at nuclear "from cradle to grave" ... First you've got to mine the uranium for fuel ... [then] there's the transportation of the radioative fuel and waste which could endanger the public if there's an accident.

---

Transportation, again, sounds like more of a safety issue than a fundamental problem with nuclear fuel (electricity endangers far more people on a daily basis than transporting nuclear material) but do you have any links about the mining? -- I have to say I hadn't considered that part of the process.

---

And maybe most importantly, there's the problem of what to do with nuclear waste that stays dangerously radioactive for thousands of years ... It's a huge problem we're handing off to future generations.

IMO, we really should shift to [renewable] sources ... They have their downsides, but not as bad as the downside of nuclear. We also need to practice more conservation and make our cars and such more efficient. I think that's the only safe way to go for the future.

---

Waste must be the strongest argument against nuclear power. But from what I understand of the fission process, there isn't that much of it, and what there is can be securely buried away with the right shielding.

I'm looking at this not as a battle between nuclear power and renewable energy -- giant windmills, ugly blighters or not, are infinitely preferable to nuclear waste -- but between nuclear power and fossil fuels. Renewable technology just isn't up to meeting our current power demands, so if we don't use nuclear power, our only other choice is burning fossil fuels, pumping the atmosphere full of Co2. Handing the conseqeunces of that to future generations is surely worse than a small number of nuclear waste dumps?

Should we reduce our power consumption? Of course, but there's only so much an industrial society can reduce. A major place to start would be banning powered flight for non-essential trips, but can't see any government advocating that one in a hurry.

Which points to an insurmountable problem: the radical lifestyle changes current green stratergy demands just aren't going to happen. Wo's spot on about investing in fusion; strikes me the best bet is to accept things are going to get worse for the next few decades and plough all our resources into developing new technologies like fusion and the fuel cell. If we distract ourselves with an unobtainable goal it's going to be worse in the long-run.

---

And those folks at Cape Cod annoy me. They're liberals who'd support wind turbines anywhere else--just not where they live.

---

We can all agree on the Nimby part then.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Byron on this issue. In short here is my argument:

Renewable energy (wind,solar etc) is great in theory. It has the most positive image from a marketing perspective. The truth about it's effectiveness is not quite as clear, for example it has already been mentioned that an awful lot of energy goes into the creation of these items which you have to make back. I think the problem with these technologies is that they are not yet mature enough, and there are usually big problems associated with very large scale deployment of such devices. we also have to be realistic about current energy needs. Ugly IS a real concern, because ultimately the NIMBY crowd will have significant influence.

Nuclear: it's a double edged sword. It *does* have the potential to meet our energy demands . Waste management is the key issue though. I don't hate nuclear power, but I dislike it. However, given the alternatives, I'd say it's the best "grit your teeth" and get on with it proposal.

One last thing, with more countries vying for dwindling oil supplies, I'd expect the biggest wars fought in the future will be over resources. It's important that Britain has a secure energy supply in such an environment, and personally I think that is the *real* agenda for pushing through Nuclear Power - not green issues.

Sydney, Wobag and Sandia pretty much sum things up for me.

We are facing a power crisis. Fossil Fuels are due to run out in our life-time and we need something to pick up the slack if our form of society is to survive. Fusion is the ideal, but even if we ploughed all the money we waste supporting Fission into Fusion instead we are unlikely to make the necessary scientific breakthroughs to make this viable in the time remaining - we should have been doing this in the 70s, if not earlier, but why plan for the future when you can get away with dumping the cost on the future instead.

Talking of which - yes, reactor technology is such that, within the developed world, chances of another Chernobyl are low, though not 0. One of them being the target for a suicide attack is not. Plans have already been reportedly found for potential terrorist attacks on Nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic. But even with the best security, world peace, and a reactor that won't ever go belly up, there's the waste. And this is no small issue. You're worried that wind turbines devalue your property? I'm worried that studies show that the incidents of leukaemia are significantly higher in regions surrounding Fission reactors. And as Sandia said, the half life of the radioactive by-product of Fission means we will be pumping out life threatening radiation for thousands of years to come. Stop and think about that for a moment. Imagine now physically suffering from the power sources being used by the ancient Egyptians? Imagine how many lives we will be making worse by taking what seems like the easy option? Easy for who?

Seems to me, we need short term answers and long term ones. The shortfall from diminishing fossil fuels is possible with Renewables, especially here in the UK, with the length of shoreline we have. If we put the money we use on poisoning ourselves with Fission into Renewables instead, and start winding down the Fission reactors, we can do it. Yes, we may actually have to pay the cost ourselves and face tax increases. We also need to take decisive actions, like making all new buildings have to install solar panels, and pass a high standard of energy conservation. We need companies to be forced to raise their standards of energy conservation - which can even lead to reduced running costs by recycling energy wastage - and is something many businesses are asking for, because if it is not compulsory then in the short term it makes them less competitive if they do it voluntarily.

Once we've made the transfer to Renewables we need to heavily invest in Fusion technology for the long term solution.

This is probably the biggest issue facing us. We get it wrong and we could end up ruining the lives of billions. If you want more info I recommend:

Friends of the Earth
Science Type Bods
The Great Debate
Fusion vs Fission
Sustainable Devolpment Commision (UK)

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I had to reply to one of Funky Monkey's points. Fission means we will be dependent on other nations (like Namibia, Ukraine, Russia or Kazakhstan). Renewables mean we are completely self-sustaining.

So tell me again which approach makes sense from a world security standpoint?

Nuclear power is the way to go for the forseeable future. People seem to forget that the only reason Chernoble went up is because the goverment supervisors ordered a test with the safetys disengaged. I could go on for hours, but the fact is, the reactor went bang because of idiot human interferance.

As for wind power, it's not practical for mass power production. We'd need hundreds of them...

Now for the but that everyone seems to forget... Wind turbines produce huge em fields. The interfere with maritime navigation equipment which means you can enjoy more ships washed up on the coast. Plus they will interefere with all your electronics in your house, so they will ruin your tv and disrupt radio signals.

So if you guys are happy to have no TV, Radio, mobile phones... or other similar products then sure build more wind turbines... but don't say I didn't warn you

---

by Byron
Mad says it very well.

---

oi!!
stop agreeing with me!!
i was trying to be controversial!!

---

by Jayjay
Seems to me, we need short term answers and long term ones.

---

Couldn't agree more, which is why I'm supporting nuclear power.

The science type bod article's major criticism of nuclear power is that new stations won't be ready for a decade, missing the window of opportunity to tackle climate change. Scientific controversy about that statement aside, there's *no way* renewable energy sources could handle even a quarter of the fossil fuels burden in 10 years' time. Or 20, or 50. As lostsailor rightly says, renewable energy comes with its own disadvantages, and just isn't efficent enough to be viable as our primary source of energy production.

No, I wouldn't be too fond of the Egyptians if they left anything besides mummies and obscene creation myths , but if it was a choice between a few irradiated pits in the Valley of the Kings and global climate meltdown, I'd go for glowing holes in the desert any day.

As you rightly say, people forsaw the energy crisis 30 years back but solutions were critically under-resourced because people think in the now. That won't change. I wasn't joking about banning powered flight; if we're going to implement current green thinking that and equally drastic measures will be essential. Can you imagine any industrialised society returning to the speed of the fastest ship for commerse, travel and exports? Of course not, the damage it would do to the global economy and real standard of living would be incalculable. And that's just *one* of the many sacrifices necessary.

Ann Coulter, one of America's most respected and wide-read thinkers, said of global warming: "God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' " Any solution demands co-operation from people with those attitudes. That, unfortunately, is the hard reality, and nuclear power is something they'll support. Changing life as we know it at the say-so of the hippies isn't.

(Edited by Byron 27/04/2006 21:36)

---

by mad
(quotes)
oi!!
stop agreeing with me!!
i was trying to be controversial!!

---

Well someone needs my old job.

---

by Sandia
There are plenty of uranium mines in the US and plenty of horror stories about contamination of workers, of groundwater supplies near the mines that people use as drinking water or irrigation water for crops

---

im, surte youre aware of the generations of people whose live have been blighted from virtually identical problems from coalmining - ok, so no radiation problem, but a quite frankly unbelievable percentage of coal miners end up with serious health problems - even with modern safety standards, miners are putting themselves at risk.
same with oil and gas production - and i seem to recall that those involved in the manufacture of solar panels are exposed to hazardous levels of certain chemicals, which are causing problems for the people involved in making them.

---

There's the transportation of the radioative fuel and waste which could endanger the public if there's an accident.

---

the transport containers used for nuclear fuel and waste are among the toughest containers ever built - crash tests were carried out on test containers (not containing actual fuel, obviously) here in the UK, which resulted in several high-speed trains being written off - and the containers came out with barely a scratch.
they certainly didnt lose any structural integrity.
and im pretty sure the americans crashed a jet with a test container on board, with similar results - can anyone confirm this??

---

hydroelectric power

---

i sem to recall reading somewhere that a higher percentage of hydro-electric dams have had a catastrophic failure than nuclear plants - and a fair few towns have been pretty much wiped out of existance by the resulting floods, with substantial loss of life.
ok, so theres no resulting radioactivity - but theres still the same degree of risk, if not greater.
especially if you consider that hydro plants are far more susceptible to seismic activity - a structure that is anything up to 3 miles long is going to react totally differently from a structure maybe 200 yards long...

---

Oh, and I agree with those above who said wind turbines can be attractive. We have some fairly large wind farms, as they're called, in the US.

---

agreed - ive seen some wind farms (yes, theyre called that on this side of t'pond as well) in cumbria that look absolutely gorgeous - ok, so theres only a couple of dozen masts on the hilltops, but they just produce some striking scenery.
and the vertical masts look even more gorgeous - rather than a fan, they look like a spinning ribbon - theyve got a rather mesmorizing movement.
and for the record - all though i support the extension of the nuclear programme, i also advocate renewables - its just that those forms of energy production are at present horrendously expensive to put into place, and the energy used to produce and install them is far greater than they could reasonably replace.
once the financial and energy costs come down, we should start seeing some benefits - although having said that, the uk will always have problems utilising enough renewables (solar panels are pretty much unusable for around 50% of the year, wind farms would need to cover a stupid percentage of the countryside, wave farms would need to take up so much of the coastline that navigation would be affected, geothermal activity is effectively nil, and other forms of energy production currently couldnt take up more than a single percentage point of capacity)
about the only way of doing anything major to reduce emmissions on a day to day basis wqould be to start replacing fossil fueled vehicles - unfortunately, hydrogen is prohibitively expensive, and biofuels tend to produce almost as many emmisions as petrol - so we're back to stage 1 again...