Maybe I should have put the SDC report at the top... The IEE and The Tyndale Centre have preduced reports showing that with current technology, renewables are capable of producing 85% of the power we currently use. This isn't piecemeal stuff. There are houses in this country who's photovoltaic cells not only produce enough electricity to power themselves, they create an excess - which they can (and do) then sell to the National Grid. Imagine what could be done if all new houses were, by regulation, built this way?

Renewables are not some wishy-washy hippy ideal. They are a real and serious answer to a real and serious problem. No one approach should be taken in isolation: we need a compination of PV, windfarms (off-shore and on land), Hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal. We don't need Fission poisoning people for thousands of years to come.

Mad they did a lot of testing on the Sandia research institute in the US and have some pretty cool video's on google / youtube on the subject (just look for nuclear container). Rocket propelled 120 ton trains smalled into containers etc. In germany they simulated a plane hitting a container when it crash landed but I couldn't find one where they actually crash landed the container itself, but I doubt you would transport fuel rods by air anyways due to their weight. They also have some interesting video on how the containers are made.

---

by Jayjay
Imagine what could be done if all new houses were, by regulation, built this way?

---

We would be taking out 10.000 to 20.000 quid more on our mortgages..... (presuming you want enough to power a whole house). And thats not taking into account the inspections, maintance, additional electricity meters etc etc. Although they are a proven technology and are prognosed to last about 30 years the upfront costs are enormous.... If your average electricty bill would be 45 quid a month (which is relatively high) and you would be able to dump 10 quid worth onto the net a 20.000 quid investment would only pay itself back in just over 30 years. Not taking into account missed interest, interest costs on the mortgage, inflation, repairs, write-off etc. So although they make (some) ecological sense they make no economical sense what so ever at the moment. For them to make any economical sense they need to pay themselves back in under 10 years which means that the price of electricity needs to increase dramatically or panels need to become way cheaper and even than it would only be available for the people that could afford to make the initial investment. Which means only the rich get cheap electricity..... I can hear the political left screaming already at the thought alone

---

Renewables are not some wishy-washy hippy ideal. They are a real and serious answer to a real and serious problem.

---

They are certainly not as wishy-washy as they were in the late 1980's as they have made some major progress since that time. But unless they start making economical sense people won't have it. And it is a wishy-washy hippy ideal to just "force" the economical sense by raising the cost of "other" sources because although the UK might be an island you aren't completely seperated from the rest of the World and if the rest still uses electricity that makes economical sense you would completely push yourself off the world market and kill a big chunk of your economy.

Of course all options need to be considered and nuclear fission really isn't the ideal solution, but it is one that makes economical sense right now.

(Edited by Chambler 28/04/2006 19:23)

---

... it is a wishy-washy hippy ideal to just "force" the economical sense by raising the cost of "other" sources ...

---

Perhaps, but slavery to the market isn't any better.

Reading back over this thread, I've been advocating exactly that. The greatest argument in favour of markets is they're best at serving society; if they demand we ultimately destroy it to serve them, clearly something's amiss. I don't believe they do though; markets can always be adapted.

If, as JayJay says, renewable energy can provide for 85 per cent of society's needs, my arguments for supporting nuclear fission evaporate faster than those dwindling fossil fuel supplies. And even if it didn't, changing our way of life beats poisoning stretches of the planet.

My God, you know you've been getting it wrong when you quote Ann Coulter to support your views. To paraphrase the new Doctor Who: hippy or Coulter? Hippy, any day.

So consider yourself a convert won JayJay.

---

by Byron
if they demand we ultimately destroy it to serve them, clearly something's amiss. I don't believe they do though; markets can always be adapted.... And even if it didn't, changing our way of life beats poisoning stretches of the planet.

---

Thats presuming that nuclear power would ultimately destroy society which I don't believe is true at all (no major accident in 25 years with a western reactor). Also we simply cannot do without them. We can simply not close each and every nuclear fission reactor because they aren't only an efficient way of generating electricity (which we might be able to replace at some costs with solar / hydro / wind power) but they also supply radioisotopes for medical and research uses. Where the heck would be get all our those from, which help save thousands if not millions of lives a year?!? So unless I missed something in the recent scientific literature and these radioisotopes are either not needed anymore or can be created by windmills or solar panels as well you are kinda stuck with at least a few of those plants if it was only that you needed the radioisotopes.

So even if we don't need them for nuclear energy we need them for the isotopes. So it aint gonna stop the mining not gonna solve the nuclear waste issue. It aint gonna make those "radiation" scare stories go away by stopping the use of nuclear energy. So if we have to "solve" those problems anyways why not apply the solutions to generate cheap electricity?

On a side note: if you say No to nuclear power in your own country I think it would be hypocritical to import energy generated by nuclear power (which is currently why electricity at night is so much cheaper) as you cannot just shut down a nuclear fission plant after running 12 hours.

(Edited by Chambler 30/04/2006 15:22)

---

by Chambler
Thats presuming that nuclear power would ultimately destroy society which I don't believe is true at all (no major accident in 25 years with a western reactor). Also we simply cannot do without them. We can simply not close each and every nuclear fission reactor because they aren't only an efficient way of generating electricity (which we might be able to replace at some costs with solar / hydro / wind power) but they also supply radioisotopes for medical and research uses. Where the heck would be get all our those from, which help save thousands if not millions of lives a year?!? So unless I missed something in the recent scientific literature and these radioisotopes are either not needed anymore or can be created by windmills or solar panels as well you are kinda stuck with at least a few of those plants if it was only that you needed the radioisotopes.

So even if we don't need them for nuclear energy we need them for the isotopes. So it aint gonna stop the mining not gonna solve the nuclear waste issue. It aint gonna make those "radiation" scare stories go away by stopping the use of nuclear energy. So if we have to "solve" those problems anyways why not apply the solutions to generate cheap electricity?

---

As I said to JayJay, dropping my support for nuclear power is conditional on renewable energy having the capacity to handle our current demand, or close to it. He says it can; so I'll cop out and let him answer that point.

For medicine, I found some figures for Australia, which only produces radioactive material for medical purposes: annual quantity of radioactive waste is 45 cubic metres.

Britain and France each have in excess of 25,000.

It also appears you can produce isotopes in particle accelerators and specialised generators. So even if you can't eliminate waste, you can drastically reduce it.

---

On a side note: if you say No to nuclear power in your own country I think it would be hypocritical to import energy generated by nuclear power (which is currently why electricity at night is so much cheaper) as you cannot just shut down a nuclear fission plant after running 12 hours.

---

Well, not if they're signed up to a policy of elimination. Don't know about JayJay, but if I'm supporting renewables, I also support a gradual process.

I'm still convinced that the downside of nuclear is so bad that it's not worth the risk when there are other promising energy technologies that are cleaner and don't pose the risk to future generations.

I agree with JayJay that we should be gradually moving to renewables as we move away from fossil fuels. We should also be putting much more emphasis on conservation, and giving both individuals and businesses the incentives to use more renewable. I'm just not convinced that a combination of sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and so on can't provide a huge percentage of our energy needs in the future. I think we just need the will to make this a priority--pour billions of dollars into research over the next couple of decades. It CAN happen. If your figures for Britain are right, JayJay--renewables can provide 85 percent of the energy--that's VERY encouraging.

And Mad, I realize that all industries where we extract fuels through mining or drilling are dangerous. But I don't think our argument here should be pitting fossil fuels (coal mining) against renewables. We're arguing nuclear against renewables, because those are our future choices. And in that case, I'd put more trust in the processes needed to produce renewable energy rather those needed to produce nuclear power.

As for hydro, I agree that there are problems associated with using that power source, too. People get displaced upstream when reservoirs behind dams are filled, aquatic ecosystems downstream get disrupted, and the dams also silt up eventually. And, sure, if a dam collapses, it's a catastrophe with a lot of potential loss of life. But a flood isn't going to make the area dangerously radioactive or uninhabitable for many years. As for seismic problems, I don't think you want a dam OR a nuclear power plant anywhere near a fault line. So that's a draw in my book.

Byron, you asked above about articles on uranium mining. I do have a couple of articles for you that discuss the uranium mining situation, from the perspective of some of the miners who have been affected. I don't know how to do links here, so I'll just give the URL's in two cases. I hope I'm not doing something against board policy.

The first is an article from the Deseret News (a Utah newspaper) that tells the story of some of the contamination from uranium mining there. It's at

www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,250010691,00.html

The second is a web page from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that just has some brief info on uranium mining and milling. That's at

www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-umt.htm

The third is a nice article from The New York Times that focuses on the problems of Navajo uranium miners. Many mines are on the Navajo Reservation and a lot of Navajo men have died or are dying of cancer and other illnesses because of their exposure in the mines.
The URL is so long that I'm just going to give you the article name. If you type that--"Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly Legacy of Yellow Dust"--and "The New York Times" into Google, the article is listed at the top.



(Edited by Wobag 01/05/2006 10:56)

---

by Sandia
We should also be putting much more emphasis on conservation, and giving both individuals and businesses the incentives to use more renewable.

---

I agree with this, although the current model of tax-sanctions should be changed. It's often directed at the easy target of consumers over big business. Don't know if you heard about the British oil refinery blockades in 2000 where people trying to make a fair living mutinied at excessive fuel tax. Often the stick comes without a carrot of alternative sources and improved public transport.


I like the idea of rewarding big business for developing renewable technology and only penalizing them if they're shown to be dragging their heels, because any penalty is going to drip down to the man on the street, making green policies unpopular.

---

Byron, you asked above about articles on uranium mining. I do have a couple of articles for you that discuss the uranium mining situation, from the perspective of some of the miners who have been affected.

---

Links are fine Sandia. We're not StuStuStu.

Reading through them definitely reinforces my change of heart.

business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1776636,00.html

***Update***

Tony Blair's just endorsed a new generation of nuclear power stations in a speech at a CBI dinner. To stop imminent dependence on foreign fuel supplies he says nuclear power is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". The government energy review isn't due to report until July, so this suggests whatever it says, it isn't looking good for green.

---

by Byron
The government energy review isn't due to report until July, so this suggests whatever it says, it isn't looking good for green.

---

Until there is a solution for nuclear waste, nuclear power is not an ultimate solution, however, it does buy us time. We still need a lot of development in "green" forms of energy. It's gonna take at least another 10 - 15 years before the technology of Wind / Water / Solar power has reached a level that it becomes cost and energy efficient enough to become economically viable to provide cheap substainble energy. At that point production capacity needs to be created so we can finally reached the point that those wind / solar farms can be built.

So we are easily looking at 15 - 25 years. In 2020 only 3 out of the current 12 nuclear power plants will be operational and at the moment they generate 22% of the national energy usage. So if building a new plant will buy you the time to develop the technology to generate cheap and substainable sources and create the infrastructure for it and not be totally reliable on foreign sources I don't think thats such a negative thing.

Am I the only one who finds Tony Blair's excuses for investing further into Nuclear (fission) Power reminiscent of his excuses for invading Iraq? First it was to meet emission targets/WMDs, then foreign fuel supply/mad dictator-terrorism.

His current reasoning, dependency on foreign fuel supplies, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Nuclear (fission) power relies on .. yup, foreign fuel supplies. Seen any Uranium mines in the Welsh valleys recently?

The man is either a raving idiot or utterly corrupt. Or both. Sooner he's gone, the happier I'll be.

Independent investigations by apolitical organizations involved in electrical production have shown that renewable resources have the technology now, when combined with simple energy saving programs, to replace fossil fuels NOW. Not in 10, 15, 20 years time. Now. I can only assume that Mr Blair is trumpeting this option because no one in the Renewables lobby remembered to bribe the dishonourable member for Sedgefield.

---

by Jayjay
His current reasoning, dependency on foreign fuel supplies, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Nuclear (fission) power relies on .. yup, foreign fuel supplies. Seen any Uranium mines in the Welsh valleys recently?

The man is either a raving idiot or utterly corrupt.

---

Instead of being dependent on millions of gallons of fossil fuel and natural gas each year you can run a nuclear powerplant on a couple of tons of Uranium for a good 10 - 15 years. Britain already has Uranium in stock (industry reports) and if push comes to shove Britain still can recycle some of its Trident II missiles or can buy it from a longterm allied countries (USA & Australia). Where fossil fuel and natural gas mainly comes from the Middle East and Russia.

It could be me but how does this not reduce the overall dependency on foreign fuel suppliers? So what you are saying is that requiring millions of gallons of fossil fuels from unstable areas is a smaller dependency than needing a few tons of material of which you already have a big pile in the first place and the rest you can get from "relative stable areas"? Sorry but that makes very little sense to me.

---

Independent investigations by apolitical organizations involved in electrical production have shown that renewable resources have the technology now, when combined with simple energy saving programs, to replace fossil fuels NOW.

---

ROTFL - Lets for a moment assume that this is what the report says..... lets just "translate" this. So what it says is: If we cut back on our energy usage (the simple energy saving programs) technology that uses renewable resources can replace fossil fuels now. I think you would agree that is what is said. So if we follow this logic: If we do not cut back on our energy usage technology that uses renewable resource cannot replace fossil fuels now.

So really the result of the report is: Technology that uses renawable resources cannot replace fossil fuels unless we cut back on our energy usage. Doesn't sound half as sexy now does it? And in case you haven't noticed the demand for energy has gone up almost very year in the last 20 years.... I would say thats a pretty stable trend which isn't gonna change any time soon. All those new conviences that we can afford ourselves need energy to use and produce so I only see the overall need for energy increase no matter how A rated that expensive new fridge might be.

OK, firstly, Blair's (and supporters) argument is not that we will use less foreign fuel imports by creating more nuclear fission power stations than we already use. It is that to meet CO2 emmision reduction targets by 2025 we would need to increase our imports of oil from other nations, whereas nuclear power would not require this.

This simply is misleading the general public, as it creates the impression that we somehow magically create nuclear power without the need to import the base fuel.

As for already having stores, all well and good, but they will run out. We will need more if our energy supply is to rely on fission. Yes, USA and Australia do have stock to trade, but my understanding is that this stock is dwindling. New uranium deposits are being found, but guess where? Not friendly USA and Australia, but places like Namibia, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan.

The truth of the matter is that we can be completely energy independent if we go down the renewables route. Fission means we have no choice but to be dependent on external supplies.

So onto the last part. Glad I gave you a chuckle. However, either I misunderstand you, or you misunderstand what is meant by Simple Energy Saving Programs. This doesn't mean stop using electricity, it means things like insulation, it means not wasting the heat we create. Which in turn reduces things like electricity bills. Oh, how hard that would make everyone's life! End of society as we know it! Or the end of privatised monopoly's giving fat cat pay-outs to directors - you be the judge.

Yes, energy conservation means initial costs in improving homes and businesses. As well as the National Grid itself. But I would argue that is a burden we should all share through it being paid for by the treasury (and therefore taxation) rather than demanding individuals take responsibility. Alternatively you can take a carrot and stick approach with businesses - tax breaks and grants for those making the necessary improvements; a Green Tax (with the money earmarked to only be used for energy savings elsewhere) for those who refuse to. But that's just one suggestion. The point is, renewables and energy conservation does not mean we have to become ludites and throw off modern technology. Just means we have to be a bit smarter.

Oh, and just read this on the BBC from my mates at the SDC:

"And Sir Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said: "It would be damaging to this government's credibility if it were to pre-empt the conclusions of its own energy review, by making premature and insufficiently considered announcements on nuclear power."

The commission, which is an independent government watchdog, recently produced a report that said nuclear power was not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply."

BBC Link

---

by Jayjay
my understanding is that this stock is dwindling. New uranium deposits are being found, but guess where? Not friendly USA and Australia, but places like Namibia, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan.

---

Australia has around 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves and is soon likely to overtake Canada as the biggest uranium exporter. With China buying lots of yellowcake on the world market has indeed caused prices to rise and stocks to dwindle however there is still more than enough in the ground in countries which are considered to be friendly to Britain.

---

The truth of the matter is that we can be completely energy independent if we go down the renewables route. Fission means we have no choice but to be dependent on external supplies.

---

Nobody is saying completely independent.... we are saying less dependent. And even for renewables you are depending on the world market Do you think that the raw materials that eventually make solar panels can be found in Wales? Not to mention the production capacity needed etc. Ever wondered how much metal goes into a windmill? If you want to build a huge windmill park outside of the coast it aint like you can dig the ore up in Scotland or something and get it processed by the English part of Corus. Not to mention building the turbines and actually creating the island itself (The Dutch will probably do that ). Britain might be an island but it aint like you are self sufficient. You will always be dependent in one way or another even when using renewable energy sources.

What you try to do is to reduce your dependency on foreign nations and especially those nations that you can't really rely upon. In the short run you have the problem fossil fuel price issue and the emissions issue. Renewables will solve those no doubt about it (eventually). But nobody has done it yet in a scale large enough to supply that magic 85% of energy that is used in a country like the UK. Cool we can do it on a medium / large city scale, but can we scale it up? I'm sure that we can if we throw enough money at it. But we are talking a project that costs billions and billions of pounds. Who's gonna foot that bill?

---

So onto the last part. Glad I gave you a chuckle. However, either I misunderstand you, or you misunderstand what is meant by Simple Energy Saving Programs.

---

Of course it doesn't mean stop using electricity but fact that it needs a considerable investment next to the actual investment of building renewable source based powerplants kinda means with current technology can't do it without the additional investments to bring the usage of energy down....... So if you apply the principle of ceteris paribus the technology isn't there just yet.

---

Yes, energy conservation means initial costs in improving homes and businesses. As well as the National Grid itself. But I would argue that is a burden we should all share through it being paid for by the treasury (and therefore taxation) rather than demanding individuals take responsibility....

---

The ideas you suggest sound really good however you forget to take into account a hell of a lot variables that also play an important role. First of all whatever you do you'll have to spread it over a period of at least 10 to 15 years. Sure make high insulation standards mandetory for new buildings. But insulating all the existing houses is every ambitious. Lets just talk figures.

With 60,441,457 people in the UK and an average household being around 3.2 people that means you have at least 18.8 million living units. That is not taking into account holiday homes etc. So if we say the houses that already comply to the strict insulation rules balance out the second homes etc. If the cost of insulating an existing living unit would be on average 2000 quid (material / work etc) that would be a bill of 37.6 billion pounds. Total government revenues 465 billion pounds & expenditures: 501 billion pounds (according to the CIA world fact book). That makes 8% of revenues and 7.5% of expenditures. If you don't spread it over many years it means we need to raise the taxes by at least 8% for everything to pay for only the insulation! Where would you get the people from to insulate 18.8 million living units in a year? Not to mention the disruption that so much building work will cause.

If building enough new powerplants would cost double that (which considering the scale is probably a very low ballpark) and build them over the same period of 10 - 15 year that would need to increase the taxes on everything by 2.5 - 3% to pay for insulations and building keeping into account for inflation etc. We are talking about the people that revolted when fuel duty got increased by less than 1p!

Even on a 10 - 15 year timescale it's ambitious if you started today.