New nuclear plants get go-ahead

[chicken]

What about underground?

They build huge safety containers to store all the "waste" underground for years for safety, so why not have the stations underground.

First of all theres less chance for a terrorist threat to attack them because we all know once they get built you have some extremist nutcase on the job saying they're going to blow it all up.

Hey, we're pumping all this oil out of Iraq... surely that's got to be leaving a big hole that needs filling...

[Funkstar]

Hey, we're pumping all this oil out of Iraq... surely that's got to be leaving a big hole that needs filling...

Funny how everyone imagines oil leaving behind a great big hole once it's extracted

[usxhe190]

for oil extraction, i don't think it is a "hole" that a nuclear plant can be built - rather it is just a long pipe, sorta like a straw in a cup full of ice-cubes...

not that good with nuclear but i guess it is the cheapest way to get a lot of constant power...?

[capt_cornflake]

Definately a good thing in my opinion.

Wind, wave, solar and the like would be nice in an ideal world (and microgeneration would probably be the best way of boosting this in my opinion), but until it becomes possible to store electricity reliably and efficiently renewables are never going to be able to meet the full needs, if for no other reason than, as Saracen points out, you have no control over the power being generated at any one time.

Hopefully in the long term we will have better options. Maybe someone will come up with a decent and cost effective fuel cell to store power. Maybe fission will eventually work. Maybe something completely unexpected will happen.

At the moment though, we have to use what's available. Yes, nuclear fission reactors produce waste, but it's a lot easier to control and store than the output of a coal or oil fired plant.

[Funkstar]

for oil extraction, i don't think it is a "hole" that a nuclear plant can be built - rather it is just a long pipe, sorta like a straw in a cup full of ice-cubes...

not that good with nuclear but i guess it is the cheapest way to get a lot of constant power...?

This is really a bit OTT for this thread but never mind

Oil reserves are found in layers of porous rock, so once the reserve has been depleted, you still have a layer of porous rock. In fact you still have oil filled porous rock. Given the very best technology, the most favourable drilling conditions and the nicest thin crude on the planet, we can only extract about 50% of the oil in a given field.

This is considerably better than when the industry started, I think the large easy fields in the UK (Brent, Ninian and Forties) were estimated at only 30% retrieval initially, but can now get another 20% out. This is why they keep pushing out the lifetime of the North sea. I've heard that in the next decade of so, we might be able to get as much as 70% of a reserve out of the ground and a lot of that is due to the high oil price, it makes difficult to get at reserves financially viable.

But anyway, this isn't part of the Nuclear debate, but suffice to say, you couldn't put a nuclear plant in an oil reserve

[AD-15]

hello,

I'm totally against nuclear. Sure, you could say there is no other viable option, but fission cannot be said to be a viable option either.

Besides, there are other options. Locate a bit of sun-drenched land, build a massive field of solar panels, and you've solved the world's energy crisis. Of course, you have the problem of the whole idea being a sort of international co-operation thing. Probably the only thing getting in the way. There was an awesome article in the New Scientist about this once, I can't find it though. I think texas or the austrailian outback was a probability to have one of these stupidly big solar cell panel field things...

[usxhe190]

if solar panels could be really solve the energy crisis, you will need majorlly massive co-operation...and i can't see that happening anytime soon though...i guess uk would be effectively dependent on australia/texas politically if that happened...? not sure how to transport the power as well...

[Funkstar]

Sure, you could say there is no other viable option, but fission cannot be said to be a viable option either.

this statement makes no sense

Besides, there are other options. Locate a bit of sun-drenched land, build a massive field of solar panels, and you've solved the world's energy crisis. Of course, you have the problem of the whole idea being a sort of international co-operation thing. Probably the only thing getting in the way. There was an awesome article in the New Scientist about this once, I can't find it though. I think texas or the austrailian outback was a probability to have one of these stupidly big solar cell panel field things...

So how do you get all that lovely expensive power, and solar power is expensive, to the UK then?

Do you build a honking great cable under the sea? A cable that would be more expensive and have a larger energy footprint and use more resources than a traditional power station on the coast of the UK?

And as for political co-operation, there really isn't any point in even trying that one.

[iranu]

hello, There was an awesome article in the New Scientist about this once, I can't find it though. I think texas or the austrailian outback was a probability to have one of these stupidly big solar cell panel field things...

Is it this one?Solar power station in Victoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a number of projects going on around the world eg solar tower in Spain

I have a friend of mine who is/was convinced that building a big "solar panel farm" in the outback or the Sahara was the solution. I then went into all the logistical problems that such a scheme would face, the costs associated with building and maintenance and finally the efficiency of getting the electricity generated to where it needs to be.

I'm a firm believer that in the future Solar energy will be a major producer of electricity but I doubt it will be from such large projects. It's more likely to be from micro generation from peoples houses whereby they paint the roof and walls of the house NJIT - PublicInfo: NJIT Researchers Develop Inexpensive, Easy Process To Produce Solar Panels

[BUFF]

I'm another vote for replacing our existing reactors to keep a mix of supplies.
Yes, if there were other viable solutions it would be nice to do without them but atm we need them.

[badass]

One thing to bare in mind about the waste from nuclear power is how much of it there actually is
Whilst you need 3kg of shielding for every 1kg of radioactive waste, there isn't much of the stuff with a several thousand year half life produced. At all.
In fact, Sellafield has only produces a volume of the long term stuff equivalent to 2 double decker busses. Thats all of the stuff from the UK since the 50's. It includes a lot of the stuff from early days when more waste was produced aswell.
The nasty high level waste has a half life of only a few years

[Mblaster]

I'm a firm believer that in the future Solar energy will be a major producer of electricity but I doubt it will be from such large projects. It's more likely to be from micro generation from peoples houses whereby they paint the roof and walls of the house NJIT - PublicInfo: NJIT Researchers Develop Inexpensive, Easy Process To Produce Solar Panels

That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. As technology advances solar panels should get more efficient and cheaper, as at the current prices they are not particually encouraging with the ammount of sun we get in this country.

I don't see solar panels ever being a sole enery source for houses, but they could have a significant contribution.

[[GSV]Trig]

Solar panels are crap, get them on satalites as I said earlier...

[YorkieBen]

well we have a ton of coal left in the UK (but import it anyway....)

so we could use that?

[merdat]

We def need Nuclear (we should have been building the new plants about 5 years ago -were late ) or we are going to have to suffer power cuts in the not to distant future. Very few of you guys will remember what it was like in the 70's when the power was was being cut for 3 hours at a time to conserve electricity. ATM about one third of those wind power generators are out of commission due to gear box problems and the sea is a very harsh enviroment indeed.

[Funkstar]

well we have a ton of coal left in the UK (but import it anyway....)

so we could use that?

It's not that simple. The coal we have is not economically viable as a fuel source at current coal prices. In decades to come this may change, once easier to get at sources start running out.

You also have the environmental impact of burning all that coal, isn't that what people are trying to avoid these days?