New nuclear plants get go-ahead

[0iD]

New nuclear plants get go-ahead
A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government.
BBC NEWS | Politics | New nuclear plants get go-ahead

Good thing? Bad thing?

[Funkstar]

I say essential.

[IBM]

Another vote for nuclear power here. I did a bit of research into nuclear vs. alternative power sources recently and unless you want to build several hundred thousand wind turbines, or cover most of Spain up with solar grids, you need nuclear energy. Fast breeder reactors are far more efficient than anything used in the past, and with the advent of newer technologies have the potential to offer almost limitless energy.

Coal and gas just aren't viable long term solutions IMO. Well, neither is nuclear, but unless someone figures out controlable fussion it's the best option we've got.

[MadduckUK]

good thing.

we need a poll

[Mama Sumae]

Bad thing but no other viable solution in the short-medium term.

[Funkstar]

Something a lot of people have to remember about nuclear power is that our current generation are old. Very old. So a lot of the arguments against nuclear power that are based against them are invalid arguments.

Modern reactors are vastly safer, cheaper, more eficient, less costly to decomission, cheaper to run. yadda yadda yadda.

EDIT: oh, and yes i would rather we didn't need them, but we do, so i'm sucking it up and getting on with it

[[GSV]Trig]

Essential I say, yes there expensive to build but what are our options?
3rd party oil/coal which is going to run out at some point..

Problem with nuclear power is people remember places like chernobyl and are **** scared of glowing in the dark or growing an extra head so nobody wants these tihngs near them.

What realistically are our options?
Wind, crap, eyesore.
Wave, crap.
Coal, can anyone say Co2 emmisions, supply will run out at some point
Oil, same as above.
Solar, best bet for solar power is geostationary orbital satelites that catch the suns rays (lots stronger than land based solar rays) and then microwave or laser them down, or, normal orbital sats that store the energy n then beam it down to us when the sat passes over the ground station. Downside is terrorists getting hold of these things, but hey these things will be at least 30 years away I'd say...

Wonder if the nuke people have thought about putting nuclear powerstations under the sea, not near anyone and a ready supply or water just on the off chance theres a cooling issue they can pretty easily vent cold water straight from the sea into the core..

[99Flake]

Another yes here, Nuclear power plants are very safe and just as well protected as a military base. Don't have a single problem with them.

But it is a shame that there is no viable alternative.

[alsenior]

good thing. we need nuclear power and newer reactors are safer than ever. Always remember chernobyl was paertly becuase the reactors were poorly maintained and over worked. in modern reactors even meltdown via stupidity is very slim

[IBM]

Wonder if the nuke people have thought about putting nuclear powerstations under the sea, not near anyone and a ready supply or water just on the off chance theres a cooling issue they can pretty easily vent cold water straight from the sea into the core..

*cough*

[chicken]

Good thing, about time too.

I know this thread is going to cause a lot of controversy but IMHO more nuclear power is a necessary move if we are going to support our growing power needs and tackle the Green issue. Yes the waste is bad, but it is much more containable and a lot smaller in comparison to the waste from fossil fuels, plus the fossil fuels are running out.

Renewable energy sources are a great idea, but in practise you would need so many windmills, solar panels, wave plants, etc that it's impracticle to assume these to be anything but an additional source, at least for the near future.

As for saving power so we don't need more power stations? Just look at the rising population, the spread of technology through people's lives and the difficulty of getting several million people to listen to you. It's not going to happen, at best we could slow down the rising need, but not stop it.


Anyway... What happened to all these perpetual energy sources that have appeared over the decades?

[menthel]

It would be nice if renewable methods were more advanced and could deal with our needs but they are not, so I agree with the decision. I see no other way forward at the moment, especially with the political state of Russia at present.

[pollaxe]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this.. I recognise the need for them but the long-term problems of disposal/storage of spent nuclear fuel also bothers me.

[0iD]

My BIG problem with Nuclear is the whole decomissioning question. As yet, no realistic method has been invented for effectively disposing of the waste materials & the plant after it's run it's life course. You just can't keep building these things when they're going to be a hazard for centuries to come.

[Mama Sumae]

Wonder if the nuke people have thought about putting nuclear powerstations under the sea,

I think Dr Evil has the patent on that already.

Seriously though not very feasible, probably cheaper to force cheap labour to generate electricity by Cycling.

What ?!?!?

its not like they use their legs while they assemble those faulty little toys anyway.

[Platinum]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this.. I recognise the need for them but the long-term problems of disposal/storage of spent nuclear fuel also bothers me.

Stick it on a rocket and blast it into the sun?