Nuclear Powerplants

[Russ]

So would you mind if they started building one down your street?



What happens when that something goes wrong with the rocket and it explodes in the atmosphere?

(just playing devils advocate here )

a) your being silly, it would be in countryside or very heavyly industrialised areas.
b) nuclear fall out rocks??

[[GSV]Trig]

Hes not being silly, at the end of the day its going to end up upsetting someone where ever you build it.

As for fallout, there is still testing being done with nuclear weapons so the fact its not on our front door doesnt make it anymore or less important..

[autopilot]

a) your being silly, it would be in countryside or very heavyly industrialised areas.

A nuclear power plant going up would effect people dramatically where ever it was put in the UK. There is nowhere remote enough in the UK that a major disaster would not effect thousands of people, and their children, for years. The disaster at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine had effects on people in many European countries, not just Russia, and still does today. Even radioactive isotopes where even detected in Scottish sheep's milk.

But I was not being silly, no. Look the the term 'devils advocate'

b) nuclear fall out rocks??

Eh??

[Ramedge]

just as a matter of interest, for any one who knows

how much nucular waste is produced from 1 station in a month??
and what percentage do scientists believe they can cut the amount of waste by?

[IBM]

Couple of mentions of Nuclear Fusion...did anyone hear that story about the first test of a nuclear bomb and the scientists weren't 100% sure that the splitting of the atom wouldn't start a chain reaction which would wipe out the world? Anybody had the thought that might happen with any fusion experiments (Spiderman 2 anyone?)....

I was reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4524132.stm the other day which has it's initial tests for next year, thinking 'hey, let's try to recreate the conditions just after the big bang....errrr is that a good idea?'....what happens if we do actually recreate the big bang? Oh well, at least it'll be fast (and shut up the people who think the world was created in seven days - if only briefly )

[badass]

I can't see nothing wrong with using nature to provide power. Lets start building massive wind and solar farms.

Solar farms cost more energy to make than they put out in their entire lifetime. A lot of nasty chemicals are created as waste when producing them. However in a well thought out energy policy they have their place. They can reduce or remove the need for cabling on some areas.
Wind farms are the most efficien form of power, putting out around 3 times the energy invested in them. They do however kill birds, create a lot of noise and wreck the landscape. However in a well thought out energy policy they have their place. Certain industrial areas for instance.

[badass]

just as a matter of interest, for any one who knows

how much nucular waste is produced from 1 station in a month??
and what percentage do scientists believe they can cut the amount of waste by?

Dont know about 1 month so how about since nuclear power has been used in the UK - over 40 years of it.
The volume is similar to the volume of about 2 double decker busses. For the whole of the UK.
Its a good stopgap, provided its done properly.
New Labour simply aren't capable of doing it properly. They have proven this in everything else they have done.

[TiG]

Whatever we decide to use, we have to get out of using oil and gas and coal, the reserves will run out at some point, and then if alternatives are not in the place the world falls apart. Wars over whatever reserves are in place.

Nuclear is not never ending either, Longer term newer forms of energy must come into place, The JET project should be a good way forward and i think its nowhere near the 50-100 years off, 10-20 years in my expectation.

Tidal power is another suggestion, although i'm happy with offshore wind farms etc. Solar power is crap on anything other than small scale in this country, and as stated very crap for the actual production (very Oil intensive)

TiG

[Saracen]

solar power and wind farms should be exploited

the local BP has solar panels in the roof, and this powers the whole Petrol station 24/7 and charges the batterys with the left over, why cant every new house have this technology? would save people a fortune.

Because it's very expensive up-front (both for solar panels, assuming you mean photo-electric rather than water heating) and for batteries (which periodically need replacing) and takes so long in energy savings to recoup the capital cost that most people find in totally uneconomic.

I looked into doing this. It would have cost a fortune.

[iranu]

A nuclear power plant going up would effect people dramatically where ever it was put in the UK. There is nowhere remote enough in the UK that a major disaster would not effect thousands of people, and their children, for years. The disaster at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine had effects on people in many European countries, not just Russia, and still does today. Even radioactive isotopes where even detected in Scottish sheep's milk.

Not having a go but...Please do not compare Russian nuclear power plants doing experiments with the backup systems turned off to British nuclear power stations that follow strict safety proceedure and are inspected and operated properly.

As I said before look into why Chernobyl happened rather than assume that all nuclear plants are equal in design and operated by Homer Simpson.

Nuclear power plant design has advanced as much as the car or Aeroplane since the 1960's. There is no reason why a coventional nuclear power plant cannot be operated safely over it's life - Have we had a meltdown in Britain? How many meltdowns have there been in the whole of nuclear power generation?

Anyway the answer is to use a power station that CANNOT meltdown - Accelerator driven sub-critical system (ADS) - google it.

Whilst I'm in favour of nuclear power I only see it as a stop gap until a better solution is found.

[tim_n]

nah, common misconception about nuclear powerstations being big ugly things. A lot has changed since nuclear power came on the menu oh-so many years ago. It's much safer, less waste is produced and there's more options available. The reactors are much smaller etc, but it's not really the way to go - we need to work on making things more efficent and less wasteful and getting all the nations in on it. Our fossil fuels could go on much longer.

I'm all for a nuclear future, but not on my planet (nomp rather than nimby!).

When we going to live on the moon then? I hear there's a nazi moon base already there! (http://www.weebls-stuff.com - check out on the moon) Up there we can pollute as much as we like and let it drift into space!

[[GSV]Trig]

IMHO its not a case of cost, at the end of the day we need to do something and we need to do it sooner than later, best to do it now and bring it slowly online while we still have fossil fuels than have to rush it when we've ran out.

[herulach]

Couple of mentions of Nuclear Fusion...did anyone hear that story about the first test of a nuclear bomb and the scientists weren't 100% sure that the splitting of the atom wouldn't start a chain reaction which would wipe out the world? Anybody had the thought that might happen with any fusion experiments (Spiderman 2 anyone?)....

I was reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4524132.stm the other day which has it's initial tests for next year, thinking 'hey, let's try to recreate the conditions just after the big bang....errrr is that a good idea?'....what happens if we do actually recreate the big bang? Oh well, at least it'll be fast (and shut up the people who think the world was created in seven days - if only briefly )

Recreating the conditions just after the big bang, and recreating the actual big bang are entirely different things. They make black holes in accelerators now, not been sucked into one myself.

Also, as far as a fusion reaction setting the atmosphere on fire:
A) You watch too many films
B) FUsion needs Heavy hydrogen to work effectively, at incredibly high densities, many many many many orders of magnitude higher than it is found in the atmosphere.
C) THe nature of fusion reactions basically means if you stop putting deuterium in it will stop, or certainly not continue for very long. THrowing random crap in it would only slow the reaction of such a tiny amount of material (about a gram is the charge they use at the moment i think)

[Trippledence]

France's main source of power generation is from Nuclear power plants, liveing proof that it can work, unfortunatly we dont have so maney deserted vallys to build them, prehaps moors and other places no one would like to go would be more feasable, like plymouth.

I think the real questions should be where, and how to make the plants best, or to stat buying in power from other nations, something that would be more feasable it it wasnt for damned cable loss.

I find our reliance on gas from russia scary, espechaly considering there has been one near cutoff price disagreement. If that happens in 10 years time when near 80% of our power is coming from gas (Predicted) then we'r in big trouble, any one see the documantory When the lights go out?

The bottom line with nuclear power is it makes a large amout of power, compared to present renwable sources, and one nuclear plant is bound to be cheaper than every one to get solar pannels on there house. And its not as ugly and covering the whole of the UK in windmills, and the polution it makes doesnt get out, so IMO it should be classed as a non plluting energy source.

Prehaps the private sector cant cope with nuclear power plants, I wonder how the french do it.

France is Europe's second-largest power market, exceeded only by Germany. In 2001, total installed power capacity was 111.3 million kW. Most major generating plants are administered by Électricité de France, the state-owned power authority, which produces and distributes over 95% of the country's electricity. Of the total power production of 511.1 billion kWh in 2000, over 77% came from France's 57 nuclear plants, about 13% from hydroelectric power, and under 10% from fossil fuels.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/E...AND-POWER.html

Looks like state run nuke scheem would be the way to go.

[Ramedge]

or to stat buying in power from other nations, something that would be more feasable it it wasnt for damned cable loss.

I believe this is already a reality here in Dorset. I was talking to an old teacher of mine once and the topic of the discussion was power and nuclear power. He was saying that some of the power that a nuclear power plant on in north france was used to power some parts of the south. I am not sure if this is correct however it seems like a great idea.

The way i see it is if schemes like this can be implemented and power is being brought in from else where it means less power plants need to be built and it also means we dont have to find the space for them. My facts may not be right this scheme may not exist i may have imagined it (it was years ago) but the idea is good.

Our country is heading towards being overpopulated and people are already saying there is a housing shortage, So where the hell are we going to find the space to build nuclear power plants in 10-20 years time??

[Rick]

Actually, the main pollution problem with nuclear reactors is the mining of Uranium. It produces carbon dioxide, but not on the scale of fossil fuels. As I said, with breeder reactors the Uranium is used up, but Plutonium is created which can be used for fuel. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they use. As you can guess though, Plutonium isn't exactly the safest substance to use in a reactor since it can be made into a bomb so easily. But if breeders were used, less Uranium would need to be mined and less/no waste would be produced.