1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tony Blair supports new nuclear

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by clv101, 16 May 2006.

  1. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    Nuclear is back on agenda - Blair
    The prime minister's comments will be very controversial.
    Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to give his strongest signal yet that he backs the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK.
    BBC Online

    He's got that much right!

    David Fleming has written a very good paper on the Nuclear Life Cycle here: http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.pdf

    And Dave Kimble has prepared an excellent photo essay here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakoil/nuclear.CO2.htm
     
  2. atpbx

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 21,452

    Blair in speaks sense shocker!
     
  3. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    Err.... no. New nuclear build doesn't make sense, not for CO2 reasons, not for economic reasons and not for energy reasons.

    This is just normal Blair rubbish.
     
  4. atpbx

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 21,452


    Hang on:
    http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-2078552,00.html
    etc etc etc for almost 200 pages.

    Arguing for it.

    Then there is you and the members of Peakoil.com and the like who argue against everything.

    I be no means believe everything the govenrment says or indeed have any faith in it, but ANYTHING that involves burning less oil, and results in less need for using Gas is good.
    So they take 10 years to break even, if they run for 30 years, or 40 years, they make a profit, both in terms of CO2 and money.
     
  5. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    I argue for a awful lot of things - just not endeavours that the UK can't afford and won't work.

    See my comments in this thread for a few weeks back: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17565797

    And read the Fleming document.
     
  6. mcmad

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,572

    When I lived in France the only downside people saw with nuclear was waste, they were very determined not to be reliant on other countries for their energy (France has little in the way on natural resources to use for energy production) & now around 75% is of their needs are met with nuclear but they like everyone else are struggling to deal with nuclear waste.

    Shame Britain didn't have the vision to move forward with this years ago, the sooner countries accept they cant rely on others for their energy needs the better, then maybe the waste issue can be seriously worked on instead of the half hearted attempts we have seen in the past.
     
  7. Smithy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 9 Mar 2006

    Posts: 1,519

    Personaly i think this is a good idea, and quite frankly surprised it has taken this long to be officialy suggested in parliament.
     
  8. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    How come?

    This is what I wrote a few weeks ago:
     
  9. Mista Dave

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,421

    Location: Fareham, Hampshire, England

    I've always been pro nuclear but always lacked figures like that to question otherwise. Where did you get your info from? as long is its accurate, thanks for the informative read!

    Its refreshing to hear an anti nuclear agument that isn't "aaarrgfhhhh radiation! SCARY!"

    of course the main problem is we are discustingly inefficient with our use of energy. If Tony spent some of the cash earmarked for nuclear on giving some households that waste energy a damn good slapping things would be a little brighter.

    Dave

    /turns off PC and energy saving light and goes to bed ready for cycle to work in the morning!
     
  10. hsp70

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 871

    nuclear may well be the right decision for the country, but the problem i have with blair is that he's publicly commiting to nuclear today BEFORE the review on the future of our countries energy policy has taken place yet. Which i recall he mentioned a few months ago when nuclear was in the news also.

    That to me, tells me he has made up his mind without considering all other options nor is he fully aware of the them, since the review is not completed yet. Yet another example of sugar coated words for the popular soundbite when he needs the PR whilst behind closed doors it's a whole other story.
     
  11. Lithium

    Hitman

    Joined: 29 Oct 2002

    Posts: 807

    Right now i see nuclear as the most "green" fuel there is - its certainly better than coal/gas - just as long as we can store that evil nuclear waste nicely.
     
  12. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    I think radiation and safety fears are over-hyped by the anti-nuke folk. Maybe that’s because I'm a physicist and understand the nature of radiation so don't suffer from 'fear of the unknown' syndrome.

    Regarding sources, I’ve recently read this article in the New Scientist but is now behind pay wall, I have paper copy and the Fleming document linked above.

    Here are another couple of points:

    There are only six consortiums in the world who can build nuclear power plants, their order books are full meaning if we were to make the decission to build new nuclear plant and get through the planning process we would then be joining the end of a long queue. The EU doesn't allow public money to be spent on such projects so private investors would be needed, this is a problem since due to the huge front end loaded expense then slow revenue thereafter payback is decades away. There are simply more attractive investments!

    Capital can only be spent once, investing in nuclear must reduce investment in other areas of potential CO2 emission reduction. In the UK nuclear only provides approximately 8% of total power, it would not be wise to invest vast capital (both economic and political) in this relatively small area to the detriment of potential programmes addressing the remaining 92% of the energy infrastructure and policy.
     
  13. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Really? Why is that, and who are they?
     
  14. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    That's what the New Scientist article said - they didn't list them. It's clear that the UK certainly doesn't have the expertise anymore.
     
  15. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I was just surprised that there were global rules governing who can and can't build nuclear power plants. I thought it would be up to each country to decide - or is it more of a technology constraint?
     
  16. AJUK

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 14 Nov 2003

    Posts: 10,949

    Good, at last he has talked sense. The shame is he should have done it day one of his premiership, if he had we would already be building the next generation of power stations to fill the gap in our power generation capabilities. Instead we will have to waste at least another 10 years worth of money buying from the French, which is, ironically, mostly generated from nuclear.
     
  17. tom_nieto

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 11,052

    Location: Birmingham

    The only way this country is to avoid a future energy crisis is nuclear power. Wind power and other renewable sources are not efficient enough in the present time, being expensive to manufacture and implement for much smaller energy gains. The general public tend to fear anything with the word nuclear in it, but I would imagine the safety of a modern plant would be excellent.

    The earlier quote by clv101 is true, you have to think in total CO2 consumption, which includes manufacture of the plant, refining the uranium and decommisioning it, whilst considering waste management. However surely this is still much more efficient per kW than coal or gas power, and must be very efficient in comparison to wind and solar energy. I have heard figures suggesting that a wind turbine must run for 25 years before it has fully repaid the energy and CO2 output used in its creation.

    If we do start building new nuclear power plants we'd better watch out for the USA, we might be their next target!
     
  18. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol

    There is some truth to that - Had the decision been made at least 10 years ago then the situation would be very different and we could be expecting new reactors to come on line over the next couple of years and we could have been stockpiling uranium at low prices for the last decade. However since it's been left too late there isn't time to build them before gas supply collapse and old nuclear is decommissioned. Nuclear just isn't an option for ensuring security of supply anymore.

    Blair said last night it would be a "dereliction of duty if he failed to take long-term decisions." He (and Major) did fail, it was a dereliction of duty. It's already too late for nuclear.

    No, it's too late for nuclear.

    That's not right, it's under a year for total energy payback.
     
  19. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Just googled that and it's 75 to 80 percent apparently!

    I guess if the world does move more from oil to nuclear over the decades, the countries with big uranium reserves will be top on the hitlist, so at least the middle east might get a break! ;)
     
  20. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,329

    Location: Bristol