Nuclear Energy - Good or Bad?

[davieG]

BBC

The prospect of a new nuclear age has moved closer with a boost to plans to build new power stations and deal with the waste from the old ones.

Firstly, there's the government's Energy Billwhich very much sees new nuclear as a key way of keeping the lights on.

The problem is the coalition's plans had been foundering as some nuclear generators had pulled out of plans for new stations.

They were concerned that an open energy market would see their revenues bounce up and down, failing to guarantee the income they needed to justify the huge upfront investment in building stations.

Profit guarantees

The German companies RWE and E.ON had already ditched their plans and there were some rumblings from other firms.

But the Energy Bill will now offer profit guarantees to new nuclear developers to try and give them that security.

It'll be funded by a levy on all our energy uses, possibly adding up to around £100-£200 to each consumer's bill.

But the government insists it will be worth paying as it'll guarantee that we will be able to meet our energy needs without relying so heavily on foreign gas and oil.

On the face of it this intervention seems to breach the coalition agreement though. That said, nuclear power stations would only go ahead if they weren't subsidised.

Subsidies could also breach EU law.

But according to the government this is a profit guarantee not a subsidy, and it says it will also apply to developers of renewable energy too.

That definition could yet be tested in the courts by environmentalists who believe the government has bowed to pressure from the nuclear lobby.

Green MP and party leader Caroline Lucas said: "We know that subsidising new nuclear flies in the face of the coalition's promise not to use taxpayers' money for nuclear.

"Yet no matter how much ministers deny it, this will gift EDF and other potential nuclear operators billions of pounds in subsidies over the lifetime of a power station."

Investor interest

Energy Secretary Ed Davey though insists market economics will still apply to new nuclear operators and that they are just trying to introduce some stability into the market.

He said: "I believe there is now a huge amount of investor interest out there in new nuclear.

"I think the threat of climate change and the need to make sure we can keep our lights on means we have to look at all low carbon technologies whether it's renewables, carbon capture or new nuclear."

Of course, the other problem that has dogged the nuclear industry has been waste.

For three decades now, governments have been searching for a permanent solution for the stockpiles of waste generated by the first wave of nuclear power stations.

But there was a step forward on that front this week too.

A poll conducted in Cumbria suggested people there could be prepared to be the home for an underground nuclear waste store.

In the survey of 3,000 Cumbrians, half said they would support the search for a storage site in the west of the county.

Around a third were against the idea.

That figure rose to 68% in Copeland - the home of the Sellafield nuclear plant and the location where much of the waste is currently stored above ground.

Jobs and investment

There's still a long way to go before a specific site is identified and investigated.

Environmentalists will also raise doubts about the safety of underground storage, and argue that creating more waste would just add to the problem.

But for the government the willingness of Cumbrians to even consider hosting the store is a step forward.

And for Cumbria, the future of the nuclear industry is important.

A store is likely to bring some jobs and investment, but even more importantly West Cumbria could also become the site for up to three new nuclear power stations.

So whether you love or loathe the industry, this week's developments do seem to make it more likely that nuclear power will be a key part of the UK's energy market for decades to come.

[leicsmac]

In this age of declining oil and gas resources and ever-greater power demand from everyone around the world, nuclear power seems to be the only way to fill the energy gap until more efficient renewables are developed. However nuclear fission power always carries the attendant risk and waste as a result.

We really should be looking at putting more research into nuclear fusion power and making it viable as if we could make it so it would have all of the benefits of fission, with practically none of the drawbacks. No waste, and fusion reactions are easily stopped so no risk of reactor meltdowns. The big hurdle however at the moment is generating the conditions for fusion reactions to produce more energy than is put into them to begin with. However we seem to be quite close to producing such a reactor - ITER, in France.

I honestly believe the future in power generation should be a combination of nuclear fusion reactors and more advanced renewables (wind, tidal and geothermal, depending on location).

[Guest]

How can Nuclear energy be good OR bad?

It's just a form of energy.

[Captain...]

We are looking at replacing a finite non renewable source of energy, with serious and damaging side effects, the magnitude of which are still being denied today, with a finite non renewable source of energy with serious and damaging side effects, the true consequence of which we still don't fully unferstand.

My main opposition to nuclear power is that it will run out, just like coal, oil and gas, so we are not solving the problem just replacing it with another one.

Perhaps in this age of plenty, and wasteful abundance, we should be looking at scaling back our outputs, looking at ways to save energy and reduce waste and excess, that should be the very minimum of our aims, and that is a whole other thread.

We will always need energy, but what we should be looking at are sustainable ways of having the energy we need, and not risking destroying the planet to meet the energy requirements of a wasteful nation.

What I would like to see is more research into things like wind-up radios and torches and expand it to bigger products, solar ovens, just stick it in the sunshine and cook your meat, every household should have a solar battery charger and rechargeable batteries (They even recharge on shitty days, just slower), like a bbq but zero energy, these things are no brainers to me and yet we still consume huge numbers of disposable 1 use batteries, which are not only expensive to us they are also very difficult to dispose of safely.

[nigel]

Nuclear energy is the cheapest & greenest way to mass produce low carbon electricity. There is waste to deal with but all of the nuclear waste produced from energy generation in the UK, past, present & future will fit safely in a bunker the size of a tennis court, its not such an issue..

[ithuriel]

Yes its good or yes its bad, polls a bit confusing

Nuclear energy is required by this country otherwise we will be a mere puppet of foreign powers , though our government should build and own them and not let a french company do all the business and charge what they like.

[Daggers]

Every village voting against a proposed wind farm should automatically be given a nuclear power station on its doorstep.

[Daggers]

[Captain...]

Every village voting against a proposed wind farm should automatically be given a nuclear power station on its doorstep.

Or an incinerator.

[Guest]

Work a bit harder on the other nuclear energy - inexhaustible and clean.

[Daggers]

Work a bit harder on the other nuclear energy - inexhaustible and clean.

I'd rather have sun and wind simply for the countryside aesthetic, I don't reckon the power plants look nice. Maybe if they were covered in a nice floral print I'd feel differently.

[21st Century Fox]

It depends whether you have disasters turned on or off...

[Guest]

I'd rather have Sun and Wind but apparently the technology is nowhere near sufficient enough to come even close to generating the power we use now. I guess we need a war in order for the leading economies to get serious and invest real money in their development.

However Nuclear fusion (as opposed to the Nuclear fission of our nuclear plants) is theoretically obtainable, unlimited and perfectly clean. we would need no other form of power. Countries are working on this and we're not far away again money is the problem. We've managed to show it's possible but the expense of an initial working model is large.

[davieG]

Yes its good or yes its bad, polls a bit confusing

Nuclear energy is required by this country otherwise we will be a mere puppet of foreign powers , though our government should build and own them and not let a french company do all the business and charge what they like.

The topic is whether nuclear energy is good or bad hoping for an open discussion, the poll if you look at the poll question 'is should we be building more stations' maybe I should have put Nuclear Power Stations but I assumed people would know that considering the topic subject.

[MooseBreath]

So the developers are being guaranteed a profit funded by a forced increase in consumer prices. What an absolutely superb deal for them. And what a dreadful deal for the consumer. No thanks. I'd rather let a free market decide when developing becomes viable rather than just reaching into peoples pockets to make sure that it does.

[stourbridgefox]

So the developers are being guaranteed a profit funded by a forced increase in consumer prices. What an absolutely superb deal for them. And what a dreadful deal for the consumer. No thanks. I'd rather let a free market decide when developing becomes viable rather than just reaching into peoples pockets to make sure that it does.

The free market can only react to a market now. There is very little incentive for share holders to see lower dividends by investing in the energy needs of tomorrow. Therefore something a little more altruistic and with more foresight is required.

Otherwise the lights will go out and the only people making any money will be the makers of candles.

[MooseBreath]

The free market can only react to a market now. There is very little incentive for share holders to see lower dividends by investing in the energy needs of tomorrow. Therefore something a little more altruistic and with more foresight is required.

Otherwise the lights will go out and the only people making any money will be the makers of candles.

No, the free market can and regularly does act in anticipation. There is zero chance it would allow the lights to go out because that would represent a missed opportunity to make money. As soon as we can be reasonably certain that nuclear is the way forward, the free market would send us down that path. If you think shifting risk from developers onto consumers is an act of altruism then god help you.

[Guest]

No, the free market can and regularly does act in anticipation. There is zero chance it would allow the lights to go out because that would represent a missed opportunity to make money. As soon as we can be reasonably certain that nuclear is the way forward, the free market would send us down that path. If you think shifting risk from developers onto consumers is an act of altruism then god help you.

Are you confused what "the free market" actually is?

Our economy doesn't run on free market economics.

If it did we wouldn't have been dependant on oil for so long;

[breadandcheese]

Shale gas. I've long thought Blackpool overrated so a bit of fracking and a few tremors won't be that much of a problem.

Cheap, plentiful, cleaner than coal, self-sufficient as a country. Who needs nuclear?

[stourbridgefox]

No, the free market can and regularly does act in anticipation. There is zero chance it would allow the lights to go out because that would represent a missed opportunity to make money. As soon as we can be reasonably certain that nuclear is the way forward, the free market would send us down that path.

Do we have time to wait until the investors behind the free market are certain? Not just on this issue but on many others?

If we have to wait for Johnny Capitalist to be certain there is a profit in certain ventures before they go ahead then the lights might well go out, someone might well have made a lot of money from selling pollution filtering gas-masks, several island states will be under water and there will be a huge marketing opportunity for factor 100 sunscreen!

Capitalism and the free market are by definition selfish. I do not want to wait for these people to sniff a money making opportunity before real issues facing the planet are addressed.

On another issue, has anyone seen that some places in the UK are experimenting with geothermal energy. Geothermal energy provides Iceland with all the renewable and carbon free energy it needs, it would be great if it is possible in the UK. I always thought the Earth's crust was too thick here, anyone know any different?

[Saxondale]

Until a proper renewable energy source is developed, I'm afraid that nuclear is the most sensible option.

Wind farms are good in principal, but in practice they're shite. They just don't generate enough electricity.

[sphericalfox]

As long as my phone can charge I couldn't care less if they use a baby-burning factory to generate my juice.

[davieG]

Do we have time to wait until the investors behind the free market are certain? Not just on this issue but on many others?

If we have to wait for Johnny Capitalist to be certain there is a profit in certain ventures before they go ahead then the lights might well go out, someone might well have made a lot of money from selling pollution filtering gas-masks, several island states will be under water and there will be a huge marketing opportunity for factor 100 sunscreen!

Capitalism and the free market are by definition selfish. I do not want to wait for these people to sniff a money making opportunity before real issues facing the planet are addressed.

On another issue, has anyone seen that some places in the UK are experimenting with geothermal energy. Geothermal energy provides Iceland with all the renewable and carbon free energy it needs, it would be great if it is possible in the UK. I always thought the Earth's crust was too thick here, anyone know any different?

Every new home where it is viable should be built with all the latest energy saving options and it needs to be include in the building regs.

Yes it may increase the cost of house building although if done on a national scale prices could come down and encourage further development. Energy cost are becoming a greater burden than mortgage repayments.

Including Geothermal - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/hydropower-geothermal/4331401

Solar

Mini Windmills

Composting toilets

Super insulation similar to that used in the Scandinavian countries

[Steven]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

[MooseBreath]

Do we have time to wait until the investors behind the free market are certain? Not just on this issue but on many others?

If we have to wait for Johnny Capitalist to be certain there is a profit in certain ventures before they go ahead then the lights might well go out, someone might well have made a lot of money from selling pollution filtering gas-masks, several island states will be under water and there will be a huge marketing opportunity for factor 100 sunscreen!

Capitalism and the free market are by definition selfish. I do not want to wait for these people to sniff a money making opportunity before real issues facing the planet are addressed.

Johnny capitalist is much more efficient than you give him credit for. There is not a single chance that the lights would go out when there is so much money to be made. I'd probably rather not have pure capitalism deciding environmental issues either, but it's preferable to offering developers bullet proof returns. Maybe you'll agree with me when your bill has gone up 200 quid to pay for these companies to flap around not building anything for years on end.