Nuclear Energy - Good or Bad?

[Amin]

It's a relatively clean source of energy and no more expensive than conventional methods, so yes.

[davieG]

It's a relatively clean source of energy and no more expensive than conventional methods, so yes.

Relatively clean is extremely vague can you define it.

The waste is certainly not clean.

[MooseBreath]

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.popularme...thermal/4331401

Solar

Mini Windmills

Composting toilets

Super insulation similar to that used in the Scandinavian countries

The code for sustainable homes already covers it in a realistic manner

[davieG]

The code for sustainable homes already covers it in a realistic manner

So why isn't happening, probably installation costs. Sometimes you have to push things along a bit harder in the national interest, things have moved on significantly since they realised attic insulation was worthwhile.

[Captain...]

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.

Unless there is more money to be made by letting the energy run down, such as making current energy reserves more expensive.

If we can create an efficient way to generate clean limitless energy that uses no resources then a lot of very rich men will lose their power and influence.

Did you know that there is a lot of oil under the arctic, did you know that the countries doing the least to tackle climate change are the ones that will profit the most if the ice caps melt and we can access that oil?

[MooseBreath]

So why isn't happening, probably installation costs. Sometimes you have to push things along a bit harder in the national interest, things have moved on significantly since they realised attic insulation was worthwhile.

It only applies to new builds, so you won't see much of it unless you see a lot of new builds. In the UK we really only need better glazing & insulation and ideally more common use of ground source heat pumps to reduce heating costs. I think things like mini-windmills and solar panels for electricity generation have so much embodied energy as to render them largely pointless in view of the fact that large scale renewable energy generation is by necessity not too far away.

[davieG]

It only applies to new builds, so you won't see much of it unless you see a lot of new builds. In the UK we really only need better glazing & insulation and ideally more common use of ground source heat pumps to reduce heating costs. I think things like mini-windmills and solar panels for electricity generation have so much embodied energy as to render them largely pointless in view of the fact that large scale renewable energy generation is by necessity not too far away.

So are you saying that better glazing & insulation and ground source heat pumps are included in current building regs because if they aren't very little will change only for the most expensive houses which does nothing for those on low incomes suffering high energy bills and little for the nation as a whole.

[MooseBreath]

So are you saying that better glazing & insulation and ground source heat pumps are included in current building regs because if they aren't very little will change only for the most expensive houses which does nothing for those on low incomes suffering high energy bills and little for the nation as a whole.

Conservation of fuel and power is covered in Part L of the building regs which outlines minimum standards which must be adhered to. The code for sustainable homes goes over and above the building regs and issues new builds with a star rating. It's not compulsory to adhere to the CFSH but most large developers do aim for a decent rating as a kind of badge of quality which they can use to promote and sell the houses. As time goes on the compulsory standards get higher and higher and a decent CFSH rating gets harder to achieve which drives improvement. I'm not an expert on the ins and outs, but i think it's considered a pretty good system.

[davieG]

Conservation of fuel and power is covered in Part L of the building regs which outlines minimum standards which must be adhered to. The code for sustainable homes goes over and above the building regs and issues new builds with a star rating. It's not compulsory to adhere to the CFSH but most large developers do aim for a decent rating as a kind of badge of quality which they can use to promote and sell the houses. As time goes on the compulsory standards get higher and higher and a decent CFSH rating gets harder to achieve which drives improvement. I'm not an expert on the ins and outs, but i think it's considered a pretty good system.

Ok, just seems to be moving very slowly based on the new builds I've looked at recently not that there's many around and every incentive to keep the costs to a minimum, they seem pretty poor value to me.

[Leicester_Numan]

I'd much rather have renewables, they're never going to run out and there's no hazardous waste

[Smudge]

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.popularme...thermal/4331401

Solar

Mini Windmills

Composting toilets

Super insulation similar to that used in the Scandinavian countries

I don't think that geothermal is what he is talking about. I have that sort at home. What Stourbridge, I think, is on about is taking superheated steam from lava flows and using it to drive turbines. All you need is a volcano nearby.

[Amin]

Relatively clean is extremely vague can you define it.

The waste is certainly not clean.

Nuclear energy emits around a tenth of the CO2 emissions that coal power does and the waste from coal power plants actually emits more radiation than nuclear waste does.

[Smudge]

Nuclear energy emits around a tenth of the CO2 emissions that coal power does and the waste from coal power plants actually emits more radiation than nuclear waste does.

I took it that he meant the spent fuel rods.

[davieG]

The estimated cost of cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in Cumbria has risen by almost £2.5bn in a year, a report has said.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said clean-up costs at the complex had risen from £67.5bn in 2013 to an "astonishing" £70bn.

The report said progress had been "poor" and targets had been missed.

The consortium in charge of the clean-up said the challenges at Sellafield had been "unprecedented".

The report by the committee of MPs made a series of recommendations, calling on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to terminate the contract of the private consortium Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) if its performance did not improve.

'Clear leadership'

The report said the consortium had been brought in six years ago to help Sellafield improve its performance and had its contract extended last October despite "spiralling costs and poor performance".

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

Both NMP and the NDA now have a much better understanding of the issues and complexities that exist at the site”

John ClarkeNDA chief executive

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, said: "Cleaning up the nuclear waste on this hazardous site is estimated to cost more than £70bn in cash terms. What's worse is that the cost is likely to continue to rise.

"The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield and which appointed NMP, said itself that it did not expect NMP to meet its savings target for the first five years - despite NMP being on course to earn £230m for the job.

"Timescales have slipped and reprocessing targets have been missed. NMP has failed to provide the clear leadership, strong management and improved capabilities for the job."

Ms Hodge said the authority should monitor progress and terminate the contract if NMP's performance does not improve quickly.

'Number of disappointments'

Continue reading the main story What is radioactive waste?

• Material containing levels of radioactivity hazardous to humans and the environment
• Usually a by-product of nuclear power generation - 95% of UK's radioactive waste comes from the nuclear power industry
• Waste is categorised by its radioactivity level - high (heat-generating), intermediate and low
• High level waste (HLW) is the liquid by-product of reprocessing highly-radioactive spent nuclear fuel
• HLW is converted into glass blocks within steel containers, then placed in a store where it is cooled by air - for at least 50 years

Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change

• Watch how Sellafield is being decommissioned
• Fission: How is nuclear power generated?

NDA chief executive John Clarke said: "We have made good progress towards implementing the recommendations laid down by the PAC and will now focus on achieving the aims of the recommendations set out in this latest report.

"Both NMP and the NDA now have a much better understanding of the issues and complexities that exist at the site and the challenges that lie ahead.

"Whilst progress has been made on a number of fronts, we will require significant improvements during the next contract period.

"We have had extensive discussions with NMP and made clear where these improvements must be made."

NMP chairman Tom Zarges said the challenges at Sellafield were "unprecedented, with complexities exceeding any other operational or decommissioning nuclear site in the world", which needed "extraordinary technology and skills".

"The first term of our contract has been characterised by many successes, but also a number of disappointments and areas for improvement.

"Our job now is to build on our experience of the last five years to safely and reliably deliver our customer's mission, while further accelerating the pace of change and providing value for money to the NDA, government and the UK tax payer."

A Department for Energy and Climate Change spokesman said the findings of the PAC would be taken "very seriously" and their recommendations would be considered.

[Finnegan]

I can't be the only person that can no longer see or hear the word radioactive without blurting out Imagine ****ing Dragons.

[lavrentis]

I think Nuclear energy is clean, just not in an earthquake area..

 

waste is definitely an issue and i'd much rather see it blasted off into space than put underground though that probably wont be cheap

[Merging Cultures]

Capitalism and the free market are by definition selfish.

 

The free market does not exist. It is an ideal, where there is easy entry and exit into markets, full information is available to all, and market actors are rational in decision making.

 

Companies are set up solely to increase the wealth of their shareholders by increasing their share price. Therefore, yes they are selfish. But if there is more information, or smart regulation, then competition can increase and markets can act more rationally. 

 

I think we are beginning to understand more about the issues around energy and nuclear would be a more rational strategy in the medium term (25-50 years). Fracking, no.

 

In the longer term, we will remove grids completely, houses will be more efficient and we will have individual energy generators (probably a mix of fuel cells, solar and micro-wind generators). 

[MooseBreath]

What's wrong with fracking in your opinion?

[Merging Cultures]

What's wrong with fracking in your opinion?

 

My comment was quite short, and not quite correct.

 

I dont think there is enough information about the environmental damage. Whether the chemicals used in the flush will seep into the water table, if breaking open fractures in the bedrock does cause tremors etc.

 

Unfortunately, most things have negative consequences. We should watch others for a little bit and then make a more educated decision. I do not think we need to rush. 

[Captain...]

My comment was quite short, and not quite correct.

 

I dont think there is enough information about the environmental damage. Whether the chemicals used in the flush will seep into the water table, if breaking open fractures in the bedrock does cause tremors etc.

 

Unfortunately, most things have negative consequences. We should watch others for a little bit and then make a more educated decision. I do not think we need to rush. 

 

Agree with this, I would much rather see all energies concentrated on renewable energy resources, basically free energy, the risk that fracking will cause serious environmental damage may be small, but the consequences could be dramatic. We have ploughed ahead so many times without consideration to the potential environmental impact and ireparably damaged the environment, why risk another massive disaster. We also need to be cutting our energy usage not milking dry a new found finite resource.

 

In my hippy utopian future every roof is covered with solar panels, every house is fully insulated double glazed and energy efficient with a small wind turbine fitted, all gutters are fitted with a turbine so that every time it rains it is collected and as it drains it powers this turbine, all phones can be charged by solar energy. I know that each individual solar panel and turbine will only generate a tiny amount of energy, but the cumulative effects would be immense.

[Merging Cultures]

Agree with this, I would much rather see all energies concentrated on renewable energy resources, basically free energy, the risk that fracking will cause serious environmental damage may be small, but the consequences could be dramatic. We have ploughed ahead so many times without consideration to the potential environmental impact and ireparably damaged the environment, why risk another massive disaster. We also need to be cutting our energy usage not milking dry a new found finite resource.

 

In my hippy utopian future every roof is covered with solar panels, every house is fully insulated double glazed and energy efficient with a small wind turbine fitted, all gutters are fitted with a turbine so that every time it rains it is collected and as it drains it powers this turbine, all phones can be charged by solar energy. I know that each individual solar panel and turbine will only generate a tiny amount of energy, but the cumulative effects would be immense.

 

I dont think that is a hippy notion at all. Grids are too inefficient they lose a lot of power. 

 

We are creating more energy efficient appliances and houses all the time so there is no reason to think that microgeneration could not power all of a households needs in the next 15-20 years.

[leicsmac]

I dont think that is a hippy notion at all. Grids are too inefficient they lose a lot of power. 

 

We are creating more energy efficient appliances and houses all the time so there is no reason to think that microgeneration could not power all of a households needs in the next 15-20 years.

 

Fusion for the big stuff, renewables for microgeneration and the small stuff. Wave of the future.

 

Of course the big oil/gas companies don't like that, hence why they've bought most of the patents for renewable tech and suppressed the technology until the energy market hits crisis point and the time is right to release it for maximum profit.

[MooseBreath]

I don't see any problem using shale gas and nuclear while renewable technology is advanced. In the real world we are in a situation where we need to be taking immediate action t secure our medium term needs. Things like solar and wind power are still expensive and inefficient. It makes no sense to go all in on them now when we can get by with an abundance of cheap shale gas for a couple of decades and then revisit renewables when the technology has moved on. If we are going to go for renewables then tidal is a better bet than solar in the UK. We have quite a bit of tidal potential and the technology is already there.

[leicsmac]

I don't see any problem using shale gas and nuclear while renewable technology is advanced. In the real world we are in a situation where we need to be taking immediate action t secure our medium term needs. Things like solar and wind power are still expensive and inefficient. It makes no sense to go all in on them now when we can get by with an abundance of cheap shale gas for a couple of decades and then revisit renewables when the technology has moved on. If we are going to go for renewables then tidal is a better bet than solar in the UK. We have quite a bit of tidal potential and the technology is already there.

 

While I agree that renewables need to be developed more before becoming more widespread (too inefficient right now), what guarantees are there that such a switch would in fact take place after those couple of decades? More likely that the companies controlling the shale gas excavation would make us totally reliant on them regardless of the environmental cost, ala oil/gas today, and we would keep using them.

 

I'd rather go full tilt for renewable tech now rather than opening the can of worms that fracking is and be unable to close it. I believe that cheap and efficient renewable tech really isn't that far away, and if you force the big energy companies to turn to it now rather than later they would. 

 

Tidal energy is a good shout - as you said the potential and tech is already there, it would be a good place to start. 

[OzFox]

I don't see any problem using shale gas and nuclear while renewable technology is advanced. In the real world we are in a situation where we need to be taking immediate action t secure our medium term needs. Things like solar and wind power are still expensive and inefficient. It makes no sense to go all in on them now when we can get by with an abundance of cheap shale gas for a couple of decades and then revisit renewables when the technology has moved on. If we are going to go for renewables then tidal is a better bet than solar in the UK. We have quite a bit of tidal potential and the technology is already there.

 

I see your point but unfortunately that means 20 years of methane pollution (one of the most potent greenhouse gases), trashing some of the countryside and possibly poisoning the water supply

 

Fusion for the big stuff, renewables for microgeneration and the small stuff. Wave of the future.

 

Of course the big oil/gas companies don't like that, hence why they've bought most of the patents for renewable tech and suppressed the technology until the energy market hits crisis point and the time is right to release it for maximum profit.

 

Think you've mentioned this before. Is there any evidence for it?