[doganjo]

If we had no way of using hydro energy
If nuclear plants were 100% safe i.e. couldn't go the same way as fukushima
If nuclear waste could be disposed off without trailing it half across the country
If Nuclear waste could be made 100% safe for as long as this world exists

Then, and ONLY then would I support it's use.

[deepinthewoods]

yes annie, i know what you mean, but it also seems to make sense to use the existing waste to make more energy,and dispose of it in the process. which seems to be what this kind of reactor does, as far as i understand it.

[Small Farmer]

The immediate reaction in many countries to Fukushima was to cancel or delay nuclear power programmes.  The immediate consequence of that was to increase demand for gas.  That causes prices to rise and reduces the security of our energy  supply.  Canada is delighted, of course, because it has astonishing quantities of hydrocarbons bound up in its shale deposits.  Extracting these is a mucky, energy inefficient and environmentally destructive process.
Irrespective of anything anyone does towards building new nuclear capacity the old AGRs will be kept going because we've got an energy crunch coming up.  8GW of coal capacity legally has to close by 2016 and another 9GW by 2023 - that's of about 95GW currently.  So we're going to build another 20GM of gas-fired capacity to use all that cheap and easily available gas we've heard about.
There's expected to be a huge increase in off-shore wind farms because they're politically less contentious.  However their construction and operating costs are dramatically higher than the land-based equivalents.  But that's OK because there will be a guaranteed price from a government desperate not to let the lights go out.

[deepinthewoods]

it is possible to change tho. germany are already doing it.
 
good article this one, worth a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/22/energy-nuclear-renewables?INTCMP=SRCH

[MikeM]

though germany are planning to increase their coal fired stations to bridge the gap:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128236.300-the-carbon-cost-of-germanys-nuclear-nein-danke.html
 
edited cos I found a better link

[Small Farmer]

Germany has vast reserves of brown coal or lignite, rather like peat, which produces considerably more CO2 when burnt than the bituminous coal we have (but can't now recover).  It has a low energy content and is strip-mined from coal fields adjoining the power stations.


It's all about choices.

[doganjo]

yes annie, i know what you mean, but it also seems to make sense to use the existing waste to make more energy,and dispose of it in the process. which seems to be what this kind of reactor does, as far as i understand it.

IF this is true then I MAY change my mind   Anyone want to convince me?

[MikeM]

I have already posted several links to articles that talk about fast breeder reactors.

[deepinthewoods]

yes, they were the ones i found useful. im not able to umm 'give my blessing' however, it is a really 'trapped' sort of  decision that has been carefully politically spun to lead to that conclusion.
hmpf.

[MikeM]

I agree, we have been trapped by at least 20 yrs of policy failures and various govts putting off hard decisions. We now find ourselves having to choose (and we have to choose, IMO there's no sitting on the sidelines here) between which we think to be the lesser evil. And sadly we can't really afford to get it wrong.
Were I 20 or so now, I'd be looking at people like me (early 40's) and saying "this is all your fault".

[MAK]

I have not researched the proportion of electric generated by nucleaur station here in France. However the northern coalfields in France seem pretty inactive but the miserable landscape in the north west is absolutley covered in wind turbines - mile after mile of them. Hydroelectric plants are common around here with rivers dammed as long ago as the 1920s. A key export of France is electricity but I know they use nuclear plants.
One nuclear plant near us shut down and consequentley EDF drained one of their "man made" lakes to pep up the electricity supply. The lake in question is old and is massive with large pleasure boats and many campsites. It was almost emptied but is full again.
My point is that if we are happy to embrace wind farms,flooding river valleys and changing our visial landscape so we can generate hydro-electricity, then we can reduce our need for nuclear fuels. 
I am not sure we can be sentimental about our sceneary ( for that is all it is) and block wind or hydroelectric power becuase of aesthic reasons when the alternative may have such disasterous consequence.
 

[deepinthewoods]

.
My point is that if we are happy to embrace wind farms,flooding river valleys and changing our visial landscape so we can generate hydro-electricity, then we can reduce our need for nuclear fuels. 
I am not sure we can be sentimental about our sceneary ( for that is all it is) and block wind or hydroelectric power becuase of aesthic reasons when the alternative may have such disasterous consequence.

absolutely bang on mak, the temporary 'blot' on the landscape v the horrendous permanant problem of radioactive waste.
 however, the waste needs dealing with, properly, without burial. and an ifr seems to be the answer for that, at least.

[MikeM]

from memory, France generates about 60% of it's leccy with nuclear. The problem with wind is not the blot or otherwise in the landscape, it's the fact that they still need a backup power supply for those times when the wind is not blowing, blowing too stronly or whatever. In the UK, that backup is fossil fuel.

[deepinthewoods]

i prefer fossil fuels to nuclear, when it comes down to it.
however, that needs to be done using proper carbon capture technology, the monbiot article showing how the coal stations can get away with avoiding their UN emmisions targets shows how corrupt this whole energy debate is, it's all-pervasive to my eyes.
 
the current plan to bury all this waste in pits in cumbria, or under the romney marsh is ridiculous.

[doganjo]

I have already posted several links to articles that talk about fast breeder reactors.

I have neither the time nor the patience to read gobbledygook, so as I said in my last post "Anyone want to convince me?"  And I do NOT mean more useless links, I mean useful discussion.