[deepinthewoods]

finland is a slightly different case, firstly it has its own uranium mine and secondly it has convinced itself it can store the waste adequately. very deep underground.
 
finland has signed the non proliferation treaty and has regularly voted against the use of depleted uranium use at the UN. unlike the UK
 
 
out of all the countrys with nuclear power finland at least has invested in an attempt to deal wilt its waste, and  (hopefully) doesnt contribute to its use as a weapon.
 
if a case is to be made for nuclear power then yes look to finland. the dangers still remain, but good on them for trying to work out solutions. our waste is sat on a field. all 100 000 tonnes of it.
 
 

[deepinthewoods]

So back onto the renewables, National Grid's green forecast which shows some economic growth suggests 30GW of wind power generation by 2020.


That's TEN times the current output, but still less than 30% of the total.  That is an awful lot of wind turbines.  And don't forget that the generators get a guaranteed rate, so it certainly isn't going to be too cheap to meter!


We're faced with a rather unhappy set of choices.  That's why I'm open to reconsidering nuclear, though if fusion showed any signs of progress that would help.  I've visited Culham a fair few times, and success seems decades away still.

 
nuclear only produces 18%. its not unfeasible to replace it.

[escapedtothecountry]

That was a quick bit of research - it's almost as if you had no idea about Finland and its nuclear programme until I mentioned it.......  I'm sure you know all about this:- www.fennovoima.com

[doganjo]

This almost feels like one upmanship here.  All I care about is our lovely world one day being blown sky high by the mess left because of nuclear waste

[escapedtothecountry]

Nuclear waste does not "blow up" Nuclear reactors can. But then so can chemical factories; oil refineries; oil wells a'la the Gulf of Mexico and so on. I don't see many people saying they can live without any fossil fuels unless I am mistaken. This isn't one up-manship but highlighting everything we do has consequences.


I wouldn't want to live next to a gas storage facility or the previously mentioned oil refinery, and they will have far less safety precautions than a nuclear facility.

[Berkshire Boy]

I am certainly not very knowledgable on this subject unlike some on here but then 99% of the population aren't. They want electricity on demand at a reasonable price. I have no problems with nuclear power and as I understand it we are looking at a vast new burial site for our waste.
Wind turbines will go down in history as the biggest con on the public and government alike. You can't get away from the fact that if it's not windy you have no electricity and it doesn't matter if you build 10's of thousands of turbines not one power station will shut down.
I don't understand why more isn't done with hydro electric we live on a island for gods sake.  

[northfifeduckling]

wind turbines can be taken down and scrapped without too much damage but nuclear waste stays with us and with many many generations after us. I don't think many understand what radiation actually does. That Russian spy a few years back was killed with a minuite amount of radioactive material - imagine where that originated from? 

[Berkshire Boy]

That is irrelevant,there are plenty of ways to kill someone, there will always be nuclear power somewhere and there will always be the waste.No one is going to do away with nuclear weapons and you can't deny the world is a safer place with them, world war wise that is.
I've always thought there must be better things to spend nuclear weapon money on but the other day they were discussing our new nuclear arsenal and said that you don't know who your enemies are going to be in 20, 30, 50 years time and that is true.You have to have a deterant and hope some nutter like Israel doesn't use it.

[Mel]

I do not see the world as being safer because we have them,I would like to see all nuclear weaponry scrapped,why should we live in fear of some bright spark whom has the authority? to press the button,I see it as big boys games,mine are bigger than yours,you nuke us,we'll nuke you.simple.

never in my time shall we see some form of world peace,there are plenty of alternatives out there for ozone friendly energy,free energy,but the Governments-again (illuminati) do not allow it  because there is no money to be made from Free energy.

Money,war,war makes more money,greed and power..yukkk.

[MikeM]

interesting article on a solution to nuclear waste:
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/02/nuclear-vs-nuclear-vs-nuclear/
 
 

[escapedtothecountry]

On wind turbines - you cant scrap the C02 that went into making them - all that concrete. And isn't it more likely that the environmental effects of C02 will impact on us.


As I have said before - 2008. 30,000 people in this country died from air pollution in this country. Yet who hear is prepared to give up everything that uses are is made from fossil fuels? No oil = no plastic. No oil = no computer. No disel or oil = no car or tractor or generator.

[in the hills]

ETTC - That to me seems to be the problem. If C02 is such a problem to us as we are led to believe then we need to move not only from nuclear but from conventional as well. Otherwise we are not planning for the future. C.A.T's zero carbon document, which was presented to Government, highlights the changes needed eg. land use change in order to grow bio-fuels, diet change. I may not have this figure correct because I don't have the document to hand but I think they estimated that the UK would need something like 38,000 turbines    When we asked a rep. from C.A.T whether that was realistic in terms of time to build them let alone anything else, they seemed reluctant/unable to answer. That is a lot of swimming pool sized blocks of concrete  , a lot of lorries delivering to remote areas. They say wind is the best option at the moment .... I'm not convinced yet.
 
Have to be careful IMO that we don't rush headlong into replacing one wrong with another wrong. That by no means indicates that I support nuclear but we have to be realistic about current options.
 
DITW - I will read about depleted uranium. If we wanted to make weapons of any sort I suppose we would find a way with or without our country using nuclear as an energy source? Wouldn't we?

[deepinthewoods]

That was a quick bit of research - it's almost as if you had no idea about Finland and its nuclear programme until I mentioned it.......  I'm sure you know all about this:- www.fennovoima.com

truth be told, i was 'aware' of finlands plans to dump 20000 tonnes of radioactive waste deep underground but had not researched it thoroughly. i hope the answer i gave was unbiased and honest.
 
please bare in mind, i am ahumble skilled manual worker, engaging in debate with an ex politician with a special interest in energy security.....  who has yet to engage with me on the uk's production, sale and use of depleted uranium weaponry??
 
 
i would also question whether you have done your research on 'shinkolobwe' ? have you?
 
it is interesting to consider the history of radioactive energy. there was never a plan to develop it for power. the plan was always to produce a bomb. it was discovered bewteen the wars. hitler annexed checkeslovakia and got access to st joachimstal. he then had his uranium mine. even hitler didnt pursue the bomb as fast as the allies/america. hence they used it first. hitler was scared of it.
 
marie and pierre curie did plentiful research on radium(the original name for uranium) they won the nobel prize in the early 1900's  they both died from radiation sickness. whehn pierre finally was well enough to accept his prize he said ''is it right to probe so deeply into nature secrets. the question must be raised here whether it will benefit mankind or whether the knowledge will be harmfull. Radium could be very dangerous in criminal hands''
 
we have now had nuclear power for around 60 years. the bomb for 70
i humbly submit that it has done nothing to benefit mankind  and it has become very dangerous in criminal hands.
 
it is easy to think that there have only been a few nuclear explosions. in fact there have been thousands please take 5.01 minutes of your life to watch this animation. 
Animation of all nuclear explosions from 1945 - 1998
 
 
this whole debate really rests on whether you have researched depleted uranium, please please at least read the wiki article.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
 
good morning everyone! my flu seems to have abated somewhat this morning, perhaps my mind will work a little more crisply....
 
 

[MikeM]

I disagree, I personally don't think DU has anything to do with this. For me, this whole debate is about how we keep the lights on and combat climate change. Feel free to distract yourself with DU if you wish, but you'll have to produce some compelling arguments and evidence to sway me away from thinking nuclkear is the best option for producing the energy a developed, 1st world nation requires.
I suspect you didn't read that article I listed above about fast breeder reactors.

[deepinthewoods]

thats like saying you support coal but ignore the co2. or turbines but ignore the concrete. they exist mutually. the byproduct of nuclear power is DU.  you cant choose to ignore it. it exists.