Nuclear power stations

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Next generation of nuclear reactors may be fast tracked.

"Uncertainties about the security of future gas supplies, especially after this month's crisis in Ukraine, have also helped to convince Tony Blair and senior figures at the Department for Trade and Industry that new nuclear power stations are needed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/ar...691749,00.html

Just what we need, rushed nuclear power stations.

i was just reading about Uranium mines, the biggest exporters are Canada, Australia the US and the Belgian Congo. We don't have any uranium mines in the UK so it's not like nuclear power stations are going to suddenly make us self sufficient like ministers are implying. If nuclear power is such a valid option as our governments want us to believe, and enough supplies are available from these mostly very stable countries why are they still all massive importers of oil?

Nuclear power is scary shit. I've got a feeling I'm gonna be protesting in some windswept location in the UK within the next ten years...

[thomas hooked]

i'm all for it. powerstations where the real danger is geographically centred within the population it serves. encourages reposibility if you ask me.

[Paddy]

i love the fact that they're all up here in bonny scotland.

[penciLneck]

how much energy do they produce anyway weighed against the environmental damage? its a REALLY safe technology as well. great.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Originally Posted by thomas hooked

i'm all for it. powerstations where the real danger is geographically centred within the population it serves. encourages reposibility if you ask me.

Yeah.. Mutually assured destruction, that bullet proof notion

[Paddy]

i'm not against nuclear research, i'm just against nuclear fission and all the waste it produces, not to mention nuclear armaments.

mind you, it's not like we've got many options left...

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

There are plenty of options.. it's just politicians seem to have a prediliction for the easy, short-term, disastrous ones.

[Loz]

Someone needs to do a proper study into Wind Power. And people who protest wind farms need to get over their nimby attitudes.

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by Numbnuts

There are plenty of options.. it's just politicians seem to have a prediliction for the easy, short-term, disastrous ones.

true, i'm just being lazy.

@ loz, wind farms are teh shizzle. have you been up close to one of those motherfuckers?

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

A change in lifestyles is the obvious solution to the problem, but that takes very strong leadership I think... something sorely lackings in politics.

The truth is we really are not faced with a choice, we have to change our lifestyles or the world is doomed, in WWII people had to accept food rationing or they would have starved.

Imagine if the governments of the world put their propaganda machines in the service of truth.. I think this problem could get sorted.. we all know fear is one of the most powerful motivators... is the world becoming unihabitable not really that frightening?

[penciLneck]

Originally Posted by Numbnuts

the world is dooooooomed.

..

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Do you have an opinion on this subject pencilNeck? I'd like to hear it

[penciLneck]

ahhhh... no. I actually agree with you, you bugger. I don't know how realistic it is to expect change from lifestyle choices or dynamic leadership. I think you are closer to the mark with the propaganda machine. It has to be something that is all encompassing or comes from within like a powerful ideology or religion.

[Loz]

I reckon Nuclear Power Stations are a good idea. It's the future of power generation. Virtually no emmissions, and the waste we can just bury in deep holes until it's safe to be with again. I support Tony Blair in his policies, I think he's brilliant.

[thepigjockey]

Originally Posted by thomas hooked

i'm all for it. powerstations where the real danger is geographically centred within the population it serves. encourages reposibility if you ask me.

How about this... the politicians asking for more nuclear power stations should be forced to live in luxury flats inside the reactor core, that might ensure safety...

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

According to this vote 75% of Britons think Nuclear power should be expanded:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4638610.stm

only 250 people voted so far.

[nempsey]

trouble is are you gonna sit shivering in january with no heating or cooking? seems to me nuclear is the only way to fill the gap left by the imminent end of natural gas. wind power just aint gonna cut it when you're talking about heating everyone's homes in winter.

[decadnids]

nuclear seems like a good idea, but have to wonder about the the self sufficient nature of it as a source of energy for a country. i think the UK should look at sources of energy that we can sustain and produce as a nation.

a combination of wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydro-electric has to be an option.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

The ole Radiation sickness tends to get you shivering too. It's far from definitive that it is the only way left. ultimately perhaps we're all too selfish to give anything else a go.

[decadnids]

i'd prefer not to have nuclear and look at the alternative. - if each person had a little windmill on their roof they could generate some electricity, some solar panels, etc - could reduce the amount of power taken from the national grid.

if people produce too much electricity, it can be feed back into the national grid.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

I imagine middle england would rather go with nuclear than have unsightly windmills on their roof. It might affect their satellite dishes too.

When i was 8 i had an invention for energy.

a device u put on your shoe which connects to like a massive battery structure in ur coat. everytime u walk u charge the battery. it may not be a lot of power but when u get home u can plug ur jacket into small power things like some LEDS u use as lights.

[decadnids]

nice one phil - some bloke has a similiar thing that generates energy as you walk enough to power something like a mobile phone.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Soon you'll be able to use electricity to read books!

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,7...w=wn_tophead_2

Good for that brief span of time between the trees running out and the nuclear reactors melting down.

[Loz]

there is a massive gap between estimations of how much nuclear energy is going to cost the government, and therefore us as tax payers in subsidies.

Nuclear industry says that it'll cover the cost - including the very costly decommissioning costs (somehow I doubt that, they're far more likely to say "er.. we've finished with this now, can you get rid of it?" and the government will be powerless to refuse them)

Other estimates range between £3million and £18million.

[grobelaar]

I was chatting to some bloke once, he used to work at the Nuclear Power station in the lake district. Apparently, they used to get the Territorial Army SAS to stage mock attacks on Nuclear Power Stations to test the security - they'd be armed with stickers that said things like 'you are dead' and you'd have to lie down - their objective was to get to the main reactor and put a big sticker on it that read 'BIG BOMB'.

[grobelaar]

Originally Posted by Numbnuts

I imagine middle england would rather go with nuclear than have unsightly windmills on their roof. It might affect their satellite dishes too.

Apparently it interferes with Radio 4 reception...

[grobelaar]

Originally Posted by decadnids

i'd prefer not to have nuclear and look at the alternative. - if each person had a little windmill on their roof they could generate some electricity, some solar panels, etc - could reduce the amount of power taken from the national grid.

if people produce too much electricity, it can be feed back into the national grid.

The problem with that is it de-centralises the power generation. Its no longer something we, the people, rely on some small powerful unit to provide. It means another oppportunity to take money of the people is lost, and most significantly it might get people thinking of crazy minded ideas like acting locally... ...and telling corporations, government etc to get lost.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Britain has 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste stored around the country - more than enough to fill the Albert Hall five times. Exposure to even a tiny amount of the most potent type could kill an adult within two minutes - and it remains lethal for one million years. It will cost £85 billion to bury all this radioactive rubbish - but our governments have dodged the decision of where to put it for 30 years. As Tony Blair takes the first steps towards building ten new nuclear reactors to plug the looming energy gap, shouldn't we clear up this mess first?

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle340630.ece