Nuclear Power

[Guest]

I am a lifelong opponent of nuclear power. The only person I have ever refused to give a job reference to was hoping to be involved in the development of nuclear power stations here. It was sometime after 9/11. I asked him what would happen if a plane was flown into one, say, within a hundred miles of London. I was told that they were jet resistant. I remained unconvinced.

By some miracle, it appears from the news we have that Japan has not experienced the nuclear disaster that it might have done. Probably just as well because the other chaos caused by the tsunami is surely in itself enough for human beings to try to cope with. We have been told that the plants are earthquake resistant. They might ultimately become sufficiently stable to be presented as such unequivocally. But all the nervousness and the lack of certainty tell a different story. The scientists know they are a risk.

It is hard to think of a single human invention that hasn't had the potential to become faulty, damaged or destroyed. The nature of the nuclear industry is such that many genuinely believe that it can defy this law of nature too. Japan has 55 nuclear reactors. Closer to home, France has 58. That is more than enough to be in close proximity. We don't need new ones to add to that total.

[Cellini]

Yes, I am also opposed to the use of nuclear power.

If the NP station(s) in Japan have a nuclear explosion (and it seems very likely) it will not only be devastating for Japan but for the world as this will realease radiation and unmeasurable Plutonium and other toxic material, according to an expert on the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning.

[kernelbogey]

I read or heard that a Japanese seismologist (I think) had warned their government that the level of protection in the reactors against earthquake was inadequate, and they ignored it. I'm just hearing about the second explosion on the news now.

I'm also opposed to nuclear power.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's always the same with nuclear power. When an incident occurs, either there is a cover-up (Windscale fire 1957) or the excuse "We could not have foreseen...". It's too risky to justify. David Cameron and his stooge talk about the economic debts that "our children will face" (ignoring the huge infrastructure that they will inherit), but this is nothing when compared with the legacy of nuclear power stations that take many decades to decommission and even longer for the nuclear waste to become safe.

[Dave2002]

Sure - nuclear power is scary, but just because right now things don't look too good in Japan that doesn't mean that overall it isn't something which we need. If there is a really major incident in Japan, then that will clearly reduce enthusiasm for nuclear power elsewhere, but it is possible that, horrendous as the problems look, things will come under control in the not too distant future. It's early days yet.

I still strongly urge others to read David Mackay's book on Sustainable Energy - without the hot air - http://www.withouthotair.com/ - free to download. If we want to continue to live the kind of lifestyle which most of us take for granted, then nuclear power may still be one of the few tools which we can realistically use.

In this country, and also in nearby European countries, incidents of earthquakes are really quite low, and we would not normally expect to be subject to tsunamis. However there could be problems for power units built close to the sea if we think that disruption due to rapid sea level rise could become a possibility which we need to include in risk assessment. On balance I was strongly in favour of nuclear power in the UK until recently. The events in Japan are reducing my belief in this slightly, but it's still far too early to say that we shouldn't go that way.

[Frances_iom]

Several points - the earthquake has probably killed 20,000, large amount of oil refineries damaged etc that have probably pumped more poison into local areas (can I also raise the recent oil spills) with unknown future impact, burning coal for the same amount of energy both kills more in production, releases more nasties (inc radiation) during burning - the reactors are 40years old - it is true that post 3mile island incident the same design is now required to have an additional concrete shell to prevent the hydrogen explosion but this was not damaging in itself - the reactor itself was not damaged it was the tsaumi that damaged the backup power supply diesel generators.
Re Windscale that was basically a military site producing key components for the UK bomb - however as the CO2 released from fossil fuels burning if the rest of the world wants to meet EU usage rates (let alone USA rates) would be disastrous - switch off UK nuclear and there would be power cuts

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree that the evens in Japan are unlikely to be replicated here. However, this is only one of the many issues. As far as wanting "to continue to live the kind of lifestyle which most of us take for granted" is concerned. the harsh truth is that technology will not be good enough to defy the law of mathematics - the idea that we can sustain our current world population with our greedy outlook. I know this is a hobby-horse of mine, but reducing the world's population (including our own) is the only sustainable option. That will be painful in the short term, but failure to act merely makes the problem worse in the future.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Re Windscale that was basically a military site producing key components for the UK bomb - however as the CO2 released from fossil fuels burning if the rest of the world wants to meet EU usage rates (let alone USA rates) would be disastrous - switch off UK nuclear and there would be power cuts

WIndscale was a magnox power station producing electricity. The fire was hushed up until radiation levels increased in London. Then they had to own up.

[Frances_iom]

I know this is a hobby-horse of mine, but reducing the world's population (including our own) is the only sustainable option. That will be painful in the short term, but failure to act merely makes the problem worse in the future.

since 1 American consumes on average 55x more resources than a South Asian peasant farmer getting rid of 300M+ Americans would go a long way towards your aim and possibly easier than 1500M peasants needed to reduced population by 25%- or do you have another specific group in mind ?

Re Windscale - it was I understand being operated in such a way as to maximize production on material needed for our H bomb program

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep Dave2002 everyone should be familiar with that excellent book, summarised here

are you aware of the explosive energy of a tank of LPG currently sitting under your local forecourt? i was once on an LPG tanker that had a near miss collision, if it had fractured a tank and exploded then goodbye a large chunk of a major seaport ... the slow risks and the CO2 risks of hydrocarbons are pretty lethal ... the author of without the hot air is arguing for getting the sums right first, we should do the same with the risks .... a strong argument can be made that nuclear power's safety can only be improved by having more of it and newer technologies, as it stands it is a dramatic risk, but not a serious one

CO2 is killing our species, the planet will carry on without us, Lovelock thinks it is too late, having done some sums he forecasts a world population of 500m in a few decades ... all i can say is i hope he is wrong but that we are in the last chance saloon i am in no doubt ....


his views on nuclear power

I'm in favour of nuclear for crowded places like Britain for the simple reason that it's cheap, effective and exceedingly safe when you look at the record. We've had it for 50 years, but I can understand the left hating it because it was Thatcher's greatest weapon against the miners because we were then getting 30% of our electricity from nuclear. We could build a nuclear power station in five years, but it's the legal and planning stuff that makes it take 15 years. If governments were serious they would undo this legislation that holds it back.

here is interview

more on Lovelock at wicki

anybody flown across Greenland lately? how much bare rock did you see?

[Cellini]

since 1 American consumes on average 55x more resources than a South Asian peasant farmer getting rid of 300M+ Americans would go a long way towards your aim and possibly easier than 1500M peasants needed to reduced population by 25%- or do you have another specific group in mind ?

Re Windscale - it was I understand being operated in such a way as to maximize production on material needed for our H bomb program

What a good idea!! Get rid of the consumers that use the most resources.

Yes, let's have power cuts and stop using vehicles that use fossil fuels. Start by putting the tax up on private cars/vehicles that do over 4,000 miles per year. (By an increase of 100% for every 1,000 miles in excess of the 4,000 miles. (Except for reasonable exeptions). Put a tax on all eqipment that is thrown away and not repaired or re-cycled. (Say a tax of 300 times the cost of the original equipment).

Switch off street lamps at 10.00pm and ban all electrically powered advertising on the streets. Fine offices and business premises for using excessive power (say 1,000 times the excess they have used).

Stop producing CD's and other electronically powered devices - keep music live.

Stop the government wasting money on useless things like the Olympics, and futile wars in Iraq and Afgahanistan.

[Dave2002]

since 1 American consumes on average 55x more resources than a South Asian peasant farmer getting rid of 300M+ Americans would go a long way towards your aim and possibly easier than 1500M peasants needed to reduced population by 25%- or do you have another specific group in mind ?

Re Windscale - it was I understand being operated in such a way as to maximize production on material needed for our H bomb program

Frances

My understanding is that, bad as the Americans are re energy, Brits and other Europeans are not so far behind, with perhaps 75% of the consumption, so perhaps 1 Brit = 40 SA peasants. Close down the UK and we'd get the equivalent of around 2.4 billion such peasant farmers. However, not all Asian consumers are equivalent to peasants. The affluent rich in both India and China probably have lifestyles which are better than most of us have, and they are increasing in number.

In China there is a rather large domestic demand for air travel, with many 747s full of Chinese tourists doing internal flights.

[Dave2002]

Stop producing CD's and other electronically powered devices - keep music live.

Would that keep you in business?

1. People would probably not be able to get to your concerts.

On the other hand ...

2. More people might be "forced" to take up instruments, so you might get work as a music teacher. [maybe you do this already]

but then ...

3. The increased demand for instruments might not be so good for the environment, unless of course we reuse other materials. Steel bands and vegetable orchestras spring to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfYt7vRHuY

[BetweenTheStaves]

....I know this is a hobby-horse of mine, but reducing the world's population (including our own) is the only sustainable option. That will be painful in the short term, but failure to act merely makes the problem worse in the future.

Not such a hobby-horse...it's the only logical route this planet can take. We've done our bit and have no children.

[BetweenTheStaves]

What a good idea!! Get rid of the consumers that use the most resources.

Yes, let's have power cuts and stop using vehicles that use fossil fuels. Start by putting the tax up on private cars/vehicles that do over 4,000 miles per year. (By an increase of 100% for every 1,000 miles in excess of the 4,000 miles. (Except for reasonable exeptions). Put a tax on all eqipment that is thrown away and not repaired or re-cycled. (Say a tax of 300 times the cost of the original equipment).

Switch off street lamps at 10.00pm and ban all electrically powered advertising on the streets. Fine offices and business premises for using excessive power (say 1,000 times the excess they have used).

Stop producing CD's and other electronically powered devices - keep music live.

Stop the government wasting money on useless things like the Olympics, and futile wars in Iraq and Afgahanistan.

Gosh, yes. And we should get rid of those pesky people who get drunk and use up NHS resources. Those with poor eye-sight...those who are disabled...they consume too many resources. The list is endless.