More nuclear power for the UK?

[Dave2002]

I'm not totally against nuclear power, and indeed it may be a sensible way forward, but there are clearly risks.

I've just noticed this proposal - http://www.nugeneration.com/news-30062014.html

Does anyone have more information? Is this a good/reasonable plan?

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not totally against nuclear power, and indeed it may be a sensible way forward, but there are clearly risks.

I've just noticed this proposal - http://www.nugeneration.com/news-30062014.html

Does anyone have more information? Is this a good/reasonable plan?

With N Sea oil and gas reserves not expected to last, our dependency on oil provision from countries, many of whose futures are politicallly uncertain, and fracking unproven from a safety pov, in the absence of environmentally non-endangering alternative energy sources whose discovery/invention one had once pinned hopes upon, and in the light of Jim Lovelock's change of mind - nuclear waste can be compacted for relatively easy long-term deep storage or even firing off at the sun - for some time I have been re-thinking my long opposition to nuclear power until someone comes up with something better. We are told that the new generation of generators will be more quickly built than their predecessors; whether more cheaply will part-determine prices for use, and siting of plants away from faultlines/earthquake zones, not to mention operational safety, will be prime concerns. The other unresolved problem of our times around nuclear is defense against terrorist attack, or the product getting into "the wrong hands".

[Ferretfancy]

Because the development of nuclear power as it is has enormous political and financial forces behind it, there has been very little real research into better types of nuclear generation. If the technical difficulties could be overcome, the development of thorium reactors would produce less waste, and thorium is more abundant.
This need only take a few years of research and development. but we are stuck in the uranium based mindset.

[Dave2002]

... and siting of plants away from faultlines/earthquake zones, not to mention operational safety, will be prime concerns. The other unresolved problem of our times around nuclear is defense against terrorist attack, or the product getting into "the wrong hands".

I think there will be opposition to the Cumbrian plans. My concern would be more that the site may not be secure against some natural disasters. In the case of Fukushima, the designers had assumed that a clearance of I think 10 metres would be sufficient to counter any expected problems form tsunamis, and they were almost right. Almost was not, however, good enough. The sea defences were not high enough, and a further unanticipated problem, was that the seismic activity actually lowered the land in the area by around 2 metres. I assume that there are some advantages in constructing nuclear plants close to the sea, rather than significantly inland. If that is the case, then suitable firm structural support is required, and with sufficient height clearance to remain above any problems arising from sea disturbances.

In the Japanese events it was also clear that most man made structures were not able to withstand the force of the incoming mass of water from the sea.

In the UK generally we don't anticipate large scale disturbances from the sea, but there are some possibilities for the future which have been flagged up. One is the collapse of part of the Canary Islands, which could happen any time from now, to the next few thousand years or maybe even longer. This is expected to cause very considerable disturbance and destruction in the Atlantic region. Global warming would also be expected to raise sea levels, and there could also be shifts in land levels.

The Japanese risk assessments were possibly done well, but with hindsight it can clearly be seen that they were not done well enough. If the UK does build new reactors, then a very significant safety margin should be built in for possible but unlikely events.

[amateur51]

Because the development of nuclear power as it is has enormous political and financial forces behind it, there has been very little real research into better types of nuclear generation. If the technical difficulties could be overcome, the development of thorium reactors would produce less waste, and thorium is more abundant.
This need only take a few years of research and development. but we are stuck in the uranium based mindset.

The thorium alternative seems to raise its head every five years or so, and I always seem to be cheered up by the prospect offered, but no-one ever seems to advance its cause.

And being a bear of little brain I'm qualified to say little more.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

[amateur51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

Cheers S_A - I found this interesting too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

[P. G. Tipps]

The thorium alternative seems to raise its head every five years or so, and I always seem to be cheered up by the prospect offered, but no-one ever seems to advance its cause.

And being a bear of little brain I'm qualified to say little more.

Oh come on, amateur51, do somehow shake yourself from your debilitating inferiority complex!

However, like any 'miracle cure', thorium does have its sceptical detractors ...

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype,4919

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Nuclear power is safe and pigs can fly.

Human greed and overpopulation leads us once again to the creation of this monster that will be our legacy for future generations.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Interesting item in today's Guardian. The area around Sellafield is the only part of England with easily affordable housing.