Nuclear power

[Shaun]

I thought I'd start this thread as in another thread I went somewhat off topic.

The electorate are exactly the same though, they want results now and if they don;t see them then they slate the government. Seems to be a bit of a mind set really. Why people feel that policies have to be popular to work is beyond me.

I watched a program on Channel 4 the other night where the conclusion was that to halt global warning (or at lease our carbon emission's) we would need to switch to nuclear power. Many scientists are now coming back to this idea but can you imagine a government announcing this to the public? Even if it was the best thing for the world? No because they fear getting voted out. Look how many people protested over the war in Iraq and fox hunting! Something like a wholesale switch to nuclear power (or the reversal of off shoreing) just isn't going to happen as its not popular enough.

Oh and don't tell me the other party's would be any different because I we all know they wouldn't.

As stated in the above quote many scientists are now coming around to the idea that nuclear power is the only way forward to reduce carbon emmisions, I wondered what the CF concensus would be.

Place your vote now.

[downquark1]

in favour of nuclear power

[AndrewJ]

How to change people to nuclear power.


Let coal and fossil stations turn off due to lack of fuel.

Make the people be cold without power.

Then go to each house, and state.

"we have stations but they are nuclear, but they would make your warm and able to enjoy the internet and cook again.

I sincerly doubt anyone would object.

Also with Nuclear Fusion ( not fission we have that already ) is not too far off, and is being tested in Russia and France with great sucesses in getting the reaction process stable.

Get rid of nuclear power is what I say.

[bigitup_j]

i have no problems with nuclear power.

i'm just a little uncomfortable about nuclear waste travelling by my house on the train, from dungeness. i sure hope it don't crash!

as long as the waste affects no-one, then there shouldn't be an issue. nuclear power stations, which are maintained properly, are not dangerous (hopefully )

[Dave Stones]

oh i don't know, one of my lecturers at uni was on the design team of a nuclear power plant (i forget which one). anyway, they had no way of testing whether anything worked or not, apparently the only way they would find out for sure would be when they turned the on/off switch to "on" glad i werent on that team and borked up...

im for nuke power, but i think that just in case, they should be built really far underground or in the middle of nowhere (finally, a use for scotland/norfolk anyone? )

[edit] as long as anyone like homer simpson doesn't ever get employed

[etccarmageddon]

nuclear is very cheap to produce. much cheaper than coal etc

but very expensive when you take into account the long term costs - ie. the decomissioning of the power station and disposal of the waste.

I'm all for destroying the countryside beauty by bunging up wind turbines etc - much safer than giving terrorists something they can fly a plane into or blow up with a lorry.

[AndrewJ]

Surely a cheap method of firing the depleted rods could be found and this would prevent used rods being a radioactive hazard, as for transporting them, Would it not be hard to make containers which are built to withstand a mega massive impact?.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Also with Nuclear Fusion ( not fission we have that already ) is not too far off, and is being tested in Russia and France with great sucesses in getting the reaction process stable.

It's been "not that far off" for 40 years, we haven't got another 40 left!

Oh and it may be stable (for a few seconds) but consumes alot more energy so run than it produces I'm afraid. Also you still have the same problem with decommissioning of stations.

[Graham M]

Originally Posted by Scott

Get rid of nuclear power is what I say.

So you'd rather NOT have electricity when the Fossil fuels run out or...

[Pierre]

We have no choice.

Fossil fuels will.....eventually.....run out.

Green solutions such as wind/wave power do not produce enough (however we should still keep building them)

If we are to be a self sufficient power producing nation, then nuclear is the only way to go.

Nuclear power is the only answer

[daxx]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Surely a cheap method of firing the depleted rods could be found and this would prevent used rods being a radioactive hazard, as for transporting them, Would it not be hard to make containers which are built to withstand a mega massive impact?.

Already being done. just a 'few' links here

Get rid of the Nuclear Stations. I lost my job due to these power stations.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by dellwear

It's been "not that far off" for 40 years, we haven't got another 40 left!

Oh and it may be stable (for a few seconds) but consumes alot more energy so run than it produces I'm afraid. Also you still have the same problem with decommissioning of stations.

If fusion had the same massive international funding that fission had in the 40s and 50s, it wouldn't be far off.

It's true that fusion reactors take a hell of a lot of energy to start up. But once you get them hot enough, they can be self-sustaining. It's still not spectularly efficient -- the majority of the energy generated by the reactions goes to continuing the reactions. But this is exactly the same as what happens in current conventional and nuclear power stations...

And the problem of decommissioning power stations is nowhere near as acute. The radioactive material would have a half-life of about 100 years, compared with thousands of years for uranium and plutonium. And that's before scientists have started looking at the problem of designing radiation-resistant materials for use in fusion reactors...

Originally Posted by Zeph

So you'd rather NOT have electricity when the Fossil fuels run out or...

You do know the rods they use are also running out?