Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk
Britain has given the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations, setting no limits on nuclear expansion and adding momentum to atomic energy’s worldwide renaissance.
The ruling Labour government considered nuclear power unattractive as recently as 2003 but now says it will help Britain meet its climate change goals and avoid overdependence on imported energy amid dwindling North Sea supplies…
Energy Secretary John Hutton said the evidence in support of new nuclear stations was compelling and he would not set a limit on the construction of new plants…
The government green light was accompanied by publication of an Energy Bill to be fast-tracked through parliament with the Climate Change Bill and the Planning Bill. Hutton said the government would give more support to wind, wave and tidal energy.
The trio of bills form the backbone of the government’s new energy and climate policy for the next decades.
Any idea how long it will take the Washington Circus to get serious about an all-encompassing move into sensible energy solutions?
I would like to see the US begin construction on at least 100 nuke plants by Monday.
*coughs* One thinks that my emphasis upon wind, solar and methane would have made my skepticism about nuclear pretty clear. The only thing that might turn it around are some of the new nuclear battery designs, but they are untested and solar and wind are here now.
Nuclear is here now and has been for decades. In Europe it’s even more established.
What are those plants doing with their nuclear waste?
They could always send everything into space towards the sun.
If there is a decades solution, then the space solution will get cheaper and cheaper.
Plutonium or other heavy metals could poison the sun by placing heavy compounds in the outer corona where they are not detected. I would not advise dumping our waste into our star, unless you think that fossil fuels can keep the whole world warm.
#24, Li, you could toss the entire Earth into the Sun and it wouldn’t make one darn bit of difference to the star. No long term effect. None. Whatsoever. VolumeE / VolumeS ~= 7.6*e-7.
It might be neat to watch, though!
The entire Earth would be vaporized before it hit the surface — the coronal temperature is about 15,000,000° C.
The problem with sending waste material to the Sun is getting it out of HEO. One single accident on liftoff, 2nd stage, etc. and it will be a problem that we cannot handle.
Exactly, liftoff would be the problem, though you get similar problems moving all the waste to Yucca. Now we add one more problem. That why I said wait a few decades to bring the costs down, maybe get some good shielding in case of an accident.
More likely there would be envirocrazies who would sabotage it on purpose.
#26–”More likely there would be envirocrazies who would sabotage it on purpose.” Yes, or terrorists of all ilks.
Yes, another good reason not to go nuke. Often commented that Americans have short memories. I think the evidence is clear on Nuke energy that there is no memory at all. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, plants closed or under reduced operations due to problems are recent examples of the risk outweighing the supposed benefits.
#22–Li—”*coughs* One thinks that my emphasis upon wind, solar and methane would have made my skepticism about nuclear pretty clear.”
If that is a response to my post #20==please comment on what was posted. While both statements are not 100% accurate, which is more insightful/revelatory/meaningful/relevant?
A–“the disposal issue still hasn’t been fully answered yet”
or
B–”the disposal issue has not been answered at all.”
#27, bobbo,
Chernobyl was a really poor design. TMI didn’t harm the environment, but remember, the accident happened almost 30 years ago. It, too, is old tech.
New nukes are practical, cost efficient (even after the expenses piled on them for inspections and govt. regs.) and dependable. As far as I can tell from reliable sources, the only real problem remaining is disposal of the nuke waste.
We will be able to solve that problem with some of the new disposal tech, hopefully soon. Nanotech, buckyball and other approaches are being investigated.
Maybe there’s a nuke plant expert here who could enlighten us.
#29–Bubba==respecting you as I do==there was “no harm” to the environment in TMI? So, just release of radioactivity that floated downwind with an undocumented health effect. OK. I agree. No environmental harm.
But to my respect–in a past google I read several sites that stated the radioactive waste problem was overstated in that the majority bulk of waste with a long half life was not that harmful. Then I read other websites that call the waste the most harmful substance on earth? I think they are talking about different issues, but hard to tell?
Now–seems to me that ANY STORAGE SOLUTION must be taken on faith? How do you test the long term storage of any container except by a long term storage test?–ie–cannot be relied on. The glass enclosed, ceramic wrapped, covered in concrete containers were supposed to last for 10K’s of years and started leaking after 3 years. They discovered an unknown chemical reaction between the inert materials!!! Har!!!!!
So–the only safe nuke disposal is a technology that “uses it all up?” But like you, it would be nice to read an authorative post on point.
Bobbo, I can’t find any definitive answers on disposal of nuke waste. There are so many crackpot ideas (Marianas Trench) and so much DOE total BS there’s just no way to be sure.
But you can bet on one thing — the DOE won’t be releasing the detailed tech info on whatever they do come up with. Unless, of course, some moran happens to leave a laptop lying around.
Aside: radioactivity measured across the river from TMI peaked at only 20 – 30 mrems/hr but quickly subsided to 1 mrem/hr (about the dose received by passengers on a Concorde flight).
Here’s a cool link on TMI from GSU:
http://tinyurl.com/yv2ag7