New nuclear plants get go-ahead

[ondaball]

E-mail this to a friend

Sizewell B, the UK's newest reactor, was built in the 1980s

Greenpeace view

A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government.


Business Secretary John Hutton told MPs they would give a "safe and affordable" way of securing the UK's future energy supplies while fighting climate change.

He said any plants would be built at or near existing reactors by private firms and said he hoped the first one would be completed "well before 2020". Critics say new reactors will be expensive, dirty and dangerous...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm - links 20+ background/analysis features



Here's Q&A extract:-



Can't this by done just using renewable energy?

The government is planning a huge expansion of wind farms and other forms of renewable energy but it believes there should be a mix of electricity generating methods, to ensure continuity of supply.


How much will it cost and who will pay for it?

Once the cost of decommissioning and disposing of waste is factored in, nuclear can be an expensive way to generate electricity. Opponents say the clean-up bill for the current generation of reactors could reach £70bn. The government insists there will be no subsidies for new UK plants but critics say this is unlikely, as no plant in the world has been built without public money. A consultation on how the costs are met in detail is to be launched "in the Spring".


Where will the new reactors be sited?

The government has not decided yet, with a review expected to report by 2009. However minister expect the new reactors to be built at or near the site of existing reactors. A report prepared for ministers last year identified 14 likely sites, with Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Dungeness and Bradwell topping the list.
Study reveals prime nuclear sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7180599.stm



Lobby MPs @ www.parliament.uk

Google media

Ian

 

[wpiman2]

Thank God. Hopefully the US will follow suit.

 

[Billnew]

How old is the newset nuke plant in the US?
Probably 20yrs?

 

[HumbleMan]

Old enough to be worried about structural integrity.

 

[Lockguy3000]

It is just so silly that the "anti nuke" people are so against these power plants.

They are using the old nuke weapons to power the plants.
It's win-win, and if congress hadn't cut the budget to the Yucca mountain site, we will be getting paid to store waste there too.

 

[peanutbutter12]

We need more nuclear plants. While I am all about going green, there are many places that can't facilitate green energy. Nuclear can power large areas as well and with newer technology, they are able to recycle most of the waste for even more energy which lessens the cost and the need for disposal. Plus, it's clean energy.

Old enough to be worried about structural integrity.

Those plants are made out of very thick concrete. I'm not too worried about the structure.

 

[Lockguy3000]

We need more nuclear plants. While I am all about going green, there are many places that can't facilitate green energy. Nuclear can power large areas as well and with newer technology, they are able to recycle most of the waste for even more energy which lessens the cost and the need for disposal. Plus, it's clean energy.


Those plants are made out of very thick concrete. I'm not too worried about the structure.

I agree,
plus some people think those large "cooling Towers" are the reactors, meanwhile the "reactors" are not in those towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Environmental_effects

 

[pgp_protector]

Snap.

I was hoping this plant was going to be in the US

 

[simplicity]

Radical environmentalists seems to exist to oppose everything. As long as the decommissioning costs are appropriately factored into the electricity rate - so the operation is fiscally stable - there are not many viable alternatives to nuclear power. I don't however want to see any European technology used in local reactors. It should be all-American in the case of the U.S. It's a matter of national security and sound economic development.

 

[horuhe00]

Old enough to be worried about structural integrity.

The word you are looking for is "Mechanical Integrity". The way the structures are made in a nuclear power plant, the shell will last long after your great grand kids are dead. (unless a meltdown or implosion happens first.)

I'm sure and I hope that those plants have an excelent Mechanical Integrity inspection and repair plan so I wouldn't wory too much about that.

 

[horuhe00]

We need more nuclear plants. While I am all about going green, there are many places that can't facilitate green energy.

Not true, actualy. The problem with renewable energy is not a feasability problem, but a paradigm problem.

Nuclear can power large areas as well and with newer technology, they are able to recycle most of the waste for even more energy which lessens the cost and the need for disposal.

Decomisioning nuclear weapons is a plus, but it still needs to be disposed of. And your typical landfill just won't do.

Plus, it's clean energy.

Spent nuclear fuel is hardly clean.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

This is an inevetability.
Fossil fuels will run out soon, and what happens then?
We go back to burning logs?
I'm all for the green issues and helping the planet,I am worried about where the waste will go and still not sure of it's effects in the long term.
Combining wind farms and nuclear energy seems the only way forward at present.

 

[Lockguy3000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Solid_waste

[F]A side note on spent fuel rods;

Spent fuel rods are stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), usually located on-site. The water provides both cooling for the still-decaying fission products

Since the spent rods are not viable to convert water to steam, why not make better use of them rather just storing them.

By putting one in your bed, feel how warm and toasty it keeps your legs and feet in those cold winter nights.

As long as you don't mind glowing in the dark, and have parts of your appendages falling off.

Then again, how much electricity we would save when we provide our own light source.
Ladies will not have to shave their legs anymore, those hair will just fall off while you sleep.
[/FONT]

 

[horuhe00]

Ladies will not have to shave their legs anymore, those hair will just fall off while you sleep.

Along with their skin.

 

[horuhe00]

[SIZE=-1]This is the hand of a physician who was exposed to repeated small doses of x-ray radiation for 15 years. The skin cancer appeared several years after his work with x-rays had ceased. Cancer incidence depends on radiation dose. From Meissner, William A. and Warren, Shields: Neoplasms, In Anderson W.A.D. editor; Pathology, edition 6, St. Louis, 1971, The C.V. Mosby Co. [/SIZE]​

 

[Lockguy3000]

The shoe fitting fluoroscope was a common fixture in shoe stores during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. A typical unit, like the Adrian machine shown here, consisted of a vertical wooden cabinet with an opening near the bottom into which the feet were placed. When you looked through one of the three viewing ports on the top of the cabinet (e.g., one for the child being fitted, one for the child's parent, and the third for the shoe salesman or saleswoman), you would see a fluorescent image of the bones of the feet and the outline of the shoes.

People was radiating themselves for shoes