This puts the Virus into the shadows

[Spectric]

Hi all

Just when you think things cannot get any worse than having this pandemic around some muppets have now decided that West Cumbria is a potential site for a new experimental nuclear reactor next door to Sellafield, the worlds largest radioactive dump. I suppose it is because it is as far away from London as they can get with the Lake district mountains acting as a potential blast wall. The virus is bad and we have the option to avoid it, with a potential solution, with experimental nuclear they are going back to the fifties when they last had an experiment that went wrong and have not learnt anything from Chernobyl or Fukishima either. Again the economy and financial gain has been placed as more important that people or our enviroment. If you think living way down south makes you safe, think again because any fall out will get you and you are probably already being investigated as a potential dumping site for radioactive waste.

 

[Yojevol]

FAKE NEWS
The proposed Moorside Power Station is NOT experimental. It is of the PWR variety which is the world's most common design. We have one already at Sizewell and another under construction in Somerset, both much nearer London. What's more Londoners are only 100miles away from the largest, and now aging, nuclear station in western Europe - Gravelines which lies halfway between Calais and Dunkirk.
Fortunately we have learnt an awful lot from the Windscale, 3Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Of those 4 only 3MI was a PWR (an early American nuclear PS). The other 3 have all been abandoned as the basis of viable commercial and safe designs.
As Bill Gates said yesterday, the pandemic is a minor problem for man to solve in comparison to Global Warming and nuclear power will have to be part of the solution for the foreseeable future.
So you'd better get used to it, for our children's sake.
Brian

 

[Rorschach]

You are full of nonsense aren't you.

 

[Jelly]

I can see why people find Nuclear alarming, and certainly it's very emotive, but I don't find Moorside to be particular cause for concern.

What I would say is that when it comes to any of the emotive issues of the day (Nuclear, Incineration/Energy from Waste, Plastic Waste, Fracking, Carbon Emissions)... it's very hard to find good quality information which is both reasonably impartial and accessible to someone who isn't a subject matter expert in that field or a related one; which does everyone a disservice.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I can see why people find Nuclear alarming, and certainly it's very emotive, but I don't find Moorside to be particular cause for concern.

What I would say is that when it comes to any of the emotive issues of the day (Nuclear, Incineration/Energy from Waste, Plastic Waste, Fracking, Carbon Emissions)... it's very hard to find good quality information which is both reasonably impartial and accessible to someone who isn't a subject matter expert in that field or a related one; which does everyone a disservice.

I agree. I got heavily involved in such a topic and discovered that for every person who grasps the wrong end of the stick, there is another (sponsored by the vested interests) actively proffering back-to-front sticks (to journalists as well as politicians and private citizens). It was only because I have a couple of STEM-related degrees and spent my formative years reading such edifying material as Scientific American, New Scientist and Wireless World - plus the availability of several man-weeks of time to do my own research - that I was able to make sense of the thing and come to an informed opinion. Nearly everyone isn't so fortunate - in terms of time/effort, education and life experience. The other point is of course that half the population has an IQ below 100!

As far as nuclear goes, whatever we do in the UK is almost irrelevant - to those of us who live in southeast England at least - just take a quick look at how many French nuclear power stations are upwind, in their northern and western coastal areas.

 

[Peterm1000]

Uranium remains dangerous to humans for thousands of years after it has been used in reactors. Fortunately, human history if full of examples of the greatest scientists of the day successfully predicting the future thousands of years in advance. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Spectric]

Hi all

The original was a PWR which got cancelled thanks to the over spend at Sizewell, Toshiba pulled the plug and ran leaving Nugen high and dry.

This new one is not PWR but a new fusion reactor which in theory will not produce waste products that need to be babysat for decades to come but still is not true green energy. Cumbria could be home to UK’s first prototype nuclear fusion power plant - new plans reveal

As for fall out, they have that well covered up here and the probability is that it would on more occasions than not be driven in a southerly direction but then the Chernobyl fall out did land here and make life really bad for the farming community. So far we have been very lucky, Chernobyl turned out to be a bigger financial headache than anything else but it had the potential to go either way, Fukishima was another close call, but how many close calls can you have before your luck runs out.

 

[--Tom--]

Nuclear is such an emotive subject, but every form of power generation has its detractors. I’m pretty pro nuclear - but it needs heavy investment to deliver effectively. All the way from mining the ore, enriching it, harnessing the energy, through to waste disposal and ultimate decommissioning.

 

[beech1948]

The UK has a networked radioactivity sensors in place. Initially from the early French attempts at nuclear power stations and to assuage UK worries. These sensors run from the SE upto the north of Scotland, cover Wales and NI. These sensors are actively monitored and are frequently reviewed and updated.

IF something goes wrong sensors will not prevent it and can only alert us to what is to come but might give timely warning and if necessary create the need to evacuate.

Modern Nuclear Power Stations will be fairly safe and of low risk. It seems that the future of low carbon, low emissions, electric everything will dictate a nuclear future for us.

Several consortia of UK companies are working to design and have available very small nuclear power generators which would be expected to be distributed across the suburbs of the UK. That will no doubt generate every imagined, thick comment from the public about the lack of safety, lack of plans, lack of..whatever. In reality wind and sea power generation will not be enough. Nuclear energy from France via the channel cable will not be enough. We will have to act on nuclear power and soon. We will need 5 to 10 new stations across Britain inc Wales and Scotland and NI.

 

[Spectric]

The one thing nuclear has the potential to do that no other power generation method currently has is to give us something in common with the dinosaurs, and that is extinction.

 

[treeturner123]

Sorry Spectric, but burning fossil fuels is currently doing that to the planet.

The only sensible course of action is to go backwards and I'm sure that no one wants that.

BTW, don't forget the cost to the environment of every email and post!!

Phil

 

[Peterm1000]

Spectric - exactly. The point is that if you run it for long enough, every technology will fail.

 

[D_W]

I grew up about 20 miles west of TMI. I now live about 20 miles downwind from Beaver Valley. I keep IOSAT and otherwise don't care much about the reactors, but I can tell you absolutely for certain as an asthmatic that the switch from coal to gas here has benefited me a LOT.

My point is while most people were worrying about potential nuclear problems, coal was causing me actual problems on a regular basis.

The real issue with nuclear here in the states now is that it's not economically viable against inexpensive natural gas and the producers are requesting subsidies for stations already in operation for many decades. The PWR designs here may have a complement of 1000-1200 individuals working for them - even if they're cheap to run, paying the compensation and benefits is not.

 

[--Tom--]

The one thing nuclear has the potential to do that no other power generation method currently has is to give us something in common with the dinosaurs, and that is extinction.

Nuclear disaster would be a point in time event relatively geographically contained. Fossil fuel derived climate change is adversely impacting large parts of the world. Neither will lead to an extinction level event but environmentally nuclear is less impactful.

Edited as looked up stat
“The total mass of radioactive waste in stock and estimated to be produced over the next 100-year period will be around 5.1 million tonnes. This sounds like a lot, but, for context, the UK currently produces around 5.3 million tonnes of hazardous waste from households and businesses every year.”
https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/10/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there-in-the-uk/
Before emissions controls soot and acid rain were big issues.
Waste to power leads to phenol emission which are pretty potent biodisruptors.

where should we flood to build hydro?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The real issue with nuclear here in the states now is that it's not economically viable against inexpensive natural gas ...

Because you frack - the nimbys here won't allow it.

 

[Jake]

One of the huge benefits of fusion is that it is inherently far safer than fission.

 

[novocaine]

Shame we cant burn bullshit.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We can - but we need energy to dry it.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Because you frack - the nimbys here won't allow it.

Even if we did frack here, the amount of gas produced would be negligible and come at a significantly greater carbon cost than that from the Marcellus. It really isn't an option in the UK.
I'm optimistic that grid-scale storage, combined with our world-class wind and tidal resources, may greatly reduce our future reliance on nuclear until fusion becomes practicable at scale.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There are far more critical issues than risks of nuclear reactor failure.

Even before Covid, a pandemic was far higher risk with a proven capacity to kill millions. Competition over scarce resources resulting in a chemical, biological or nuclear war was a much bigger threat.

Even continued extraction and use of fossil fuels is limited and will ultimately end in conflict preceded pollution related deaths.

I would not want a nuclear reactor built next door - I'm a NIMBY like many others.

But if humanity wants increasing energy, and does not want to limit numbers to reduce overall consumption, nuclear may be the best of the the many worse alternatives.