advertisement


Where do you stand on nuclear power (fission)?

Sue Pertwee-Tyr

Sue Pertwee-Tyr

Accuphase all the way down
I posted on Swampy's election poll thread about the Green Party opposition to nuclear power, which I think is misguided. Also the link below is one I've only recently been signposted to, and I think it's worth wider attention.

Rather than derail that thread, I thought I'd repost the gist here, in case there's any take up. I'm mostly interested in people's thoughts on fission, it being the currently available tech that can help with global CO2, whereas fusion remains some way off and we simply may not have the luxury of waiting.

Now I know, Chenobyl, Fukushima, and all that, and I don't treat this lightly, truly I don't, but I've come to the firm conclusion that we won't address global CO2 emissions, and hence climate change, without substantial help from nuclear generation*. And, for me, the global threat is more significant than the more local threat of events like Fukushima and Chernobyl (though again, please don't think I'm in any way underplaying their effect).

This map is instructive:

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false

Click on the 'Production' tab and it shows the country/regional CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Green being best, dark brown being worst. And the thing you notice is that the greenest areas largely rely on a lot of nuclear, unless the region is naturally blessed with significant renewable resource, usually hydro.

*And, I support 'next generation' nuclear, which would a) be based on much less risky Thorium reactors or b) use 'spent' fuel, or stockpiled military Plutonium as fuel stock, thus also helping to deal with those issues too. But we won't get next-gen nuclear until the public gets behind it, or politicians stop being afraid of public opinion on the issue. Hence why I think the current Green stance is a little blinkered.
 
Despite having a ‘Nuclear Power? No Thanks!’ sticker on my skateboard as a kid in the ‘70s I’ve long since flipped 180 degrees and think it the most logical and cleanest option until we really get free green energy sorted. I’d like to see development continue towards fusion etc as there is potentially near unlimited free-energy if the theory ever actually works. Nuclear also reduces our dependency on Russian or middle-eastern tyrants, political extremists or religious bigots for fossil fuel, and that has to be a very good thing.

I find it astonishing that the UK, a country that led the world in developing this technology, now has to go cap in hand to France, Japan, China etc and buy off the shelf. It shows just how huge the decline of the UK has been.
 
I think that in the medium term we will need it to complement the renewable sources.

There is obviously the danger of accidents. Hopefully the technology has moved on and the new reactors are relatively safe.

Having been to the first two nuclear power stations (Calder Hall and Chapelcross) to install electricity trading systems. I had the privilege of visiting the control rooms of both. It was like stepping into the set of a 1950s sci-fi movie with walnut cabinets and loads of dials.

The operators said that they wouldn't trust computerised safety systems written by geeks who live hundreds of miles away.

p.s. You should see the size of the seagulls at Sellafield.
 
My understanding is that Thorium based reactors are inherently safe, and the technology has been available for decades - but just not implemented, mainly because its not possible to produce weapons with the by-products. Would have thought that was now regarded as an advantage - any country in the world can have nuclear power without fear they are making bombs on the side.
 
Broadly I'm in favour of nuclear (see caveat *), but I wonder if we might be better off pursuing a network of small modular reactors rather than the large super-stations (Hinkley Point?) . If SMR technology is suitable for commercial power generation then it could be cheaper and on-line sooner. Plus we wouldn't be so reliant on foreign technology.

(*) Provision must be made at the design stage for end of life decommissioning. Having been involved on the periphery of decommissioning some of the existing sites I know first hand what a challenge (and expense) this is.
 
The main concern I have is decommissioning costs. If the life of a nuclear power plant is, say 50 years and with limited land space in a place like the UK what do with do with the reactor superstructure that could remain dangerously radioactive for a long long time ? Can a decommissioned plant site be reused, and if so what is the timeframe ?
 
I agree that, for the time being, we need nuclear - especially if we're to cut uk co2 emissions as much as our government seems to have promised to by law!

Back when Tony had his "Nuclear Power? No Thanks" sticker I was carrying out inspection on new nuclear installations and a lot of us (not me I should say) had bumper stickers that said "Dark Ages? No Thanks" as a riposte.

I remember nuclear fusion being the great hope when I was at university - but that was 50 years ago and I'm not holding my breath!

The thorium and smaller scale nuclear options seem a promising route.
 
peterm said:
I agree that, for the time being, we need nuclear - especially if we're to cut uk co2 emissions as much as our government seems to have promised to by law!

Back when Tony had his "Nuclear Power? No Thanks" sticker I was carrying out inspection on new nuclear installations and a lot of us (not me I should say) had bumper stickers that said "Dark Ages? No Thanks" as a riposte.

I remember nuclear fusion being the great hope when I was at university - but that was 50 years ago and I'm not holding my breath!

The thorium and smaller scale nuclear options seem a promising route.
Click to expand...

It probably won't be in my lifetime, but there's now real hope that commercial fusion reactors will be on line innthe next 30-50 years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/01/14/is-fusion-power-within-our-grasp/#3b83d7a39bb4

In the meantime nuclear fission has got to be part of the generation mix as we attempt to move to less polluting methods. It was good to read that the UK recently had its longest period with no coal burning generators being needed. Solar and wind generation are now becoming a major source of cleaner energy.
 
I'm certainly not a scientist, but the situation as I understand it is that Nuclear power might kill me, but continuing CO2 production will do so.
 
Nuclear Power, Yes please! If submarines can have them and not kill the crew who live no more than 100 metres away from it. I would think that every town could and should have them.
 
simon g said:
It probably won't be in my lifetime, but there's now real hope that commercial fusion reactors will be on line innthe next 30-50 years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/01/14/is-fusion-power-within-our-grasp/#3b83d7a39bb4

In the meantime nuclear fission has got to be part of the generation mix as we attempt to move to less polluting methods. It was good to read that the UK recently had its longest period with no coal burning generators being needed. Solar and wind generation are now becoming a major source of cleaner energy.
Click to expand...
Fusion reactors are pie in the sky technology. You will probably need a fission reactor to power it anyway...
 
gary1064 said:
Broadly I'm in favour of nuclear (see caveat *), but I wonder if we might be better off pursuing a network of small modular reactors rather than the large super-stations (Hinkley Point?) . If SMR technology is suitable for commercial power generation then it could be cheaper and on-line sooner. Plus we wouldn't be so reliant on foreign technology.

(*) Provision must be made at the design stage for end of life decommissioning. Having been involved on the periphery of decommissioning some of the existing sites I know first hand what a challenge (and expense) this is.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this. It seems to me that energy intensive industries could install their own SMR capacity. Network Rail, for example, or the steel industry.

And I agree about the decommissioning provision, but I’d extend that to any new generating capacity. So, E.g., new gas or (heaven forbid) coal generation should cost in the global warming mitigation too (E.g., CCS) so as to present a more level economic playing field.
 
alanbeeb said:
The First Law of Fusion Power states that fusion power is 30-50 years away. And always will be.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, nowadays, but it is the main reason why I suggested this thread focus on fission, so as not to distract from a discussion of the possible, rather than the ideal.
 
Bob McC said:
I'm not bothered about decommissioning costs.
I'm bothered about decommissioning.
I'm bothered about storage of waste.

Neither if which have been addressed safely.
Click to expand...
Storage of waste need not be an issue.
 
CO2 involved in the building of things needs to be considered. Making cement is one of the top ten CO2 producers in the world. Some things are changing, where (for example) CO2 emissions could be used to help produce cement.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Decision_Tree/subscriber/CO2DescriptionTextLinks/Calera.pdf

Because nuclear power plants involve a lot of construction they are quite CO2 heavy, but a lot less afterwards. Which is another reason for smaller modular nuclear. Which has different problems. And thousands of wind turbines have to be made as well - causing CO2 emissions in several processes.

But still, better fission than the alternatives. Yes - nuclear mixed with renewables, and more renewables including tidal, used to produce electricity and hydrogen to fuel zero carbon and pollution at the point of use.

Although we in the UK have forgotten how to make nuclear reactors, we are still world class at processing the waste!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top