Britain will have more Nuclear Energy.

[Conzales]

It has been decided, the Island of Britain will have Nuclear Energy.
However Scotland will not have any powerstations built or waste disposed there.

Have the Government made the right descision? Whats your view and Views of your Constituents?


Personally my view is no. I am against Nuclear as the Waste Problem has not been sorted.
Im glad that the people here in Scotland got what they wanted but I think people elsewhere should have had a choice too.

My constituents are largely against Nuclear. Even moreso when they found out that there are two potential dump sites in the area. One near the sea and another in Benachie (hill). Good on the Scottish Parliament for sticking up for what the people wanted. Renewables all the way.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I am for nuclear power but only as a short term solution until effective alternatives can be found. Which for the sake of maintaining a pleasant atmosphere in this topic I will say I cannot think of any.

[Conzales]

I am for nuclear power but only as a short term solution until effective alternatives can be found. Which for the sake of maintaining a pleasant atmosphere in this topic I will say I cannot think of any.

Im for Fusion when that is viable. Fusion produces safe products.

The future is fusion and renewables.

[Hamsterwaffle]

But until we can do fusion we should use nuclear.

[Conzales]

But until we can do fusion we should use nuclear.

I think places with no other option should.

Scotland has plenty of capacity for renewables so Scotland shouldn't.

Plus there is loads of offshore capacity on Britans coastline giving a large chunk of the mix.

I think we could export renewable power to France/Norway and buy their nuclear
on still winter nights when the wind doesn't blow.

Therefore providing us with no waste problem.:D

[Hamsterwaffle]

An interesting plan, but we must make sure we have guaranteed power rather than likely and Britain shouldn't import power. Importing power means that the country selling you it has a hold over you, they can turn you off if you annoy them.

[:Vampiress:]

I don't see why it's so great we have just replace one problem with another.
I mean sure we cut down on CO2 emissions but then we'll just have tons more waste that nuclear energy causes to dispose of for a couple of thousands years until they become inactive.

[Hamsterwaffle]

When we develop a effective alternative we simply launch the nuclear waste into space/

[Matt. P]

Yes, but nuclear energy can be handled and stored safely. It also uses less fuel and is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than fossil, yet more effective, efficient, reliable and developed than renewables.

Its the only viable and ecconomical solution to provide Britian with the cheap energy it is built on without destorying the environment, at least until new sources become available. Renewables are too undeveloped, unreliable and unefficient for my liking, for example we would have to cover literally all of our coasts with wave and tide power to generate a truly significant proportion of our energy and at huge cost. Althoguh wind and tide might contain a lot of energy, turning that into electricity is not very easy or cost-effective.

[Iona Stevenson]

I think Nuclear Energy will serve Britain well over the next few years and hopefully it will buy time for proper investment in renewables. However, I'm concerned that now the plants are built the focus will go on maintaining them rather than in finding alternative energy solutions.

And Conor I'm shocked at your NIMBYism! We've got a nice little nuclear reactor down the road , it makes the countryside all pretty and shimmery :P

[AlexJohnston]

I think the government have made an innapropriate and irresponisble decison here.
Before they can justify the use of nuclear power by labelling it as a low-carbon footprint energy source there needs to be sufficient investigation into the whole carbon footprint of the extraction, proccessing and transport of uranium; and also the carbon footprint of the manufacture of the plant itself and the materials used for it.
Even then, if nuclear power does work out to be "carbon viable" we must ask ourselves whether this outweighs the downsides of nuclear power i.e. safe waste processing and storage, the potential for terrorism and so forth.
Even more so shouldn't we be putting the obscenely high quanity of money that is going into nuclear energy into something that is more crucial and that will be more appropriate for us in the future? Ultimately, the uranium used for nuclear power will run out; we are just trying to find the short term and easy paths out of global warming as per usual.

[Conzales]

So that is why the Borders MYP's have two heads? :D ;)

[Matt. P]

and also the carbon footprint of the manufacture of the plant itself and the materials used for it.

I could use exactly the same arguments against renewables. I think it takes over 100 years for a wind turbine to offset the carbon produced in making it.

the potential for terrorism

All nuclear reactors by law in the UK have to withstand a 747 impact, practically ruling out 9/11 terrorist attacks, or chernobyl style accidents (Chenobyl was a steam explosion that exposed the reactor). Hiroshima-style explosions are a myth, such weapons are specifically designed to explode that way, while reactors are designed for practically the opposite.

Even more so shouldn't we be putting the obscenely high quanity of money that is going into nuclear energy into something that is more crucial and
that will be more appropriate for us in the future?

Nuclear power is already well developed and the government does not subsidise it in anyway, just regulate it. In fact, the government is spending much larger amounts of money on renewables and fusion than nuclear

Ultimately, the uranium used for nuclear power will run out;

Yes... in 400 years. Not really short term...

[AlexJohnston]

Quote

"All nuclear reactors by law in the UK have to withstand a 747 impact, practically ruling out 9/11 terrorist attacks, or chernobyl style accidents (Chenobyl was a steam explosion that exposed the reactor). Hiroshima-style explosions are a myth, such weapons are specifically designed to explode that way, while reactors are designed for practically the opposite."

Firstly this does not all outline the threat of terrorism; it only means that any potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants (if devised sufficiently) would be of a larger magnitude if they did occur...

Quote

"I could use exactly the same arguments against renewables. I think it takes over 100 years for a wind turbine to offset the carbon produced in making it."

Secondly, I am sure that as we start to increase renewable energy output more and more of the manufacturing industry will be consequently powered by renewables; therefore making the manufacture of new renewable energy sources such a wind turbines more environmentally friendly

Quote

"Nuclear power is already well developed and the government does not subsidise it in anyway, just regulate it. In fact, the government is spending much larger amounts of money on renewables and fusion than nuclear"

As we know from the past the overall price of the construction of nuclear power plants, in most cases, spirals out of control; with the costs being passed on to the consumers.

As far a renewable energy as a whole more money may well go into them than nuclear but when split into each type of renewable energy i.e. wind power, solar etc, I am fairly confident that more goes into nuclear.


Also we must take into account the sheer quantity of unstable radioactive waste by product produced from nuclear power; an environmental disaster in itself. The reprocessing of nuclear waste gives rise to the production of nuclear weapons, the transport of nuclear waste poses environmental threats in the same way that the transport of oil does and then there are the cases where nuclear waste is dumped into the oceans; the habitat of billions of aquatic life.

[Conzales]

A short term solution that creates a long term problem.

Waste that lasts longer than our civilisation! Thats crazy!

[Hamsterwaffle]

We can launch it into space. By the time we develop a replacement for nuclear we will be able to do it.

[Conzales]

Fair enough, if we build a space elevator and put it on a planet like venus.

But space shuttles are too risky. They sometimes explode.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Maybe in the future we will have reliable shuttles.

[Matt. P]

Firstly this does not all outline the threat of terrorism; it only means that any potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants (if devised sufficiently) would be of a larger magnitude if they did occur...

And how else would a terrorist destroy such a complex? For one thing if we used nuclear we wouldn't have to invade the Middle East and have terrorist attacks on Britian in the first place.

Also we must take into account the sheer quantity of unstable radioactive waste by product produced from nuclear power; an environmental disaster in itself. The reprocessing of nuclear waste gives rise to the production of nuclear weapons, the transport of nuclear waste poses environmental threats in the same way that the transport of oil does and then there are the cases where nuclear waste is dumped into the oceans; the habitat of billions of aquatic life.

Firstly, the actual amount of nuclea waste produced is surpisingly small. The UK produces enough nuclear waste its entire histroy to fill a large landfill site. Secondly, the NHS has carried out comprehensive tests in areas around nuclear reactors and waste stroage and found no increase in cancer, leukemia or other health effects.

Thirdly, true the waste of nuclear reactors can be used to create nuclear weapons but a) seeing as we already have such weapons, b) we don't have to turn the waste into nuclear weapons (its just cheaper to do so) and c) there's nothing particualarly wrong with nuclear weapons in the first palce, seeing as they're never used.

Fourthly, the government never allows nuclear waste to be dumped into the sea. Do you honestly think a government would allow that to happen. I can asure you the government certainly won't let that happen now.

Firth, a few years ago I visited a nuclear reactor and I saw a video of how nuclear waste is transported. Because nuclear waste is so small but dangerous, it is very carefully transported. The containers they carry them in are some of the strongest in the world, and the amount of waste is carefull measured before and after transport. Don't believe me and you can watch this video. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=as3VQeYfd2c

Nuclear fuel, when unprocessed, it as actually very safe (I could literally have one in my house my entire life and have no ill-effects), because it has so a long half-life, so there's no risk transporting fuel to the reactor.

[:Vampiress:]

When we develop a effective alternative we simply launch the nuclear waste into space/

What goes up must come down.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well not if we get it outside the atmopshere, then it will keep going into the abyss.

[AlexJohnston]

Sending nuclear waste into space would be the ultimate solution but to create a reliable and consistent method of transport would cost billions into research and development; which could again but used for more purposeful causes....

[Hamsterwaffle]

If Britain leads the way in alternatives then we will have billions. For example, whichever country develops an effective non-petrol based car will have exclusive access to a huge market before any other country.

[Matt. P]

Too late, Brazil have already done so, and they're about to export these cars to America and India.

Also, have you even considered the co2 released senidng a rocket into space. Doesn't a space shuttle use half a million gallons of pure fuel in take off? And yet a space shuttle can only carry a few tons of nuclear waste? I honestyl don't think this will work. Why not use the hundreds of square kilometers underground to built a big bunker to put the waste in (as the government is planning to do)?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Rockets do not produce CO2 as they use liquid oxygen for fuel rather than any carbon based fuels.

[Matt. P]

And what energy source do they use to process this oxygen?

[Hamsterwaffle]

They can use whatever effective renewable they find to replace nuclear.

[Matt. P]

Or... built a large concrete and steel bunker underground for a 30th of the cost and keep the masses of energy to us. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a big bunker, its not like the sea with lots of animals living down there, nor would it decay with time, only the waste would.

[Rockin Redwood]

That could be ironic, they could be using nuclear power to process oxygen to send into space the waste they just used to lift off the rocket...

But anyway, if we buried it underground it could possibly have repercussions, and sending it into space with our current space technology is difficult.

Why must life be so difficult?

[Nathaniel]

The bottom line is, for a stable economy and a healthy atmosphere nuclear is the way forward. People with to have renewable energy, this just isn't efficiently possible. Look at this report for instance. David Cameron has recently been talking about home turbines. Yet, I quote "They are as useful as a chocolate teapot". Nuclear energy is clean and will last for hundreds if not thousands of years to come. They will not simply replace the reactors when a renewable resource becomes available, because the cost of a reactor is huge. Unless you wan't this nation to go backwards, then think. The waste produced will be planted under the Earth in sealed containment and the risk of another World War III is even more likely than another chernobyl. So the answer is Nuclear. Without it we will become a backward country.

+AlexJohnson. Sending Nuclear waste into space is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Everyone knows how many rockets explode, just imagine a craft containing Nuclear waste reaching space and then.... BANG. Fallout would spread accross the Earth and millions would die. Waste is best stored underground. Period.

[Matt. P]

if we buried it underground it could possibly have repercussions

Such as? Well, there are several possible repurcussions which I though about and tried to work around:

- Health scares:The NHS has done resarch into people living by nuclear power plants or nuclear sotrage sites and found no rise in these peoples ill health. Eitherr way, this could be stored away from populated areas like Siberia or Australia,

or abandoned places with already high radioactive presense, such as abandoned nuclear weapon test sites (such as Siberia or Australia).

- Earthquake: Earthquakes and the like could rupture these bunkers. Not only could they be designed to withstand or move with these, but they could be built in places deep inland, like Siberia (being a geologist, the technical term is a craton).

- Decay: Steel inside reinforced concrete won't rust, and concrete is extremely durable and good at stopping radiation, as is earth. Lead containers for the actual waste would be isolated from the floors, so no lead poisening.

Terrorism: Naturally we wouldn't want people finding this volatile stuff and making "dirty bombs" (even though equally radioactive material can be found at a local hospital). However, the site of these bunkers would be kept secret so only a few top level personall would know its exact location, and if these were sealed off after being filled, it would be impossible to access even if its location were none.

Water: Water could drip into the bunker and flood it, poisining the water system. If this was in siberia or the Australian desert, there is little natural flowing water (it is in drought or permafrost). Even if there was, there would be an extensive study of the water course in that areas, and the bunkers could be waterproofed to make sure. The government would make sure no one builts water pipes or settles in that area.

[Matt. P]

Oh, and it was hamster who proposed the space strategy, not Alex Johnston.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I may be about to suggest something really stupid but as I have said before I am no scientist. When the mines run out of uranium, why not simply dump the waste in there. The mines must be bigger than the waste the uranium produced there makes.

[Matt. P]

True, these mines could be used for storage. However, many of these mines are not in the msot suited of places, and many are near populated areas or tectonic zones, and nor are they particularly safe and stable. It would be more cost-effective to built special bunkers designed to hold this waste, and place them in old nuclear test sites away from people already. After all, unproccessed nuclear fuel which comes from these mines is actually not very dangerous.

Also, uranium will probably only run in hundreds of years, so there'll be the problem of where to put the waste during that time.

[Hamsterwaffle]

What about Chernobyl as a dump site? Its nuclear wasteland anyway.

[Matt. P]

A good example, although I think some people are moving back to chenobyl despite the risks.

[Hamsterwaffle]

We need to find a dump site in a democracy and one that we have good relations with, Australia seems like a perfect candidate.

[Matt. P]

Altough I wouldn't phrase it as "dump" to the Australians! Siberia would seem the best place physically, but politics would likely get in the way.

[Hamsterwaffle]

We could call it, The Royal administrative grounds for the containment of hazardous materials. That would be more to their liking.

[EmmaGallen]

Surely sending teh nuclear waste to Serbia or Australia goes against the "less carbon emissions" argument.

We're screwed regardless: stick to fossils and the world ends; nuclear we get cancer and die. But wait!!! That leaves renewables! Which aren't harmful.

[Matt. P]

Haven't I been commenting on the last 3 pages of post that nuclear fuel is co2 free (and therefore low carbon), can be handled in an environmentally-friendly way and has not shown any increase in cancer or leukemia in the surrounding areas

Radiation can cause cancer, as is shown of people at Chenobyl or Hirsohima. But today nuclear fuels, reactors and waste and incredibly monitered and safe. Anti-nuclear protestors are a big bag of hypcorites. They go on about how much we should cut carbon emmisions, yet the only practical alternative they also attack nuclear, playing on the bad name nuclear and cancer have.

Renewables are no way developed enough to meet our energy supplies. They are expensive, inefficent and need of development. Nuclear already provides 20% of our power, yet by 2020 they'll all be decommisioned (as well as all coal plants). So where will get this 60% of energy from. Renewables? In 12 years time? And when every wind farm, dam and tidal station is met with as much opposition as with nuclear by these same people?

The government doesn;'t have the final say because the enrgy industry is private. They all predict they'll turn to natural gas, which we will have to import from Russia and Norway (about 75% of it). Making nuclear more attractive is the best way foward at the moment.

[DomMather]

We know that renewable energy definately doesn't harm people or the einvironment, so why not go for that?

[Matt. P]

Renewable energy and fusion in the long run, but we have to solve the energy crisis now, while these are being developed.

We have 12 years to replace 60% of our current energy supplies and at the same time cut carbon emmisions by 30%. 12 years isn't enough (nor would it be wise to try) developing renewables that are years behing nuclear in terms of efficency and then built them around the country ad hoc. Those nothing inheritaly dangerous about nuclear, accidents like Chernobyl just gave it a bad name, when really the incidents that happened then are impossible. We have vigourously trained staff, modern super computers andall this contained in some of the strongest buildings in the planet. If there was a meltdown and explosion (like in Chernobyl) it wouldn't be facing a flimsy corrugated metal roof this time.

[DomMather]

Fusion? isn't that some far fetched way to make energy that hasn't been invented yet?

[Matt. P]

Fusion is already being carried out by several universities and inter-governmental groups. They have even produced energy from it. The only problem left is that the energy for the fusion outweighs that given off, but then again nuclear had the same problem 50 years ago didn't it.

If you want a simple explanation of fusion it's basically the same force that powers the sun. It would revolutionise the energy industry. There is no co2, nor radioactive pollution and its fuel would by hydrogen (in other words, simple water). All we would end up with is a lot of helium for balloons!

[Hamsterwaffle]

Thats what they said about nuclear power.

[DomMather]

So you are saying that the only waste product is helium, if that's so then the only downside would be using up are already scarce non-salt-water supply, unless of course it is past that stage and can use salt water?

[Hamsterwaffle]

The sheer power that would be given off by fusion would allow us to distill all our water.

[DomMather]

I don't know if that's sarcastic, but anyway it sounds clever and good!

[Hamsterwaffle]

This is one of the few things I learned in physics, if we get fusion we could replace oil within 1 year.

[DomMather]

It sounds good - how long and how costly would it be to install throughout the country?

[Hamsterwaffle]

We could recoup the costs through the amount of energy we could export.

[DomMather]

How long would it take for it to become standard?

[Hamsterwaffle]

As they haven't developed it I wouldn't know.

[Conzales]

We could recoup the costs through the amount of energy we could export.

Yeah, but they would have it too :p

Fusion is a good idea and will be great for humanity, but I would rather eat Gordon Brown before having more fission.

The helium produced can be used to make airships which can fly CO2 free across the world.

The energy can produce hydrogen from water for use in cars. Also to synthesise
compounds that can be used to replace oil products.

As soon as we crack fusion, we have solved all our energy problems and we will finally live in that future with space travel and cheap travel.

[Hamsterwaffle]

When we discover fusion we must instantly copyright everything we can to do with it. And finally someone agrees that dirigibles are the future of flight.

[Conzales]

Ahem, no. Its a global project.

Funded globally. Global Benefits.

The first commercial reactor is fifty years away.

Untill then, the only fusion is my shaver. Which does do a pretty clean shave.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Your forgetting the benefits of British controlled fusion. We would have the power, literally, our power would resemble that of it during Pax Brittanica

[Conzales]

Yeah, but we aren't developling it, the EU is.

And even so, if we kept it to ourselves. The rest of the world would carry on burning coal defeating the purpose of Fusion Power in the first place.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Then we need to find some way of beating the EU to developing fusion, perhaps with the aid of the Anglosphere. We then can supply power to the world and reap the rewards. And get an agreement that in exchange for our fusion power countries will not trade with polluting countries.

[Matt. P]

If it comes to a choice between burning oil or sucking up to Britain, I think I know what the US among others would choose. Nuclear fusion is probably the greatest possibilty of solving the worlds energy and environmental problems. Energy is actually the biggest divider between rich and poor nations. I fveryone had cheap, clean, renewable energy the world would be fundamentally changed for the better. We shouldn't use it as some attempt to restore the British Empire or order countries about.

For one thing, it would be difficult to enforce these laws. Secondly, if nucealr fusion is so great literally every country in the world will try to find out the "seccret". I took the soviets 4 years to duplicate the atomic bomb, America's most closely guarded secret. What would change about that now, energy is big business.

[DomMather]

If we keep all the energy to ourselves and try to become a world power again we will turn into an Iran or Quatar

[Hamsterwaffle]

We could just copyright all fusion technology so they couldn't duplicate it. And if we have sustainable fusion then America would be the first to jump on our side due to them fearing we would turn it into a kind of bomb and be more advanced than them.

[Hamsterwaffle]

The most peaceful time Europe has ever seen was during the era of British dominance 1815-1914. The reemergence of the British super(or maybe hyper)power can only be good for the world. And also why should we, the rich countries who paid so much for the development of fusion, share it with the poor countries who did not.

[Hamsterwaffle]

If we keep all the energy to ourselves and try to become a world power again we will turn into an Iran or Quatar
Iran and Qatar have huge amounts of human rights abuses, and British controlled fusion would lead to massive amounts of jobs being created which would improve the lives of Brits.

[Matt. P]

We could just copyright all fusion technology so they couldn't duplicate it. And if we have sustainable fusion then America would be the first to jump on our side due to them fearing we would turn it into a kind of bomb and be more advanced than them.

Oh yeah, and America, Russia, China, India, Japan, Australia and the EU would never dare break a copyright, after all, it would only give them all the energy they would ever need, ever. Did Russia (or Britian at that matter) respect America's "copyright" for a nuclear weapon.

Secondly, America would abandon us the second they got their hands on this technology, seeing as they're such good allies nowadays. And why would they fear a fusion bomb. How could it be any more dangerous than the 12,000 nuclear missiles america already has. How many times can you destroy the world? And have you forgotten MAD?

The most peaceful time Europe has ever seen was during the era of British dominance 1815-1914.

And what about the Crimean war, Franco-prussian war, Russo-ottoman war, and about 3 balkan wars? And that's just in Europe.

And also why should we, the rich countries who paid so much for the development of fusion, share it with the poor countries who did

So you're saying poor countries shouldn't have the right to clean energy because they're poor? If America followed that strategy would they have given us lend-lease at such a vital time? Also, it would just result in places like China burning huge amounts of coal, defeating the purpose of clean fusion, rather than "subserve" Britain. Its nt as if these countries could develop fusion into a weapon more dangerous than they have already now, which is enough to destroy the world anyway. It would just be pointless overkill to turn fusion into a weapon.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Nuclear weapons didn't make money, fusion would and as organisations such as the WTO and the IMF would side with us.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Alternatively we could allow them to have fusion, but they have to pay us royalties.

[DomMather]

possibly other countries paying us royalties would work, but then it would make the gap between us and 3rd world countries astronomical, and if we say that they can have it cheaper or for free other countries will demand that as well

[Matt. P]

Nuclear weapons didn't make money, fusion would

Let's see how a H (hydrogen) -bomb works, shall we? Uranium fire, check. Trigger, check. Hydrogen atoms designed to go under nuclear fusion when bomb explodes, thus significantly increasing power and reducing radiation, check.

You said yourself you are no scientist. Nuclear bomb do use fusion to work, at least all the ones made after 1950. All those famous shots of nuclear weapons in polynesia etc. are all fusion bombs.

The problem at the moment is developing this fusion into ways to get power safely and without putting loads of energy in. Nuclear fusion weapons are already possesed by Britain and America, they are not cheap, and is actually the only succussful fusion carried out on Earth, just not very useful to us...

Alternatively we could allow them to have fusion, but they have to pay us royalties.

I still don't see France, Japan, America and China paying us royalties when they could just copy us (even if we did get our hands on fusion first, although seeing as it's a joint European project that seems unlikely). Suppose they did, what could we actually do to stop them? This idea will give Britain nothing except international mistrust and dislike, espicially if we begin treating our allies like America does.

[DomMather]

How will the 3rd world countries get access to it?

[Hamsterwaffle]

We sell them power cheaper in exchange for British control of their natural resources.

[DomMather]

Oh dear.!. We are not the rulers of the world!

[Hamsterwaffle]

The world was better off when we were.

[Conzales]

Yeah for us.

The only reason that poor countries are poor was because we took their natural resources for a pittance, and sold them expensive goods.
I don't know what History Books youre reading, but we were one of the most dastardly countries in the world.

[Matt. P]

Trust hamster to turn a debate into whether or not fusion is a good idea into another "rebuilt the Empire"...Dum, dum, dum, dum, d'dum, dum, d'dum...

[Hamsterwaffle]

I apologize for the divergance from the mainstream of the conversational existance and as such I say that fusion is likely to be the best replacement for energy and until it is developed we should use nuclear.

[Matt. P]

I agree with you there. I also think biofuels will play a major part in the future.

[Hamsterwaffle]

As long at is economical and eco-friendly then we should use it.

[DomMather]

Anything that is economical and eco-friendly will be picked up by half the world immediately and copyright won't stop them from accessing it and there will be disbute unless it is made public knowledge for free

[Conzales]

Im actually suprised Iran hasn't got nukes by now.
A boy scout in america made his own reactor and got all the radioactive stuff then ended up making plutonium in his shed.

The US army then took it away at a cost of several million dollars.

Channel four did a documentary on it a couple of years ago and stupidly showed how it was done.

[DomMather]

Could the plans for it help Iran and the 'axis of evil' make a hydrogen bomb (which as I've been learning with my revision) is 1000 more powerful than Hiroshima which killed over 80 000 people!

[DomMather]

its almost certain Iran does have nukes

[Matt. P]

Actually rather recently I did an essay on World energy for physics. Its not too long,, but in it I outline major benefits for each fuel type, in the end focussing on nuclear, biofuels and HEP as being the most effieicnt and economical choices until fusion can de developed.

But what's this. I'm only allowed 19.5 kb of data?! I tried that out and guess what... a blank word document takes up 20! This should increase.

[DomMather]

Put it into the UK youth parliament manifesto! But back on topic what is HEP?

[Conzales]

Hydro Electric Power ?

[Matt. P]

Yes, it means dams and stuff. It is the world's largest renewable energy source.

[MYPdonjacko]

I am quite amazed at how little everyone seems to know about nuclear power and its economics, especially considering that the government ran one of its 9 major consultation sessions at the annual sitting, and that MYP's all over the country were invited to there local ones.

now before i read anymore, id just like to clear up a few things about nuclear power. firstly, we have the technology to turn over 90% of the current waste we have into reactor fuel. enough reactor fuel to power the entire uk for the next 600 years. yep that long. secondly, new reactors use far far less fuel, predicted waste from the new generation reactors being under 10% of that of our reactors in the last 50 years.
Finally, as for the waste we cant use, we are looking at creating a geological repository and neutron bombardment when fusion arrives.
oh, and final point, The carbon footprint stipulated by the government included mining, transport, processing and storage of nuclear waste, and commisioning and decommisioning of powerplants.

if you do not believe thes figures or even if you do i would urge you to do some reseach of your own.

[DomMather]

Thank you - I am almost convinced, except trying to believe what this government tell you is very difficult

[EmmaGallen]

How do you all know so much about this? And if you all know this why doesn't the actual government?And by any chance do any of you know any of these facts bur for Germany, in German?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Because the government are a complete bunch of expletives. A while ago someone went to Tony Blair with a method of relatively clean burning coal, which he dismissed.

[EmmaGallen]

But why is he allowed to? Is the point of democracy not so that it's not just down to one person to make the big decisions?

[ElTorro]

well yes
but democracy is not true democracy. Think about it, we vote for a leader, then the leader takes control. its like freedom of speech, there isn't really, seeing as you can get arrested for being racist. i don't condone racism, but surely it should be allowed seeing as people have 'freedom of speech'

[Hamsterwaffle]

As long as people aren't shouting fire in a crowded building we have no right to stop them saying whatever they want.

[EmmaGallen]

But if you let anyone say anything then surely that allows bullying and threatening?

In France they have a weird freedom of speech in the press and you aren't allowed to say anything about people's [rovate lives and pretty much tabloids are illegal.

[ElTorro]

well yes it is bullying and threatining. but its not freedom of speech.

i dont agree with racism, but it still doesnt conform with 'freedom of speech'

[EmmaGallen]

But people get away with racism if it's not obviously racism. Like the Daily Mail hasn't been shut down. But it's constantly racist.

[ElTorro]

well the sun and the mirror are just if even worse, but they are still running.
but, you do have a good point.

but we are starting to going away from the point of this thread.

[EmmaGallen]

But all teh really scientific people decided what would work and agreed. And then I asked why it won't happen.

[ElTorro]

But all teh really scientific people decided what would work and agreed. And then I asked why it won't happen.

sorry im lost in what you're refering to.

[EmmaGallen]

The general conclusion of this topic was it's right that we have nuclear energy for now and while we use it develop fusion and Bio fuel.

I just wanted to know why if that's what makes the most sense is it not being done, why we're only being told that we're getting more nuclear.

[Hamsterwaffle]

The main problem with nuclear, is that people like Al Gore say we need to use less CO2 producing fuels, and yet tell us not to use nuclear.

[Matt. P]

There's an article about this in the next Debatable issue.

[ElTorro]

I haven't seen Al Gors film, but the idea that Co2 is the main problem is obsene. Its the only one that peopel can do anything to change. Co2 acts as approximatly 10%. Guess what is the highest 'culprit'?
water vapour!
yep, trusty old water vapour that comes out of your mouth everytime you go to breath. that sits on your windows after rain.
and guess what is more efective than Co2?
Methane. every living animal on this planet produces methane
nothing we can do about that
people need to stop being brainwashed by the media and government and schools and realise that global warming is a fact, its a natural change that happens. so is the ice caps melting, seeing as we are coming to the end of an ice age.
The only reason that we should stop using natural gasses is so we dont run out of them.

[Richard.Neal]

i'm mostly against Nuclear power; we're only a small island, especially compared to some of the other larger energy consuming nations, if we start cluttering up our country-sides with grotesque looking power-stations, i don't really believe in 'eye-sores' that much, like i don't find wind turbines offensive or horrible to look at, what we going to do? paint them different colours?
and also we haven't got my space to dump all the gases etc produced but said non-renewable sources of energy.

*ahem* the point is, we don't Need nuclear power, as effective in some short-term areas as it is. the longer term problems are still apparent, mainly the radiation, and the waste produced, where are we going to put it all? well the radiation will go straight to our brains, and the wast... to the ground? nice.

we haven't got enough room for the ever decreasing space, from say building new housing, let alone dumping waste products.
I think Britain needs renewable

[TheVoice]

Space! Could we recycle the radioactive sludge into weaponry?

[Richard.Neal]

dear oh dear, that would require time, time with the waste spent in the ground before we even develop the technology to harness the radioactive wast, which will probably take years and years, years and years spent destroying areas of the environment

[Paul]

dear oh dear, that would require time, time with the waste spent in the ground before we even develop the technology to harness the radioactive wast, which will probably take years and years, years and years spent destroying areas of the environment

Nuclear power takes up less space than renewables for the same amount of power ... and up to a third of (mainland) Britain is geologically suitable for nuclear waste disposal.

*My preferred option is as always Underground Coal Gasification.

[phantassie.man]

i think that Britain should use more Renewable Energy. In many Years to come the Uranium will eventually run out and we will be back to these discussions again but with wind water other renewable sources we will have less power but it will be a better world for tommorow.

[Matt. P]

i'm mostly against Nuclear power; we're only a small island, especially compared to some of the other larger energy consuming nations, if we start cluttering up our country-sides with grotesque looking power-stations, i don't really believe in 'eye-sores' that much, like i don't find wind turbines offensive or horrible to look at, what we going to do? paint them different colours?
and also we haven't got my space to dump all the gases etc produced but said non-renewable sources of energy.

So... your main argument is that there isn't enough space to built nuclear power plants???

When you look out the window, do you see the skyline crowded with coal and oil plants, plants which take up more space than nuclear? Renewables would take up something like a third of land? If we were the size of Lundy this would be a problem, but I think finding 30 sites in an 50 million km squared island is not going to force us all out of homes at the moment! Besides, have you ever seen a nulcear plant? They're hardly what you'd call eyesoars. And nuclear produces one gas by-product, steam.

the longer term problems are still apparent, mainly the radiation, and the waste produced, where are we going to put it all? well the radiation will go straight to our brains, and the wast... to the ground? nice.

I'd like to see radiation passing through two meters of lead and concrete to reach my brain. People have an assumption that even the tiniest hint of nuclear and we'll suddenly be exposed to deadly radiation, leaving you with cancer and radiation sickness. Did you no how much radiation you recieve naturally in a day, and how much this is increased by the risk of...moving to cornwall? Did you know that coal dust is more radiatiove than nuclear waste? The "simpson" stereotype that living nuclear means absolutely certain mutation, cancer, big smokestacks and a healthy glow are all that, ill-informed and damaging stereotypes.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/D41DB314-E7F2-99DF-3D6ACEC215A9A006_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3Dcoal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&h=319&w=320&sz=19&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=y7iEVdAr8SZv4M:&tbnh=118&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnuclear%2Bpower%2Bplant%26gbv%3D2%26h l%3Den%26sa%3DG

As for the waste, lets hope it stay underground. Its not as if there's anything living down there going to be upset by it all...

[awki]

I'm disgusted by this governments agenda. It's no coincidence that the issue of global warming suddenly springs from the floor just as the ministry of defence announces proposals for yet more additions and 'improvements' to our nuclear defence programme? I think not. And of course there is a link between peaceful nuclear energy generation and destructive nuclear power. We're talking about an increase in radioactive imports, which are used not only in power stations but the Navy's fleet of ballistic-missile bearing nuclear powered subs. Why do we even need them?

[coruscant]

Nuclear power is a good thing in my opinion.

[EmmaGallen]

Nuclear power is a good thing in my opinion.

Care to elaborate?

[Matt. P]

Space! Could we recycle the radioactive sludge into weaponry?

Oh give weapons a rest for once. Stop turning every debate into a futher quest for "world government", administered favourably for the West.

[coruscant]

Care to elaborate?
It's not a fossil fuel so it doesn't harm the enviroment, and the waste can be safely stored underground.

[EmmaGallen]

It's not a fossil fuel so it doesn't harm the enviroment, and the waste can be safely stored underground.

Is that not an arguable point? The radioactive waste does harm teh enviorment. And are we going to hvae in underground here?

Ok politican guy told me that Tidal wave is prett much ready to use in Ireland. True or False? (I don't really trust politicians...)

[coruscant]

Radioactive material can be safely stored in underground bunkers.

[EmmaGallen]

But where will these bunkers be?

[coruscant]

In Sweden there are a fair few, I believe.

[EmmaGallen]

But the UK can't put their weaste in sweden.

[coruscant]

Yes they can. Why not?

[EmmaGallen]

Because how is it going to get there? you going to transport the radioactive waste somewhere else harming god knows how many peopel and wild lfie?

And how much would you have to pay them to take it?

[coruscant]

Cost is an issue for sure, and besides, the people who'd transport it would be protected.
Besides, it's not like we can't build them here.

[EmmaGallen]

well we could. but locals would probably complain.

[coruscant]

Not really, they're completely safe, no radiation leaks out so there's no reason to complain.

[EmmaGallen]

well there's the building of the bunker thigns. hat'd be an eye sore and a headache.

[coruscant]

No but they're underground, practically invisible, aside from the entrance e.t.c, the majority of the building would be underground.

[EmmaGallen]

Still would be a headache.

[coruscant]

You won't give up, will you?

[EmmaGallen]

Well I'm just pointing out that people won't be happy with them. I'm not going to pretend that I know the lilihood of radiation getting into the water supply or seepinginto the grass and slowly killing us because I haven't a lcue about that. but I know people won't be ahppy about a load of building work on their doorstep.

[JoeSavage]

this is a big waste of time and money as this isnt the safest chocie to make there a many more and money should be put in to fund research and develop an eco state

[monorail]

I believe in France that 79% of energy is derived from nuclear.

[Paul]

But where will these bunkers be?

1/3 of the mainland UK (great britain) is suitable for nuclear waste disposal, currently we keep our decommissioned nuclear submarines in Scotland so it could happen that near to that area they build a nuclear waste long term storage zone if the rock is right.

Britain will not force these geological disposal sites on any council (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6083788.stm) (but could if it wanted to)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41610000/gif/_41610372_fin_nucewaste3416.gif

[Nicola Ophelia LaVey]

To be honest, in about fifty years or even less, we're not going to have a choice about whether to use nuclear energy or not because OIL IS RUNNING OUT. Also, I would rather risk more nuclear power in Britain than relying on countries like Saudi Arabia because the culmination of that problem will amount to as great a risk as what could happen if we had more nuclear power, and it would be all our fault as well.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Relying on oil from OPEC and Russia is a greater threat to Britain than nuclear power plants could ever be.

[coruscant]

Yeah, between Russia and Saudi Aradia, we could be held to ransom over oil in the future.