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?
Liquid coal synfuel FTW.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5492
Apparently, the Germans were good at this back in the 40’s. :/
I think the problem is that American Environmentalists are against, Oil, Coal, Nuclear Power, Wind if it affect birds and bats, Water Power if it affect fish migrations, and Solar Power if it affects the environment. So that leaves us? Oh, yeah, extinction as the best way to conservation.
We have more than 300 years of coal left, we’ve perfected Nuclear Power to the point where it’s a reasonable choice, and we’ve perfected Hybrids to the point where they are more and more common. I don’t see why we aren’t doing a combination of these three, instead of pipe dreams such as ethanol.
I am currently working with a physicists who’s group has already answered America’s energy problem.
Here it is: Use our existing perfected nuclear power generators (such as the A1B aircraft reactor, which is designed to withstand a full military attack) and sink dozens off the coastline. This will provide enough power to get us off of coal entirely while producing less radiation and pollution than coal, and as much hydrogen as we could ever want to power all those hydrogen cars. This could happen in as short as 5 years!
Of course the nutjob environmentalists will stand in the way for no valid reason whatsoever, except that they want to force us to live in caves.
These environmentalist have become the leaders of the wingnut parade and are now causing more problems than they are solving.
The problem that I see with the energy ‘solutions’ that our leaders on both sides of the pond seem to be so fond of is that they are either highly centralized, and thus very wasteful due to energy loss in transmission (LNG, Nuclear, Coal) or downright murderous (food based fuel). The only conclusion that I can draw is that our leadership is fearful of a loss of control if they can no longer switch our power off, or charge the poor and middle class and arm and a leg for the energy they need to work and produce. This fear is childish, and we need to discard it for the sake of the future. If we want a truly efficient energy system that bolsters the poor and middle class, we need to encourage people to make their own energy via solar, wind and bio-gas (methane collection from manure), and reform the grid so that excess power can be shared at a fair market rate. The amount of new economic liberty such a plan could create is beyond the imagination of most people, and if combined with micro-fab technology, has the potential to make every community into a center of production and wealth. If we had real leadership, and we had spent that trillion dollars on encouraging such development instead of soaking sand with blood, we would have no energy crisis now, and our economy would be experiencing dramatic growth.
But the oil companies and the merchants of death wouldn’t get any richer off that plan, so it’s a no go. Oh, for leadership.
P.S. Ever wonder why big oil soaks all the environmental organizations with cash? #2’s point shows the return on that investment.
That is, aircraft carrier reactor.
Imagine no more coal used for power generation and generous hydrogen production. Imagine the possibilities!
I agree with much of what #4 said. Decentralize the power grid. Make each home a producer of electricity supplemented with smaller and thereby less expensive and less centralized nuclear power. Solar works best during peak hours and nuclear for the rest of the time.
It’s something we can start today and while the expense is high, it doesn’t cost as much as a war in the middle east…
I like that idea, Ah_Yea, but the disposal issue still hasn’t been fully answered yet. I see no reason why a line of windmills off the coast, hooked up to desalination (or temperature differential based water condensers) and hydrolysis systems, couldn’t solve the same problem with less waste. After all, after a windmill breaks down, you can recycle the components and build a new one, but after a nuke reactor has exceeded its useful life (even those marvelous contained ones that the Navy and NASA use) you have to spend money for ten thousand years to keep it out of the environment. Though the windmill idea might represent a greater initial investment, I believe that it would be cheaper in the long run, and if we are going to survive the next century of radical environmental change, we are going to have to start thinking on 100 year intervals, rather than 4 year ones.
Li, I absolutely agree. The nuclear alternative is simply better than what we have now, and if we can get enough windmills to power the entire country 24/7 then we also have another better workable solution right away. I don’t know if it is possible to power the entire country from wind power reliably, but if you know of any studies pointing to this possibility, I’m sure that myself and a lot of others would like to read it!
By any measure, America can do a lot more than we currently are doing.
@#7, Li, that is indeed a great solution but the above mentioned “eco-nuts” have stopped every off-shore windmill farm attempt I know of in the USA…
Nuclear power here we come! Suck it Greenpeace!
[Duplicate comment. – Deleted. – ed.]
Where’s Martin Sheen? Shouldn’t he be chaining himself to 10 Downing Street by now?
I think we should be all nuclear by now, and make all cars electric. For awhile, there will be a need for some folks to continue to use fossil fuels (at least until the technology catches up), but there’s no reason why almost everyone can’t drive an EV1 and use electric heating.
From what I understand, the technology for nuke plants is very mature. Pay the engineers extremely well, don’t outsource to the lowest bidder and there should be no problem. Plus, we need to offer a billion dollar prize for the first person who develops a solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem. Money talks, bullshit walks. Put enough greenbacks on the barrelhead, and we can solve ANY problem.
#12 I don’t think it would be feasible (or even desirable) to power the whole country off of off shore wind, but it would be a great way to make potable fuel (hydrogen) for off the grid uses. I guess my point is that there is no one solution, but rather a series of them that can, nonetheless, work together in harmony.
Er, #8, I mean.
In the construction of such items as nuclear facilities, the contractual notion of low bid has always bothered me a bit.
Well said, Li. You should be running for President. Oh wait, you can’t run for president, you’re not on the take and you think about solutions!
YOu believe it would be cheaper, but the real world examples show the breakdown rates are tremendous. If those companies have to compete in the private market, then presumably they’ll figure it out.
So you don’t want government to have the freedom to turn off your power. Where were you on the last post about the turnoff switches during peak power use?
Nuclear Power is another government corporate welfare program with as much economic/scientific support as the GOUSA’s other energy program==corn based ethanol.
Wake up dopes. Li is WRONG. “the disposal issue still hasn’t been fully answered yet” attempts but fails to state the fact that the disposal issue HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED AT ALL!
Poisonous to all life for 100K’s of years? Yes. Lets burden future generations with even more crap than we already have.
Good plan, because it is “cheap” for us? Many things are cheap when their waste products are dumped into the environment. And thats what storage on site is==dumping plain and simple.
Lets wait until the waste problem is SOLVED before we go poisoning ourselves.
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