Lots More Nuclear Power - Good Thing or Bad Thing?
Nuclear power – an abundant source of carbon free energy, or a dangerous and expensive power source with huge risks to our health and environment?
Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.
Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.
- » See also: #5 Paris, France: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
Whilst nuclear energy has at least one advantage in providing plentiful carbon free power, there are numerous objections, not least due to concerns over safety, long term handling and storage of radioactive waste and the potential distraction from long term renewable energy projects. Indeed, there are many complex arguments behind the nuclear question, a topic which cannot be succinctly summarised in a single blog post, and on which I must admit I lack a clear opinion.
Therefore I decided to call in some people who actually know what they are talking about.
Rod of Atomic Insights and Matt from TalkClimateChange have agreed to lend their expertise to this discussion in a currently ongoing debate on our discussion boards, which I am sure will provide the necessary depth of argument and cover the full range of pro’s and con’s.
We’ll be back with a follow-up post containing the highlights (and maybe a final opinion) from this debate next week. In the meantime, feel free to watch the debate or chime in with your views.
I think we only need energy for simple things light heat and travport.you can help it your self by taking a bus or train.turning of light’s when not needed and t.v computers ect…
soooo bad ?
LOOK LONG TERM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gosh stop thinking 2 years a head think 100’s maybe 1000’s if your brains are smart enough to do sooooooo
To Josh: Uranium is quite a common element. The main isotope of uranium used in Nuclear Power plants is U235, which constitutes 0.7% of the natural Uranium amounts. Thats why it might run out.
The other natural uranium is U238, which is used in bullets, and in aircraft-making, as it has a higher density than lead.
To every pro-nuclear energy thinker (scott R. in particular)
By using nuclear energy, governments are always gambling with our and future generations’ lives.
Not only is it immoral, but we do not have a choice in these debates.
The risks for nuclear power are extremely high, and in a survey it was found out that USA has had 200-misses that would have been Chernobyl-sized, and even though there are small leaks, they ARE leaks, and cause others misery. These leaks are often covered up by governments, so as not to loose face in front of the rest of the world, of which a fine example is Chernobyl, where the accident was first covered up.
Speaking of Chernobyl, if the major environmental, health and economical damage was that disastrous there, then make your brains chew on this.
CHERNOBYL WAS NOT A WORST CASE SCENARIO!!! (It was only halfway up the scale).
One of the worst case scenarios was in the movie or book China syndrome, where all the material overheated and burned through to China.
To reassure you though I will say this. IT IS VERY with one trillion verys unlikely that this will ever happen.
Another problem is the disposal of the radioactive waste, because one of the most efficient materials for blocking out the rays is either lead or reinforced concrete. The lead has to be at least 10-15cm thick to block the gamma-rays of a piece of radium half the length of your little finger, while the r. concrete has to be even thicker. Some of the spent material would take 10 THOUSAND YEARS not to be a threat to life. Of course that is if humanity doesn’t forget all about where they buried the waste, dig it up, and accidentally cause a global crisis.
The last problem with nuclear energy I would like to point out is the cost. Not only does the building cost billions of whatever currency is in use, but what is often not calculated is the decommissioning costs, which can even exceed the building costs. The decommissioning has to be done to a very high standard so that no nuclear waste escapes the inner concrete block (of which I do not know the name but is supposed to protect us from the waste and minimalise leaks). The so-called inner concrete block cannot be removed, and will probably be fenced off for hundreds of years until there is no longer any danger.
In conclusion I will add my own comment to nuclear power and the big ugly power plants.
The power plants.
I find it quite irritating that the damn things don’t LOOK dangerous, but if an accident happens, we STILL won’t know we’re in danger, while the rays spread like the black plague and kill us.
It may not stink like coal and gas
but if the radioactive mass
would escape its dreary confines
and spread like gas in mines.
The world would say “Oh crap.”
Excuse the poetry.
Sooo is itt good or bad i need to no for my school fing lols?
I think that it is a bad thing because it costs millions of dollars just to build a power plant and nuclear power is so dangerous. I know that it doesn’t emitt any CO2 and some people think it doesn’t contrabute to Global warming exept during the process of making the nucler power plant it does. And probably it might be better than burning coal but it still costs lives if it blows up, so instead of burning coal and building nucler power plants why not build a wind farm it might take up land but it helps the risks of global warmiing decrese,or even construct some solar panels.
Because building wind farms and other renewable resources will help stop GLOBAL WARMING.All because of global warming
ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!
SEA LEVELS ARE RISING!
POLAR BEARS ARE DROWNING!
CLIMATE CHANGE!
CHANGS TO THE WATER CYCLE!
And much, much more so thierfore power plants are bad and get renewable sources such as wind farms e.c.t
BY BROOKE
AGE:10
why dont the goverment turn to renewable sources?
Seems the only decent they can do.
i have speant a considerable amount of time debating this topic, and therefore have quite a bit of knowledge on it. I have a question for everyone who opposes it: what do you suggest we use? alternative fuels cannot currently sustain an entire nation as large as the US. In order to make biodiesel or ethanol, you must use a LARGE quantatity of corn, grain, grass, or algae, and we dont have the amount of land necessary to grow all of it. Also, for those of you proposing solar or wind, it simply doesnt provide enough energy for all the cars, trucks, planes, boats, homes, business and other things we need power for. Yes, we ned to move to something other then oil, but our other alternative fuls simply wont do it. Nuclear, as i see it, is our best option.
First of all, Freshman Debater, “for those of you proposing solar or wind, it simply doesnt provide enough energy for all the cars, trucks, planes, boats, homes, business and other things we need power for.”
The only part of that sentence that made sense was the homes and business part. Cars, truck, planes and boats don’t run on electricity so nuclear wouldn’t help anyway.
Fail # 1.
Wind and solar maybe not be able to sustain the U.S. but neither can nuclear. I’m assuming your looking into the future and so nuclear is going to run out of fuel in 26ish years according to a post somewhere up there. The wind and sun aren’t disappearing for a looooong time.
Fail # 2.
You should spend more QUALITY time debating and/or researching this topic.
*cars, trucks, planes and boats CAN run on electricity but not enough of them to make nuclear power necessary to power them.