Slashdot Mirror
UK's Chief Scientist Backs Nuclear Power Revival
Timbotronic writes "The UK government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors." From the article: "His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions."
no greenhouse gases, just a few thousand tonnes of radioactive waste. what could be the downside?
Ignoring all the many, important reasons to use nuclear (Which I agree with)..
Let's do it to beat the French!
And nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. End of discussion.
I'm reading a lot about countries, Britan, Finland the US etc, pushing nuclear energy as a "safer", "cleaner" alternative. It's a PR stunt.
Nuclear energy is cheap. That's about all you can say for it.
As to safety. Well relative to single other form of electricity generation, nuclear power is the most dangerous. A coal plant's worst case scenario is a giant smog cloud. A nuclear plants worst case scenario is the permanent evacuation of the highly populated region surrounding Chernobyl, and a significant rise in lukemia rates, etc, etc. "That'll NEVER happen" I hear them say already. "Not with modern technology and computeeeerssss....". Oh Dear.
Cleaner? Coal and gas give off Carbon oxides and other nasties. Yes this is a problem. But nuclear power gives us all that lovely radioactive waste which quite simply has to be thrown in big holes and the lid sealed up for over 40,000 years!
40,000 years is just the half life of uranium! Is the UK even going to be around in 40,000 years. Offtopic, don't answer that. But riddle me this. How many engineering firms can build a nuclear waste disposal site that can be guaranteed to contain the radioactivity for 40,000 years. If you can find one, I've got this bridge...
Oh, but oil and gas are contributing to the greenhouse effect! Well yes they are, but does that justify building more reactors, generating more nuclear waste, AND more nuclear warheads? There' this thing called the sun. Provides loads of energy. The Wind! Water? Is nothing else viable? Well they work..... but Nuclear are much cheaper!
And nuclear plants ARE cheap. No question about it. Yes. Very cheap. No more oil importing. Cost reductions. Balence of Trade. What's a few nuclear drums? Yes. Very, very cheap.
May the Maths Be with you!
yes, why noT replace a " .. looming energy crisis .." with the crisis of global radiation contamination!
Yup! Long Live Chernobyl!!! Hooray for 3 Mile Island!
way to go, brits!
tkjtkj@gmail.com
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"