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."
Radioactive waste can be contained. A trick we haven't figured out with air pollution yet.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Better to tackle the "looming energy crisis" head on and use human ingenuity to come up with a better, more environmentally friendly, solution. Simply settling for something that works but has problems is the same attitude that has gotten the world into this rediculous oil mess, all the while destroying the very planet we live on.
I'm not saying Nuclear power might not be the best answer for a short term emergency, but short term solutions tend to become long term ones when government is concerned.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Nuclear power generation is safer and less polluting than burning fossil fuels to generate power. The new pebble bed reactors offer a significant safety improvement over the old fuel rod design that is in older plants lile Three Mile Island. It's time to use the brains we have and provide the safe and cheap power that nuclear fission can offer.
is a nation wide awarness campaign on how nuclear power works, why it is BETTER for the enviroment, and how it will help allow
Talk about the new technologies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've been thinking about this for a long while. I wonder what would happen if the US (like some commentators have suggested) embark on a "Manhattan Project" for energy. If the US highly encouraged oil exploration, solar, wind, nuclear, hybrid (like the plug into your wall to charge the batteries), Sterling engine, biodiesel, thermal depolermersation (you know, turkey offal and sewage into oil), microwaves and mining the moon and Jupiter for fusion fuel. What would happen if through alternative energy initiatives we could drive the price of oil down to $10 a barrel. I'm not saying it will happen, or even if it could happen, but what would happen to the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and all the other dictatorships that run on oil? What would happen if America could export its energy technology instead of importing oil?
A bad reputation is very difficult to eliminate. Whereas a good reputation is ruined by one bad action, the same cannot be said for the converse. Nuclear power has clear advantages as well as disadvantages; technology has improved. But if we can't deal with mercury, toxic chemicals, and other pollutants, what are we going to do with nuclear waste? If we have a plan and are ready, then go ahead, but we should still look for alternatives and improvements.
Fun Zoid RPG
The problem with nuclear power is that the nuclear industry is so enmeshed with top secret military programs that no one knows what its costs really are. They say it's cheap, but to what degree is it being subsidized? We'll never know. Also, nuclear power further encourages an overly centralized power grid, with too few, too-large power plants. For both national security and efficency, we should be moving toward a more distributed model. Smaller plants require less investment too, so they can be added/upgraded more easily as technology improves. I'm for millions of solar roofs; microturbines and fuel cells with co-generation; and everyone's meter able to run backwards.
You can centrifuge so you don't really need any chemicals, and so little fuel is needed to get a given amount of energy that the amounts used are miniscule compared to what would be used digging up the same amount of coal/oil/etc.
What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end?
Ever seen a slag heap? The amount of waste is again going to be miniscule compared to what you'd produce getting the coal or oil needed to get the same amount of energy, the radiation danger is a tiny fraction of what you get from the radon you'll release mining coal. The toxicity is overstated, it's not really any worse than lead - yes it's not something you'd want to be too near, but neither are the much larger piles of stuff used for mining and oil-drilling.
I am trolling
Even though I am a fan of nukes, I have to say that is patently false. In fact, just read some of the earlier articles here to find out that wind alone can put out more than double what we use (That is total energy, not electricity), let alone the other alternative energy (solar, geo, wave, etc).
In fact, you will find a number of companies who are creating wind energy plants all over the world and then selling the energy. More importantly, they are making LOTS of profit at it.
The real issue is how to deal with varying power. Instead of focusing on power generation, we should focus on how to store it. Right now, Colorado is testing conversion of electricity to H2 and then use the H2 to drive an internal combustion engine to drive a generator (how inefficient can you get). The one nice advantage of researching storage is that it will allow a mixture of alternative a nukes to generate electricty/other energy that is stored close to the site of usage.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
big breaktrough that will reduce the cost of PV cells ... happening for decades
Indeed, we have. And you know what? Solar power is, inflation-adjusted, a quarter the cost it was in the 1970s. In short, the predictions of notably reduced cost have been *accurate*. If they keep remaining accurate, solar will become the cheapest power source available.
The physics are sound, and there are many potential approaches, for not just nanocrystalline solar, but efficient organic solar. Low efficiency organic solar is due to random scattering of the electron donors and recipients. There are at least half a dozen companies out there working on nanoscale assembly, so that it's not random, and thus should get silicon-level efficiency at the cost of plastic sheeting. The odds of none of them succeeding seem extremely slim.
Uranium is quite a bit more abundant than is often depicted
False. For example SK's known deposits will be fully extracted in 25 years (Australia will last loner). At current power consumption and efficiency, if we produced all of our power from uranium, and assuming new deposits are found, we've probably got about as much uranium left as we do coal.
The problem is not only that uranium isn't an incredibly common element on the surface. The fact is that only 0.7% of natural uranium is U-235, which is what is burned in the vast majority of reactors worldwide And you'll usually only get half of that out. What we *really* need are safe breeders (for example, lead or lead-bismuth). Also, thorium breeders allow the use of a completely different, not to mention more common, fuel.
Additionally, there are many types of solar beyond PV; PV is just the most convenient for small-scale application. For large scale, your most economical options are solar thermal and (possibly) solar chimneys (it's a relatively new concept, so it's too early to say). With solar thermal, you don't need silicon - you can use any decent infrared reflector, along with a heliostat, and you point it at a dark-colored tank housing a working fluid. Even if you're just looking a PV, small-scale heliostat arrays that direct light to small high-efficiency silicon cells are just about to start hitting the market, promising rooftop-mounted grid-price PV solar (cheaper in sunnier regions, more expensive in shady regions).
Lastly, solar can displace electricity/natural gas consumption. For example, not only can you have solar water heating and solar house heating, but you can even have solar-powered air conditioning (it's currently only cost-effective for large facilities due to the cost of the evaporators, however, since they're not mass produced).
He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.