UK Sticks With Nuclear Power

Coisiche writes "Despite recent events in Japan and the certain public outcry that it will generate, the UK government proposes to build new nuclear power stations. Well, earthquakes and tsunamis are very rare here."

Comments

Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK, like many countries, has committed to a substantial drop in CO2 emissions. Nuclear is obviously going to have to be a major component in that.

Re:Obvious

[jcr]

Had a look at a topographical map of Norway lately? Now, compare it to one of the UK.

Hydro power doesn't work everywhere in the world.

-jcr

Re:Obvious

[rainmouse]

Had a look at a topographical map of Norway lately? Now, compare it to one of the UK.
Hydro power doesn't work everywhere in the world.

-jcr

Not to mention the fact that the UK has 15.25 times the population of Norway.

Not a problem

[calzakk]

Well, earthquakes and tsunamis are very rare here

A serious understatement. While the UK does have the very occasional tremor, they're so minor that nothing more than a single roof tile has ever moved*. There are no active volcanoes. And hurricanes/tornadoes/etc are extremely rare.

The UK must be one of the best places to build nuclear reactors.

* I'm just assuming this. The point is that they are incredibly minor compared to earthquakes experienced by most other countries.

Re:Not a problem

[TheRaven64]

The UK's terrorism problem dropped significantly after September, 2001. Apparently something happened in the USA around then that stopped it being fashionable for people in New York to send money to fund terrorism. With their main supply of funding cut off, there was a much bigger incentive for them to reach a negotiated settlement.

But what about the waste?

[cormandy]

What is the UK planning to do about nuclear waste? It cannot be kept in cooling ponds forever. I just watched the intriguing documentary Into Eternity the other day (99p rental on iTunes) about Onkalo, the massive network of tunnels the Finnish are digging in solid bedrock in which will become a giant subterranean depository for the country's nuclear waste. The documentary reminds us that nuclear waste remains harmful for something like 100,000 years, and shockingly they reveal that although Onkalo will be used only for Finnish nuclear waste, the country will need to dig many more Onkalos to handle all of it! What hope is there for countries that are not on a shield of bedrock? Why isn't Canada doing something similar? (Think Canadian Shield.) I recall the US was going to proceed with Yucca Mountain, but Obama slashed the budget that would have funded the work...

Re:But what about the waste?

[MrHanky]

You mean you drop it into the ocean.

Re:Death per kwh?

[TheRaven64]

Why don't you ask your favourite search engine? This was the top hit for me. The important data (deaths per TWh):

• Coal – world average: 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
• Coal – China: 278
• Coal – USA: 15
• Oil: 36 (36% of world energy)
• Natural Gas: 4 (21% of world energy)
• Biofuel/Biomass: 12
• Peat: 12
• Solar (rooftop): 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
• Wind: 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
• Hydro: 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
• Hydro - world including Banqiao): 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
• Nuclear: 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

So, Nuclear power is 3-4 times safer than wind, and twice as safe as hydro-electric.

Re:Good!

[somersault]

Sure we invest in wind farms and tidal generators. I work for a company that has designed and is building a tidal turbine, and I've heard talk about wind energy projects. I still think it's important to continue with nuclear as well. I'm glad that our government doesn't seem as dumb and panicky as certain others.