Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Sticks With Nuclear Power

Posted by timothy on from the stay-calm-and-carry-iodine dept.

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."

5 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Obvious by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Not a problem by calzakk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not a problem by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. But what about the waste? by cormandy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...