Home » Archive » 2006 » October
» Nuclear power: time for a rethink?

Nuclear power: time for a rethink?

Environmentalists are against it, but are they right?
Submitted by Joe Otten on 5 October 2006 - 10:35am | Categories:

Comments

On 5 October 2006 - 9:31pm, Rob Knight wrote:

I've always had mixed feelings on this. Nuclear power, if done right, seems very tempting. But my dubiousness about our ability to do it right prevents me from supporting it. I wouldn't want to rule it out for all time, but I think there are other priorities which should come first.

Should nuclear power become the only option, we might have to accept it. But so long as other options exist, nuclear power does not seem to distinguish itself as a particularly great option.


On 6 October 2006 - 10:45am, Jeremy Heighway (not verified) wrote:

One of the arguments for nuclear currently seems to be that we are not yet able to reduce our CO2 enough without it and that we should thus have just 'one more quick fix' generation.

We know that the non-renewable resources of our planet are damaging it through use and are in decline anyway, but are still doing pitifully little to make either more efficient use of them or to move to renewable, sustainable, less damaging sources.

When looking at renewables, there are just two basic theoretical questions which we need to be able to positively answer and then iron out in practise: can they supply us with enough total energy on an annual basis? and will the total still be enough if we build in the inefficiency, but convenience, of having that energy wherever and whenever we need it (within reason)?
In the short-term there is also the question of how quickly we could gear up to this position if we really wanted to.

I believe that we can achieve all of this and that society would change massively for the better as a result. Alone in the area of mobility efficiency I would be able to choose to have things delivered to me should I wish or need to, and would have a much better choice of mode of transport if I wanted to go somewhere, such as various bikes, scooters, electric vehicles, hybrids etc. from the 'car' share club round the corner, plus public transport, of course. My favourite car at the moment is a 2-seater electric vehicle which does the equivalent of 280 mpg, but like most people, I can't afford to buy one, and thus the price isn't likely to come down.
And how does this link in to the 'current' topic?: some pioneers are looking at how the energy stored in parked electric/hybrid vehicles could be used as a source of backup power should there be a shortfall on the grid. If you hadn't thought of this before, let me tell you that the potential is definitely there. It's just one step in right direction, whereas in my opinion, new nuclear isn't.


On 19 October 2006 - 4:48pm, Gareth Aubrey (not verified) wrote:

Only noticed this post when you advertised it on your own blog!

In terms of the calculations you asked about, the coal one can be found at http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

I don't have figures for the deep disposal calculation but your point is valid in any case; we are only ever told that waste is dangerous, that danger is never quantified against other risks, particularly radiation risks we face every day such as living in Cornwall and flying.


On 19 October 2006 - 7:38pm, Anonymous (not verified) wrote:

that is awesome


On 20 October 2006 - 9:11am, Joe Otten wrote:

I thought you were being quiet Gareth. In fact I posted a comment to your blog about it too, although that never appeared. Is there something up with your comment settings?

The link you give doesn't give figures on the emissions of the nuclear plant, but refers to another study. The phrase "nuclear power plants that meet government regulations" will be question begging in many minds - many will not trust the industry to do that. All that said, it is fairly damning of coal.