This weeks weekly debate - Is Nuclear Power so bad?

[DE-G@vnor]

Here's a strange one to share.

I am very environmentally conscious, hand in hand with that goes a dislike for Nuclear Power - or does it?

I have to admit to having my mind changed by 2 key friends in my life , 1 is an environmentalist commisioned by the UK Gvt as an advisor the 2nd works at an executive level for British Nulclear Fuel (or is it Power?).

The fact is that global warming is a very real threat to our lives, with mainstream scientists talking of a theoretical "point of no return" where our damage is irreversable. Also, recent findings of "Global Dimming" (the thickening of cloud cover) go to show that our measurements of Global Warming have been grossly miscalculated.

The Yankees (I love to hate them) contribute a staggering 40% of the whole worlds emmisions and they are NOT going to stop. In fact, Britian is following suit more than anything - you only need to try get around London after 8am to see all the SINGLE CHILDREN being ferried around in SUV's , in some areas you cannot see normal cars for them. People genuinely don't give a shit, with common EXCUSES for their irresponsibility being "I will be dead by then", "Everyone else is doing it", "I don't have time to co-ordinate with neighbours to car share" or the biggy "Global Warming is just a theory, its been contested". (ask yourself who is contesting it and where the funding for their research comes from)

The fact is that you may well be dead by then, but its our children that will pay the price - its that close if scientists are to be believed.

As far as the "contention" over the issue, you will not be surprised to find that nearly all of the naysayers are on the payrolls of Oil Companies that are currently making record profits and record turnover of oil. Esso is without a doubt the biggest culprit, with an estimated expenditure of over 100 mil per year into "disproving Global warming".

America and the British public seem unwilling to do anything (personally I use public transport for EVERYTHING unless absolutely neccesary , eg a rural area) so it doesn't seem that "awareness" will change anything. People are mostly uneducated -the voting majority in every country is pretty much working class, due to inequality of wealth (lets leave that for another week).

I'm convinced the solution is to STOP decommisioning Nuclear Power Plants and start building more as soon as we can - make unilateral agreements on the storage of waste (the French love to do this for everyone) - the fact is that despite the risks Nuclear Power is the CLEANEST power source we have , in terms of global warming emmissions.

Why doesn't the gvt do anything or say this? Well , its hardly a vote winner is it? Who wants a power station in their back yard (we would need either 3 massive ones or 12 regular sized installations).

With this in mind, here's the topic for debate:

Why do people show apathy towards this problem, why are we so unwilling to take action?

Is it corporate greed that forces us to feel "powerless"?
Is it selfishness that whilst it may affect people in hot countries , such as India, very quickly - but it won't affect us in our lifetime?
Is it a trust that people are already doing things to help? (you would be very dissapointed)
etc etc.

Personally, I am appalled to see so much media attention and gvt money spent on stopping public smoking, due to "Passive smoking" and threats to health - rather than addressing Carbon emmisions , which are linked to a 100+ plus rise over the last 20 years to asthma in children and other respitory illnesses. The government simply refuses to address this issue properly (by enforcing for example car limits per household) , due to the money it gains from BP in particular (a charge for using our sea) and the car tax industry.

This simply has to stop, if we are to build these power stations and go 100% nuclear then we MUST start building them in the next 2 years! (construction time is 5 years). - that gives 7 years to get our first station.

People MUST stop being so irresponsible with car use - if only for the damage it does to children in populated areas.

But why dont they do it?

I will give my personal view that people are simply ignorant and selfish. I don't mind so much people who dont understand the threat - its people who are educated and know full well - but still have 3 cars for the family and a coal fire. I feel we need a disciplinarian government that grabs the bulls by the horns and says "right, this is the score - 2 cars per house and you need to fill a form out to justify the second , no SUV's and btw, we are putting nuclear power stations outside every MAJOR city (london, glasgow, cardiff etc). World governments have taken steps to control over-population, some to extremes - but this problem is just as serious, we aren't talking about not enough food to go round, but death on a scale unimaginable (india is expected with a 4% temperature rise globally to be extinct - additionally a 4 inch raise in the sea level would cause not just flooding but real instability on some rock /land formations. The most famous of these is Lanzarotte (sp?) which will in fact detach from itself , or tear - if it drops into the sea (as expected) imagine a tsunami but on a FAR greater scale, whacking into the US coast).


If this debates not interesting to you / a load of rubbish, just let us know and I will try come up with something a bit more "open".

[InnerCitySumo]

This is an interesting point - nuclear power, despite the problem of waste, IS superficially far more environmentally friendly than Coal / solid-fuelled power station, and slightly more environmentally friendly than natural gas (ignoring the fact that natural gas will run out pretty soon).

It's also - depending VERY much on your point of view - more friendly than Hydro-power, though potentially not if you consider all the possible enviromental factors (like silting, loss of habitat, etc. - see the Great Gorges Dam in China for the worst possible long term impact.)

If someone found a long-term way of getting rid of nuclear waste, and the safety of the stations could be guaranteed (e.g. no more Chernobyls) then it's actually pretty future-proof.

Personally I think we could do with a few more wind farms. These people who say they're ugly and noisy do piss me off - would they rather have a nuclear power station in their back garden?? I'd volunteer my back yard for a windmill any day.

[sm]

Personally I think we could do with a few more wind farms. These people who say they're ugly and noisy do piss me off - would they rather have a nuclear power station in their back garden?? I'd volunteer my back yard for a windmill any day.

Windfarms are nice far away but are rather ugly close up, I can't see why they don't build more offshore.

[Woz]

I'll say right now that I'm a long-term Greenpeace member, so I'm biased on this one.

The fact is that Nuclear power is not the only alternative, and in fact doesn't go anywhere to solving the problems you highlight with the SUVs.
We'd need a massive infrastructure change to move away from oil, so producing more power by other means will not solve all the problems in the short or even medium term.

Given the risks involved with nuclear, and they are massive, why not instead put the same level of investment into solar and wind power? Some of that investment should also be channeled into making power portable, so better batteries and safe reliable hydrogen cells.
Solar and wind give us electricity directly, and don't have the same level of negative press that nuclear does so they ought to be easier to sell to the NIMBYs.


As an aside - are you sure that public transport is actually more environmentally friendly than small, efficient cars? I seem to remember that Top Gear had something about trains that was very surprising.
The number of half-empty busses you see driving around can be worrying.
(Both our family cars will do up to 60mpg by the way).

[Barracuda]

I agree with both windfarms and nuclear power, a friend of mine also works for BNFL and I used to think that the waste was an issue, but BNFL are so stringent with tests with the waste, it would take alot, and i mean alot for it to go wrong in any way.

According to my friend and the news, WE will start to feel and notice the affects in the next 4 years, i am sure if you do a search on the net you will find the stroies, but there are predicitons (going off facts) that certain parts of the uk will be underwater in the near future!

[Woz]

Here you go - the article about trains and their lack of environmental friendliness : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

[Barracuda]

Some cars are more efficient than trains though!

But see where you are coming from, it will take alot more than just the travelling issue to sort the mess out tbh.

[InnerCitySumo]

Woz,

That article is certainly interesting, I had no idea the new trains were so inefficient, but the point is that they were only being investigated in terms of power efficiency. The fact remains that cars pump out carbon monoxide and electric trains don't.

Where the power comes FROM, that's the important bit. If all the electric trains were powered by wind farms, then we couldn't care less how efficient they were!

[Rascal]

Isn't there an issue where Countries can sell the difference of their 'share' of their emissions target to other countries if they come in under 'budget' as it where, So emissions don't actually get reduced simply shifted from one country to another.

[InnerCitySumo]

Yes I read the US has some sort of deal where they can plant a few conifers in Alaska and actually INCREASE the level of their Carbon Monoxide emissions at the same time, and somehow still come under the international emissions limits.

[Barracuda]

[quote="Rascal"]Isn't there an issue where Countries can sell the difference of their 'share' of their emissions target to other countries if they come in under 'budget' as it where, So emissions don't actually get reduced simply shifted from one country to another.[/quote]


I hope not otherwise whats the point?

[DE-G@vnor]

I'll say right now that I'm a long-term Greenpeace member, so I'm biased on this one.

The fact is that Nuclear power is not the only alternative, and in fact doesn't go anywhere to solving the problems you highlight with the SUVs.
We'd need a massive infrastructure change to move away from oil, so producing more power by other means will not solve all the problems in the short or even medium term.

Given the risks involved with nuclear, and they are massive, why not instead put the same level of investment into solar and wind power?

My comeback to this is that we need solutions that will provide 100% "non fossil" power within 7years. RE: Greenpeace, my mate was involved just last week (this is what sparked my interest) with Friends of the Earth, who are turning 60%+ in favour - to try convince the sceptics.

The fact, in his opinion, is that Wind Power etc is a nightmare to implement, when asked why his response is:

Firstly you need to do a year study of the environmental impact of a wind farm (this takes into account the turbelence caused, noise, etc) on the natural habitat and economic/social reasons. This study takes more than 12 months in EVERY case, sometimes more than 3 (like Orkney) - with so many endangered species or protected species it becomes very difficult to implement. We need a solution and we need it implemented within then next 5 years guaranteed , given the UK's targets set by Kyoto.

So while its all well and good (I used to sit on this side of the fence) if it isn't achievable in time, then its not viable.

[DE-G@vnor]

Here you go - the article about trains and their lack of environmental friendliness : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

I would counter this one (though not as confidently) with the fact that if we filled trains with passengers at peak times and ran more, total that to the average family's 2 or 3 cars all active - that the train would win. The data used in that article is questionable on second read - highlights being:
1. Modern Diesel car (I'd say the majority drive petrol).
2. Making the same journey (I've a feeling they are talking measuring it as a mathematical calculation (by pure distance / speed etc)- as train tracks are fairly straight, uncongested and "as the crow flies"/direct, this arguement becomes quick farcical. Yeah A train might give x emmision for its journey from newcastle to London, but a car is going to be at a standstill, in congestion and not at fuel efficiency. Speed will also vary more == more fuel consumption.

Also, efficency of cars is best between 25-50 mph isnt it? how often do you do an average of 25mph in a morning to work , if its often - I want to work in your city

[DE-G@vnor]

Yes I read the US has some sort of deal where they can plant a few conifers in Alaska and actually INCREASE the level of their Carbon Monoxide emissions at the same time, and somehow still come under the international emissions limits.

Bush has recently passed laws to drill oil in Alaska, which is actually (previously) illegal in the US - so I would take any agreement they have with a pinch of salt. - Even if they can get that rebate, I bet they take it and still produce more emmissions.

[Barracuda]

You go that speed if your going into and from Manchester at peak times garunteed!

[InnerCitySumo]

[quote=G@v]So while its all well and good (I used to sit on this side of the fence) if it isn't achievable in time, then its not viable.[/quote]

But then surely it's going to be far easier to get some new wind farms built, despite all these regulations, than a new nuclear power station? I can imagine the public resistance to Nuclear power being far greater.

[DE-G@vnor]

yes, but 1 station can full 1/14th of the countries needs.
1 wind farm (or an average 6 turbines) cant even scratch the surface

[Barracuda]

But what can we few do to push this, i am thinking very little, I have sent emails to Brown and Blair re debts in 3rd world, as im sure loads of people have but I can't see anyway of pushing this.

What happened in the g7 meeting, not watched the news TBH, was this metioned?

[Little Funk]

Yes I read the US has some sort of deal where they can plant a few conifers in Alaska and actually INCREASE the level of their Carbon Monoxide emissions at the same time, and somehow still come under the international emissions limits.

Bush has recently passed laws to drill oil in Alaska, which is actually (previously) illegal in the US - so I would take any agreement they have with a pinch of salt. - Even if they can get that rebate, I bet they take it and still produce more emmissions.

thats not like him

[InnerCitySumo]

yes, but 1 station can full 1/14th of the countries needs.
1 wind farm (or an average 6 turbines) cant even scratch the surface

Ah yes, never thought of that. Good point. Shame though - it would be great if we could build a few more wind farms. And those tidal things I've been reading about look good too.