Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Can someone answer this for me...?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Nigeyboy
Nigeyboy  6537 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Apr 2009 - 12:44 PM

Hi all

Got a question that is bothering me!! I read the other day that the Government has agreed to the building of up to 11 new nuclear power stations around the UK. Now, call me cynical but:

11 x Nuclear Power Stations = approx c£100bn
11 x annual running costs of £40m each = c£500m

So my question is this - why? How many wind farms could be built for that kind of money? How many tidal lagoons could be built? Imagine the subsidies that could be offered for PV panels for domestic houses?

If the UK wants to be at the cutting edge of green, carbon neutral power generation would this not be a quicker, easier and safer choice? I am not saying we should have no nuclear power stations, but the balance seems to be wrong here!!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
17 Apr 2009 - 12:44 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

JohnParminter
17 Apr 2009 - 1:12 PM

It's 11 possible sites to build a new Nuclear power Station or stations not 11 in total, one of them being not two miles from my house with a view from my living room window. I live in a very rural area and within the bounds of the Lake District National Park and nether thought I could one day look out onto a Nuclear power station however, I'm not particularly against it though as I have worked in the Nuclear industry (Sellafield is just up the road) and understand their workings and the safety measures that are used in their operation.
Not all the sites will be chosen as there will be ones better suited.

In answer to you rquestion though, I guess thousands and thousands of wind turbines could be built for that money. They'd have to be located somewhere, on hills, offshore??
Good one for debate though.......
John

Last Modified By JohnParminter at 17 Apr 2009 - 1:18 PM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 913403 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:13 PM

Because windfarms generate too much wind....and it is already windy enough Smile

Last Modified By Coleslaw at 17 Apr 2009 - 1:14 PM
kaybee
kaybee  103827 forum posts Scotland24 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:19 PM

Promises (or threats) on the never never .................great how they always give dates to start things outwith their current parliamentay lifespan (like cash back on electric cars - in 2 years. Why not now?)

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:23 PM

Wind farms require too much land area and are not reliable enough. For grid power generation you need a base power system that you can modulate up and down, and demand does not always synch with capability.

Sadly nuclear power is the only option we have at the moment to survive the energy market we face. Fossil fuels are going to rise in price and can we afford the costs we will face in cleaning them up. The gas market for example is going to change a lot in the next 20 years and we need to reverse the bad decisions of the Thatcher era that saw us switching to increased reliance on gas.

Organic power sources are not viable in the UK, our farming is already unable to support the UK population, we need to import foods to survive. The UK farming that exists is also very energy intensive so taking land out for bio fuels is not on (even short term energy forest would have a problem.

Also think we are going to become more reliant on electricity. More of our vehicles will switch to electric/part electric power, gas supplies are running out so more heating will switch to electric power.

So wind farms and renewable energy such as wave great, but it is not enough.

Or we could go for significant population reduction, but we hate that thought even more. No more than one child per couple anyone??

Last Modified By strawman at 17 Apr 2009 - 1:26 PM
digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:24 PM


Quote: So my question is this - why? How many wind farms could be built for that kind of money? How many tidal lagoons could be built? Imagine the subsidies that could be offered for PV panels for domestic houses?

If the UK wants to be at the cutting edge of green, carbon neutral power generation would this not be a quicker, easier and safer choice? I am not saying we should have no nuclear power stations, but the balance seems to be wrong here!!

Unfortunately green power is never going to be able to provide all our needs, even if you could overcome the objections to them being built anywhere remotely scenic or near people's houses (pretty much covers everything).

Nuclear power has a bad rep, but technology has come a long way and, like it or not, we need them if we want to carry on charging our camera batteries.

Besides, it isn't 11. Smile

John_Frid
John_Frid  8514 forum posts United Kingdom56 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:26 PM

I'm not claiming to know why, but according to an article in the Independent on 23 Feb 2009....


Quote: The four leading environmentalists who are now lobbying in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.

.link

I guess some people who claim to be green also see nuclear power as a green solution

macroman
macroman  1115312 forum posts England
17 Apr 2009 - 1:26 PM

Electric cars?

Terrible concept, think of all those overhead catenary cables cluttering up the urban landscape.
That's why trolleybuses didn't catch on.

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:28 PM


Quote: Electric cars?

No its viable you just need to alter your perception. depending on range sets the acceptability. Most Chelsea tractors only need a range of 30 miles for 95% of their journeys and an average speed of about 12mph.

Get to a 150 mile range and a lot of peoples needs are met. Then you just need to solve the power source or re-charge for long journeys. Think of a plug in unit with small hydrogen generator you have as a trailer to plug in for long journeys.

Or use nuclear power to generate hydrogen for fuel, or think fast re-charge batteries.

Also think lease models for car ownership...

And before I get the usual electric cars are terrible, go back 30 years and look at phones and computers and music systems. Then look at iPod, net books, and mobile phones. Battery technologies and integration were the drivers. Now look forwards.

Last Modified By strawman at 17 Apr 2009 - 1:32 PM
digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:35 PM

When they stop making (production) electric cars look like Noddy and Big Ears should be driving them, when they can be recharged at service stations (eg during a lunch or coffee break) and when they don't use every last bit of boot space for the batteries I will seriously consider buying one, providing I can afford it.

That day is approaching but it isn't here yet. Smile

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014816 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:36 PM


Quote: If the UK wants to be at the cutting edge of green, carbon neutral power generation would this not be a quicker, easier and safer choice? I am not saying we should have no nuclear power stations, but the balance seems to be wrong here!!

The issue is down to hom much power we can get from renewables and how reliable a source it is.

With wind, we can't rely on a constant supply

With waves, the actual power we can extract isn't that high and the technology is very expensive..

I can't remember the figures, but on Horizon a while back, there was an episode where they discussed how to change our power usage and the conclusion was that to maintain our current level of usage, we'd never be free of fossil or nuclear. renewables just don't give enough bang for the buck.

The solution is to reduce the amount we use.

Our lifestyle dictates that this won't happen

Nuclear is inevitable

rowarrior
rowarrior  64350 forum posts Scotland9 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:38 PM


Quote: That day is approaching but it isn't here yet.

Picture in the Metro today of an electric Mini - not cool enough for you? Wink

conrad
conrad  1010874 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:39 PM


Quote: When they stop making (production) electric cars look like Noddy and Big Ears should be driving them, when they can be recharged at service stations (eg during a lunch or coffee break) and when they don't use every last bit of boot space for the batteries I will seriously consider buying one, providing I can afford it.

That day is approaching but it isn't here yet.

I'd love to drive something like this, but there are a few problems yet, and I couldn't afford it anyway.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014146 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:43 PM


Quote: With wind, we can't rely on a constant supply

Tell that to the bloke who sits next to me at work!

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225752 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2009 - 1:46 PM


Quote: Tell that to the bloke who sits next to me at work!

Probably just 'winding' you up, Lobby ole chap! Wink
jas

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.