Hello all. I read a few very interesting bits of information lately about the government taking a second look at the nuclear option. I see that IF a carbon tax is added to electricity generated by fossil fuels (government is set to implement this as part of kyoto protocols etc), AND oil stays above a certain price, nuclear power is actually cheaper than the alternatives. Wind power to my mind is seeming more and more unrealistic. To replace ONE power station you need an area the size of dartmoor. The UK needs 55. Another benefit of nuke power is that the plants are relatively simple- it is after all just a static steam engine, and they last about 50 years- far longer than most other plants. Of course there is still the problem of disposing of the waste. I read somewhere that 80% of the waste is actually no more radioactive than the typical rocks found in Cornwall. The remaining 20% is highly radioactive, but by its very nature (being very radioactive) its half life is very short, and so it becomes safe much more quickly. I have a lot more info, but I dont want to bore. Dunno how much truth there is in what i read so dont take it as gospel. Im not sure what the answer to our energy supply problem is. I'd much prefer to grow bio-fuels and biomass since it gives me the chance to grow them and hopefully make some money. However, even these have their problems. What do you all think? Makes a change to government/subsidy related postings. Mayo

I am all in favour of nuclear power,seems the best way to make us less reliant on dodgy pipelines through bandit country in the former USSR. But for a few commies here and the ban the bomb nutcases I feel sure we would now be totally self sufficient in power without the need to produce greenhouse gases in the process.The ecowarriors have once again shot themselves in the foot.Dick

Its the only long term sustainable, reliable, energy supply available, so has more of a future than anything else.

Mayo, May be of interest to you. As you know there is a large civil engineering project to create gas storage caverns . It has taken a good number of years to come to fruition on the basis that there was little justification for it. Now we are are told there is to be another project like it further up the Yorkshire coast. There really must be some panic going on re energy supplies now. Jack Caley

I just spent too much time silage making. All that grass going in, all that muck ready to go out. Time we all drank soya milk, and brewed up the grass to make alchol to run in cars.

I heard a report the other day saying that the total number of deaths which occurred after Chernobyl will be about 135 this after the worst nuclear disaster the world has known and was the cause of the cessation of nuclear power plant building in much of the world. This compares with the death toll from coal fired power stations which was put at 3500 a year in the Uk during the 1970,s

The best way for the disposal of the Very Active waste would be to send it into the Sun, if could safe guard against an accident getting it into space. I do not believe only 135 died after the Russian accident. Cracking Water into Hydrogen is basically a free resource, by breaking the Hydrogen / Oxygen molecule, there are units used in the State’s that use frequency vibration to do this working very efficiently for heating house’s and swimming pools.. Ujay

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm Check this site out. MW

Mel That site is a good find- very detailed. It is an astonishingly complex process and very impressive. Mayo

Peter Silaging is indeed rather energy intensive. Perhaps it would be better if we all practised the low cost milk from grass system and went spring calving. I would not drink soya milk if my life depended on it. It tastes foul. Also, grass would be a poor source of sugar for fermentation. Grain maize or even sugar beet would be much better. This is what happens in Brazil. There whole economy is geared towards running on alcohol. Mayo

Ujay Sending waste into space is both dangerous and impractical. 1. You cant send more than about 10 tonnes at a time with the space vehicle technology we have at present. 2. These rockets and launchers are far from infalible. They often crash or fail to launch. Do you want highly radioactive material being sprinkled all over the place by a rocket that fails to launch etc? 3. Its VERY expensive. Besides, the highly radioactive waste is actually the first to become safe- its half-life is very short since it is degrading so rapidly. Once it becomes safe, it gives out no more radioactivity than rocks like granite (Cornwall is full of the stuff). The idea of cracking water is a good one. I did not realise this was actually a commercially launched idea. However, reading new scientist magazine, they are planning to use 'fast' nuclear reactors (that run at very high tempretures) to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, while still generating a lot of electricity in the process. However, im still not sure that you want large tanks of hydrogen lying around. Hindenburg springs to mind? Mayo

I think nuclear power has got to be the future.There are hazards with it of course but other energy sources have hazards to.Piper Alpha cost 150? lives.If green peace were serious about global warming instead of pandering to the general publics hysterical fears over nuclear power maybe they would support it too

Ujay The report was quoted by the Beeb not noted for giving air time to something which is not alarmist. Your idea of cracking water I am most interested if it is possible why is everyone not doing it. I do not believe that it is possible since it would require as much energy to break the molecule as is released when hydrogen is burnt

sugars can be fermented to alcohol, with yeast. But what is the biological route to mehane extraction, would it be more useful.

Mayo. Having taken a breif look at this seasons price for Wheat - We may as well burn it [:)]

Peter You can obtain methane from anaerobic decomposition, probably from anything that was once alive. However, I am unsure about the practicality of using gas for everything. It is difficult to store and I dont know about how energy rich it is or how much electricity you can generate from a given volume of it. Probably worth a look. Mayo

Mayo, (Sorry: only just picked up on this thread!) One of the most powerful arguments for nuclear power is made by the arch environmentalist James Lovelock, see his article here: http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/loveprefaceen.htm As a society we have to look both at the generation and the consumption ends of the energy cycle. Vastly more education (and possibly coercion) is needed to get people consuming energy more efficently and frugally. The ways are myriad from better insulated homes down to simply not leaving all the lights on all the time. On generation, I suspect if we manage to survive the next 2-3 decades we will see a combined approach. Nuclear power will eventually be seen as the only viable solution for mass energy generation with known technology. Obviously improvements to the technology (and safety) will be fed in and fusion-based solutions may come on line once proven. On the smaller scale, more solar-based solutions will appear. The development of solar-active materials using other parts of the spectrum is the most interest here as these are viable across more of the Earth's surface. See the report here for one very promising development: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html If more of us can generate part or all of our requirement locally we increase the overall efficiency of the process by reducing transmission losses. Dependency on imported energy is also reduced. Combined with reductions in consumption and a levelling off in the growth of our population these should get us through the energy crisis. I hope.

It is great to see some sensible debate on this subject. You are coming from exactly the right angle here townie - my consultancy estimated the potential savings from home energy efficiency measures in domestic properties that are not up to scratch in the west midlands and estimate that a potential saving of 6.4mtCO2 could be brought about. If you take into account that the West Midlands is 10% of the UK this is a saving of 64mtC02 nationally - exactly what needs to be saved to reach the 2060 target! These measures are far less exciting than renewable energy and require individuals to take many different actions in their own homes (which is difficult for policy makers who want one broad sweeping approach) but it could achieve what is required on the consumption side - right now. Of course the production side emissions for electricity are going to be significantly affected by the closure of nuclear but we need to be looking at reducing consumption first and foremost. Domestic scale renewables can be a realistic option (eg ground source heating, solar hot water heating and small roof mounted wind turbines to power core electricity requirements of lighting etc - on every dwelling these would make a huge difference). Cumulative action in areas like this would go a long way to reduce our energy use. Also if we had a heat main infrastructure in this country (as they do in Denmark) we could heat our buildings far more efficiently (and using a mix of fuels, including biomass) It is clear we need a mix of energy supplies - we cannot just say it is a wind vs nuclear debate, that is far too simplistic. Enacting a change in attitudes of our 'effluent society' that is most difficult in all of this - also the root of the problem faced by farmers trying to market quality British food to local markets!

A big driver to reduce centrally-generated energy will be when people wake up to the costs in terms of wasted resources and potentially health. Coincidentally the following report has been hitting the headlines today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4602315.stm Quite an interesting one this, although it has to be pointed out this risk has been determined purely via statistical methods and no proposed mechanism for the effect has yet been proposed.

Townie That article from the book you linked in is brilliant- very interesting. However, ONE small point. Plutonium is entirely man-made. It does not occur in nature or orginate from stars- like the author believes. Nonetheless a briliant link. Mayo

Tristan I dont dispute what you are saying, though I didnt mean to suggest it was simply a wind VS nuke issue. We need to become more effcient at using energy definately. This means better heating in our homes, insulation etc. We should be using bio-fuels to run our cars and lorries. They are very ineffcient machines indeed, however, electric cars are even worse, and hydrogen power is nowhere near as simple or close to commercial launch. At least biofuels make them sustainable'ish'. Cleaner than fossil fuels too. I do not agree as much with your views on solar power and using other methods to provide 'local energy'. These are fine for individual homes, but we need to address the larger issue- providing electricity for the country. It makes sense to refine and develop our existing infra-structure and supply lines. Solar panels are great BUT they are expensive and take a lot of time and energy to produce them. Our climate is not too useful for them either. Biomass i am still undecided on. I was all in favour of it but now I am seeing how much effort (and diesel/machinery) is needed to get said materials from field and into the plant. Transport can make this problematic as biomass is not as energy-dense as coal. Nuclear power is ideal in this respect- 1 kg of processed uranium will yield enough heat to generate 315,000 Kw/h (this figure will probably mean more to you than myself). Take your point about our society at the moment. Nobody seems to care- far too busy driving cars and spending money to worry about other issues. Not sure if its in your 'remit', but you should take a look at the nuclear option in detail when you get time- very interesting. They are constantly refining the technique. The next step will be to use thorium rather than uranium (safer, easier to get fission from it, more energy dense, more availible etc etc) which will be a major step for the industry. Experts reckon there is more thorium (and energy) availible than all other forms of energy combined, and there is plenty of it. (you can actually 'breed' it and get more out of a reactor than you put in). Regards Mayo