Why Labour could no longer deny that we need Nuclear power

#1
and why anybody who thinks renewables can possibly fill the gap needs a reality injection. Extra large.

Blackouts affect thousands in Britain's worst power shortage in four years


"National Grid issued "a demand control imminent" warning – something it is forced to do no more than once every four years – as nine power stations fell out of action. The most notable was Sizewell B, the nuclear power station near Leiston, Suffolk.

The plant was closed for "unexpected maintenance", which the company said was no cause for alarm."



"It shut down within two minutes of Longannet, a coal-fired power station in Fife, Scotland, also unexpectedly shutting down.

The two power plants supply six per cent of the nation's electricity. The unusual coincidence of both plants closing down caused power cuts across parts of London, Kent, Merseyside and Cheshire.

It is understood that tens of thousands of homes were affected, possibly more.

Power was resumed within two hours. However, National Grid had a further crisis on its hands when a total of nine power stations fell out of action during the afternoon, leading to a shortfall of 400 megawatts of power – one per cent of the country's total daily needs."
 
#2
Because it has been apparent for thirty years that our ONLY viable long term power supply source has been nuclear with renewable's making up a small percentage. Liabour change their story more often than a chav caught red-handed.
 
#3
This will happen much more frequently if the Greens get their way and more wind tubines get built (wind doesnt blow all the time after all).

Nuclear is the way to go.
 
#4
Much as I hate to defend them didn't Blair make the decision to go nuclear as government policy in the dying days of his last administration and Brown say he was going to follow it? Granted I'll be interested to see how far they actually carry it forward into something physical but for the moment at least they seem to be talking vague sense on the matter. Mind you Brown has also been talking bollocks about renewable energy as well so I guess we'll just have to watch and wait.
 
#5
We will have to have Nuc as the main source of energy but I do thinnk that more need to be made of wave power.
The Tides rise and fall and waves happen evey day and have done so since time immemorial.
So Nuc for main consistent source of energy and seapower as Green back up.
john
 
#6
Tidal isn't as consistent as you think, which means more pumped storage will be needed, what we really need is a joined up energy policy involving biometane fed powerstations (from capped landfill like in CA), nuclear power, renewables and even some next gen coal/solid fuel.

But that would mean those in power right now would actually have to think for a minute
 
#7
jonwilly said:
We will have to have Nuclear as the main source of energy but I do think that more need to be made of wave power. The Tides rise and fall and waves happen every day and have done so since time immemorial. So Nuclear for main consistent source of energy and sea power as Green back up.
The only problem that might come from this is has anyone ever actually done a solid study into how wide and tidal power on the large scale is going to affect the environment? If we take either wind or tidal energy out of the environment, being that energy can't be created but only converted, it's got to affect things somehow, just on what scale? I'll have to do some digging but I'm sure I can remember reading a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about offshore renewable power schemes changing things and causing increased coastal erosion and other problems that they had to be taken up and re-sited.

Personally I say we should go a 100% nuclear or near enough. Relying on outside supplies when countries like Russia are potentially playing silly beggars with natural resources supplies is just asking for trouble. It's also one of the very few areas where I believe close government involvement with the private sector is highly warranted.
 
#9
We could provide about 20% of the nations energy by burning our waste rather than shoving it in the ground. If done properly in high temperature incinerators with scrubbers and proper monitoring and regulation it would solve landfill problems and be a source of renewable cheap energy.

Unfortunately nimbys and yep you guessed it greenpeace and the other watermelons oppose it. The greens only want energy produced if it doesn't involve, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, rubbish, which means using all the ineffectual ones from windpower to mice in wheels.

NuLabour have prevaricated with report after report and commission after commission. They could have got the ball rolling 10 years ago. It's wasted time that is going to cost the taxpayer.
 
#10
Go on I'll bite
'Tidal isn't as consistent as you think'
Twice a day as far as I know with bonus of high tides.
john

I do think that all these windmills are some form of rip off, apart from being ugly.
 
#11
Brick said:
jonwilly said:
We will have to have Nuclear as the main source of energy but I do think that more need to be made of wave power. The Tides rise and fall and waves happen every day and have done so since time immemorial. So Nuclear for main consistent source of energy and sea power as Green back up.
The only problem that might come from this is has anyone ever actually done a solid study into how wide and tidal power on the large scale is going to affect the environment? If we take either wind or tidal energy out of the environment, being that energy can't be created but only converted, it's got to affect things somehow, just on what scale? I'll have to do some digging but I'm sure I can remember reading a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about offshore renewable power schemes changing things and causing increased coastal erosion and other problems that they had to be taken up and re-sited.

Personally I say we should go a 100% nuclear or near enough. Relying on outside supplies when countries like Russia are potentially playing silly beggars with natural resources supplies is just asking for trouble. It's also one of the very few areas where I believe close government involvement with the private sector is highly warranted.
The Portuguese are in the process of laying a huge offshore tidal farm using a series of tanks that wiggles about somewhat reminiscent of those toy snakes.
 
#12
Sven said:
The Portuguese are in the process of laying a huge offshore tidal farm using a series of tanks that wiggles about somewhat reminiscent of those toy snakes.
What, made of bright plastic and the end rattles if you shake it? :?

Nuclear power should be the way forward for the UK, even the French seem to manage it pretty well.
 
#13
REgards said:
Sven said:
The Portuguese are in the process of laying a huge offshore tidal farm using a series of tanks that wiggles about somewhat reminiscent of those toy snakes.
What, made of bright plastic and the end rattles if you shake it? :?

Nuclear power should be the way forward for the UK, even the French seem to manage it pretty well.
That's right. Imagine tanks floating in the water and every time they bob they generate electricity. These tanks make up a 'snake' that stretches for several hundred yards.

Made in Britain too!!
 
#14
Grey24-7 said:
Tidal isn't as consistent as you think, which means more pumped storage will be needed, what we really need is a joined up energy policy involving biometane fed powerstations (from capped landfill like in CA), nuclear power, renewables and even some next gen coal/solid fuel.

But that would mean those in power right now would actually have to think for a minute
Rather than look at tidal, a far better option would be using the Ocean swell. Even on a calm day, we have a two to four foot swell. As for tidal causing more erosion: I find that hard to believe. Even if you only reduced the energy hitting the shoreline around us by 5% you would slow erosion down quite considerably. Trouble is, like most 'climate change' and 'green energy' its more about sound bites and less about science.

For anyone that is interested have a look at the experimental tidal research done on Islay by Strathclyde Uni (I think).
 
#16
jimmys_best_mate said:
Sven said:
I thought that the Labour government were in favour of expanding nuclear power.

Oh look, they are

The government has put its faith in nuclear power to prevent over-reliance on foreign energy supplies, such as gas from Russia, as North Sea oil runs out.
And how many new power stations have they built to follow up on that decision Sven?
IIRC it takes something like 10-15 years to build test and commission a nuclear power station. I'm sure I heard something a year or so back that plans had been submitted to build one but haven't heard anything else
since.

Ah, here we are:

Linky
 
#17
Sven said:
Brick said:
jonwilly said:
We will have to have Nuclear as the main source of energy but I do think that more need to be made of wave power. The Tides rise and fall and waves happen every day and have done so since time immemorial. So Nuclear for main consistent source of energy and sea power as Green back up.
The only problem that might come from this is has anyone ever actually done a solid study into how wide and tidal power on the large scale is going to affect the environment? If we take either wind or tidal energy out of the environment, being that energy can't be created but only converted, it's got to affect things somehow, just on what scale? I'll have to do some digging but I'm sure I can remember reading a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about offshore renewable power schemes changing things and causing increased coastal erosion and other problems that they had to be taken up and re-sited.

Personally I say we should go a 100% nuclear or near enough. Relying on outside supplies when countries like Russia are potentially playing silly beggars with natural resources supplies is just asking for trouble. It's also one of the very few areas where I believe close government involvement with the private sector is highly warranted.
The Portuguese are in the process of laying a huge offshore tidal farm using a series of tanks that wiggles about somewhat reminiscent of those toy snakes.
Surely these are utilising wave not tidal?
It would be nice to know if people are talking about a subject they have at least a smattering of knowledge on it.
 
#18
REgards said:
IIRC it takes something like 10-15 years to build test and commission a nuclear power station. I'm sure I heard something a year or so back that plans had been submitted to build one but haven't heard anything else
since.

Ah, here we are:

Linky
Obviously it takes a while to build and test, that's why they should have started years ago when it became clear that Britain needed more power. Instead they've left it eleven years into their reign to do anything and now we've got power cuts across the country and 12 years minimum (chances of a major project in Britain being finished on time?) before any new power stations are on line.
 
#19
jimmys_best_mate said:
REgards said:
IIRC it takes something like 10-15 years to build test and commission a nuclear power station. I'm sure I heard something a year or so back that plans had been submitted to build one but haven't heard anything else
since.

Ah, here we are:

Linky
Obviously it takes a while to build and test, that's why they should have started years ago when it became clear that Britain needed more power. Instead they've left it eleven years into their reign to do anything and now we've got power cuts across the country and 12 years minimum (chances of a major project in Britain being finished on time?) before any new power stations are on line.
Exactly, personally I think it has about as much chance of being finished on time as the Olympics getting done under budget, the gubmint, bless 'em. 8O
 
#20
The problem with any new technology is that it's unproven. This does not mean that it shouldn't be tested or explored, however, our problems are immediate (the next 10-15 years are crucial for the UK) and therefore it is much more sensible to pursue proven technologies which fit the existing infrastructure and are guaranteed to deliver. That way you haven't put all your energy (and money) into a project only to see it fail and land as all in the dark.

The environmentalists are nothing but dreamers. They never offer solutions only pooh pooh them unless of course it fits in with their ideology. Wind is proving to be one of the biggest cons ever, with efficiencies way below what which was promised/predicted. Wave/solar/wind are all fine and dandy, but unless they are capable of meeting our current and immediate future needs (which they aren't at the present time) then we are going to need something else.

The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn is a worthwhile read.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top