Why Labour could no longer deny that we need Nuclear power

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Blogg, May 28, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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. 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.
     
  8. I thought that the Labour government were in favour of expanding nuclear power.

    Oh look, they are

     
  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. 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. 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. 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. 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).
     
  15. And how many new power stations have they built to follow up on that decision Sven?