Nuclear energy in the UK

[Walsingham]

*half smile* I'm the one usually accused of pushing out the terrorism boat, but on this occasion we're pretty safe. Nuclear targets are naturally hardened, can be hardened further, and really remarkably robust. Modern plants contain enough safety features that deliberately precipitating an accident is almost impossible - which is not to say that someone like Iran might not have problems. Compare that to the safety of a gas pipeline/gas storage and things take on a different shade.

 

I should add that I used to be in favour of diversifying into renewables and alternatives for the simple purpose of insuring against attack, and foreign strongarm tactics. Many diverse source sof power are more robust. However I've not seen a single set of figures that show how such means could power existing demand. People want power almost as much as they want bread in this day and age. No democratic government will ever survive voluntarily implementing a policy that resulted in brownouts or blackouts. I know that many people over forty in this country were suspicious of Labour until 2001 for this very reason.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Yes, I think the independence question is valid, and I want to read about all this much more carefully before I decide for sure which side I'm on. They do mention on their website (they seem to be called Poyry Energy Consulting now - name changes not necessarily inspiring confidence, but moving on...) and they say that their parent company was involved in building a nuclear reactor in Finland, but that doesn't mean that this particular report wasn't affected by the commissioner's own agenda. I hope that now the government has been told to go back and do its public consultation properly, we get a full and frank debate and not just Tony Blair sulking because the judges all hate him.

[metadigital]

Walsh, I haven't seen any figures on individual power production, so I am "extrapolating" from what I do remember ... IIRC the individuals get credit for the extra energy they create and submit back to the grid (in their own downtimes), which is offset against their own requirements when they draw during peak times. I don't think anyone has produced all their energy requirements (apart from that crackpot in Wales who lives in a hut with mud on the roof and no electric devices).

 

The biggest problem is that it isn't possible to store energy ... sure you can store the stuff that makes energy (like LPG and petrol: does the US have about a month's supply of petrol/diesel inside its borders?), but the recent explosion at Hemel Hempstead certainly illustrates the very serious drawbacks to large containments of highly imflammable substances.

 

(PS I see that Obsidian UK residents are all nuclear powered and thus superior to the rest of the world, as we have THREE Moderators. :D )

[alanschu]

I have heard that homes with sun screens do give back to the grid. They can get cash or low fees back.

[Walsingham]

The US has (in theory) nearly two months worth of crude stockpiled, last time I checked. Definitely at least one month's worth.