After Japan's problems should we have new nuclear power stations in the UK?

[manofstrad]

As I said, the consequences of the plant only standing up to what it was designed to would have been far worse. I certainly would be happy that only the tiny amount of radiation that has leaked had leaked, and not the significant release that should have happened when the earthquake struck had the building only met it's design specs.

 

Oh, and no need to worry about Dore getting a nuclear plant, it doesn't have the lovely sea views one requires.

 

I don't live in Dore all year round you know.

 

Edit: Fair points sibon and dosxuk.

[Cyclone]

Okay for a breakdown on how renewable energies could power the UK this would probably be a good start http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios/zcb2030.pdf of course it might be a bit green for some but you can get the idea.

 

I don't see how it's up to me to prove nuclear waste is unsafe.

If you thinking of stepping on a frozen lake you check to see if it's safe first, you don't say 'no one's proved it's unsafe' and go ahead.

It's called the precautionary principle and it's seperates us from babies, we learn about consequences.

 

I'm amazed that because Fukishima wasn't a complete disaster, the nuclear industry is trying to claim it's a success. Have we got to wait for something bigger or closer to home to see the inherent safety risk of nuclear power?

To butcher a quote from the IRA, we only have to be unlucky once.

 

Your precautionary principle would have stopped us ever making a wind turbine or sinking a geothermal well. Something can't be proven to be safe until we've tried it.

But since we've been dealing with nuclear waste for over 50 years now I think it's been proven.

As already explained, Fukishima was an amazing success.

[Lucifer]

We should build nuclear power stations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then bring the power cables into England.

[plekhanov]

Okay for a breakdown on how renewable energies could power the UK this would probably be a good start http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios/zcb2030.pdf of course it might be a bit green for some but you can get the idea.

 

I don't see how it's up to me to prove nuclear waste is unsafe.

If you thinking of stepping on a frozen lake you check to see if it's safe first, you don't say 'no one's proved it's unsafe' and go ahead.

It's called the precautionary principle and it's seperates us from babies, we learn about consequences.

 

I'm amazed that because Fukishima wasn't a complete disaster, the nuclear industry is trying to claim it's a success. Have we got to wait for something bigger or closer to home to see the inherent safety risk of nuclear power?

To butcher a quote from the IRA, we only have to be unlucky once.

According to your 'precautionary principle' we should knock down every single building in the UK and rebuild them all to earthquake proof specs exceeding those of Japan. After all "we only have to be unlucky once" to have millions killed by their houses, workplaces... collapsing in a major earthquake.

 

Perhaps the stupidest thing about your 'precautionary principle' is that out of a concern for an unprecedented earthquake affecting our nuclear plants you would turn us away from the only viable power source that can provide the UK's baseload power needs that won't contribute the very real danger of climate change.

 

Personally I think we should prioritise clear and present dangers like climate change over fantastical fears based upon the bizarre anti-logic that a Japanese nuclear plant not perfectly standing up to a quake & tsunami exponentially more severe than anything that will occur in the UK, means that we shouldn't use nuclear power in the UK.

[Obelix]

I'm sorry if you think I'm abusing you, I thought I was just asking questions, most of which you have been unwilling or unable to answer.

 

Seeing as you work in the industry maybe you could tell me how it pays for the long-term treatment of high-level waste in the UK?

Or have I got to guess until you tell me I'm wrong?

 

I could yes. My consulting rates are available on application. I don't give out free advice to people who comport themselves in the manner you do - you reap what you sow etc.

 

I will let you know if you have made an error in your research though.

[plekhanov]

We need to develop renewable energies quickly so that we don't have to rely on nuclear power.

 

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says that wind will solve our energy problems on its own.

But alongside solar, tidal, heat pumps, biomass, hydro and most importantly reducing the ammount of energy we use, it's quite possible that renewables could fill the energy gap.

The notion that we can replace the ageing coal & nuclear power stations which provide the bulk our our electricity with technologies that have yet to even be developed is just laughable.

 

Nuclear is the only option which can meet our need for power without pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Hopefully in the decades of secure power a new generation of nuclear plants will give us we can develop reliable renewable sources but we need to know the technologies will work before placing total reliance upon them.

 

You talk about the 'precautionary principle' yet you seem happy to take no precautions of any kind before betting the future of our society upon technologies that don't even exist.

[On the ball]

Your precautionary principle would have stopped us ever making a wind turbine or sinking a geothermal well. Something can't be proven to be safe until we've tried it.

But since we've been dealing with nuclear waste for over 50 years now I think it's been proven.

As already explained, Fukishima was an amazing success.

 

According to your 'precautionary principle' we should knock down every single building in the UK and rebuild them all to earthquake proof specs exceeding those of Japan. After all "we only have to be unlucky once" to have millions killed by their houses, workplaces... collapsing in a major earthquake.

 

Perhaps the stupidest thing about your 'precautionary principle' is that out of a concern for an unprecedented earthquake affecting our nuclear plants you would turn us away from the only viable power source that can provide the UK's baseload power needs that won't contribute the very real danger of climate change.

 

I think you both misunderstand the precautionary principle.

 

'The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

 

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.'

 

 

I don't believe we have been dealing with nuclear waste for the last 50 years.

We've been storing it all up, not quite knowing what to do with it.

 

 

Personally I think we should prioritise clear and present dangers like climate change over fantastical fears based upon the bizarre anti-logic that a Japanese nuclear plant not perfectly standing up to a quake & tsunami exponentially more severe than anything that will occur in the UK, means that we shouldn't use nuclear power in the UK.

 

I think you may have missed my earlier post.

 

Until we find a long-term solution to high-level radioactive waste I think we should stop producing it.

Alright the UK doesn't have many big earthquakes, but it does have terrorist attacks, power cuts and human error.

[On the ball]

but we need to know the technologies will work before placing total reliance upon them.

 

You talk about the 'precautionary principle' yet you seem happy to take no precautions of any kind before betting the future of our society upon technologies that don't even exist.

 

Sorry which ones don't exist?

[plekhanov]

Sorry which ones don't exist?

Proven non-nuclear renewable sources that could demonstrably even come close to meeting out needs don't exist.

 

It's ridiculous for you to even try and argue this point that you have already effectively conceded by when in your previous post you said:

 

"We need to develop renewable energies quickly"

 

You said this because you know very well that none of the energy sources you are advocating we bet our society upon are mature technologies with anything close to a proven ability to meet our needs, they still need to be 'developed'.

[On the ball]

Proven non-nuclear renewable sources that could demonstrably even come close to meeting out needs don't exist.

 

It's ridiculous for you to even try and argue this point that you have already effectively conceded by when in your previous post you said:

 

"We need to develop renewable energies quickly"

 

You said this because you know very well that none of the energy sources you are advocating we bet our society upon are mature technologies with anything close to a proven ability to meet our needs, they still need to be 'developed'.

 

Sorry plekhanov but these are all mature technologies, with working power stations around the world. If I could put my own emphasis on my quote:

 

"We need to develop renewable energies quickly"

 

The UK is miles behind the rest of the world on renewable energy (a legacy from our cheap North Sea gas).

It's time we caught up and to do that we need to invest in renewable energy not nuclear. One is sustainable, safe and secure and the other is nuclear.