Time To Revert To Nuclear Power?

[redruby]

What happens to all the nuclear waste - this is interesting read https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time

[Baron99]

Plans have already started to investigate the building of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) & Sheffield is at the forefront of the technology. 

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nuclear-amrc-support-next-phase-rolls-royce-smr-development

 

We need to get the power from somewhere.  

Only a fool would put all their eggs into one basket when it comes to energy supplies.  The more options to produce electricity the better. 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Baron99

[crookesey]

As a kid in the 1950’s I recall us having a coal fire in the lounge with a back boiler for hot water, this eventually changed to a Gas Miser replacing the coal fire and an immersion heater replacing the back boiler. It must have been uncomfortable at times, however we never had a case of hypothermia.

 

So if you can’t afford to turn on the central heating, using the hot water facility and a heat source in the lounge will not harm you. I further recall wearing warm clothing indoors and using a hot water bottle in bed. However we never knew that warm homes would become common place, we are fortunate enough to be able to afford the recent price increases, hopefully this mess will soon sort itself out.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by crookesey

[alchresearch]

Small reactors are great, but not much safer.  I know of two incidents which were covered up because the damage was much smaller and more contained.

 

This article makes me laugh when I personally knew someone who was hospitalised for some time after a small accident.

 

Inside plans for a nuclear emergency at Barrow shipyard

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/19825810.inside-plans-nuclear-emergency-barrow-shipyard/

[Anna B]

8 hours ago, redruby said:

What happens to all the nuclear waste - this is interesting read https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time

I'm afraid I couldn't access your link, which I'm sure I would have found interesting.

 

That said, I'm all for shooting it out into space on a trajectory that misses any objects or masses for a few light years. By that time the radioactive contents will have decayed and become harmless.

 

Better still let's put a bit more effort/resources into developing nuclear fusion.

[Dromedary]

10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I'm afraid I couldn't access your link, which I'm sure I would have found interesting.

 

That said, I'm all for shooting it out into space on a trajectory that misses any objects or masses for a few light years. By that time the radioactive contents will have decayed and become harmless.

 

Better still let's put a bit more effort/resources into developing nuclear fusion.

Plenty has already been spent over several decades on trying to get fusion to work and I really believe we will not crack that one anytime soon, or if ever.

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Dromedary said:

Plenty has already been spent over several decades on trying to get fusion to work and I really believe we will not crack that one anytime soon, or if ever.

I read somewhere they've already cracked it albeit on a very small scale. The problem is the low temperatures it needs to work. I understand that's what they're working on. Personally. I believe it will be with us within the next 50 years.

[Guest sibon]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

 

 

That said, I'm all for shooting it out into space on a trajectory that misses any objects or masses for a few light years. By that time the radioactive contents will have decayed and become harmless

There are some very good reasons why that will never happen. The main one being the risk of accident on the way out of the Earth's gravitational field.

27 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I read somewhere they've already cracked it albeit on a very small scale. The problem is the low temperatures it needs to work. I understand that's what they're working on. Personally. I believe it will be with us within the next 50 years.

Do you mean high temperatures?

 

Cold fusion isn't likely to provide our energy anytime soon. Hot fusion might just. But that is also very unlkely.

[alchresearch]

Another drawback with nuclear - but to be fair ANY government project:

 

Hinkley Point C delayed by a year as cost goes up by £3bn

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609

 

Why can't the gov just pay the price originally quoted?  

 

I mean, I'm sure we can't expect EDF to make up the shortfall with their 17 billion euro profit from 2021 can we?

 

Original cost: £18 billion

Now £26 billion.

 

Another good article on it here:

 

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by alchresearch

[El Cid]

On 13/05/2022 at 06:45, Baron99 said:

 

We need to get the power from somewhere.  

Only a fool would put all their eggs into one basket when it comes to energy supplies.  The more options to produce electricity the better. 

We should be generating electricity from our many rivers. Seems like a no brainer, but it is hardly mentioned.