Gav's View

Strictly speaking it’s inaccurate to say that nuclear power stations have no carbon emmissions. The construction and decommissioning of the plant, mining uranuim, and so forth, all produce carbon dioxide. However over the total lifetime of a nuclear powerstation, it will produce less than half the emissions of a comparable gas turbine plant.

It is correct to say though that nuclear power offers a way of securing our energy supplies for the next sixty years (the lifetime of the next generation of plants), especially as uranium can be stockpiled.

Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to support the UK developing nuclear power, and at the same denying other countries, e.g. Iran the right to do so, in case they also make weapons that we don’t want them to have?

No, Biodu, I don’t. We’re not developing nuclear power – we already have it. And HMG hasn’t pledged to use any nuclear weapons it develops to wipe Israel from the map.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was agreed to because it was agreed that five nuclear-armed countries was quite enough thank you.

That Israel, Pakistan and India have since developed them has only been because they did it in secret and we had no warning. It is only conscientious to stop new countries from obtaining ‘the bomb’.

From a green point of view using non-nuclear power-generating methods in non-stable countries is not ideal, but by forcing it on them we’re not treating them differently — we’ll all have to use this planet assuming our actions are changing the environment…

James,
I was actually referring to Gavin’s point as nuclear power as a source of alternative energy, not as a weapon.

That’s why I said “in case they also make..” Never mind.

Anyway, Gavin I’m not sure what you mean when you say “by forcing it on them we’re not treating them differently ”

I’ll rephrase my question in case it wasn’t clear the first time.
If we feel that using nuclear power as an alternative energy source makes good sense, why should we deny other countries the right to do so?

Because, basically, if they have the technology necessary to create power they also have the technology, in theory, to create weapons-grade Plutonium. The last thing we need, as James said, is a country that has pledged to wipe another from the face of the Earth to have the power to do so.

It is the Security Council’s job to try to keep the world stable and this is a perfect opportunity to show that it has mettle. Predictions are a dangerous thing and people always say that before making them, but consider Israel’s position if Iran made threats and was nuclear powered… The prospect of instability in the region would never be more serious.

“I was actually referring to Gavin’s point as nuclear power as a source of alternative energy, not as a weapon.”

I know, but thank you for patronising me anyway.

It makes sense for us because we don’t have 10% of the world’s oil supply. Iran does. They therefore do not need nuclear power to give themselves a secure energy supply.

“… why should we deny other countries the right to do so?”

Because giving Mullah’s the ability to create nuclear weapons isn’t terribly wise!

It’s actually quite inaccurate to talk about increasing the security of fuel by going nuclear. With the exception of Australia, USA, Canada and Japan, uranium mines are located in ‘unstable’ countries. The following countries have uranium mines: Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Gabon, South Africa, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Argentina.

In fact, the EU imported only about 50% of it’s uranium from ‘friendly’ nations. Ok we would be less reliant on the Middle East, which has to be a ‘plus’, but we would be reliant on Russia, several African nations and China – especially if we expand our nuclear program.

Oh – as people have already commented – nuclear isn’t carbon neutral, it’s just less of a carbon dioxide producer than burning fossil fuels.

source: http://www.wise-uranium.org/

“It’s actually quite inaccurate to talk about increasing the security of fuel by going nuclear. With the exception of Australia, USA, Canada and Japan, uranium mines are located in ‘unstable’ countries.”

So in fact it’s entirely accurate, because the majority of the world’s uranium supply is in friendly countries, and we can quite easily stockpile the stuff?

James – where do you get your information from when asserting that the majority of the worlds supply comes from friendly countries? And what do you mean by ‘friendly’?

When considering long-term (i.e over several decades) energy supply, it is not only important that countries are ‘friendly’, but they also must have stable governments and come from stable regions. I would say it’s about 50/50 stable to unstable countries (eg stable are America, Canada, Australia). 60/40 if you include ex-Eastern block countries in the list of stable countries. The fact that Europe only imports about 50% of it’s uranium from stable countries is simply a reflection of the distribution of mined uranium ore in the world.

The World Nuclear Association:

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm

And I was defining friendly as “Australia, Canada and the US”, who between them are estimated to have 45% of the world’s known recoverable resource.

Obviously 45% isn’t the majority – I was working from memory, but this should mean that there’s no real reason other than cost for relying on the likes of Russia for supplies.

So about 50/50, as I implied in my original comment, and by no means ’safe’. Granted – better than oil, where 50% is concentrated in the middle east and only 25% from ‘friendly’ sources. But by no means safe.

And there are plenty of reasons for relying on Russia (and Kasakhstan/Uzbekistan) for their uranium, just like there is plenty of reason to rely on some of the corrupt African states. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to stockpile, as you point out we should, as demand would outstrip supply. My original point was that things are not all that rosey.

None of whichmeans that supplies cannot be secured. When such large quantities can be mined by the likes of Australia, that offers a secure supply even if the Russian Federation, say, became problematic.

“And there are plenty of reasons for relying on Russia (and Kasakhstan/Uzbekistan) for their uranium, just like there is plenty of reason to rely on some of the corrupt African states.”

I think price might be a heavy consideration, with France buying more uranium from the likes of Canada, and thus driving their prices up.

See this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1688032,00.html

The article’s really missing the point. Yes, nuclear power alone “cannot tackle” climate change. Energy efficiency is important too. However, energy efficiency drives won’t make us any less relaint on imported gas when our current nuclear generators go offline over the next decade.

Eitehr way we need new powerstations.

Further to James Hellyer’s comments, I would note that the article assumes that if electricity was demonstrably clean, we wouldn’t start using electricity to heat our homes. If the choice was between dirty gas and clean electricity, the conscientious of society would use electric heaters more — especially in new installations.

Transport is not affected by the power supply choices made about power stations (yet) but it seems very strange for a green campaigner to be saying that the issue should not be addressed because it doesn’t make enough difference… Their dispropportinate attacks in other areas (cars rather than planes, allowing the monopolisation of the railways etc) would suggest that any self-respecting left-wing green would be clamouring for a nuclear powered Britain.

Insulation etc. is a solution borne out of the climate-change era which nuclear power would relegate to the past. What does it matter what power people use if it is their money they are spending and if the environment does not suffer as a result?

The answer is, it does not.

The environment is the left’s darling because it allows them to interfere in people’s homes (boiler efficiency) and in transport (plugging public transport etc). If nuclear were adopted and the environmental impact of carbon emmissions became a concern of the past, what would the left use as an excuse for control?

Recycling is an altogether different kettle of fish (do they smell?) and does not require expense on the part of the ‘controlled’ — the left would find little leverage in that then!

ah but you don’t say – what do we do with the nuclear waste? and im not sure why you think environmentalism is something the ‘left’ has come up with. we don’t expect much from indian capitalist but he is a nutty troll after all with limited vision and extremely bipolar views of the world.

sustainable development and green policies are after all, issues the Tory party haven’t exactly ‘pooh poohed’ now is it?

and even if they had, what would that prove?

“ah but you don’t say – what do we do with the nuclear waste?”

One advantage of the modern plant designs is the amazing reduction in the volume of waste produced: if modern plants were commissioned to replace the existing stations, Britain would be able to maintain its 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power and add just 10% to the UK’s volume of existing nuclear waste over their 60-year operating lifetime.

I didn’t say the left created environmentalism, only that to make it the be-all and end-all suits their purposes. Being environmentally low-impact is something that everyone should be keen on; but we should all keep it in focus. The world will not be any noticeable amount better if we abide by the Kyoto reforms and, if we went as far as some would like, it would be much worse between now and 2100 when the difference of six years would have been achieved.

On nuclear waste, I alluded to the article in Scientific American (http://tinyurl.com/ads4e) which explains why this is no longer a problem. In a nutshell, currently there are two types of waste produced:
1) Waste with a massive half-life
2) Waste which degrades to natural radioactivity within a lifetime.

The problem is not the second on the briefest of lists, it is the first. And by the time the next generation of reactors can be planned and built, the reprocessing process and use of new designs of nuclear plants will have removed the creation of said material.

I agree with James on the need for Nuclear power plants, they’ll provide a good medium term option while we investigate how on earth it’s possible to have more renewable energy.

Certainly better Insulation in homes should be the top of our agenda in tackling demand, especially if one believes reports about the state of the gulf stream. The problem with reducing demand though is that it takes time, it will also take some tough decisions along the way. Maybe in the future we’ll have houses that retain heat as well as those in Finland do while having solar panels fitted to the roof as standard, and all our appliances will be twice as efficent – maybe this day is 5 decades away though.

While all this is going on, Nuclear power plants will do for now.