Peculiarity of nuclear power

When talking about the risks, one point is always NOT discussed, which discerns the different energy sources: A failure of a nuclear power production plant is, if the nuclear part is affected, a reaction which cannot be contained sufficiently as there are no means to protect the neighborhood. Chernobyl has taught that; but one can know this just by studying the peculiarities of that energy. Thus, the sacrifice of at least the helpers and the sacrifices of a more or less great population is included when using nuclear energy.

Discussion of nuclear power rarely seems to understand the engineering issues. Nuclear power may be a scientific marvel but it is certainly not the answer to dealing with global warming. One of the main problems is that it takes far too long to build a nuclear power station. In spite of the politician's rhetoric on the importance of climate change the government is planning to *increase" our reliance on fossil fuels so that by 2020 we will get 4% of our energy from renewables and 3% from nuclear. Although the government is legally obliged to conduct a public consultation they are going ahead anyway. Tens of millions of pounds are are already being spent on new power station designs.

It is often said that nuclear power is reliable whereas wind power isn't. From an engineering point of view the reverse is the case. The wind is caused by large weather patterns that do not suddenly start and stop. This allows time for other plant to be brought on stream if the wind drops - it only takes 30 minutes to start a gas fired station from scratch.

On the other hand, suddenly shutting down a nuclear power station places considerable strain on the system. It should not be thought that this never happens. Last autumn seven out of our eight PWR generators were out of action on the same day.

In this country we have limited capacity to deal with sudden changes in demand. When a popular TV program ends and many people switch on kettles and this sudden increase in demand would cause a damaging voltage drop. The reason that we are able to cope is that we have a pumped storage station at Dinorwig in North Wales and four smaller stations.

Nuclear power is not economic. The government had to bail our the nuclear power industry and only recently have they started to make a profit but are not yet able to pay a dividend. The reason is not that they have reduced their costs but that the price of electricity has risen due to the trebling of the price of oil since the Iraq war. The inability to make a profit is significant because it caused cutbacks in maintenance so that two PWR stations are now only able to operate at 70% of capacity.

It is often asserted by pro-nuclear campaigners that renewables cannot meet our needs. There is no evidence for this. We have more than enough renewable energy in this country to meet our needs several times over. What we need is investment and a planning system that recognises the urgent need to tackle climate change. Claims that we are leading the world on this issue are pure fantasy. Denmark already gets 20% of its electricity from wind. There is a region of Spain that gets 70% from renewables and in three years time they will get 100%. They are even exporting renewable generating equipment to China - surely a more productive approach than lecturing the rest of the would while failing to meet our own commitments. By 2020 we should be meeting the EU target of 20% instead of the pathetic 7% set out in the government's energy white paper.

Having read the comments and the article I see that people here have twisted the facts to meet there own ends. No form of energy production can be 100% safe or without risks of producing waste into the environment. Renewables will not be able to meet the demand for energy without significant environmental impact and do suffer from variasion in wind patterns. On average in the UK there are 10days a year whe the wind does not blow. Would you want fields and fields of wind farms over your countryside or in the sea. Blades from a wind farm have the potential to come off and travel miles causing damage in their path. I know it is small but it is greater than a meltdown in a modern nuclear reactor.

Having oil, gas and coal in a form where we can follow the peak and low loads in demand can only be a temporary gap until all this resource is used up.
What we need is a policy where we stop fighting about renewables against nuclear but come together and resolve the issue using nuclear and renewables . Nuclear waste is not an issue it has been solved for years it is just people will not decide where the depository should be. I myself would have a waste cell at the bottom of my garden and get free energy for life.

Nuclear is a safe energy form. Modern day reactors incorporate safe systems passive negative feedback systems. What grips the fear of people is the fear of the unknown. Since chernobyl there have been great leaps in safety even in the eastern european countries.

Why can't we work together instead of fighting our own corner.

Nuclear reactors generate absolutely no carbon emissions, unless they come from some sort of backup combustion generator, which as the name should imply, is rarely in use. Admittedly, carbon pollution is created in the mining of uranium, but the same can be said for the extraction of coal or natural gas, so there’s practically no argument as far as these ‘carbon footprints’ are concerned.

In the event of an emergency, nuclear reactors are designed to shut down. Safety systems that continuously monitor the unit ensure that when the reactor reaches unsafe conditions, the unit reduces power output until safe conditions are reached. This function can be activated by the computer monitoring systems and/or by manual operation.

Nuclear is a young industry, and it has a long way to go before it become perfect. I encourage you all to check out www.nei.org to learn more about the new reactor technologies being produced around the world, as well as dispel some of the misconceptions you may have about nuclear power.

A very good piece cjthoday. But what do you say to the argument (from James Lovelock) that to industrialise the countryside by planting thousands of windfarms in rural areas to mainly supply the decadent 'lifestyles' of urban populations is not the way to go. A more imaginative solution is to analyse why we need so much energy and then cut back drastically by resolving root problems like poor housing stock, horrendous overpopulation, commuting to work, junk McLifestyles etc, etc. It is, in the final analysis, the only way.