It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New nuclear plants get go-ahead

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

New nuclear plants get go-ahead


news.bbc.co.uk

A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government.
Business Secretary John Hutton told MPs they would give a "safe and affordable" way of securing the UK's future energy supplies while fighting climate change.

He said any plants would be built at or near existing reactors by private firms and said he hoped the first one would be completed "well before 2020".

Critics say new reactors will be expensive, dirty and dangerous
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I think this was going to happen sooner or later. Nuclear energy is the most abundant, and most economical way for countries who are not oil rich to generate power. On the political end however there will no doubt be reciprocation's. Not to menchen storing the waste in a safe secure location.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 



Nuclear energy is the most abundant, and most economical way for countries who are not oil rich to generate power.

Hi Red, Glad to see a country moving in this direction besides Iran and China. It is probably inevetable with constant threats of GW in the news.
Britain should be able to manage the risks safely. I understand the newer plant designs manage risks much better than earlier designs.

BTW all of Britains current nuclear power stations (shich provide 20% of power currently) are due to be closed by 2023. New stations are needed badly. See this article on UK nuclear power.



[edit on 10/1/08 by plumranch]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Plumranch
thanks for the information. I did not know the power plants were scheduled to be closed by twenty twenty three. That is interesting, and I suspect another reason why new ones are being built now. With the way fossil fuels are going it may not be out of the realm of possibility that the old plants will be overhauled when they are closed.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well, that is good news for the UK.
Boy, I wish the U.S. would do the same and give the 'go-ahead' to build new nuclear power plants. Perhaps this news from the UK will help give a nudge in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I agree - this seems to be the best course forward. A loud minority dislike the idea, but I can't see any other realistic way of supporting the UK's energy needs in the future without having to rely on Russia or the Middle East (unacceptable, in my view). There's no reason why we can't use both nuclear power and renewables, since renewables alone won't generate be reliable enough.

We have a neighbour who has implemented nuclear power very successfully over recent years... France. The majority of their electricity comes from nuclear power stations, and it seems that the French Government and companies involved have been advising Britain, so we've got some help from someone in the know, too.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
So what is the plan for the waste disposal? I like the idea of Nuclear power. I am not a fan of the waste though. I honestly don't keep up much on the nuclear front. Have any strides been made in waste management?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Some of the waste can be recycled, with the rest being stored in a specially constructed underground storage area until something can be done with it as far as I'm aware. That's the present plan, anyway.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


But don't we still run into the whole issue with the containment facility / items decaying much, much faster than the actual material stored in them? I realize that there are no easy solutions, but that aspect of nuclear power is hard for me to be very accepting of.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
So what is the plan for the waste disposal? I like the idea of Nuclear power. I am not a fan of the waste though. I honestly don't keep up much on the nuclear front. Have any strides been made in waste management?


Australia = Nuclear dump of the future

And waste management? BS! Australia still rely on land fill even though there is waste to energy technologies = Stone Age Technology.

ho hum, as for nuclear waste, the Aust Govt are still discussing the issue of contaminated water...so all talk no action and more glowing water, but it is ok, because the water affected is on Indigenous Land and the Mining Giants sign deals promising to do bla bla bla then renigs and doesn't care! And the Aust Govt simply look away....

Mining Technology - The Uranium Conflict

Broken Promises - Land Rights, Mining and the Mirrar People

Uranium mine gets nod amid pollution fears



[edit on 13-1-2008 by Thurisaz]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
this is ridiculous. it's just taking the current system to a greater extreme.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tetragrammation
 




at last a reply i can support.

revamp the need of a grid & everything operating on 110v or 220v
lets retrofit into DirectCurrent as the standard.

how we get to that paradigm is a mystery to me,
but i don't think it will be a voluntary or willfull decision to
abandon the present electrical grid system that is requiring
nuclear power generating plants to keep it running for a time.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
revamp the need of a grid & everything operating on 110v or 220v
lets retrofit into DirectCurrent as the standard.

That would be a big mistake. Edison already tried going that route. Back in the 1800's there was a format war and it was AC vs. DC current. AC won out for many reasons with the main one being AC can be transmitted for hundreds of miles without lossing power. However, DC could only be sent about a mile before the electricity began to lose power.
There are other advantages to using AC but the main one is listed above.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
OMG the UK is enrichined it's own fuel as part of this nuclear-program too...ther'll be calls for regime change in Downing Street, the Archbishop of Canturbury denounced as an inflammatory clerical rhetoricist, and the Royal Horse Guard labelled as a terrorist organisation...

I've got me tin-hat ready and a flask o' tea wi' a good dash o' Bromide for the boys and we'll see off any Yankee invasion for *coff*north-sea oil*coff* and be back home for tea and crumpets

*saunters off whistling*

"Who do you think you are kidding Mr.Dubya,
if you think we're on the run...
We are the boys who will stop your little game
cos' we are the boys who will you make you think again

So, who do you think you are kidding Mr. Dubya,
if you think old England's done...

Gordon Broon is off to toon on the 8:21
and when he's done with par-li-ment, he's re-a-dy with his gun.
So, who do you think you are kidding Mr. Dubya,
If you think old England's dooooo-ooooo-ooone!"

Stick that in yer reactor and smoke it George!

[edit on 13-1-2008 by citizen smith]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 



So what is the plan for the waste disposal? I like the idea of Nuclear power. I am not a fan of the waste though. I honestly don't keep up much on the nuclear front. Have any strides been made in waste management?

Hi Karl,
Well, in the UK Nuclear Decomissioning Authority as a protocal for handling all sorts of nuclear wastes. It is a non-departmental gov. body.

And here are the 'secret storage sites"

But in general the handling of nuclear waste is a highly guarded secret because of terrorism!



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
citizen smith: i assume by that rhym you watched a few episodes of "dads army" aswell? lol

-----------------------------------

theres a few problems with nuclear power.

a terrorist bombing or war zone can be cleaned up and life returned to normal, but with a nuke plant a terrorist attack or one single accident will affect the areas around it for 100,000 years
But one look at chernobyl and the entire town populace left and has never returned.

those who still work at chernobyl for containment purposes can only go in and do work for a maximum of 30 minutes before the crew has to be rotated due to safety concerns and high rad levels.


so, if there was a nuke accident back in 0 BC, we would still have another 98,000 years before it'd be a safe area... ninety eight THOUSAND years is a bloody long time.

i *think* it was sweden that stores their low to medium level waste (contaminated soil, clothing + safety equip etc) 1km off shore and a few hundred metres below the sea floor. they said this stuff will remain there forever now, this is its permanent home.

there is currently *NO* place on earth that will willingly accept and store high level waste (spent fuel rods) so they are stored at the nuke plant in containers for a planned 75 years by which time they are *hoping* to find a solution to somehow use and recycle the spent rods in a safe manner.

the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude is alive and well, and people dont want this crap anywhere near them for the above reasons.



[edit on 15/1/08 by Obliv_au]

[edit on 15/1/08 by Obliv_au]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join