UK To Build 8 Nuclear Reactors Amid New Energy Strategy (go.com) 192
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Britain plans to build eight new nuclear reactors and expand production of wind energy as it seeks to reduce dependence on oil and natural gas from Russia and other foreign suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the plans Thursday as part of a new energy security strategy that will also accelerate development of solar power and hydrogen projects. The government said it wants to almost triple nuclear power generation capacity to 24 gigawatts by 2050.
"We're setting out bold plans to scale up and accelerate affordable, clean and secure energy made in Britain, for Britain, from new nuclear to offshore wind, in the decade ahead,'' Johnson said. "This will reduce our dependence on power sources exposed to volatile international prices we cannot control." The strategy comes after oil and natural gas prices soared following the invasion of Ukraine amid concerns that energy supplies from Russia could be curtailed. High energy prices are fueling a cost-of-living crisis in Britain, where household gas and electricity prices jumped 54% this month.
"We're setting out bold plans to scale up and accelerate affordable, clean and secure energy made in Britain, for Britain, from new nuclear to offshore wind, in the decade ahead,'' Johnson said. "This will reduce our dependence on power sources exposed to volatile international prices we cannot control." The strategy comes after oil and natural gas prices soared following the invasion of Ukraine amid concerns that energy supplies from Russia could be curtailed. High energy prices are fueling a cost-of-living crisis in Britain, where household gas and electricity prices jumped 54% this month.
This is the way (Score:5, Insightful)
The US needs a similar fast track for Gen III reactors and serious research into Gen IV. We're all onboard with a CO2 future and the ONLY technology that can make it happen in the next decade is nuclear.
Re:This is the way (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree 100% but the political will is not there as it simply does not make sense on a private or even state level. The risk factors are way out of whack for regular business (As in negative events are very rare but the worst case scenarios are very bad), the upfront cost is very high for decades long payback and there is tons of red tape.
The way it gets done in the US is like it gets done in France and seemingly in the UK here; the federal government funds and coodinates it. It soves all the problems, only the feds can carve out exceptions for permitting and regulation (IE, rules in place to prevent endless lawsuits and environmental reviews) can set standards to speed up certification and safety measures and can absorb the costs as the government operates on timelines of decades, not quarterly profits.
Combine that with the re-opening and completion of the Yucca mountain storage facility (Sorry Nevada, that's just where its going.) and a big investment into federal breeder reactor programs to transport and re-process waste.
And like you said, a manhattan project style program for Gen-IV reactors, especially thorium, lead/bismuth micro reactors and molten salt reactors.
The private sector in America is absolutely fantastic at a lot of things, but some things it just is absolutely not suited for and thats OK.
Re:This is the way (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fine with the Department of Energy getting the budget and building out DOE-run reactors. After all, the organization in the US with the best record of operating a fleet of nuclear reactors without incident is the United States Navy, so there is clearly some expertise there.
Making it a public enterprise would definitely remove the cut-corners-for-profit risk, because they wouldn't be looking to profit. And, it's not like this would be setting a new precedent - we already have federal government owned, operated, and marketed energy generation:
- in the Northwest (Bonneville Power Administration, owns and runs the 31 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and tributaries as well as the Columbia Nuclear Generating Station, marketing power in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California as well as excess power to Canada)
- the mid-south (Tennessee Valley Authority, already runs 29 hydropower dams and 7 reactors at 3 sites, as well as 5 coal plants, 18 natgas turbines, 1 pumped storage hydro project, 1 wind power site, and 15 small solar energy sites )
- the Southwestern Power Administration (24 hydroelectric dams in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana)
- the Southeastern Power Administration (23 more hydropower dams in West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky)
- the Western Area Power Administration (covering 57 more dams selling power to Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming).
These agencies are all self-funded from the electricity they generate and sell, so there's not a "government overreach" or "deficit ballooning" argument to be made here other than keeping the initial construction costs under control (e.g. no "cost-plus" contracts). The real question is if Congress can get off their fat septuagenarian asses and get something done instead of just whining about needing to get shit done.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea. I wonder how quickly it could accelerate construction in real terms. Unless someone has a path to go from site selection to operation in less than 10 years I really don't want to hear about it. (I would much prefer a duration of 5-7 years.)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt in the next 5 years even a single site will be selected, not even talking about starting to dig for a foundation ...
Re: (Score:3)
After all, the organization in the US with the best record of operating a fleet of nuclear reactors without incident is the United States Navy, so there is clearly some expertise there.
Minor nit, that's not a very good analogy, naval reactors have very cut-down safety features because of size constraints and rely instead on highly skilled and trained personnell to keep things running safely. Even then there have been some pretty scary close calls...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should read up how reactors work.
Damn Curly. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about do you? You just broke into the conversation and turned your stupidity up to 11. I'm not going to bother to point out how wrong you are on so many levels. I don't do that any more. Any one with brains can see your the true idiot here.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why people think gen 4 reactors will be wonderful. All the attempts at building them so far have ended in failure, and nobody has come up with good solutions to any of the problems encountered.
Re: This is the way (Score:2)
Risk factor for a business is the same as any business. Your investment goes to 0.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK can't build nuclear reactors either. We have to get the Chinese to finance it and the French to build it.
Rolls Royce is developing smaller reactors, but even if they work, they won't be available for a very long time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Troll)
It would be if it wasn't for the hippie parade that made sure there was so many regulations and red tape on it. Every where, that is. With the new reactor designs coming along now since we have started to ignore the anti nuke kooks.
As for it being profitable, it clearly is. Not as much as it could be.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
France has no particular red tape or hippi parades, and still it is not profitable.
You are just an idiot. "Red tape" does not even exist. Regulations are for safety not for making it hard to build a plant, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Not profitable in a narrow sense, but if you look at externalities then it's a very different proposition.
At the moment though killing and maiming people through air pollution is more or less free as is causing global warming. At a time when France built out nuclear everyone else was addicted to coal. Tens of thousands of people died from pollution related causes (even with the more modern, cleaner plants) in other countries. Nuclear is expensive when those lives are worth nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
And the big one I missed, energy security of course.
That cheap gas powered electricity is paid for with Ukrainian lives.
Re: (Score:3)
France has no particular red tape or hippi parades, and still it is not profitable.
And the 3rd Stooge as joined the conversation. About time you got here Curly. I thought you where going to miss out on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline is far more dangerous than nuclear power, and it's everywhere.
Gasoline and nuclear power are both dangerous to future generations.
Gasoline is destroying us now, but if we replace it with nuclear power, it will just destroy us later.
Luckily, there are other and better options.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of wrong? It's a fact that the current reactor under construction is being built by EDF, with financing from China. It's also already massively over budget.
RR only announced their small reactor program this year, and it won't produce working reactors for many years yet.
So tell us, what part is wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
What you're doing is failing to make a supported and cogent argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look. You're so angry at being challenged that you can't even input text correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I'm not angry, not any more. There was a time when I was very angry about this. I was very angry that idiots like you stop a technology that had so much promise. So many lives could have been saved. How much nuclear power would have benefited the planet. But no, fools like you had to and continue to, do every thing you can to stall a technology you have little knowledge about.
Think about this Moe. How many people have died because you, and people like you have forced us to continue to build coal p
Re: (Score:2)
When did everyone start accusing everyone of being a bot, and why is it supposed to be funny?
I got accused of being a bot in a tank game not long ago... presumably because I scored too many hits. I guess the same thing's at work here.
Re: (Score:2)
We need that money up front. We've already discovered wh
Re:This is the way (Score:4, Interesting)
You have obviously never dealt with construction. I have worked on several "20-year" buildings that are 60+ years old. Just like a nuclear power plant they need ongoing upgrades and occassionally a major project to rejuvinate to address things like corrosion and obsolescence. You just need to be able to evaluate effectiveness of systems and plan properly for life-cycle upgrades. Likely the best strategy is to build a "100-year" plant and anticipate major work every 10 years
Re: (Score:2)
You have obviously never dealt with construction. I have worked on several "20-year" buildings that are 60+ years old. Just like a nuclear power plant they need ongoing upgrades and occassionally a major project to rejuvinate to address things like corrosion and obsolescence.
Unlike a 50 year old building a nuclear reactor's neutron activity bombards the steel of the pressure vessel causing it to become brittle. This is not reversible and a failure of the pressure vessel of the reactor whist in operation becomes a loss of cooling accident.
This would be analogous to having the largest and strongest steel I beams in the building gradually loose all of their structural strength.
You just need to be able to evaluate effectiveness of systems and plan properly for life-cycle upgrades.
Unfortunately the reactor pressure vessel *is* the purpose of the building and cannot be replaced.
Likely the best strategy is to build a "100-year" plant and anticipate major work every 10 years
T
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with nuclear is that some parts of the reactor cannot be maintained. They become radioactive, so the most you can do is leave them fro decades until the radiation subsides and then treat them as high level nuclear waste.
It's those parts that determine the maximum lifespan of a nuclear power plant, and so far nobody has come up with a viable design that will last 100 years. Most are looking pretty bad after less than half that.
Re:This is the way (Score:5, Interesting)
> Do us all a favor - make sure to build in the cost of maintenance, including the cost to tear down the reactor when it hits EOL - and I want an understanding that we're not going to extend the lifespan of any nuclear reactor.
This should be done, of course.
But it also should be done for every coal mine, oil well, oil refinery, fossil fuel power plant, internal combustion powered motor vehicle, and all the rest.
Just for example, when you purchase an automobile you can also at the time pre-pay the cost of dismantling and recycling all its materials when it reaches end of life, long-term safe storage of any parts that are not recyclable, all environmental and health damages caused by its emissions and particulates, sequestration of all the carbon emissions your vehicle will emit over its lifetime, your share of the environmental, social, and health damage caused by drilling, refining, transport, and storage of the fuel and other noxious liquids and parts your vehicle will use during its lifetime, your share of the environmental damage and deaths caused by building and maintaining the road and highway network you'll use to drive your vehicle on, and all the rest.
Once we have done that, jacking up the cost of fossil fuel usage until all the cost of the real harms it creates are fully covered, the nuclear power can do the same and be on an even playing field.
Until that time, we are working in an environment where fossil fuel usage is massively subsidized by society - mostly not via cash payments but by casting a blind eye to the trillions of dollars of damage it is producing - and alternatives like nuclear are not.
Re: (Score:2)
But it also should be done for every coal mine, oil well, oil refinery, fossil fuel power plant, internal combustion powered motor vehicle, and all the rest.
Yes, the decommissioning costs should be stored up front for everything which requires decommissioning, and same for cleanup. Every uranite mine, for example, all of which always wind up with toxic mine tailings on the surface leaching radioactives into soils and waterways. The truth is that nuclear decommissioning costs always run over budget, and The People always wind up with the final bill. The People also have to underwrite the insurance, because no private insurance company will do it. And at the end
Re: (Score:2)
But it also should be done for every coal mine, oil well, oil refinery, fossil fuel power plant, internal combustion powered motor vehicle, and all the rest.
We already do that. The lifecycle cost of a coal mine considers the end of coal supply, same with oil well. There is no extending beyond its useful life. When you do the financial modelling of it you take into account how long it will run based on when it has to cease functioning. Oil refineries, cars and fossil fuel plants don't have large abandonment costs of mining operations or nuclear facilities and oil refineries are shut down and remediated all the time without cost to taxpayers.
The problem is you d
Re: This is the way (Score:2)
It's great in theory, but it often doesn't work very well. In CA, we do this for phones. But almost no one recycles their phones. So it's just a tax with little to no impact on the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is the ONLY sensible solution going forward, as it's about the safest, and it IS the lowest greenhouse gas output source [ourworldindata.org] there is.
Radionuclide effluents from the nuclear industry are arguably more pervasive externalities than greenhouse gasses. Our generation was passed a carbon legacy and we have no idea if subsequent generations can handle a radionuclide legacy when our progress on handling the carbon industry has been so bad.
Re:This is the way (Score:4, Insightful)
True.
From the perspective of the U.S. version of "free enterprise" the problem with nuclear is that there is a clear liability trail. If the plant melts down, vents some radioactive waste, etc, we know exactly who to pin the blame on.
Though all those events should be rare to nonexistent with the newer designs. Still companies are unwilling to take on such a huge potential liability. And the risk galvanizes public opposition to new facilities.
Flip side, you take a technology like fossil fuels that is doing 1000X the harm to the environment and the economy that nuclear ever has, but the liability for the damage is divided among some thousands of companies and literally billions of individuals.
Divided responsibility equals no responsibility.
That seems theoretical, but all the same places that, right now, will make no move towards nuclear plants (ie, all 50 states of the U.S.), all allow every facet of the fossil fuel industry to proceed completely unabated - from drilling to mining to refining to delivery systems to gas stations to coal and gas and oil fired power plants to internal-combustion power automobiles.
We're not very good at judging risk.
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. Nuclear and fossil fuels are not the only options.
Sure it is. NOT! (Score:2)
They've been building Hinkley Point C since 2008. [wikipedia.org]
It is not yet finished, it is over budget by billions of pounds, and though heavily subsidized, it will produce electricity far more expensive than the alternative.
The best part is that should the price fall - consumers will be forced to PAY MORE. [bbc.com] For decades to come.
The government gave the green light to Hinkley Point near Bridgwater in Somerset last year, in a deal which guarantees EDF a fixed price of £92.50 per megawatt hour for the electricity it produces for 35 years.
If it falls below that level, consumers will pay the difference.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy estimates that top-up payments will cost consumers around £30bn.
In its report examining the deal, the Public Accounts Committee said: "Over the life of the contract, consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.
Yet in all the negotiations no part of government was really championing the consumer interest."
The committee's chair Meg Hillier said: "Bill-payers have been dealt a bad hand by the government in its approach to this project.
"Its blinkered determination to agree the Hinkley deal, regardless of changing circumstances, means that for years to come energy consumers will face costs running to many times the original estimate.
"It doesn't know what UK workers and business will gain from this project, and appears to have no coherent idea of what to do about it."
18 reactors were completed in 3 years, mean 7.5 (Score:2)
They've been building Hinkley Point C since 2008. [wikipedia.org] It is not yet finished, it is over budget by billions of pounds, and though heavily subsidized, it will produce electricity far more expensive than the alternative.
"18 reactors were completed in 3 years! 12 of those in Japan, 3 in the USA, 2 in Russia and 1 in Switzerland. ... The mean construction time of 441 reactors in use today was 7.5 years"
http://euanmearns.com/how-long... [euanmearns.com]
A renewables plus nuclear strategy displaces fossil fuels and reduces CO2 emissions faster than a renewables only strategy. Are we in an existential world ending climate crisis with not time to fool around left or not?
Re: (Score:2)
They only way to build reactors quickly is to directly use river or ocean water for cooling. Most places in the world no longer allow that and you need to use cooling towers. Those easily add another two years to construction time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you made it a national priority you could have solar in that timescale, and for less money.
The idea is that you get both renewables and nuclear, nuclear is not distracting from renewables, its actually complementary. Renewables plus nuclear reduces fossil fuels usage and CO2 emissions faster than renewables only. Are we in an existential world ending climate crisis with not time to fool around left or not?
Re: (Score:2)
The US needs a similar fast track for Gen III reactors and serious research into Gen IV.
Why?
We're all onboard with a CO2 future
What? Maybe drop the with.
and the ONLY technology that can make it happen in the next decade is nuclear.
Can make what happen? A CO2 future?
You didn't think about what you were writing, did you? Some did.
Unfortunately for your apparent-though-not-actually-correctly-stated argument, nuclear costs more per Wh than any other form of power, and it takes longer to build even if there were no political opposition to selling out the future for extremely expensive energy today, so if you're hoping for nuclear to solve our carbon problem then all you've got is hopes, and prayers.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all onboard with a CO2 future and the ONLY technology that can make it happen in the next decade is nuclear.
The only thing you'll do in a decade is decide on where to build them and waste a decade that could have used to reduce CO2 emissions.
Even the pessimistic climate models point to the 2050 goal as one to ramp steadily towards not one to jump to on December 31st 2049 at 11:59:59pm. If your plan is to solve global warming with nuclear you have already utterly failed the task. I would happily bet real money that none of these plants will be operational before 2050 and will have contributed precisely zero (in fa
How long... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it looks to me like nothing more than a convenient "we're doing something" political statement. They still haven't been able to get that gigantic Hinkley Point C boondoggle built. If it ever does start running the electricity cost will certainly not be saving the citizens of the UK any money.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything incoherent in the idea of nuclear power to provide base load, to supplement cheaper power from wind and solar. Regardless of international politics and energy security, it would seem prudent to get away from dependence on fossil fuels, when we are obviously scraping the barrel with extraction of oil and gas from the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything incoherent in the idea of nuclear power to provide base load, to supplement cheaper power from wind and solar
The incoherency is: all those things produce electricity. Oil and gas from Russia is not used for Electricity, the oil is converted into gasoline and burned in cars. The gas is burned in houses for heating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the uses of Russian oil and gas vary from country to country. What you say may be true of the USA, but is it true of Germany?
Regarding home heating and cooking with gas, this could be replaced with hydrogen produced by electrolysis. That presumes a surplus of electricity generation. I think the intention is that expanding wind or solar could make it economic to produce hydrogen in this way. If the infrastructure is there to produce and store hydrogen, that reduces the problem of renewable energy sou
Re: (Score:2)
The second war in Tchechenia lasted 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If the world gets not its asses gathered, the Ukrainian war will last until Putin is deposed.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear isn't very flexible or responsive to changes in demand
Many nuclear plants are capable of load following, but it's less economical to run them like that. If you're interested (or bored), here's a detailed paper on the topic [oecd-nea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
...are they expecting the Ukraine war to last?
What does this have to do with a war in Ukraine? Not wanting to be Russia's little bitch goes far beyond Putin's latest brain hemorrhage.
Re: How long... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is an just an outlet for Russian propaganda.
On March 23, parent poster predicted that Mariupol would fall that day. [slashdot.org]
Then, despite the failure of parent's first prediction, on March 28, parent poster claimed that Russia was about to take Maruipol. [slashdot.org]
Great targets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to foreign policy, Russia's preferred techniques appear to be computer cracking and poisoning. Both of these are conveniently deniable. People were poisoned in Salisbury. We know who did it. We might even have photographs of the agents. What can we do about it? This could possibly be an act of war, but not of sufficient magnitude to trigger a NATO response. I would suggest that bombing nuclear installations in the UK is of a different magnitude.
Re: Great targets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You back a bear into a corner and it will strike where it thinks it will do the most damage.
What gets me about this Russian aggression business is not that Russia has been backed into a corner by hostile external forces, but they are deliberately making enemies all round. For example, it appears that Russia considers the EU to be an economic threat, rather than a potential trading partner, and so they fear a neighbour country such as Ukraine joining the EU. A lot depends on what a ruler intends. Is it prosperity for their country, or demonstrating power and influence? In the case of Putin, as with
Yep (Score:3)
That's the way things will have to go.
You can't claim forever that you don't want fossil fuels, but then also rule out the real alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't claim forever that you don't want fossil fuels, but then also rule out the real alternative.
True, and we could have started building that alternative (PV solar) out profitably in the 1970s but instead we wasted a bunch of time dicking around with nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way things will have to go.
Indeed, but just so we're clear, the way things will have to go for what?
Nuclear is absolutely a necessity in a long term future energy mix. But make no mistake it cannot contribute to our climate goals. Literally the only thing these 3 sites will do is contribute more CO2 by 2050, to say nothing of the 2030 goal that everyone pretends no longer exists. And even then the modeling showed to prevent irreversible damage due to climate change we needed to ramp to the target rate by the due date, not turn it on
Poor Design Choice (Score:2)
British reactors hilariously depend on a ready supply of cheap natural gas to function. They're the only ones in the world to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
British reactors hilariously depend on a ready supply of cheap natural gas to function. They're the only ones in the world to do so.
Well the Germans too... and Australia... and the US, erm... quite a few nations relied on cheap natural gas for power.
The problem with this plan is:
1. It's 20 year too late. This was the kind of investment that we needed decades ago, replacing the aging gas plants with nuclear and renewables instead of extending the life of gas and coal plants because that was cheaper than investing in new infrastructure.
2. It's the Tories, even if they have the most well thought out plan, they will find a way to
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. You misunderstand me. It's not that the UK depends on cheap natural gas for power generation. It's that the type of nuclear reactors Britain uses need abundant, cheap natural gas to run their coolant loops. No natural gas, no nuclear power. Link [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read the links you post.
"Gas cooled" reactors are not cooled with natural gas.
And the gas used for cooling is not consumed either. It is just circulating through the reactor, just like the water in your cars cooling system.
Gas cooled reactors are cooled by CO2 or Helium, and not by nat gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Germany nor UK has a lot of gas plants producing Electricity.
In Germany it used to be around 5% in recent years it increased to 15%, the increase is mostly exported as balancing power to Switzerland and France.
Surely this should read .. China ... (Score:2)
... to build 8 nuclear reactors _for_ the UK?
And those of us in the UK know full well, that whatever comes out of this current prime ministers mouth - boris johnson - should be taken with a bucket of salt.
This is the guy that promised "40 new hospitals", only it turned out that most of them were actually refurbs to existing ones.
The same guy who said leaving the EU would get us back 350 million pounds a week and slapped it on the side of a bus.
To say he runs fast and loose with the truth is to say "the sky
Hinkley Point - made in China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
***sighs***
We don't make uranium bombs (except that first one). We've never even bothered to test such a bomb (not even that first one - they saved all the testing for the second bomb....).
And yes, I know it was a joke. I'm feeling like poorly warmed over crap today, so deal....
Re: (Score:2)
You could make a dirty bomb with uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
You could make a dirty bomb with uranium.
No, only "dirty" in the most trivial sense. Uranium is barely radioactive at all. There are plenty of far worse toxins easily available.
Re: (Score:2)
are an idiot.
Resorting to that intellectual device says you have lost, and always will.
I notice you did not respond to the my last reply, where I linked to the info you needed on plutonium. Toxic to inhale, but safe to hold. You made the ludicrous claim that holding it could cause fatal ARS, as if it were Cobalt-60 or something.
A simple "touche" would have been nice, instead of going silent in defeat. Flamewars are fun, but not if you bottle-up when beaten. And don't take it too seriously.
Or ... do you have the mem
Re: (Score:3)
Uranium is:
a) highly radioactive, no idea where this stupid american idea comes from that long half life automatically means low radioactivity
b) highly toxic, probably one of the most toxic materials on the planet or I am an idiot.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'd not like to be hit by a DU round, but uranioum is safer than lead.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov].
For inhalation, botox is one million times more toxic. How are you so arrogant as not to check your facts before posting? You seem to just quote vague factoid that wanders into your consciousness as if it were fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Uranium is: highly radioactive, no idea where this stupid american idea comes from that long half life automatically means low radioactivity
It's not an "American idea" it is basic physics. The half-life is the average time it takes for half the nuclei in a sample to decay. A longer half-life means that the same half of the sample will take longer to decay which means that the decays per second will be lower and hence the radioactivity will be lower.
The uranium isotopes found in nature all have half-lives measured in billions of years. This is because they were created in a supernova about 6 billion years ago that preceded the formation of o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(seriously though, British Muslims are great people, mainly because we accept them and want them to participate in our community).
Some are, some are not, same as anywhere. The ones who "participate in our community" may not be the same as those who chose the live in their own communities, such as Rotherham. [wikipedia.org] And that happened all over. Fear of being seen as racist allows such things to thrive. So ignore the racist AC, but stay open minded, and let people speak out with genuine complaints.
Anyway, the "muslims" have had the Bomb since 1998 (see AQ Khan), and it is not the West they are aimed at. Also, Saudis funded the program in case
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... equal rights racism is valued above all others... non-white working class brits are brilliant in their blatant racism.
My god... have you ever been a non-Brit in England? It's bad enough in London, but you get to a place like Coventry and wow!!! I mean really, it's truly fascinating how amazingly and
Re: Are they crazy?!? (Score:2)
If it's that bad then the safest thing would be to leave.
Re: Are they crazy?!? (Score:2)
Not the OP but I suspect they refer to the famous "breaking point" poster.
Search for Breaking Point Brexit Poster.
Re: (Score:2)
It also glows green. You wouldn't want to glow green, would you?
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear energy is the future, it is clean and reliable. It is enviable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is the future, it is clean and reliable. It is enviable.
It's also the most expensive option on the market after coal.
Re: (Score:3)
An who's fault is that? Hint: Look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:3)
You can build your temple to the Nuclear gods cheap and get Chernobyl
An you can go build your temple on the graves of all those killed by your insane paranoid of anything nuclear. All those that will die because of climate change that all you help cause. Stack up the bodies of those killed by burning coal to generate power against those caused by nuclear power. Then get back to me which one is taller.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a very narrow definition of 'clean'. Sure it may not have emissions like coal, but there is this a small problem regarding radioactive waste...
Re: (Score:2)
You could dump it into the strip mines created to get at the rare earths needed for solar panels and batteries.
Re:Nuclear is a pest. A stalker industry. (Score:4)
It actually is very clean. The waste isn't a big problem as people make it out to be. Well if the anti-nuke kooks hadn't have made it impossible to reprocess it. But once we start ignore the kooks we can start reprocessing it on site. That will reduce the waste dramatically.
Tell that to the people of Fukushima (Score:2)
The trouble with nuke is simple: greedy businessmen. Everyone knew Fukushima was a disaster waiting to happen, but nobody cared because they knew they'd get away with it. And they did.
The worst thing (besides the loss of live and massive upheaval to lives) is that the CEOs who orchestrated the who
Re: (Score:2)
"The CEOs got away and the peons who heroically risked life and limb got blamed, and you want me to sign off on more nuclear in my neighborhood? No way. Fix the societal problems first, and I don't know how you do that especially in America."
Absolutely true! Engineers, who are so critical to nuclear projects, have increasingly come under the thumb of the MBA management style over the past few decades. It's a truth-negation machine; all that matters is profit from externalizing all the downsides of risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Who is going to pay the tens of billions it cost to build a single plant?
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy had a very steep learning curve, totally negating all the early claims for low-cost.
It is water-intensive and water shortages are increasingly affecting reactor output.
It also engenders political paranoia to the extent that only certain countries can realistically exploit it without being accused of building bombs. What makes the dynamic truly sicko is that the paranoia is mainly spread by the politicians most loudly supporting nuclear energy.
Mini-nukes are a non-starter – substitute n
Re: (Score:2)
So many things wrong with this line of thinking that I don't even know where to start debunking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with a lie, like you usually do! Instead of FUD, which is literally all you presented in your comment.
Re: (Score:3)
I never post FUD. I post the truth. It is you and the other Stooges that post the FUD. I just make sure people out there know you are posting bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
While I am sure this is more of a political play by Boris, and 8 units is not likely to be sufficient to create economies of scale, what other options are out there for adding 80TWh/year generation? 10,000 15MW wind turbines plus ~10TWh of battery? The plant in Morrocco is a great start, but scaling it to that level as a remote resource is not a solid strategic decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need that much additional capacity? And can we wait until 2050 (being optimistic and assuming they meet that date) for it to come online?
The cheapest, fastest thing we can do is insulate. That will also bring bills down.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course reducing demand is the first thing you do (and the second is load-side management to match it to supply). First result in Google said the current peak demand is 32GW, so an extra 8GW is an 0.8% CAGR, which sounds like less than population growth.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK population probably won't be growing much, if at all. With brexit making us more insular and less open to immigration, and fertility rates already quite low, I don't see it happening unless there is a major political upheaval.
Re: (Score:2)
AND they are raising taxes on the working class!
Punishment and profiteering won't stop getting worse until the political trend is reversed. The oligarchs backing the Tories, Republicans – and let's face it, Putin – feel tormented around a large, educated and empowered middle class. And now they're incapable of feeling comfort unless people beneath them are suffering in droves.
Re: (Score:2)