View Full Version : Nuclear plants set for go ahead
So at last 'Nuclear plants set for go-ahead (as I've been smacked on the wrist for not doing so, here's a couple of links:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm) http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1300003,00.html (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1300003,00.html)
Interesting to note that existing sites may be used - wonder if this will have any bearing on Dounreay, fair enough it was experimental, but the workforce is here, the 'locals' have had it in their midst for near half a century, so maybe?
Existing nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the UK's electricity, but most are due to close by 2023 so 'something's got to be done..
and as Sir David King, says; "Nuclear is no longer expensive, given the price of oil and gas... "
I live up here; no problems.. "oh what about the Nuclear waste?' I'm sure something can be done - what does France do with all theirs?
Seems not. The SNP, in their wisdom, have decreed that there will be no new ones built in Scotland.
That is despite the fact that the two already existing in Scotland, and which will fairly soon have to be decommissioned, provide something like 40% of Scotland’s Electricity Supply.
Highland Laddie
10-Jan-08, 12:49
Seems not. The SNP, in their wisdom, have decreed that there will be no new ones built in Scotland.
That is despite the fact that the two already existing in Scotland, and which will fairly soon have to be decommissioned, provide something like 40% of Scotland’s Electricity Supply.
Sorry Jaws, but do you really expect SNP to be in control next year. ???
I doubt it very much.
ywindythesecond
10-Jan-08, 12:55
So at last 'Nuclear plants set for go-ahead (as I've been smacked on the wrist for not doing so, here's a couple of links:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm) http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1300003,00.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1300003,00.html)
Interesting to note that existing sites may be used - wonder if this will have any bearing on Dounreay, fair enough it was experimental, but the workforce is here, the 'locals' have had it in their midst for near half a century, so maybe?
Existing nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the UK's electricity, but most are due to close by 2023 so 'something's got to be done..
and as Sir David King, says; "Nuclear is no longer expensive, given the price of oil and gas... "
I live up here; no problems.. "oh what about the Nuclear waste?' I'm sure something can be done - what does France do with all theirs?
Brilliant news! Now we can stop building windfarms for the English market!
Actually, as they are all for the English market, we can stop building windfarms! Lets start with Baillie!
You're right Jaws; "However, while Mr Hutton can talk about nuclear plans for England and Wales, he does not have the same ability for Scotland, where the planning authority is not Westminster and Whitehall but Alex Salmond's administration"
( http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1945918.0.Scotland_doesnt_need_nor_wan t_new_nuclear_power_stations.php (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1945918.0.Scotland_doesnt_need_nor_wan t_new_nuclear_power_stations.php) )
Things change, political parties dissolve...
Think Jaws is right - isn't energy policy devolved? In which case SNP don't need to be in control any more than they are now.
Am not sure about this but no doubt someone will know .......
Dounreay won't be used as any new site.
I seem to remember a report years ago that it is too far away from where the power is needed to make it economically viable.
Funny how that isn't the case for windfarms.........
Big hughie
10-Jan-08, 19:11
"Seems not. The SNP, in their wisdom, have decreed that there will be no new ones built in Scotland.
That is despite the fact that the two already existing in Scotland, and which will fairly soon have to be decommissioned, provide something like 40% of Scotland’s Electricity Supply."
And no chance if Wendy Alexander and her crooks get back in either .They have to depend on LIB Dem support for a coalition to form a Scottish government and they are the most anti nuclear of them all
That was the reason the respected (and principled) John Thurso MP resigned
from the partys front bench
Beeg Hugheeeee
PS I think Gordon Campbell is pro nuclear
Big hughie
10-Jan-08, 19:16
Sorry Jaws, but do you really expect SNP to be in control next year. ???
I doubt it very much.
For your information the term of our government is 4 years ie next election is in 2011...maybe by then the investigations into Wendy Alexanders election (or Non election ) expenses may be over
Beeeeg Hugheeee
Penelope Pitstop
10-Jan-08, 19:27
Brilliant news! Now we can stop building windfarms for the English market!
Actually, as they are all for the English market, we can stop building windfarms! Lets start with Baillie!
I think I heard at lunch time that SNP want to down the renewable energy route: windmills, wave power, etc....... probably mean more windmills 'cause them down south won't want them down there.....:confused
Pity a new power station couldn't be built on the registered site at Dounreay....
Fanny's Your Aunt
10-Jan-08, 19:38
i hope to god common sense prevails and a nuclear plant is built at dounreay maybe just maybe we wouldn't have to completely ruin the north of scotland's beautiful scenery with windmills only to find that like the rest of the countries that have tried to go green and rely on wind that we actually NEED nuclear to give a constant reliable supply of energy
another plus of having a plant built here will be that I won't have to wach this county (which has grown and prospered thanks to dounreay) be turned into a ghost community with all the young ones taking off down south to find any sort of decent employment and future
it may be that we are too far north for the distribution (which means the windmills certainly are for nothing) but i dont think so
so here's hoping we are at least considered and the very skilled workforce which has run and maintained the very earliest nuclear station with few real disasters can continue to live, work and be content AT HOME
orkneylass
10-Jan-08, 19:58
I think it is hilarious that the rope sandals brigade are now so in favour of nuclear power. I predict that we'll see the same about face about issues like global warming eventually.
northener
10-Jan-08, 20:21
I think it is hilarious that the rope sandals brigade are now so in favour of nuclear power. I predict that we'll see the same about face about issues like global warming eventually.
I've got to ask, Orkneylass - who are 'the rope sandals brigade'?
.
orkneylass
10-Jan-08, 20:40
I've got to ask, Orkneylass - who are 'the rope sandals brigade'?
.
Eco-warriers without the faintest clue about the way the world works
sprint95m
10-Jan-08, 21:03
And no chance if Wendy Alexander and her crooks get back in either .They have to depend on LIB Dem support for a coalition to form a Scottish government and they are the most anti nuclear of them all
That was the reason the respected (and principled) John Thurso MP resigned
from the partys front bench
Beeg Hugheeeee
PS I think Gordon Campbell is pro nuclear
Is it not still Scottish Labour Party policy to oppose new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland until a solution for disposing of the nuclear waste has been found?
Yoda the flump
10-Jan-08, 21:57
Not a chance of a new build in Scotland as planning consent is devolved to Edinburgh although energy policy is not.
Big hughie
10-Jan-08, 22:43
"Is it not still Scottish Labour Party policy to oppose new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland until a solution for disposing of the nuclear waste has been found?"
Correct that is the case at the moment !! We can always do what the Swedes etc do with their waste and send it to Sellafield !!!
I often wonder if that Swedish stuff took the direct route through the Firth and Minch or did it go through the English channel ???
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/nuclear/sellafield/39273
but then I forgot they had to ship waste from Sellafield to Sweden as Sellafield could not handle it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/09/cnnuclear09.xml
The point of this is has anyone really got a plan with what to do with the waste ???and sorry folkies but I for one would not be too chuffed if I heard they were using the afore mentioned Pentland Firth or the Minch as a sea route
Beegg Hugheeeeee
Yoda the flump
10-Jan-08, 22:49
Technically there is not a problem with waste. Dounreay and Sellafield have been storing highly active liquid for over half a century now and no major problems.
Even if you look at the incidents in THORPE and the DCP the spillages did not breach the containment that was in place to deal with these kinds of scenario.
The real problem with the waste is political and not technical. Until some brave government minister takes the plunge there will be no solution to the waste issue.
psyberyeti
10-Jan-08, 23:02
Yay, nuclear!!
At least if you live next to a nuclear power station you know that you are not going to get mercury/lead/polonium isotopes dumped on you every second of everyday - the eco-warriors ('yoghurt-sandals' not 'rope') forget to tell you this. Poisoning your children, your food, everything.:cool:
Yoda the flump
10-Jan-08, 23:14
Yay, nuclear!!
At least if you live next to a nuclear power station you know that you are not going to get mercury/lead/polonium isotopes dumped on you every second of everyday - the eco-warriors ('yoghurt-sandals' not 'rope') forget to tell you this. Poisoning your children, your food, everything.:cool:
Yep, I quite happily would/do live relatively close to nuclear reactor. I would not be happy living so close to Drax.
Ask Trump if he wants to build a Nuclear Power Plant or two ,would the SNP fix the vote the same way they fixed it for the golf course.
There's nothing like the smell of all that money to get that planning permission through ....
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-08, 01:33
"Seems not. The SNP, in their wisdom, have decreed that there will be no new ones built in Scotland.
That is despite the fact that the two already existing in Scotland, and which will fairly soon have to be decommissioned, provide something like 40% of Scotland’s Electricity Supply."
And no chance if Wendy Alexander and her crooks get back in either .They have to depend on LIB Dem support for a coalition to form a Scottish government and they are the most anti nuclear of them all
That was the reason the respected (and principled) John Thurso MP resigned
from the partys front bench
Beeg Hugheeeee
PS I think Gordon Campbell is pro nuclear
I voted for Gordon Campbell last time because no other party had a sensible energy policy, and it is a matter if principle to me to use my vote. However, if it had been a close run thing.........
It is a political shame that Scotland will rely on nuke power from England.
I refer to the several points raised in this section, First the nuclear power stations would only be built if private sector would invest in it. I can tell you now with the cost of clean up etc there would be very few who would put up any money with out any public money being pump into it. To the other points that has been mention on here about the South electricity and wind farm not going south one of the biggest offshore site is in Kent along the coast now if any one has been to Kent coast and seen the amount of people and Tourist there that proves that these do not put of Tourist coming to the area.
Big hughie
11-Jan-08, 09:08
dozy Ask Trump if he wants to build a Nuclear Power Plant or two ,would the SNP fix the vote the same way they fixed it for the golf course.
There's nothing like the smell of all that money to get that planning permission through ....
Here I would take a big deep breath afore ye start on about corruption and our previous government in Scotland Its not Alex Salmond who is under scrutiny unlike the the Labour wifie (see below) an if you want me to start about Westminster ...How long have you got????
"Seems not. The SNP, in their wisdom, have decreed that there will be no new ones built in Scotland.
That is despite the fact that the two already existing in Scotland, and which will fairly soon have to be decommissioned, provide something like 40% of Scotland’s Electricity Supply."
And no chance if Wendy Alexander and her crooks get back in either .They have to depend on LIB Dem support for a coalition to form a Scottish government and they are the most anti nuclear of them all
That was the reason the respected (and principled) John Thurso MP resigned from the partys front bench
Rheghead" It is a political shame that Scotland will rely on nuke power from England."
Whats the problem we have been supplying England with Scottish oil for decades
Beeg Hugheeeee
Oh aye an if Gordon Brown was so committed to Nuclear power why was he so keen to sell Westinghouse to the Japanese???
Highland Laddie
11-Jan-08, 09:16
I refer to the several points raised in this section, First the nuclear power stations would only be built if private sector would invest in it. I can tell you now with the cost of clean up etc there would be very few who would put up any money with out any public money being pump into it. To the other points that has been mention on here about the South electricity and wind farm not going south one of the biggest offshore site is in Kent along the coast now if any one has been to Kent coast and seen the amount of people and Tourist there that proves that these do not put of Tourist coming to the area.
There are umpteen private sector companies queuing up to build the first batch of new nuclear power stations, that have already stated that they needed no public money. Companies interested are.
Areva a French company have already offered to build 6
EDF, British energy, Centrica, E.on and RWE are all forwarding build requests,
so i think you'll find there is no shortage of private money available, plus they have stated they would cover all costs.
Rheghead" It is a political shame that Scotland will rely on nuke power from England."
Whats the problem we have been supplying England with Scottish oil for decades
Beeg Hugheeeee
Which is why the Union is good for all countries involved i guess.
There are umpteen private sector companies queuing up to build the first batch of new nuclear power stations, that have already stated that they needed no public money. Companies interested are.
Areva a French company have already offered to build 6
EDF, British energy, Centrica, E.on and RWE are all forwarding build requests,
so i think you'll find there is no shortage of private money available, plus they have stated they would cover all costs.
More alarmingly, you have not mentioned the Russian-controlled nuke company's ambitions in this market.
Atomenergoprom (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3048434.ece)
Which is why the Union is good for all countries involved i guess.
What is going to happen to the radioactive waste? A waste repository in Scotland perhaps.
Oh aye an if Gordon Brown was so committed to Nuclear power why was he so keen to sell Westinghouse to the Japanese???
That's the one thing that scares me about Nuclear power - the way the British government seems quite happy to sell off anything and everything to overseas companies.
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-08, 13:52
Whats the problem we have been supplying England with Scottish oil for decades
And the English make a similarly half-baked peculiar argument that they've been supplying Scotland with tax revenues for years. Since 1707, since you didn't notice, it was an asset of the nation; the "nation" in this context meaning the United Kingdom. Narrow nationalism isn't in anyone's interests, least of all Scotland's.
.....settles back to wait for the arrival of Oddquine, with 250/190 blood pressure....... :lol:
Oh aye an if Gordon Brown was so committed to Nuclear power why was he so keen to sell Westinghouse to the Japanese???
Because his need for money, and wish to be re-elected, exceeds his ability to plan for the medium to long term. In other words, the interests of him being PM exceed the need to work for the public good. Anyway, it doesn't much matter who owns it from a practical standpoint.
Oh aye an if Gordon Brown was so committed to Nuclear power why was he so keen to sell Westinghouse to the Japanese???
Am I missing something here? Isn't Westinghouse an American company?
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-08, 15:13
Westinghouse was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BNFL (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2027722,00.html)
Anyway, don't we all buy Japanese cars and electronics for their legendary reliability? :lol:
Green_not_greed
11-Jan-08, 15:17
What is going to happen to the radioactive waste? A waste repository in Scotland perhaps.
I hear that Mr Minter has offered his quarry at the west end of Reay......
Westinghouse was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BNFL (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2027722,00.html)
Anyway, don't we all buy Japanese cars and electronics for their legendary reliability? :lol:
Thanks, I should have googled it!
As for building a plant to a westinghouse design, I'd have no problems with who owns the company. The way British engineering is nowadays I'd probably prefer something Japanese, German or French!
Big hughie
11-Jan-08, 16:11
" As for building a plant to a westinghouse design, I'd have no problems with who owns the company. The way British engineering is nowadays I'd probably prefer something Japanese, German or French! http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=321949)
But I always thought the idea was to keep local jobs for Dounreay The staffing levels once the things are up and running are nothing like what has been historically been employed in the plant
Big hughie
11-Jan-08, 16:19
Ask Trump if he wants to build a Nuclear Power Plant or two ,would the SNP fix the vote the same way they fixed it for the golf course.
There's nothing like the smell of all that money to get that planning permission through ....
Aye maybe Peter Hains pennies stink a bit too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7182480.stm
Another one caught eh
Beeeg Hugheeeeeeeeeee
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-08, 17:35
" As for building a plant to a westinghouse design
Westinghouse's expertise is in designing nuclear plants; Dounreay is at the opposite end of its lifetime, being decommissioned.
As for the expertise, the skills, the jobs etc, that nice Mr Salmond has put paid to it anyway. He's going with the expensive eco-wibbly stuff which'll leave Scotland buying power from England well into the future, so increasing the wealth of the English economy at the expense of the Scottish.
" As for building a plant to a westinghouse design, I'd have no problems with who owns the company. The way British engineering is nowadays I'd probably prefer something Japanese, German or French! http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=321949)
But I always thought the idea was to keep local jobs for Dounreay The staffing levels once the things are up and running are nothing like what has been historically been employed in the plant
As I said before, no new plant will be built at Dounreay, it's too far from the large cities that use the power to be economically viable.
As for employees, you're right, a commercial plant once up and running would only employee a couple of hundred people, similar to Vulcan at the moment.
northener
11-Jan-08, 20:08
Eco-warriers without the faintest clue about the way the world works
Ta, with you now!
northener
11-Jan-08, 20:14
[quote=Big hughie;321803]
Rheghead" It is a political shame that Scotland will rely on nuke power from England."
Whats the problem we have been supplying England with Scottish oil for decades
Beeg Hugheeeee
quote]
No, Britain has been supplied with oil paid for and supported by British government and international oil companies who invested massively in the North Sea.
Dounreay won't be used as any new site.
I seem to remember a report years ago that it is too far away from where the power is needed to make it economically viable.
Funny how that isn't the case for windfarms.........
I heard our MSP's still making this same claim in 2007. Don't understand either why it's not the case for windfarms. Well, actually, I do - politics and money.
captain chaos
11-Jan-08, 20:56
Quoted by Highland laddie
"Areva a French company have already offered to build 6
EDF, British energy, Centrica, E.on and RWE are all forwarding build requests,
so i think you'll find there is no shortage of private money available, plus they have stated they would cover all costs"
For anyone interested there is a website www.epr-reactor.co.uk/
which shows the proposed "European Pressurised Reactor"
AREVA have now built over 100 reactors world wide.
Before anyone asks ...yes I do work for AREVA :-)
It is a political shame that Scotland will rely on nuke power from England.Who said we will have to rely on nuclear generated electricity from england?
Tugmistress
11-Jan-08, 22:16
funny reading this really, i got a phone call last night asking if i could spare a few minutes answering some questions about renewable energy for the highlands and islands area, the last wuestion i was asked was which type of power would i prefer to see built which would be most viable in my own opinion, i answered nuclear :lol:
Who said we will have to rely on nuclear generated electricity from england?
I did.
Where will the energy come from if there isn't going to be anymore Scottish nuke?
I did.
Where will the enery come from if there isn't going to be anymore Scottish nuke?Hydro, wind, wave, sun, fossil fuel. Who deals with the waste products of nuclear power? Would you be Quite willing to have a waste repository sited near you and your family, how blind is your faith in nuclear energy?
Yoda the flump
11-Jan-08, 22:42
Hydro, wind, wave, sun, fossil fuel. Who deals with the waste products of nuclear power? Would you be Quite willing to have a waste repository sited near you and your family, how blind is your faith in nuclear energy?
Well lets face it, if you live in Caithness you have had one for the last 50 years !
Well lets face it, if you live in Caithness you have had one for the last 50 years !Yes and not for the benefit of the local populace either, that was never their intention. If they had thought at the time that nuclear energy was safe then there is absolutely no way that Dounreay would have been built this far north.
ywindythesecond
11-Jan-08, 22:53
Yes and not for the benefit of the local populace either, that was never their intention. If they had thought at the time that nuclear energy was safe then there is absolutely no way that Dounreay would have been built this far north.
And wasn't that a lucky mistake?
And wasn't that a lucky mistake?You would have to think that nuclear energy was proven to be 100% safe to have that opinion, surely. Do you not think that it was morally bankrupt to use Caithness as a experimental ground in the safety of nuclear energy and to hell with the populace? Yes, a lot of jobs were available to locals and their immediate descendants but remember that we were all expendable and that, and only that was the reason that dounreay was allowed to be built in caithness.
Hydro, wind, wave, sun, fossil fuel.
Dream on.
Who deals with the waste products of nuclear power?
We do. Other countries seem to manage.
Would you be Quite willing to have a waste repository sited near you and your family, how blind is your faith in nuclear energy?
Yes. Live not far from Dounreay anyway. Have done for many a year. And my eyesight's OK too.
Dream on.
We do. Other countries seem to manage.
Yes. Live not far from Dounreay anyway. Have done for many a year. And my eyesight's OK too.Why exactly would I have to dream on?
Never mind talking about other countries, where does our waste go?
You maybe eat a lot of carrots, maybe that's why your eyesight is okay but what has that got to do with nuclear energy?
Yoda the flump
11-Jan-08, 23:09
You would have to think that nuclear energy was proven to be 100% safe to have that opinion, surely. Do you not think that it was morally bankrupt to use Caithness as a experimental ground in the safety of nuclear energy and to hell with the populace? Yes, a lot of jobs were available to locals and their immediate descendants but remember that we were all expendable and that, and only that was the reason that dounreay was allowed to be built in caithness.
Nothing can be 100% safe, but I would take the chance on nuclear.
The local MP at the time did actively solicit for it at the time and as you state it has brought many jobs to the county, all in all a good thing.
Nothing can be 100% safe, but I would take the chance on nuclear.
The local MP at the time did actively solicit for it at the time and as you state it has brought many jobs to the county, all in all a good thing.Okay, explain to me what the answer is with the waste products from nuclear energy, have you got the answer?
Why exactly would I have to dream on?
Because that little quartet won't solve our energy problems on their own.
Never mind talking about other countries, where does our waste go?
Underground repositories probably. I am not an expert. Neither are you. There's lots of nasty wastes produced on this planet by humans. Nuclear is but one of them so stop being paranoid. We're producing a nasty waste using our computers right now. Shall we switch off?
You maybe eat a lot of carrots, maybe that's why your eyesight is okay but what has that got to do with nuclear energy?
Eyesight OK - I meant I'm not blinded by my faith in nuclear energy. In fact, I have no faith in anything - I 'd like to think I'm influenced by reason and not faith.
Yoda the flump
11-Jan-08, 23:36
Okay, explain to me what the answer is with the waste products from nuclear energy, have you got the answer?
Well, lets start by saying that most of what is classified as low level waste is not in fact low level waste. If all the low level waste was monitored then most of it would be found to be non contaminated - that would cut down a large amount of waste for a start.
As for the high/intermediate level waste storage. Dounreay and Sellafield have been storing this type of waste for over 50 years with no major incidents.
The likes of the DCP and THORPE incident show that when parts of the system fail, the containment that is in place does work and stops contamination.
As for the shaft, that was when used a licensed disposal site and the operators were quite entitled to put active material in there.
We have the technology to safely contain and store the radioactive material for a long period of time, sure not for an infinite time, but long enough to ensure that the waste is not an issue.
Would you like above ground or below ground storage, probably below ground is better, but that is an issue for the politicians.
Lets face it, we have a relatively small political issue that needs to be solved with the waste, ok it might seem expensive, but will it be as expensive if the lights go out or if we carry on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we are today?
I think not. Nuclear may not be ideal, but it does help to plug an energy gap that is looming. I am sure that even the most pro nuclear supporter, and there are many in Caithness would agree with this.
If you can suggest a sensible, practical and realistic alternative then lets hear it.
Okay, explain to me what the answer is with the waste products from nuclear energy, have you got the answer?
For the low level waste, a waste-to-energy plant might be an option, the flue gases would have to be treated by water drenching and resin bed extraction for nuclides. There may be some engineering, environmental and commercial obstacles but it could work. It just needs political ambition for it to work.
Because that little quartet won't solve our energy problems on their own.Explain!
Underground repositories probably. I am not an expert. Neither are you. There's lots of nasty wastes produced on this planet by humans. Nuclear is but one of them so stop being paranoid. We're producing a nasty waste using our computers right now. Shall we switch off? I am not being paranoid, either you have the answers or you have not. If not then your allegiance to nuclear power counts for nothing other than it is an uninformed, good idea.
Eyesight OK - I meant I'm not blinded by my faith in nuclear energy. In fact, I have no faith in anything - I 'd like to think I'm influenced by reason and not faith.[/quote]Reason has to be substantiated by hard facts, you have none so therefore you rely on your blind faith.
Well, lets start by saying that most of what is classified as low level waste is not in fact low level waste. If all the low level waste was monitored then most of it would be found to be non contaminated - that would cut down a large amount of waste for a start.
As for the high/intermediate level waste storage. Dounreay and Sellafield have been storing this type of waste for over 50 years with no major incidents.
The likes of the DCP and THORPE incident show that when parts of the system fail, the containment that is in place does work and stops contamination.
As for the shaft, that was when used a licensed disposal site and the operators were quite entitled to put active material in there.
We have the technology to safely contain and store the radioactive material for a long period of time, sure not for an infinite time, but long enough to ensure that the waste is not an issue.
Would you like above ground or below ground storage, probably below ground is better, but that is an issue for the politicians.
Lets face it, we have a relatively small political issue that needs to be solved with the waste, ok it might seem expensive, but will it be as expensive if the lights go out or if we carry on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we are today?
I think not. Nuclear may not be ideal, but it does help to plug an energy gap that is looming. I am sure that even the most pro nuclear supporter, and there are many in Caithness would agree with this.
If you can suggest a sensible, practical and realistic alternative then lets hear it.My god, a seriously small issue, you cannot be serious?
Dounreay should be a lesson to all.
For the low level waste, a waste-to-energy plant might be an option, the flue gases would have to be treated by water drenching and resin bed extraction for nuclides. There may be some engineering, environmental and commercial obstacles but it could work. It just needs political ambition for it to work.You are talking about suppositions, where is the concrete proof that in building more nuclear power stations we have the answer to dealing with waste, high level or low level, I don't really give a fig? Would you place your trust in politicians?
Yoda the flump
12-Jan-08, 00:03
My god, a seriously small issue, you cannot be serious?
Dounreay should be a lesson to all.
Compared to the alternatives yes it is a small issue.
Dounreay was an experimental site, not a commercial one you cannot compare the two.
What was legal and standard practice 50 years ago in any industry certainly is not now. Dounreay is saddled with a past that these new reactors will not be.
Compared to the alternatives yes it is a small issue.
Dounreay was an experimental site, not a commercial one you cannot compare the two.Obviously it could have been a monumental disaster.
What was legal and standard practice 50 years ago in any industry certainly is not now. Dounreay is saddled with a past that these new reactors will not be.No, they will have a chequered past all of their own.[disgust]
Yoda the flump
12-Jan-08, 00:24
How much do you actually know about the nuclear industry?
Do you believe all you read in the papers and media?
Are you aware of the standards in the Uk nuclear industry. Yes, we have historic problems to deal with, but we are dealing with them successfully.
You do not walk onto the Dounreay site, or any other in the UK for that matter and immediately become highly contaminated with radioactive dust.
Modern reactors are clean, reliable and efficient. They will help bridge the energy gap until other sources of power become viable.
As I said earlier, if you know of a reliable, realistic and practical alternative tehn lets hear it, not all this negative waffle.
You are talking about suppositions, where is the concrete proof that in building more nuclear power stations we have the answer to dealing with waste, high level or low level, I don't really give a fig? Would you place your trust in politicians?
I have reread again your post and I do not understand your point, except the politician part, I was merely brainstorming a practical solution to nuclear waste which you did not comment upon.
ywindythesecond
12-Jan-08, 00:33
How much do you actually know about the nuclear industry?
Do you believe all you read in the papers and media?
Are you aware of the standards in the Uk nuclear industry. Yes, we have historic problems to deal with, but we are dealing with them successfully.
You do not walk onto the Dounreay site, or any other in the UK for that matter and immediately become highly contaminated with radioactive dust.
Modern reactors are clean, reliable and efficient. They will help bridge the energy gap until other sources of power become viable.
As I said earlier, if you know of a reliable, realistic and practical alternative tehn lets hear it, not all this negative waffle.
YODA you got in there just before me. I was going to ask TBH just what he thinks might happen? What actually is his concern? Where does he think the attack will come from? What precisely does he think the danger from "nuclear waste" is? Actually, what does he think nuclear waste is?
sprint95m
12-Jan-08, 00:38
If they had thought at the time that nuclear energy was safe then there is absolutely no way that Dounreay would have been built this far north.
In the 50s Britain tested nuclear bombs on Christmas Island.
These tests were originally earmearked for Caithness, but the unreliable weather here (too much chance of rain) persuaded the powers that be to use the alternative location ot the other side of the world.
And the English make a similarly half-baked peculiar argument that they've been supplying Scotland with tax revenues for years. Since 1707, since you didn't notice, it was an asset of the nation; the "nation" in this context meaning the United Kingdom. Narrow nationalism isn't in anyone's interests, least of all Scotland's.
.....settles back to wait for the arrival of Oddquine, with 250/190 blood pressure....... :lol:
Yoohoo, J4bberw0ck! http://www.oddquine.co.uk/emoticons/nunu.gif
In the 50s Britain tested nuclear bombs on Christmas Island.
These tests were originally earmearked for Caithness, but the unreliable weather here (too much chance of rain) persuaded the powers that be to use the alternative location ot the other side of the world.
First I've heard of that......where did you get that info? (Not the Christmas Island part.the Caithness one.)
It makes me smile reading all the comments about nuclear power stations, every one seems to think it is all in the bag and companies will just cover the whole cost what cost? No one really knows how much this will cost at the end and if any one tells me the Government would not step in with Taxpayers money then I think you are living on another planet[evil]
Big hughie
12-Jan-08, 11:01
Yes the practise was 50 years ago but the lies that were told were a bittie more recent hence the court case of last year ??? guilty me lud of filling the heads of Caithness people a lot of rubbish (and it was not the first conviction)
So please dont give us this squeaky clean image
It was put there as an experiment reactor which if things went wrong well it was only us Fact
It gave a lot of employment and training to locals and incomers Fact
It was 50 year economic boon to the area Fact
It was to the detrement of other industries in the area Fact (Thursos fishing industry before 1953 and after for one example)
Some of the practises were flawed with regard to storing/dumping what ever you want to call it Fact
It developed and furthered progress in the Nuclear industry Fact
So as you see it has been a very good thing but its not all been one way
Beeg Hugheeeeeeee
Yoda the flump
12-Jan-08, 11:10
It makes me smile reading all the comments about nuclear power stations, every one seems to think it is all in the bag and companies will just cover the whole cost what cost? No one really knows how much this will cost at the end and if any one tells me the Government would not step in with Taxpayers money then I think you are living on another planet[evil]
Well, the costs will not be anywhere as near as the current costs we have for the historic clean up.
Any reactors built will be off the shelf, proven technology already up an running in other countries. There will be a very good estimate of the cradle to grave cost of running one of these reactors and certainly how much waste will be produced during their lifetimes.
A lot of the waste we have in this country is from historic experiments and not from commercial reactors.
The latest generation of nuclear reactors produce very little waste. The legacy material has to be dealt with anyway and any new waste will be a very small percentage of that. So that's not a problem.
Scotland has made a bad mistake in refusing the nuclear option.
We have a very large energy gap looming. It won't be long until we have to buy electricity from england instead of selling it to them.
"Renewables" will not suffice and are outrageously expensive. They also change our climate. If you take energy out of wind, it is not replaced. If you take energy out of wave, it is not replaced. If you take energy by solar, it is not replaced.
Green_not_greed
12-Jan-08, 11:30
Hydro, wind, wave, sun, fossil fuel.
Clean fossil fuel is the only proven reliable technology listed. The rest are all pipe dreams at present, touted by people that want to take us back to the 17th century.
Who deals with the waste products of nuclear power?
Responsible countries like France, USA, Finland, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Australia - in fact, the majority of the western world. Even Russia looks after its civillian wastes well - I should know, I've been there many times.
Would you be Quite willing to have a waste repository sited near you and your family, how blind is your faith in nuclear energy? I live close enough to Caithness's remaining operational nuclear reactor to have iodate tablets in the house...... Waste would not bother me as I know how stringently it would be looked after.
Fanny's Your Aunt
12-Jan-08, 11:33
Not being French, American or from any other country which has a strong reliance on Nuclear power I do not know how they store their nuclear waste but I dont hear anything on the news about any "problems" so my assumption must be that they handle the storage of their waste adequately especially a country like France who are well known for their public outcrys against anything they dont approve of (even major things like the price of fuel or the importing of brtish beef) so I am sure if the majority had SERIOUS concerns we would have seen or heard something.
The previous writers are 100% correct in that Dounreay is trying to clean up what was put in place 50 years ago and even the most ignorant person knows how far health and safety has advanced in those years and how different working practices are so why would anyone assume the nuclear industry has not improved along with the rest of industry.
When they built the dam outside Oban years ago many people were killed but because of the safety improvements in industry they are building a dam in Invernessshire and you dont hear about people dying because people TIMES MOVE ON unlike the short sighted attitudes of some people.
Unfortunately we NEED a reliable steady power supply and at this moment in time nuclear is the only guaranteed method which does not add to the dreaded global warming so lets just accept it and get on with it
Green_not_greed
12-Jan-08, 11:34
Okay, explain to me what the answer is with the waste products from nuclear energy, have you got the answer?
They are and will be safely managed and disposed of the same as they are from any other source. "Wastes" such as rubble and metal which can be recyled and use to make other items - for example nuclear waste containers. The principle is the same as for other wastes. However, the hysteria from people who choose not to know is not the same.
As pro-nuclear, I found the article "Why the French Like Nuclear Energy" by Jon Palfreman really refreshing, have a read: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html)
A few quotes from it;
France will have 56 working nuclear plants, generating 76% of her electricity ... A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice." ... Many polls have been taken of French public opinion and most find that about two-thirds of the population are strongly in favour of nuclear power... Many other risks concern them more. Madame Schoumacher, who has lived in Civaux most of her life, says "I would be much more frightened living next to a dam [France has about 12% hydroelectric power] or getting into her car in the morning." Others like bar owner Alain Cauvin cite "mad cow disease as being much scarier than nuclear power.
French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter.
So here we are just 22 miles [ Wick to Thurso] away from a country living quite happily with it's 50+ nuclear plants, they seem to manage quite well suppose that's why we take their spare power from the Interconnector.. having dedicated scientist looking into better ways of disposal is nice too.
captain chaos
12-Jan-08, 21:00
Used Fuel from the french reactors is recycled and turned into "MOX" Mixed uranium oxide and plutonium which can then be used in Pressurised water reactors.
The proportion of used fuel which is recyclable is 96% only 4 % waste to be stored for eventual underground storage.
Again reducing the waste from our modern nuclear power stations.
sprint95m
12-Jan-08, 22:42
First I've heard of that......where did you get that info? (Not the Christmas Island part.the Caithness one.)
Official Government documents are classified secret for a number of years before release into the public domain. Having a 30 year classification the documents relating to Caithness were released in the mid 80s. It was on the news and in the papers at the time.
sprint95m
12-Jan-08, 22:50
It was put there as an experiment reactor which if things went wrong well it was only us Fact
The local MP at the time (sorry I can't remember his name) successfully lobbied the Government to consider Caithness. I believe without his efforts Caithness would not have been considered at all.
The proportion of used fuel which is recyclable is 96% only 4 % waste to be stored for eventual underground storage.
For environmental considerations, your statistics could be publicly misconstrued. The percentage proportions will apply to fuel activity, that is fair enough, but in bulk terms and amounts of what is classified to be 'radioactive waste' due to contaminated and neutron activated items then the proportions will be a lot higher.
Can any one elucidate on the matter of devolvement?
From what I have researched utlimately Westminster has the say when it comes to UK energy and some thing makes me think that despite all the pronouncements from Edinburgh that there could still be nuclear energy in Scotland especially when you consider the number of jobs that are involved and the necessity to keep the area populated.
I live on the south coast of this island and we have a link to France that in an emergency we can draw power from their grid.
Quite frankly wind power does n't gel with me, it's costly, innificient and only lasts for some 20 yrs although I will admit that any source of energy that is renewable does have an appeal now there are several ideas of harnessing the sea that are making progress and that could be worth the money put into it.
I am sitting out on this and I think the jury is out too.
Quite frankly wind power does n't gel with me, it's costly, innificient and only lasts for some 20 yrs.
That is quite interesting that you should you think that without looking at the big picture without honest comparisons? How often do you think fuel rods and nuclear plants need to be replaced? Over the 'life expectency' of hazard evaluations, what are the nuclear waste security and cost implications over the long term?:confused
Highland Laddie
13-Jan-08, 01:41
Nuclear is about our only real answer for now, until wind, wave and solar power have been developed further.
we are dependant on other countries for oil and gas now, as our own resources are depleting faster than anyone thought, and a lot of our oil and gas come from russia, they have already stopped supplies to other countries for periods of time to either screw more cash out of them, or just to prove that they can.
I for one would not like to be beholding to others for my energy.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.