Comments on: further notes on nuclear power http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/ Question Everything Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:57:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: David Walters http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5716 David Walters Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:09:23 +0000 http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5716 The tidal lagoons are great and I endorse them. I believe they are called "barrages" there. They also have the capacity to store the water so it can be used 24 hours a day to varying, but at least predictable, degrees. They cannont take the place, however, of nuclear power plants. Britian still needs about 20 nuclear power plants to be built over the next 15 years anyway. David The tidal lagoons are great and I endorse them. I believe they are called “barrages” there. They also have the capacity to store the water so it can be used 24 hours a day to varying, but at least predictable, degrees. They cannont take the place, however, of nuclear power plants. Britian still needs about 20 nuclear power plants to be built over the next 15 years anyway.

David

]]> By: Nick http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5712 Nick Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:16:37 +0000 http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5712 The are planning to build a tidal lagoon in Wales from what I heard, it's a really positive step forward! The are planning to build a tidal lagoon in Wales from what I heard, it’s a really positive step forward!

]]> By: David Walters http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5711 David Walters Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:45:16 +0000 http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5711 Hi All. At left-atomics we have a different view...first let me state I'm glad the left is discussing this. As Martin Thomas pointed out in his AWL article, historically socialists defended the peaceful use of atomic energy. But...to specifics. First, I would also oppose the almost religeous advocacy of private nuclear power plants in the UK, as part of the Blair/Brown project. That's a correct political stance any socialist should take. But does that mean, in fact, that the nuclear plants the gov't DOES propose to be built should be opposed simply because the people can't control them? I think not. Development and engineering should not stop because it's private. Even nuclear energy. I'm not for the capitalists being told to not build a car plant just because it's not nationalized. It will be, that's our job. In the meantime, there is no reason to stop them. In fact, the newer plants proposed by the gov't (The French EPR and the US AP1000...actually it's Japanese but it's more complicated than that) are so much better than what Britain has today. The UK chose a VERY unfortunate reactor to build in the 1960s and 70s. There simply is nothing good about them at all. But these new reactors ARE better. They are cheaper and they will have decomissioning costs built in. They need to be built so as to increase the nuclear share of Britains energy mix and less gas can be burned. Renweables, solar, wind, etc can't replace the aging nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK. Even in Denmark and Germany, that boasts large percentatges of their power from wind, can only go to 20 to 25% of their generation. Why? Because they have to have nuclear or fossil back up or it's not reliable. Nuclear is the ONLY way to rationalize the grid. Nothing else exists. Waste. Waste is only waste if you throw it away. The French, and even some of Britains spent nuclear fuel can and should be recycled. ALL of it should be. None o it should be thrown away. There are lots of technologies out there that can create a lot less waste. The Canadian State run ACEL program DUPIC can actually BURN THE WASTE of most light water reactors. See: http://www.niof.org/campaigns/dupic.htm In the US, as anywhere, "waste" is only a problem in the minds of the advocates of throwing it away. This includes the US nucelar industry that has caved into anti nuclear demands to dispose of it (and then opposes any plan to actually bury the stuff). The US has 77,000 tons of high level waste..the stuff everyone is afraid of. This after 50 years of production. It would only fill a British football field to about 7 meters if laid out end to end. That's it. Nuclear 'waste' is managed. It doesn't exist in large quantities and every bit of it is accounted for. What are th stakes? I don't know about the UK but in the US, 30,000 people die a year, every year, because of coal. Coal is evil and needs to be phased out, replaced with nuclear. I think most anti-nuclear advocates don't give a damn about this. They are so caught up with their renewable religious aspect they actually end up advovactng MORE coal like the Green Party in Germany has done. Enough for now, David Walters Hi All. At left-atomics we have a different view…first let me state I’m glad the left is discussing this. As Martin Thomas pointed out in his AWL article, historically socialists defended the peaceful use of atomic energy. But…to specifics.

First, I would also oppose the almost religeous advocacy of private nuclear power plants in the UK, as part of the Blair/Brown project. That’s a correct political stance any socialist should take. But does that mean, in fact, that the nuclear plants the gov’t DOES propose to be built should be opposed simply because the people can’t control them? I think not.

Development and engineering should not stop because it’s private. Even nuclear energy. I’m not for the capitalists being told to not build a car plant just because it’s not nationalized. It will be, that’s our job. In the meantime, there is no reason to stop them.

In fact, the newer plants proposed by the gov’t (The French EPR and the US AP1000…actually it’s Japanese but it’s more complicated than that) are so much better than what Britain has today. The UK chose a VERY unfortunate reactor to build in the 1960s and 70s. There simply is nothing good about them at all. But these new reactors ARE better. They are cheaper and they will have decomissioning costs built in. They need to be built so as to increase the nuclear share of Britains energy mix and less gas can be burned.

Renweables, solar, wind, etc can’t replace the aging nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK. Even in Denmark and Germany, that boasts large percentatges of their power from wind, can only go to 20 to 25% of their generation. Why? Because they have to have nuclear or fossil back up or it’s not reliable. Nuclear is the ONLY way to rationalize the grid. Nothing else exists.

Waste. Waste is only waste if you throw it away. The French, and even some of Britains spent nuclear fuel can and should be recycled. ALL of it should be. None o it should be thrown away. There are lots of technologies out there that can create a lot less waste. The Canadian State run ACEL program DUPIC can actually BURN THE WASTE of most light water reactors. See:
http://www.niof.org/campaigns/dupic.htm

In the US, as anywhere, “waste” is only a problem in the minds of the advocates of throwing it away. This includes the US nucelar industry that has caved into anti nuclear demands to dispose of it (and then opposes any plan to actually bury the stuff). The US has 77,000 tons of high level waste..the stuff everyone is afraid of. This after 50 years of production. It would only fill a British football field to about 7 meters if laid out end to end. That’s it. Nuclear ‘waste’ is managed. It doesn’t exist in large quantities and every bit of it is accounted for.

What are th stakes? I don’t know about the UK but in the US, 30,000 people die a year, every year, because of coal. Coal is evil and needs to be phased out, replaced with nuclear. I think most anti-nuclear advocates don’t give a damn about this. They are so caught up with their renewable religious aspect they actually end up advovactng MORE coal like the Green Party in Germany has done.

Enough for now,

David Walters

]]> By: Leftwing Criminologist http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5708 Leftwing Criminologist Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:18:44 +0000 http://kitnotes.org.uk/2008/01/29/further-notes-on-nuclear-power/#comment-5708 hi, the campaign group i'm involved with in north wales has quite a few renewable power experts in it and they make a pretty convincing arguement that renewables are a feasable alternative but one of the things that i'm not sure you've mentioned is also power conservation - under socialist planning we could produce better quality products that will use up less electricity. anyway the local campaign website is here www.stop-wylfa.org - they have some links to stuff ps. likewise i'm not an expert either the best we can do is try to grasp the basics. i did notice you weren't advocating support for browns current plans. also if nuclear fusion (rather than fission which is what we currently have) became available i don't think most of us would reject this technology hi, the campaign group i’m involved with in north wales has quite a few renewable power experts in it and they make a pretty convincing arguement that renewables are a feasable alternative but one of the things that i’m not sure you’ve mentioned is also power conservation - under socialist planning we could produce better quality products that will use up less electricity.

anyway the local campaign website is here http://www.stop-wylfa.org - they have some links to stuff

ps. likewise i’m not an expert either the best we can do is try to grasp the basics. i did notice you weren’t advocating support for browns current plans. also if nuclear fusion (rather than fission which is what we currently have) became available i don’t think most of us would reject this technology

]]>