PM Theresa May gives the go-ahead to build giant U.K. nuclear power plant

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    At least the U.K. is doing something about global warming.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-edf-nuclear-power-station-deal-a7308376.html

    Theresa May deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this courageous act of environmental activism.
     
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
  3. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    If built properly, and not on a fault line, with safety controls, regularly maintained with properly made and inspected parts, and staffed with redundancy by people who follow the rules especially regarding security, there should be virtually zero problem.

    Russia and Japan and even Three Mile Island did more to prove what not to do, so the UK has an advantage on this. Nuclear, being cleaner than coal, can have the UK moving forward in ways that China and other countries didn't want to start out with - oddly since they had unique opportunities to build fresh where everyone else would have to spend more money to upgrade and update as opposed to a ground-up approach.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 15, 2016 ---
    Are you in the UK, and has she given a reasonable definition of "meritocracy" because that can be perceived in a number of ways or used to manipulate and even swindle with. In short, depending on what happens, it might be more meretricious than meritocracy?
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    Not in the UK, I obviously can't (and won't) speak of the "actual" changes that she wants to implement, as I have no idea how the school system works there. I liked the philosophical background. You're right that I should have clarified it.
     
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    This should have been built and operated by a government-owned company. The guaranteed and extortionate strike price only serves to enrich the French.
     
  6. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #6
    This is a terrible decision on all fronts. Not only environmentally but also economically.

    At current estimates this will cost the UK tax payer £27bn (but all other examples of this reactor are all at least six times the estimate). Even when fully up and running, it will provide less energy than the existing wind farms.

    But even worse, the deal ties British users into paying twice the current price for electricity for the next 35 years!!!!

    That's not even to mention that China is funding lots of it, with a French company building it. What could possibly go wrong?
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    The whole reason these massive companies are suddenly interested in Nuclear again is because it's the last bastion of centrally controlled energy production. You own the plant, you own the public resource.

    Going solar means decentralization, and in due time (20-30 years) paying for electricity would be a quaint concept as a truly smart grid would just transfer energy where needed and route around outages. Guaranteeing a company above market cost energy contracts for 30 years only serves to enrich those whom are using MASSIVE taxpayer money to cover the construction (and no insurance companies have elected to cover nuclear in nearly 30 years, placing all liability on taxpayers) and operation.

    It's a money grab, and it's a power grab, nothing more.

    Nuclear energy isn't "green". The strip mining, processing, and transport of the fuel needed is just as environmentally destructive as any other industrial mining, with the added bonus of spent fuel laying around for tens of thousands of years.
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    UK is a set of islands. The is no place to evacuate to swiftly if one of these nuclear power plants pops off. The UK has plenty of wind, tidal and solar power potential (yes, solar panels even work in Scotland). Nuclear power plants are costly, unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and leave the UK beholding to the PRC. Of course, before Brexit the UK could just buy power from nuclear power plants in France, but Brexit buggered the pound so that has no doubt become expensive.
     
  9. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    Solar power means free electricity, huh? I agree, Comrade!
     
  10. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    None of these power plants will "pop off". Nuclear is safer than wind and solar. Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.
     
  11. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #11
    Source for this please
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
  13. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #13
    No. Not ever. What possibly could go wrong? Windscale fire, Three-Mile Island near meltdown, Chernobyl meltdown, Fukushima daiichi explosions, etc.
     
  14. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    Modern nuclear power designs are more advanced than the 1950s technology cited above.
     
  15. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #15
    This is terrific news for everyone in Britain.
     
  16. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #16
    It's all relative. Despite many years of operating hours, nuclear remains very safe. You don't hear about this, you only hear about the disasters. And even then, there were no long-term health effects observed from Three-Mile Island or Windscale.

    The numbers don't deceive. The headlines, however, do...
     
  17. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
  18. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #18
    It's unfortunate the word nuclear scares the cuddly little fuzzballs on the left so much. Can't wait to see the dirty, no-showered, dreadlocked with holes all over their faces out and about protesting simply because the word nuclear is scary.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    If trends continue, and they will, the rollout of solar combined with a smart grid system means that by the end of the decade we have the potential to have free energy. That's a fact, the numbers and economics don't lie, it's already less expensive than fossil fuels when you rule out the $5 trillion in subsidies that fossil fuels receive worldwide. What it depends on is if we truly classify electricity a public utility, or instead leave the gatekeeping to private corporations.

    Once the infrastructure is actually built, it will pay for itself, once paid for (other than maintenance costs) the electricity is literally free.

    That's the future, let's see how long corporate powers keep us from getting there.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 15, 2016 ---
    Tell me, how is strip mining for nuclear fissile material zero emission? Strip mining, processing, and transport is one of the most carbon intensive actions one can take.

    So do you have anything to address this, or are you just interest in playing a game of childish name calling?
    --- Post Merged, Sep 15, 2016 ---
    Surely the spent fuel pools and degrading dry casks laying outside every nuclear power plant in the country aren't a concern. I mean, they're only radioactive (and leaking) for the next 10,000+ years (and we're rapidly running out of storage space in these facilities along with large percentages of dry casks already degrading to the point of being compromised) so whats the worry right?
     
  20. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #20
    I'm as left as they come and I love nuclear. Stop stereotyping to score points.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    You sure about that? There are designs for the so-called 4th and 5th generation reactors out there, but only the 3rd gen (which is not much better than those 50's technologies) are being built.
     
  22. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #22
    What points? Am I wrong with the stereotype? Rhetorical questions of course.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    Care to respond to my questioning in post #19. If you only count the reactor operations then yes there is little carbon release, but that's not how the logistics of nuclear energy works. To focus on just the power plant emissions is either disingenuous or the sign of someone who hasn't cared to actually look into the issue.
     
  24. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #24
    Where do solar cells come from? What heavy metals and toxic rare earths go into their production? What are the byproducts of massive solar cell production?

    You get nothing for nothing.
     
  25. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    The fuel has many uses. It's used in medical equipment and on board naval vessels. It's reprocessed for use in stations again. It's not just stashed in the ground, and even when it is stored, there have been very few incidents. Nuclear waste is really not that difficult to manage and is not that hazardous compared to other industrial waste.

    In the UK, 94% of all radioactive waste is low-level waste that contains only 0.01% of the total radioactivity of the waste. 97% of all nuclear waste has already been accumulated (in the UK). The amount of waste is comparatively very small; of all industrial waste, nuclear waste comprises only 1.5%. You also have to remember that nuclear waste is the only type of waste that actually gets safer as time passes.
     

Share This Page