Which do people feel are worse for electricity generation? Fossil Fuels or Fission?

[Blackbrook Eye]

In my extremely uninformed opinion, I am inclined toward nuclear power, be it either fission or fusion, as if all went belly up, as it may do, then at least it would be a relatively quick end, set against the long drawn out but equally destructive continuation of fossil fuel usage for power generation, at least we would see the end of life in a glorious light rather than the slow strangulation of our planet which is occuring as we watch.

Keith

[Jez]

it's a sad case either way!

[svenrufus]

I don't really understand the poll - the last two options I get but the first one is a catch all, with multiple methods that sit underneath it's heading.
So, limiting myself to the last two - Tough call....
Fossil Fuel probably edges it of the two, but in reality it is Hobson's Choice, and I'd rather take the options that aren't offered. To choose between these two is effectively saying we are looking for a way to carry on as if nothing is fundamentally wrong with our system, our overinflated levels of consumption, our shallow and selfish obsession with cheap leisure and short-term material possessions.

While both of these options implicitly state that this is the future being offered for us - a future I don't see as desirable, inevitable or even particularly practical - I can't choose between them, because I reject that choice.

But taking the poll at face value, I would have to say that Fossil fuel is the best option due to the fact that the emissions from that will be all reabsorbable by the natural world, and will eventually be locked away again as they were before we turned up. Yes it will take a long time, yes there will be a lot of hurt before then if we carry on as we are now, but you know what? ... the waste of Nuclear energy will be around for a lot longer than that, and the likelihood is that the human race will still not have figured out a surefire way of dealing with it.

Someone said 'it has to be nuclear in the short term'. Well, no, it doesn't, as nuclear expansion is not a short term thing. It will be at least 10 years before the next generation of nuclear power would come on stream, and more like 20 for the whole of the present generation of nuclear power to be replaced - and then it is only a fraction of our electricty needs that are met, and an even smaller part of our overall energy consumption, around 3% of the enrgy that the UK uses.

The talk of the 'miracle' of nuclear being low carbon is also garbage as the whole industry depends on fossil fuels at almost every stage of its life - extracting the uranium needs diesel, purifying it needs more, building power stations needs fossil fuel as does extracting the materials to build it, and then we think we are in the clear running a fully functioning power station, but no, nuclear power stations have to have a fossil fuel power station to back them up because they have spent so much time off line for various technical and safety reasons that they are not considered to be a reliable enough source of energy on their own. And then we have the energy spent in storing waste, which needs constant cooling to prevent it overheating and developing into a crirtical nuclear fire. Ho hum, too cheap to meter and all that....

So, if we have a choice of nuclear or fossil fuel, the first of which requires the second to back it up, I can't see us getting very far that way.

If given the choice that I think we should have had offered in the poll - I'll go for renewable energy, centred on micro projects with some large scale developments alongside it, great for creating jobs in the green sector, great for relocalising industry and ensuring long term stability and security of supply, and we can begin to get this on stream next week with the right political will. Cheaper, cleaner, safer. No contest.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

....Someone said 'it has to be nuclear in the short term'. Well, no, it doesn't, as nuclear expansion is not a short term thing. It will be at least 10 years before the next generation of nuclear power would come on stream, and more like 20 for the whole of the present generation of nuclear power to be replaced .

I'm sure that no one would argue against renewable energy as the preferred choice. However, the fact is, that as far as supply & demand goes, it's just not going to happen in the timescale available before fossil fuel starts to run out. So the only viable alternative, (with present technology), is nuclear.

Originally Posted by svenrufus

...and then it is only a fraction of our electricty needs that are met, and an even smaller part of our overall energy consumption, around 3% of the enrgy that the UK uses.

Selective use of statistics, but these are of no relevance, as they would change with the change in use of different technologies. You state that "only a fraction of our electrical needs are met". In truth, it is somewhat more than a fraction. Currently, almost 20% of Britain's electrical power is nuclear generated. (In 1995, it was 26%). In other countries the situation varies, but for example, nuclear generated electricity accounts for: - 78% in France, 54% in Belgium, 39% in Republic of Korea, 37% in Switzerland, 30% in Japan, 19% in the USA, 16% in Russia, 4% in South Africa, and 2% in China. (statistics obtained from International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA.Org).

Originally Posted by svenrufus

....The talk of the 'miracle' of nuclear being low carbon is also garbage as the whole industry depends on fossil fuels at almost every stage of its life - extracting the uranium needs diesel, purifying it needs more, building power stations needs fossil fuel as does extracting the materials to build it, .

So - are you saying that when fossil fuel runs out, the nuclear industry will fall apart with it? I really don't think so.

Originally Posted by svenrufus

and then we think we are in the clear running a fully functioning power station, but no, nuclear power stations have to have a fossil fuel power station to back them up because they have spent so much time off line for various technical and safety reasons that they are not considered to be a reliable enough source of energy on their own.

Not true. Practically all modern nuclear power stations have more than one reactor. Thus when any given reactor requires maintenance, the other reactors remain on-line and productive. (And the national grid remains available to re-direct supply in the very unlikely event that a power station had to completely cease generating).

Originally Posted by svenrufus

....And then we have the energy spent in storing waste, which needs constant cooling to prevent it overheating and developing into a crirtical nuclear fire.

Only partially true. It takes around five years for spent fuel rods to become radio-actively, and thermally cool enough to enable them to be transferred to casks for long term storage. The vast majority of (non fuel rod) radio-active waste can be dealt with much more quickly, and does not require cooling.

It is all well and good for people to take the moral high ground of being totally "green" and "environmentally friendly", (Not directed at you personally ), but there has to be a certain amount of realism in accepting what can and cannot be achieved within the timescales available.

I totally agree that there has to be a rational energy policy encompassing all forms of supply, (wind/wave/solar etc. etc.), but I remain convinced that with fossil fuels in finite supply, and renewable energy technology unable to fulfil anything like the required demand, nuclear power remains the only viable option as the main player in electricity supply for the forseeable future.

Regards
Mike.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jez

Frission great if it works, but I'm not to happy about splitting atoms could have monstrous consequences if it all went pear shaped! So what's worse with frission not active is quite unknown, as it stands it's fossil fuels are ATM. I don't like fossil fuels but saying that I'm dubious about frission also!

Jez - its fission mate , a frission is what young ladies feel when they look at me.

also on the monstrous consequences it is virtually impossible for a nuclear power station to blow up, even chernobyl didnt actually go kaboom and that only happened at all because the safeguards were all turned off.

you could claim that fossil fuels will have monstrous consequences too (what with climate change, etc)

what we need as someone said higher up is the options that arent listed - more investment in fussion and alternative, and a dramatic reduction in our consumption so that these sources can meet our future needs

[Poirot]

I did an a presentation on the safety systems on neuclear power and they are extensive, there are 4 main emergency shutdown procedures which all operate within seconds. The last one means complete destruction of the reactor by releasing a reactor poison (it stops the chain reaction of the neutrons by mopping them up). Boron is one of these reactor poisons so a hopper of boron dust is above the core so if the core turns critical it is released. Dust gets everywhere and the reaction imediatly stops; also there is no way fission could ever continue due to it being virtually impossible to remove all the dust (in this case the core would have to be entirly replaced).

So feel safe at night, you will wake up the next day (unless someone intentionaly disables the emergancy systems like Chenoble, but hey whos going to do that?)

Poirot

P.S. Fusion power is the ideal solution, no radioactive products, no emmisions, the fuel is Hydrogen (which is the most abundant element in the universe) and the waste is helium (YAY more party balloons)!!!

[KeenTeen17]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I'm sure that no one would argue against renewable energy as the preferred choice. However, the fact is, that as far as supply & demand goes, it's just not going to happen in the timescale available before fossil fuel starts to run out. So the only viable alternative, (with present technology), is nuclear.



Selective use of statistics, but these are of no relevance, as they would change with the change in use of different technologies. You state that "only a fraction of our electrical needs are met". In truth, it is somewhat more than a fraction. Currently, almost 20% of Britain's electrical power is nuclear generated. (In 1995, it was 26%). In other countries the situation varies, but for example, nuclear generated electricity accounts for: - 78% in France, 54% in Belgium, 39% in Republic of Korea, 37% in Switzerland, 30% in Japan, 19% in the USA, 16% in Russia, 4% in South Africa, and 2% in China. (statistics obtained from International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA.Org).



So - are you saying that when fossil fuel runs out, the nuclear industry will fall apart with it? I really don't think so.



Not true. Practically all modern nuclear power stations have more than one reactor. Thus when any given reactor requires maintenance, the other reactors remain on-line and productive. (And the national grid remains available to re-direct supply in the very unlikely event that a power station had to completely cease generating).



Only partially true. It takes around five years for spent fuel rods to become radio-actively, and thermally cool enough to enable them to be transferred to casks for long term storage. The vast majority of (non fuel rod) radio-active waste can be dealt with much more quickly, and does not require cooling.

It is all well and good for people to take the moral high ground of being totally "green" and "environmentally friendly", (Not directed at you personally ), but there has to be a certain amount of realism in accepting what can and cannot be achieved within the timescales available.

I totally agree that there has to be a rational energy policy encompassing all forms of supply, (wind/wave/solar etc. etc.), but I remain convinced that with fossil fuels in finite supply, and renewable energy technology unable to fulfil anything like the required demand, nuclear power remains the only viable option as the main player in electricity supply for the forseeable future.

Regards
Mike.

I think you have understood how to multi quote now Mike

[The Woodman]

The fission used to be really good in the warm water outlet at Heysham Nuclear Power Station. I've not been down there for a good number of years but the school bass loved the warm water and there was good sport to be had. Too many bass were taken under the size limit though.

[Jez]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Jez - its fission mate , a frission is what young ladies feel when they look at me.

also on the monstrous consequences it is virtually impossible for a nuclear power station to blow up, even chernobyl didnt actually go kaboom and that only happened at all because the safeguards were all turned off.

you could claim that fossil fuels will have monstrous consequences too (what with climate change, etc)

I actually voted Fossil Fuels not.........Fission...yeh I got it right this time! I bet most young ladies have not heard Vince Taylor?

I suppose though Fossil fuels do have there merits, people like my mom who have given up their time to help take supplies to the victims of the fallout in Belarus!

I agree.... less consumption is the best step forward IMO!

[jacbaye]

I would definitely say fossil fuels are worse for electricity generation.
At least with the nuclear option the radioactive waste will become safe after a while (ok so it might be a real loooong while) but I do think this is really the only viable option until people start taking renewable energy technologies seriously.

Come on guys - lets cover the moon in solar panels and be done with it
Plus it'll look pretty!