Nuclear concerns growing.

I read this in a Spanish paper: - "The safety of nuclear power is, once again, under the spotlight this week following the devastating earthquake in Japan. The ensuing problems for the country's power stations are leading some governments around the world to rethink their nuclear policy. As I write this on Tuesday, radiation leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi plant had reached dangerous levels following a third explosion. The alarm has been raised all over Europe and EU environment ministers have met to discuss conducting stress tests at nuclear reactors here.
In Germany, chancellor Angela Merkel has suspended an agreement to extend the life of Germany's nuclear power stations. With elections looming she declared a three-month moratorium. Mrs Merkel said it was not possible to go back to business as usual after witnessing events in Japan. At the same time the Swiss government has delayed its decision on constructing new nuclear plants.
In the midst of all the panic, Spain finds itself in a quandary. There's an energy crisis on and the licence for Cofrentes nuclear power station in Valencia has just been renewed following favourable advice from the national nuclear council.
Comparisons have been made by environmentalists between the leaking Fukushima Daiichi plant and Cofrentes - in that both have the same type of reactor, both are constructed on fault lines in areas of seismic activity and they were originally only authorised to continue operating until this year.
At the same time vice-president Elena Salgado has advised against knee-jerk reactions as we are all witnessing the horror of Japan on our TV screens. Sra Salgado stressed that the disaster is being played out thousands of kilometres away and that it is very unlikely to happen in Spain. Her words were echoed by the president of the nuclear council in Spain Carmen Martínez Ten who said that 'we don't have such strong earthquakes and the likelihood of a tsunami of this sort hitting Spain is extremely improbable'.
So, nothing to worry about then? Not exactly.
As the ecologists have pointed out, south-east of Spain is an area of seismic activity, where there are a number of fault lines. Earthquakes are common. Just this week there was a quake near Lorca. It measured 2.8 on the Richter scale and wasn't even felt by residents living in the area. In 2008 in San Miguel de Salinas the earth shook and residents did feel it, but it was only 3.3."

It seems to me that the whole issue of nuclear power is being questioned again world-wide, especially in the light of news coming out of Japan that there had been several incidences of major safety breach cover-ups at Fukushima over the years and this plant was due to be decommissioned shortly.
The problem is then that every expert in the field of electricity generation will undoubtedly tell anyone prepared to listen that nuclear-powered electricity generators are the only answers as wind or wave power alone will never be much more than 15% of our needs, no matter what we do but the thing that bothers me is that there appears to be so little research into harnessing the power of the sun!
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year according to the ‘net.
In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.
Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. Makes you think doesn't it? stevmk2

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Stevemk2,

Here in darkest Northumberland (it's about 270 miles North of Watford for those who are mystified!!) during the last two winters we had the longest cold spells in the last decade and such winters were common in the decades before. These were due to high pressure systems anchored over us and indeed most of the UK, so no wind. We also get very little sunshine in the winter months. I read that in the highest demand period two months of last winter, wind produced a miniscule 0.05% of power required.
As we need to stop relying on fossil fuel to generate power and given the lack of wind and light situation at times of peak demand, and that wave/tidal power will take a long time to develop/install on the necessary scale, what real alternative is there to nuclear generation of power in the medium term?

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

We need to deal with the risks with the best technology, but nuclear power is desperately needed to stop our reliance on fossil fuels and our reliance on other countries for our supply of fossil fuels. These idiots that think we can rely on windmills for our future power needs are even greener than their name!

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Re-newable energy resources are the future, not Nuclear.

In the early eighties I was part of a committee looking into Tidal power and the barrage across Bristol channel. The costs were slightly more than a nuclear power station but a fraction of the maintenance cost afterwards plus there would be lots of spin offs, marines, environmental,road and rail to Wales etc. The reason IMO that it was turned down then was a jobs loaded political decision to build Nuclear stations where jobs are needed and little resistance will be forth coming.

In 2004 I wrote to the government asking why Tidal power was not being considered instead of Nuclear which has dangerous spin off problems.

The answer:- there is insufficient operating experience.
Pardon, Rance has been in operation since 1966 and has proved reliable and efficient as has others around the world.

Wind power is good and cheap but there is not enough space to erect the number of wind turbines that will be needed to provide for the future.

Solar power is very efficient and with more money spent on research it could pass tidal power.
Tidal, solar, wind power at present would account for just over 52% of the country's needs so other sources ( Nuclear, fossil fuels )are required but imo should not be the answer as the governments of this country think.
Oil, money are the driving forces behind the push for Nuclear power.

We need to control our needs instead of wasting them.
Turn off that uneeded light, switch off dont leave on standby.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

That statement is only true when the solar panel is exactly at 90 degrees to the sun, as soon as you move the panel, (or more relevant) as soon as the sun moves, the efficiency drops of rapidly.

So we are faced with either acres and acres of fixed panels or a smaller area of moving panels with all the complication that involves.

I considered a solar panel on the roof of my motorhome to keep the leisure batteries charged but the initial cost was huge and the times when it would work efficiently were minimal so I opted for other technologies.

Pilkington (The glass people) have a huge solar panel installation near me, I think it is experimental, but I read recently that they are considering closing it because they couldn't get enough people to visit and to take up the idea, it must have cost millions to install.

No one has yet found a way to do what God did when he invented photosynthesis in plants, that is such a perfect technolgy it's such a shame the output is fruit and veg and not volts and amps.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Have you never heard of 'Tracking ', solar panels for generating electricity these days have built in 'Tracking ' devices that follow the sun.
Photoelectic convert the ' light ' from the sun into electricity so you do not need the 'sun ' so to speak. If more money was spent on research of solar systems instead of arms deals and MP's expenses then there would be no need for nuclear power.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

I'm all for renewables as long as they work. Until the technology improves we will need a better, more reliable form of energy to satisfy demand. In the medium term nuclear will have to fill that gap, and no matter how many windmills you build they won't produce power without wind. Until that little problem has been overcome then they should stop building them now and put the cash towards systems that will produce the power that we need, day in, day out.

Renewables may be the future, but they aren't ready yet...

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

Barry, there are numerous islands off India that use renewable energy resources to provide longer days for the population so why can this not be upgraded to suppy larger country's.
Research has to take place into renewable energy or the world as we know it will exisit much longer.

As a temporary measure nuclear has a place but building new ones is not a safe or reliable option.

Sellafield have about 500 minor radiation leaks a year that we hear of, how many do they have that are not made public?

Times this by the number of nuclear power stations around the UK and then you will understand why we glow in the dark.

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

I can't answer your questions about renewables AB, all I know is that if they worked in an efficient, controllable, cost efficient manner, then we would have them installed by now. As for nuclear power stations, surely the more we build the safer and more reliable they will become?

As for your statement that " Wind power is good and cheap but there is not enough space to erect the number of wind turbines that will be needed to provide for the future." I cannot see anything good about a system that cannot produce power when it is most needed, and I can see nothing cheap about building these monstrous windmills that often cost more in subsidy than the power actually produced, that apart from the absolute visual destruction of every part of our beautiful coastline and countryside...

Re: Nuclear concerns growing.

I completely agree with Plantman. All the cost analyses I have read about wind say that it is not economic either in terms of recovering the installation cost or the cost of providing back up power sources for when the wind does not blow. It is only being considered by the major power companies due to there being a huge subsidy for the power it does produce which is of course financed by the tax payer. It is nuts. Wind power is a "Green" wet dream and will be a huge white elephant.
Solar is viable in many parts of the world but we do not get enough hours of sushine to make it so in the UK. It will be long term before the infrastructure can be put in place for the sunny countries to sell us cheap power. Tidal is also viable and there is a new scheme approved for the sound of Islay which will provide significant local power in 2/3 years. Again it will be long term before there is anough development in Tidal to produce the required quantity of power nationwide.

The medium term solution is Nuclear whether we like it or not. It is safe enough if the plants are not built in an earthquake zone or on a geological fault. The modern reactors that will be used have very sophisticated safety controls and low radiation yields. Statistically in percentage terms, there have been less accidents and deaths worldwide from nuclear plant than there have from coal gas and oil fired plants.

It's a no brainer except for the mung bean munchers.