Seil Chat

Husker Doo wrote:

I wonder if we still have the same support for Nuclear as we did the last time i dropped in on this subject i better watch where i am on the triangle

I still support nuclear, and why not? It was a tsunami that caused the problem by knocking out the diesel cooling pumps in Fukushima. The only workers killed were actually in the reactor buildings. And they were killed after a build up of hydrogen in the building exploded (I've seen the same thing happen on a smaller scale with grain dust). It is true one elderly worker in his 60's has died more recently. He collapsed but this appears to have had nothing to do with radiation. Just a heart attack.

Look at your own life style. What have you done differently since this nuclear 'disaster'? Nothing? How has it affected your daily routine? Anything? Something happened that wasn't anticipated i.e. an even bigger tsunami than thought possible. But the nuclear industry will learn from this and build in better cooling pump protection. That's all it would have taken to prevent this problem. So 25,000 people died from the tsunami. A handful died as a result of a non-nuclear explosion.

Have the residents of Easdale, Balvicar and elsewhere in the area evacuated their homes in case there is another tsunami. None that I am aware of.

Why should we change our views on nuclear?

Pentlandpirate wrote: I still support nuclear, and why not? It was a tsunami that caused the problem by knocking out the diesel cooling pumps in Fukushima.

You are behind the curve on this PP - it is now known that it was not the tsunami that caused the meltdown in Fukushima Daiichi no.1 reactor, it was the earthquake itself that damaged the cooling system - in less than 10 minutes. Records released by TEPCO from the day of the quake show that the plant began to plunge into crisis long before the tsunami even hit, with the inevitable meltdown occurring within 16 hours.

However, a bigger argument against nuclear power is the economic one. No company is going to build a new nuclear plant in the UK without subsidy. Look at the huge cost overruns of the EPR reactors in Finland and France.

This is an odd topic for a local chat forum. I haven't heard that anyone is planning to build a nuclear reactor in the area - do you know something we don't? Is this the latest plan to heat the hall on Easdale Island?

it is now known that it was not the tsunami that caused the meltdown in Fukushima Daiichi no.1 reactor, it was the earthquake itself that damaged the cooling system - in less than 10 minutes

OK the point is it was the cooling system that failed because it was damaged by 'natural' forces. It wasn't the radioactive material that precipated the problem, and you can be sure that new nuclear powerstations have more resilent primary, backup and contingency cooling systems built in to ensure there is no repeat of Fukushima. Lessons have been learned.

The question has been asked before so I will answer it. No I don't support a nuclear power station on Seil island either for similar reasons I oppose a windfarm. It's just inappropriate to the area ...too great a risk of tsunami and earthquakes haha!

You can argue nuclear energy is not a local issue but when locals have fears of radiation leaks from elsewhere then the choice of a suitable source of power such as nuclear is of interest to the wider population, locally, nationally and globally.

As far as I'm aware all the main forms of power generation in the UK are initially dependant on subsidy. It is true of nuclear just as much as it is of wind power.

The question is, what is the best course to take to guarantee we have power in the future? Personally I feel we have to accept nuclear into the portfolio

As the folks on Seil are currently engaged in considering whether local wind is an appropriate contributor to the national energy mix, I think that a discussion here on nuclear energy is quite legitimate and timely. There is no doubt that both the earthquakes and the main tsunami were the major combined factors in causing the Fukushima reactor problems and preventing quick resolutions. It should not be forgotten incidentally that tsunamis of at least 20 metres wave height have inundated the Scottish mainland since the last ice age and that these are quite possible again in future, e.g. from island collapse in the Canaries, from which wave heights of 100 metres are predicted across the Atlantic. I agree with PP that reactor and spent fuel cooling system designs will be modified in light of Fukushima and that no future reactors will be built on strongly active seismic zones. I also agree that the radiological consequences of the Fukushima accidents are totally trivial relative to the wider devastation and death caused by the earthquakes and tsunamis. Thus, in essence, the Fukushima experience will only increase the safety of nuclear operations from an already very high level (at which it was arguably much safer than alternatives like hydro and fossil fuel power). Given that all the new green technologies are already heavily subsidised and that fossil fuels are becoming prohibitively expensive besides changing the climate, I see nothing at all wrong with including a large contribution of nuclear power production in the future UK energy mix. Seil residents have in the last half century experienced the effects of some of the larger man-made environmental exposures to radiation, namely from fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, the byflow of the dispersing nuclear effluent from the Sellafield reprocessing site and the fallout from the Chernobyl accident. I suspect that no-one here has died from these exposures and that the vast majority haven't even noticed. Fear of nuclear energy is largely irrational.

What a great discussion! I wholly agree - more nuclear power stations will be built; they have to be. We have no intention of reducing our electricity use. I also believe that the tide is turning - people are sick of the destruction of the environment for renewables that are seen as something that won't work but will cost a lot more. There are not many folk on Easdale Island who want the visual blight of a wind turbine that is unlikely to deliver much in the way of energy. Neither do they want a noisy air source heat pump. Funnily enough, the supporters of the plan think that they are doing the world a favour by proposing such a project without putting in any insulation into the hall because it looks nicer without it! Now that's what I call a real commitment to the cause!!

I think the fukoshima argument is a red herring, the real issue with nuclear power generation is the fact you have to spend 30-60 years de-commissioning them, then are left with waste that needs looking after for even longer. This means that the spend is massive, over a long period of time, ie hugely expensive. Fair enough we need a base load of power but no one is arguing that wind will provide this, at the moment we do not have a clean nuclear technology, or a major commercial tidal technology although it is getting closer.

Yes wind is unpopular but these structures are temporary, and are forcing the development of power generation infrastructure, meaning that when we give up on developing tidal power and the Norwegians sell us stuff that works, the grid will be there to receive it. Yes perhaps wind is not the most efficient way of generating power, but then we use oil which in some cases uses more energy to extract than it will provide..... and we all use the internal combustion engine which even in its modern form is only 30-40% efficient.

Basically we need fossil fuels as much as we need to replace them, wind will be here for 20-30 years then go out of fashion, so why all the bluster

Seventhseil wrote: . . . wind will be here for 20-30 years then go out of fashion, so why all the bluster

People protesting against wind often say they are saving the landscape for their children - but their children will be able to take the turbines down again in 20-30 years. Much easier than leaving them nuclear plants to decommission.

2 quick points:
1) Nuclear waste at least has the decency to disappear at a finite rate, i.e. the waste nuclides have known finite half-lives. The toxic and environmentally damaging products of fossil fuel combustion do not have the decency to disappear at all, i.e. they have a half-life of infinity, so they have the potential to contaminate the planet forever.
2) At least nuclear energy works big-time, i.e. with energy yields more than a million times conventional systems, and continuously. Large scale wind energy is an unreliable and very feeble white elephant. I think future generations will respect us more for leaving them a sensible and scientific energy heritage than one that covered the planet with metal junk and solved nothing.

The trouble, Nick, is our lives are finite too. I might not be around in 20-30 years so why should I have the rest of my life blighted by these things? If anything, the suggestion they will be killed off in 20 -30 years shows what an even greater waste these windfarms are.

And don't forget we all have to pay higher bills so that the folk with wind turbines can put large sums of their money into their pockets via the FTS scheme. I'd rather have lower bills and no wind turbines.

Minimum wrote:And don't forget we all have to pay higher bills so that the folk with wind turbines can put large sums of their money into their pockets via the FTS scheme. I'd rather have lower bills and no wind turbines.

You can forget lower bills - the cheap energy ride is over, and there are no silver bullets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... -wind.html

So, which way now?

Wouldn't it just be alot easier and more environmentally sensible if we all just cut our own energy consumption. Couldn't we all reasonably easily cut our household power consumption by 10, 20 perhaps 30% ....possibly more?

Yes indeed, PP. Absolutely.

I see the germans are shutting down all their plants i wonder why

Surprisingly the Germans are being illogical: this makes an interesting response to your question; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... power.html

how about fracking?

Seventhseil wrote:how about fracking?

Stirling-based Composite Energy, a subsidiary of the Australian multinational methane gas extraction firm Dart Energy, are applying to sink a 2000 metres deep test bore near Falkirk before the end of the year.

Hydraulic fracturing is already widely used offshore in the North Sea to increase production from both oil and gas wells. Obviously onshore is a different ball game, but it is likely that much stricter environmental controls will apply in the UK, so there is less likelihood of contamination of aquifers etc. However, it isn't particularly 'green' - although burning natural gas does only produce half the CO2 of burning oil or coal it still produces a huge amount compared to wind, tide etc (or nuclear for that matter) - and having the landscape littered with drilling rigs and the associated machinery is even less pretty than a forest of wind turbines.

Scotland may have reasonable deposits of shale gas under the Central Belt, but nothing like the US or Poland; the general consensus is that it is 'not a game changer' for us. We may however end up importing lots of shale gas from Poland for the new gas turbine power stations that are planned.

STOP PRESS - FRACKING UPDATE

Fracking in Lancashire has been suspended as it seems it may be causing earthquakes . . . SEE HERE

Is it not incredible that the mighty Jelly fish stops Torness DEAD

No, it's unusual that there was such a high-density swarm of jellyfish in the seawater & it's great that there are failsafe systems to shut down the reactors when the filters are blocked by any kind of debris. What's the problem?