A Nuclear Dilemma.

[Johnboy]

I listened to Home Planet (BBC Radio 4. 28-6-11) last week and a listener had written in to suggest that because of the inefficiency of Wind Generators and their bad visual impact on the countryside had the team ever considered the use of localised Nuclear Generators as used on Royal Navy Submarines to power local areas instead of wind generators.
These Nuclear Generators have a very good record of Safety and they only need refuelling every 25 years.
I am not against the use of Nuclear Power but to have dozens of small Nuclear Units dotted around the countryside I am not so sure about. I have been mulling it over since the programme and whereas I cannot see anything wrong with the idea in principle I simply cannot make my mind up.
Your comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated.
JB.

[oldherbaceous]

I think they would be to an easy target for terrorists, with disastrous effects....

[alan refail]

Hi JB

What was meant by "power local areas"? I know that the last place in Wales without electric power was connected only in the last year or two. But surely there are no "local areas" since all are connected to the national grid and draw their power from nuclear, coal/oil-fired, wind, hydro generation.

[Geoff]

I always thought transmission losses were quite high so this post prompted a Google - turns out to be 2%, still quite a lot but not as high as I thought.
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyre ... eport1.pdf
The small nuclear principle sounds possible as presumably it could be designed once and built many times. It does annoy me that so many public works are one off with their high design costs. I am a fan of nuclear generation (I just wish we could get organised and build something before the lights start going out) but I think on balance the terrorist danger would tip the balance against the idea. Mind if we could scrap Trident and reuse their generators that would be a project worth supporting!

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
Well I am not really at all that sure what is meant by "local areas" but I have presumed that in this area they propose to erect four wind generators and they are said to produce enough power to satisfy Knighton in Powys and the surrounding villages. A small nuclear generator might take the place of all four or they may need more than one, of this I am again not sure.
Again a presumption that these would also be linked in some way to the National Grid but in the programme there was mention that such an extensive grid would not be needed.
I have considered the consequences of a terrorist attack and think that there would not be a large enough target to have that much of an impact and we do not have attacks on Sub-stations which would be about the equivalent. To look at this in a different light terrorists would prefer to attack a Nuclear Power Station that has a large reactor and the reactor on a local unit would be exceedingly small by comparison.
Thank you for your comments and I am still unable to make my mind up.
JB.

[Nature's Babe]

I agree with OH, and think it might be a terrorism risk as they all could be.
Also Germany turned away from nuclear for a very good reason, their rigorous more recent research showed a child has a 50% higher risk of leukaemia if they live within a 5 mile radius of a nuclear facility, we live within five miles of Dungeness and have lost two children in our village to leukaemia. Our government are relying on less recent research and taking a fifteen mile radius which reduces the risk by including more distant areas.
I would worry more children would be at risk with more smaller facilities.
We have all seen what happened with Japan, and I believe America had a nuclear facility at risk in recent flooding. I would feel safer with other renewable options.

[Johnboy]

Hi NB,
I wonder how many Royal Navy Submarine personnel have died of Leukaemia or anything that could have been anything to do with nuclear power being that they live in very close proximity for very long periods.
Sadly Leukaemia is a terrible thing and we too, in this area, have our fair share of it and we have no nuclear facilities in the locality whatsoever.
Germany is not on my mind at all. You have witnessed the disgusting episode of Ecoli outbreak and they simply panicked and blamed everybody but the Germans. They then came to a very hasty decisions with the regards to the use of nuclear power which in the years to come will live to regret because of what happened in Japan.
Germany have simply hundreds of Wind Turbines and they are sticking with coal powered power stations the carbon produced from these in the future makes the Anti Peat Lobby even more of a farce!
JB.

[Ian in Cumbria]

Let me declare an interest up front. I am now retired but spent my entire working life in the nuclear industry.

"Small" nuclear reactors similar to those in submarines have been considered for civil use. They were dismissed on cost and practicality grounds. The control systems required are essentially the same regardless of the power output of the reactor. These control systems are expensive and it would make the cost per Kw produced simply far too much as would the cost of protecting the plants from terrorists as others have suggested.

Germany's "decision" to move from nuclear by 2020 (or was it 2022?) has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. Angela Merkel needs the support of the German Green Party to stay in power and has shamelessly (as is the wont of most politicians in my view) made this "decision" in order to stay in power. I put "decision" in quotation marks because there is no doubt in my mind that this will be reversed once the next elections are held. Unless of course the Green Party gains more influence in Germany, in which case we can watch as Germany goes quickly into decline with all the risk that would bring. Remember what happened after the last depression in Germany?

We should invest heavily in technologies to reduce the amount of power we use. Having done that we also need to decide how to generate what we need. Wind power is too variable and expensive to be anything more than a small contributor (the public money, our money, being given away to speculators in wind power is a disgrace). We should make installation of solar panels compulsory on all new-build housing and industrial buildings. Water power should be used more extensively than it is but underpinning all this there needs to be a means of generating baseload power. This means coal, oil, gas or nuclear. Nuclear wins on several counts, not least lack of pollution.

The statistics on safety are open to interpretation. Those with vested interests use whichever statistic suits them. Coal mining, oil production etc are dangerous occupations. Driving cars is dangerous. Life is dangerous. We need to balance benefit against hazard. We do this all the time in our day-to-day lives but with nuclear power we seem to sometimes have a mental block about the benefits and hazards which come with it.

Regards

Ian

[peter]

JB, the concern regarding terrorism is less about the denial of electrical supply, (which could be carried out very easily in open countryside by simultaneously at several seperate locations dynamiting one leg each on a row of five national grid pylons), and more about physical dispersal of radioactive material by explosives, i.e. a clean reactor turned into a "dirty bomb".

[Nature's Babe]

Children are more susceptable than adults Johnboy, in Japan after the disater adults may ride it out, it's the under fives that are more at risk.
I like solar power, which may be a very good option for the south east particularly given our lack of rain lately, and they are designed now to work even on a cloudy day.

[Johnboy]

Hi Ian,
Now that was the information I was after! I was hoping that there was somebody out there with the information.
I think that my mind is now made up and it's a thumbs down!
So for me it will be a full sized Nuclear Power station.
Thank you Ian for the information I was after.
JB.

[JohnN]

I notice nobody has mentioned tidal power. I would have thought this was even more effective than wind turbines and there are plenty of sites. The visual impact is pretty low, too. When the chunnel was being planned I remember some boffin writing that we should build a dam across the channel, carrying a multi-lane road and rail link, locks for ships and hydroelectric turbines. It would have cost a lot more than the tunnel, but would have produced enough power for the whole of northern France and Southern England! That's the trouble today - quick bucks ans short-term thinking

[Johnboy]

Hi John,
I have long been an advocate of tidal generators and at the last count there were 58 sites that are suitable for their use around our shores.
With tidal power you get around 22 hours generating in 24 hours day in and day out and they have a larger output that both Solar and Wind power.
When the Severn Barrage was being considered we discussed them here on the forum and a bank of these generators would have produced almost as much as the barrage would have done without causing an once of upset to anybody.
I suspect that that is what will ultimately replace the barrage.
There is one on trial in one of the tidal loughs in Northern Ireland at present.
Sadly they make news when they are installed but then you do not hear any more. Perhaps I should use the web a little more and hunt a few things out. Not really enough time to spare is my problem.
JB.

[DiG]

As well as making a decisions regarding the type of power we generate we need to consider how this power will be distributed. This seems to be ignored by many when advocating the installation of 'so called' green technologies. The current plans to build large windfarms (an additional 600 turbines) in Powys will also require a 19 acre substation and miles of 150 ft pylons down either the beautiful Vyrnwy or Severn Valleys to connect them to the grid in Shropshire. This would apply to any technology we adopt so siting of these should be considered very carefully considering the potential dangers of living close to pylon lines, not to mention ruining the landscape. The National Grid seem at present very unwilling to run cables underground saying it is too expensive. But what price can you put on peoples lives and livelihoods?

[Colin Miles]

Hi Ian,

What about Thorium Reactors? Are they the future?