Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK's Chief Scientist Backs Nuclear Power Revival

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-love-fission dept.

Power 438

Timbotronic writes "The UK government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors." From the article: "His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions."

cancel ×

438 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Trying to beat the french again (0, Offtopic)

charlesesl (917504) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849513)

Now that the French are getting their own fusion reactor, the English is back in the nuclear game.

Re:Trying to beat the french again (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849650)

Where is your emphasis? Are you saying the Brits are "trying to beat the French again" as if the Frech are always beating the poor Brits? Or are you saying the Brits are "trying to beat the Frenchagain" as in the Brits have been kicking the French's ass for centuries? No one has to try to beat the French- they are a useless country. Joke: How many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, the Brits and Americans always do it for them....

I for one (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849530)

...welcome our old british overlords* *now atomic powered.

Nuclear Power (4, Interesting)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849535)

I personally don't see a problem with this. What with modern technology, it seems like we should be able to build nuclear power plants much safer and more efficient than anything in the past. The threat of the radioactive biproducts is an issue, but it is a much less immediate (and, in the long term anyway, less of an actual threat) than dumping tons of smog in the air until we're out of coal and oil.

Re:Nuclear Power (2, Insightful)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849559)

Ah, but it will only be a matter of time before the anti-Nuke people will rear their ugly heads once again.

Re:Nuclear Power (1, Interesting)

cblood (323189) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849605)

We already have a Nuclear power plant that has proven reliable, effective and stable. It is at a nice safe distance and very good service record. It's called the sun.

Re:Nuclear Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849658)

Let us know when the following hurdles have been overcome:

1. Clouds,
2. Nighttime.

Re:Nuclear Power (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849567)

Which brings up a question that's been on my mind. How much nuclear fuel is on earth. If we replaced all the fossil fuels we use, with nuclear fuel, how long would our supplies last? And how much nuclear waste would be created as a result? If nuclear fuel just replaces fossil fuels, and ends up creating the same problems in another 100 years, then we really should be thinking of a solution that works out better in the long term. Like wind, geothermal, and other types of clean, renewable, energy.

Re:Nuclear Power (5, Interesting)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849657)

Power in the future isn't going to be wind, geothermal, etc, because it doesn't produce enough power. Obviously, the more we can get that way the better, but they are highly inefficient, and require specific placement. That means you have a limited amount that you can put online.

We have a very large amount of uranium ore around, but it isn't easy to get. The process of creating fuel from it is also complicated. Our best bet is to use fission while we refine the passive generation (solar, hydro, etc) and research fusion. If we figure fusion out, then we don't have to worry about the other forms, though solar is a good idea to continue researching.

Re:Nuclear Power (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849923)

Step one should be to conserve whatever we have now.
To stop wasting energy for EVERYTHING.

Why should we wait until we have run out of fuel to push for efficiency?

We have the technology now to create extremely low power devices which run at perfectly reasonable speeds and which cut down on wasted energy.

If everybody turned off none essential lights when they left the room or underclocked their machines when browsing, or drove a more efficient vehicle we would help to save the precious resources we have.

If everyone in the world just put their minds to it, we might actually have enough energy available from renewable sources.

Theres a group in the UK who have the right idea, they are called The Carbon Trust [thecarbontrust.co.uk] . Their site is well worth a visit, and it might just save you some money as well.

Re:Nuclear Power (5, Informative)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849721)

How much nuclear fuel is on earth. If we replaced all the fossil fuels we use, with nuclear fuel, how long would our supplies last?

There's about 50 years of uranium reserves right now, a bit over 2 million tons.

Reserves are ores that are economically exploitable. In other words, reserves increase when you find a less expensive way to get the ore, or when the price of ore rises. If the price of ore goes up by 50%, we more than double our reserves to 5 million tons. If it goes up much more than that, oceanic reserves [sarov.ru] come into play, and there are 4.5 *billion* tons in the oceans.

Now, that's talking about U235 burned in a PWR. There are other things you can do which vastly increase reserves. There are reactor designs that can breed U238 into U235. That presents a proliferation concern, but you can also just burn U238 in a CANDU reactor or other design. You can breed thorium into U233 and burn that.

And the thing is that nuclear fuel is so much more energy-dense than chemical fuel. Coal has an energy content of about 24 MJ per kilogram, assuming perfect conversion to electricity, and I think good coal plants with top-of-the-line turbines and boilers and everything can get up to about 70% overall thermal efficiency, but hell, let's say 90%. Figures I found for the US in 1982 indicate that all the nuclear power plants in the US consumed 540 tons of fuel and produced 1.1E12 kilowatt-hours of electricity, which means *after* all those efficiency losses (PWRs are less thermally efficient because you've got to transfer heat across coolant loops), we were getting 8 million megajoules per kilogram of fuel.

8 million megajoules per kilogram, versus 21.6 megajoules per kilogram. What that means is that your *fuel* cost can rise significantly, but your cost per kilowatt-hour at your meter will see only a very small rise.

So to sum up, there's a hella lot of nuclear fuel available.

Re:Nuclear Power (4, Informative)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849749)

It depends on what kind of process is used to make power. Most reactors use U235, and there's only enough of that in the current uranium mines to last 50 years. If a plutonium process were used (turning the U238 into plutonium) the same amount of uranium could power the world for around 1000 years. There's also about three times as much thorium, which can be turned into U233 to produce power.

So that's around 4000 years mining the uranium and thorium that is economical to extract at todays prices. With higher uranium costs more could be extracted.

Double standards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849609)

Yet is is "EVIL" (American TM) for Iran, or Venezuela, or Brazil to have peace nookular power???

Re:Nuclear Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849645)

This isn't about safe and efficient power generation. This is about centralised control of power generation. Imagine a world where individuals and small communities had a means to generate their own clean energy and to communicate amongst themselves. The ruling elite want to stop that happening at all costs. If that means using oil, coal, or nuclear energy, then that's what they'll push. As long as it's difficult to get at it gives them control. That's what's behind the recent push for nuclear energy.

You want to bring about the demise of the ruling elite? It's actually very simple. Free energy. Free communication. But I suppose they'd fabricate a world war before too many people managed to get those two things. Or put communications jamming equipment in space or something.

Re:Nuclear Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849693)

Um, you realize that when your local Safeway ran out of aluminum foil last week, it was merely a temporary stocking oversight, and not a conspiracy. Right?

Solve the War on Terrorism. (3, Insightful)

portforward (313061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849682)

I've been thinking about this for a long while. I wonder what would happen if the US (like some commentators have suggested) embark on a "Manhattan Project" for energy. If the US highly encouraged oil exploration, solar, wind, nuclear, hybrid (like the plug into your wall to charge the batteries), Sterling engine, biodiesel, thermal depolermersation (you know, turkey offal and sewage into oil), microwaves and mining the moon and Jupiter for fusion fuel. What would happen if through alternative energy initiatives we could drive the price of oil down to $10 a barrel. I'm not saying it will happen, or even if it could happen, but what would happen to the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and all the other dictatorships that run on oil? What would happen if America could export its energy technology instead of importing oil?

Re:Solve the War on Terrorism. (4, Insightful)

ProudClod (752352) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849751)

Hate to be a pedant, but Venezuela's not a dictatorship.

There's certainly a lot of domestic opposition to Chavez, but there's a lot of domestic opposition to Bush too - the fact remains that both were democratically elected by the people.

Re:Solve the War on Terrorism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849809)

Oil is part of the problem, but, they still have many other possible route to make cash, drug is one.

The USA is dependant from them, the oil, coal, etc. Since it cost a lot to build new plant (Be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, or whatever plant) it's probably not possible to drive the market price down that much in a short term.

Add to that that the american doesnt want to change there lifestyle, and all, and you've got a big mess.

Not-In-My-Backyard Syndrome (1)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849783)

I agree. I wish this kind of attitude were more common here in the States.
Modern reactors are far safer than their more temperamental counterparts of the 70s and 80s (Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?). Unfortunately, this fear of reactors-past generates the not-in-my-backyard mentality among U.S. citizens when it comes to nuclear power. Not only has reactor technology gotten better, but the techniques for dealing with nuclear waste have advanced quite a bit as well.

I, for one, would welcome a nuclear cooling tower on my horizon. Bah, it's a damn shame.

Re:Nuclear Power (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849787)

Unless we go the way of fast breeders the energy cost of large amounts of nuclear power makes it pointless - processing low grade ore into fuel insn't easy (and a lot of conventional fuel will be burned in the process), and there really isn't a lot of high grade stuff about. Fast breeders have not yet succeeded on economic grounds, and there are other problems.

They should certainly put some money into research, but the nuclear power industries insistance that they are perfect since the 1950s has helped ensure that after 50 years we have nothing more promising than a tiny pebble bed prototype - and a whole pile of 1950's white elephants with other stuff tacked on the side.

Nuclear Debt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849839)

"The threat of the radioactive biproducts is an issue, but it is a much less immediate (and, in the long term anyway, less of an actual threat) than dumping tons of smog in the air until we're out of coal and oil."

I feel the same way about the national debt.

No shit Einstein! (1)

Browzer (17971) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849539)

About time.

right.... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849546)

no greenhouse gases, just a few thousand tonnes of radioactive waste. what could be the downside?

Re:right.... (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849566)

Radioactive waste can be contained. A trick we haven't figured out with air pollution yet.

right....Coal Hearted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849623)

They're called "air scrubbers". It's not like we just started burning fossil fuels, yesterday.

Anyway coal (and coal towns) are making a resurgence, because the oil companies are pricing themselves out of the market, and nuclear would take too long to react to the present market, even if you ignored it's disadvantages.

Also fossil fuel technologies are more advanced than the "good, old days" of belching smokestacks. Hell I've even seen a car that burned powered coal (emmissions were terrible of course, but...).

Re:right....Coal Hearted. (1, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849655)

Air scrubbers are good, but they don't take nearly 100% out of the air. And burning coal also releases radioactive waste- you do realise that most coal ores have some uranium in them, right?

Re:right.... (5, Funny)

eweu (213081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849586)

Have you ever been to Nevada? I'm pretty sure that's why God made it.

Re:right.... (1, Interesting)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849670)

Yeah, that's such a bullshit statement. We generate orders of magnitude more radioactive waste with coal than we do with nuclear. And that radioactive coal waste is put out into the air.

BTW, if you have air scrubbers, where do you think the harmful removed by-products go? Do you think they're annihilated or something? You still have toxic waste to dispose of after you pull the pollutants out of the air from a hydrocarbon burning plant.

right....Pine-scented nuclear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849735)

"BTW, if you have air scrubbers, where do you think the harmful removed by-products go? Do you think they're annihilated or something? You still have toxic waste to dispose of after you pull the pollutants out of the air from a hydrocarbon burning plant."

Like I said above. We didn't just start burning fossil fuels yesterday. Your complaints aren't something new. There are plants that convert coal to a more suitable fuel (lets also ignore the fact that not all coal is equal). As for the waste. What exactly do you think the end products of nuclear reactions are? Cherry-flavoured farts?

Re:right....Pine-scented nuclear. (1, Informative)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849861)

The point is that you end up with a *LOT* more radioactive waste from burning coal than you do with fission.

Coal produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses, sulfur- and nitrogen-oxides, uranium, and thorium. The last two are radioactive, the middle two are the largest contributors to acid rain. The amount of uranium and thorium actually adds more radiation than storing the spent fissionable fuels. Add to that the issue of 100s:1 for coal to nuclear for fuel amounts.

In the US, for example, more radioactive material is released into the air by burning coal *than used in nuclear reactors*!

I never said that nuclear didn't have waste, hence the term "nuclear waste". However, "clean" coal is not very clean, either, and coal waste really should be treated the same as nuclear waste. It contains the same materials, and in higher quantities. Also, for the amount of produced power, you have *less* waste from fission than you do from coal... and that includes "clean" coal.

My primary sources were DOE, ORNL, which is part of the DOE, and PG&E.

Re:right.... (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849727)

There are tombs that haven't been opened in 10 000 years, surely storing a few thousand m^3 of waist can be no technological problem. It's not like it is going to cover the earth...

Re:right.... (1)

mattotoole (872355) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849765)

There are tombs that haven't been opened in 10 000 years, surely storing a few thousand m^3 of waist can be no technological problem. It's not like it is going to cover the earth...

But there are plenty of 10,000 year old tombs that *have* been opened. So you're right, technology isn't the problem -- human nature is.

fossil fules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849750)

The mining of fossil fuels produces trace amounts of some nasty radioactives that escape into the environment. Tonnes of it! http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html [ornl.gov]

Well which is it? (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849565)

in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming

If the world is facing "Peak Oil", then the "global warming crisis" will subside once production is on the decline curve.

Re:Well which is it? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849596)

Except that in the US electricity is produced by burning coal, not oil. I don't think anyone actually burns oil for electricity.

Re:Well which is it? (4, Informative)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849716)

The US certainly does burn oil in quite a few generation plants. There are statistics for it all over the 'net.

To quote PG&E "Most electricity in the U.S. is generated using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, or hydropower. Some production is done with alternative fuels like geothermal energy, wind power, biomass, solar energy, or fuel cells."

To quote the DOE: "Coal was the fuel used to generate the largest share (50.8 percent) of electricity in 2003 1,974 billion kilowatthours(kWh). This is over one and a half times the annual electricity consumption of all U.S. households (1,273 billion kWh). Natural gas was used to generate 650 billion kWh (16.7 percent), and petroleum accounted for 119 billion kWh (3.1 percent)." They also list nuclear as accounting for 19.75% (764 billion killowatthours). The remaining 9.65% was mostly hydro (7.14%).

Re:Well which is it? (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849606)

Not true at all. Burning oil is not the only source of CO2 emissions.

Burning coal is a huge one, and there's a huge amount of coal still in the ground to be burned. Hundreds of years worth of reserves at current prices.

Re:Well which is it? (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849629)

Our ability to extract coal is entirely dependent upon cheap oil (makes/powers the mining and transportation equipment). If we pass the decline curve for oil, there will be alot of homes going without power along with other necessities.

Re:Well which is it? (1)

ThaFooz (900535) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849848)

Our ability to extract coal is entirely dependent upon cheap oil (makes/powers the mining and transportation equipment). If we pass the decline curve for oil, there will be alot of homes going without power along with other necessities.

No, gasoline is simply the most cost efficent portable fuel. There is no technical reason at the moment that it couldn't be replaced by biodesiel and/or electric power (fuel cells, etc) ... its just not cost efficent - yet.

The closer we get to the decline curve, the more cost efficent alternate fuel sources become. Anyone who thinks that we will actually pass the decline curve isn't factoring in basic economics, or they seriously believe that either a) there aren't viable alternatives or b) we have grossly over-estimated current oil reserves (ie the artifically low prices are preventing transition, and when we realize the error there will be insufficient time/fuel to replace the infrastructure).

Re:Well which is it? (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849926)

There is no technical reason at the moment that it couldn't be replaced by biodesiel

It takes more energy to produce biofuel than you get from the biofuel

and/or electric power (fuel cells, etc)

fuel cells are method of storage, what are you going to "charge" them with once we are on a decline curve?

Re:Well which is it? - both! (1)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849920)

- first there is the large "blanket" of green house gasses that is prety tranparent and keeps heat low to the earths surface ( global warming -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming [wikipedia.org] ) - second is the blanket of particle polution that is not so transparent and is blocking the sun's energy from getting down to the earth. ( global dimming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming [wikipedia.org] ) The particle polllution is decreasing rapidly because of cleaner burning technology but the greenhouse gases are not decreasing at the same rate. So the earth will get warmer sooner and because of the increasing global warming the release of more greenhouse gases may continue from natural sources. So we should decide upon a way to rapidly decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the next 10-20 years - after that we start to hit a rapidly increasing chance of large scale temporary and permanent flooding. Wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear power plants are options that many contries will have to invistigate. As well hybrid and alternate fuel and propulsion vehicles ( not just cars but large trucks, buses, trains, boats, and ships ) will need to be produced on a masssive scale. There is a massive "ship-kite" already under development - the company beleives that the kite can cut a ship's oceanic fuel costs by up to 50% - this is not an alternate fuel - it is alternate propulsion. Honda's hydrogen car ( with its home refueling station) is an alternate fuel vehicle. In case you are wondering - I am not anti-oil, nor anti-coal. Both of these fuels have a place in this equation -it just happens that the worlds dependence on them should decrease sooner than these industries wish. British Petroleum( though they have changed their name and I can't remember what the new one is ) was very smart and a number of years started a large scale solar division.

Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (3, Insightful)

Solr_Flare (844465) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849568)

Better to tackle the "looming energy crisis" head on and use human ingenuity to come up with a better, more environmentally friendly, solution. Simply settling for something that works but has problems is the same attitude that has gotten the world into this rediculous oil mess, all the while destroying the very planet we live on.

I'm not saying Nuclear power might not be the best answer for a short term emergency, but short term solutions tend to become long term ones when government is concerned.

Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (3, Insightful)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849630)

Simply settling for something that works but has problems

Oh, really?

*Everything* has problems. I mean, come on, just wave your hands and come up with your ideal hypothetical, theoretical scheme for energy production, and I guarantee it will have some sort of problem.

The suggestion that we should wait to fix our current problems until we've figured out a way to eliminate *all possible* problems is not only silly, it's dangerous.

all the while destroying the very planet we live on.

Please. The planet has withstood enormous meteor impacts, global firestorms, earthquakes, enormous floods, and devasting environmental shifts far beyond our ability to cause, like the development of organisms which excrete oxygen as a waste product (You know, "plants").

The *planet* is doing just *fine*. The planet's survival is not at issue.

Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (1)

Nick_Psyko (18708) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849932)

I believe that all 'we' have 'caused', is not having a dramatic impact against <u>this</u> planet.

This planet will survive, with or without our services. We, I feel are irellivent in the planets choices.

Us humans; surviving on the other hand, will require more thought than the "my g*d they are hurting the planet" scenario.

The planet will look after itself; this (I believe at the moment) is the case if humans (as we know them) didn't occour.

Humans, (us) require the delicate balance that is nature; to survive (all considered). It just so happens (in my opinion) that we will not find <u>that</u> balance until it is beyond our immidiate control.

If someone wants to show otherwise, email <u>me</u> at "UK (united kingdom) duty paid at Google email services.com" otherwise known as no spaces, nothing in the brackets at gmail.com. [you got it!, trust yourself!].
</br>

Send me an email.

Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849640)

Because you know, the Fusion is just around the corner as a viable and safe source of power!

God damn hippies like you really annoy me as your so insanely uninformed. Nuclear power *is* a long term solution. Like a century long. I don't think we can wait a century for the next viable source of power to come along. Get a god damn clue, please. I mean I agree it ain't perfect, but there is nothing on the horizon that will meet our needs. Nuclear is the *only* option for the scale that we need it on.

Subsidized dirty bombs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849756)

With all the fear about the terrorists, it's interesting that there would be interest in nukes. Perhaps this fear of terrorist is a big hoax, and *oil* really was the whole point of the Iraq thing, and now that that's not working out we turn to nukes. We've been sold a bill of goods friends. Or maybe terrorism is a "nuisance", when compared with our need for power. Otherwise, one would wonder about the logic in funding research into briefcase-size nukes, i.e. a smaller-faster-lighter-easier way to martyrdom, should it fall into the hands of the bad guys eh Rummy?

Seriously, the whole nuke thing is a dead-end. A giant Yucca Mountain size dead end. If you are for nuclear power, also - look me straight in the pixel - and tell me you wouldn't mind a nuclear dump in your back yard. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Point number 2 - security - assuming, as has been blazed on our foreheads that we are so-so-so afraid of the terrorist, well what about nuclear security? Do you trust the same keystone cops who blundered through Katrina to secure our nuclear facilities? For an example, see how inherently insecure [purdue.edu] this site at the University of Wisconsin is. Also read this fascinating book about the controversy [mit.edu] surrounding the construction of a nuclear test reactor at Vallecitos. This was in the '60s, before Americans worried about Osama. Now think about that book from the 9/11 perspective.

Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849897)

Nuclear power might not be the best answer for a short term emergency
It's not a short term solution by any means - plants take years to build and we still need more research to produce better designs - perhaps the first full scale pebble bed reactor could be built to see if the design actually works properly.

The worst thing about nuclear power is the vast quantities of politically driven bullshit surrounding it - anything that actually works properly is usually exagerated by an order of magnitude, and the problems that probably could actually be fixed within the advertising and lobby money budget (waste management certainly hasn't had that much attention paid to it) are almost entirely ignored. It's one thing imagining ficticious Niger Uranium getting shipped about the world, and it's another producing fuel of high enough purity in large quantities without burning more oil than you would use to generate the same quantity of electricity - more research has to be put into that before we can use a lot of nuclear power.

Let's go for it! (4, Insightful)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849570)

Nuclear power generation is safer and less polluting than burning fossil fuels to generate power. The new pebble bed reactors [wikipedia.org] offer a significant safety improvement over the old fuel rod design that is in older plants lile Three Mile Island. It's time to use the brains we have and provide the safe and cheap power that nuclear fission can offer.

Re:Let's go for it! (1)

jimcooncat (605197) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849611)

Good link to a great article. If I had mod points you'd get 'em.

Does this design mean that the reactor doesn't need to be built on a coastline? This might help a lot with "environmentalist" concerns and nuts like me who don't think the coast is a great place to build an expensive project.

Re:Let's go for it! (1)

cblood (323189) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849675)

The problem with nuclear power plants is scale. You need to build big plants and you need a security system around them to keep them safe from terrorists. Even the 'safe' power plants can make a big mess if attacked with conventional explosives. By the time you add up all the costs, including transporting the fuel and the waste securely, it is not a very good deal. We would have no nuclear plants at all if the government had not EXEMPTED THEM from liability. No insurance company in the world is that stupid. We need to take our government back for the oil companies and really work on fuel efficiency and conservation. We in the US have fought two wars in the middle east essentially for the right to drive SUV's around.

Re:Let's go for it! (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849763)

What? Nuclear is the best deal we have available. It generates substanially more power than any other type of generation and doesn't cost much more to operate. The start-up costs are large, mainly because of all the regulation to ensure safety. The costs of getting the ore, refining it, and transporting it, still are nowhere near making it unprofitable. It's about the same cost as oil when you consider all the issues and costs associated with getting oil and refining it and transporting it. You seem to be forgetting all the hidden costs involved with oil.

We need to have something to keep us going while other forms of production are researched. It's nice to say how we need to do this or need to do that, but that's down the road. If we don't have something now, then down the road doesn't matter, because we won't have the power to get there. Nuclear is what that something for today is.

Fuel efficiency is always good, but that and conservation is a temporary thing; it will stretch out what we have a little longer. This isn't to say that we shouldn't conserve, but our energy requirements *will* continue to rise, because all of our technology requires energy. We will get more and better advances, but they require more, more, more!

Re:Let's go for it! (1)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849904)

You are assuming that our total cumulative energy consumption can be reduced through conservation. I don't see that happening. Even if we achieve a per capita reduction in energy usage, population increase will continue to increase our total energy consumption.

As far as security goes, let's build the new nuke plants out in the Nevada deserts. We'll bring home our oil war troops and deploy them as a security force. A remote nuclear power plant can have it's own armored battalion for security. Then, someone would have to have the resources to start a real war if they want to damage that plant. That all seems extreme but it is cheaper than invading the Middle East everytime we get nervous.

Finally, we might catch up with the France (0, Flamebait)

FluffyWithTeeth (890188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849574)

Almost all of France's power comes from Nuclear, and it's the one thing they seem to be better than us in ;)

Ignoring all the many, important reasons to use nuclear (Which I agree with)..

Let's do it to beat the French!

Re:Finally, we might catch up with the France (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849713)

The humble Uranium atom. Finally, something the French can beat!

Re:Finally, we might catch up with the France (1, Interesting)

ThaFooz (900535) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849908)

Almost all of France's power comes from Nuclear, and it's the one thing they seem to be better than us in ;)

I would probably replace the word 'better' with 'more reckless', given the population density of the nation... there really aren't safe (ie uninhabited) places to put reactors in Europe. Nuclear seems to make more sense for the US/Canada/Russia/etc.

If you want a model energy grid, look at Iceland's geothermal plants or Denmark's wind generators... not France's half-assed solution.

Besides, in terms of pollution & fuel supply, the gasoline infrastructure is a much bigger problem.

Good on him (2, Insightful)

Jonnty (910561) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849589)

As nice as wind turbines are, you're never gonna get enough to gnerate enough power, nor are you getting enough people agreeing to have them built. Nuclear's our only option. At least, if you're that worried, build them to go on until we have enough other means of power generation. Unless, of course, Fusion becomes viable, which (I hope, at least) will probably happen in the next 25 years. Ah well. C'est la vie.

Re:Good on him (2, Funny)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849646)

As nice as wind turbines are, you're never gonna get enough to gnerate enough power, nor are you getting enough people agreeing to have them built.

It might be a good time to push for them soon. It will help reduce bird flu. ;)

Re:Good on him (1)

swimin (828756) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849688)

You have a really good point. Except you sort of left out that whole solar thing. Solar energy is viable now, and will be more so in the future (assuming new cheap ways to get into space). It doesn't require some big breakthrough to work.

Re:Good on him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849924)

> As nice as wind turbines are, you're never gonna get enough to gnerate enough power

Actually, you're completely wrong. Nuclear power is doomed by its cost structure. If it were economically viable, believe me power companies would be churning them out. If there's one thing that energy companies are good at, it's making money.

See Amory Lovins article "Nuclear Follies Meet Market Realities"
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid97.php [rmi.org]

"In 2004 alone, Spain and Germany each added as much wind capacity - two billion watts - as nuclear power is adding worldwide in each year of this decade."

"Nothing can save nuclear power from its dismal economics... Not new kinds of reactors: if they were free, the rest of the plant would still cost too much.

What we need here in the States (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849595)

is a nation wide awarness campaign on how nuclear power works, why it is BETTER for the enviroment, and how it will help allow
Talk about the new technologies.

Re:What we need here in the States (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849619)

I know Canada's nuclear commission has been airing a lot of TV commercials, hyping up nuclear power, and telling you to visite their website to learn more. Nuclear power has a really bad rap, and most people think it's the worst thing in the world, when really, it's much better than our current approach.

Re:What we need here in the States-A time warp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849666)

I find it ironic that nuclear proponents talk about "new technologies" when it's disadvantages are mentioned.* But ignore the "new technologies" that make fossil fuel burning better than in the past. Why is that?

*Note also that coal is hear, and now. Your "new technologies" will do nothing for the present crisis. Plus the US has more coal here than there is oil in Saudi Arabia.

Re:What we need here in the States (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849747)

Yes, because the same country that has a majority of citizens believing that some magical being in the sky created everything exactly as it is and that that is a scientific theory (and one with more merit than evolution) and the same country where a significant portion (a majority maybe?) think using stem-cells is equal to killing baby jesus, you really expect us to be capable of complex thought like exactly what nuclear power is? Hell, it wasn't until just recently that the wild numbers claimed by Chernobyl were finally debunked.

Re:What we need here in the States (1)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849817)

My sentiments exactly [slashdot.org] . :-P

Re:What we need here in the States (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849915)

is a nation wide awarness campaign on how nuclear power works, why it is BETTER for the enviroment
Haven't the nuclear lobby spent missions over the years in the USA doing exactly that, and hasn't it actually worked in that people associate the word "clean" with it despite the fact that it is not a washing powder but an industrial process using stuff that kills on contact?

Nuclear Safety (3, Interesting)

AtomicRobotMonster (891499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849615)

Reactor designs have progressed a long way from the 50's. Pebble bed reactors are an inherently safe (being relative) design... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor [wikipedia.org] Couldn't we just make these into sealed units and run them until they stop being radioactive?

Re:Nuclear Safety (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849664)

They continue being radioactive thousands of years after they stop producing power. The casing and other materials that were not radioactive become radioactive when exposed to neutron flux.

so um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849616)

has greenpeace won or not? To my awareness they're against nuclear power, but because of them we have much safer nuclear power plants. I think those anti-capitalist bastards might've done us some good.

Great News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849618)

This is awesome news. Nuclear reactors are the cleanest and least harmful solutions we have right now. It would be even better if Britain complimented this policy with increased funding for fusion and other clean energy research. Hopefully the US will lose its irrational fear of nuclear energy once it sees this example (fat chance!).

Nuclear is Expensive (0, Flamebait)

nathanh (1214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849634)

And nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. End of discussion.

Re:Nuclear is Expensive (1)

Persol (719185) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849665)

And?
Nobody wants a coal plant in there back yard.
Nobody wants train tracks in there back yard.
Nobody wants a stadium in there back yard.

The only difference is that people tend to understand and trust the three things listed above. People protest them for very real and daily reasons.

People protest nuclear because NuclearIsBad(tm). Education is the only way to combat this.

Re:Nuclear is Expensive (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849726)

People protest nuclear because NuclearIsBad(tm). Education is the only way to combat this.

The more education you have regarding nuclear fission power, the more you protest.

Re:Nuclear is Expensive (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849812)

> Education is the only way to combat this

There: a place, not here
Their: belonging to them
They're: a contraction, meaning "they are"

Re:Nuclear is Expensive (1)

blank101 (862789) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849814)

I'd put a nuclear power plant in my backyard if 1) I got the profits for the electricity and 2) I was the regulator (or the NRC...they know a thing or two).

As for expensive, well, not really [nucleartourist.com] . The prices are largely comparable to other energy sources and could be cheaper if the regulatory environment were relaxed comparable to the advances in technology.

Re:Nuclear is Expensive (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849906)

Even worse than a nuclear reactor is a uranium mine. It producues much more waste, which is generally just as toxic, if not worse.

Montreal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849649)

Ironic to host a conference about emission reduction in a city that would benefit so much from global warming.

Other environmental effects. (2, Insightful)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849680)

People around here always seem to fall into one of two groups on this issue: those that dance around talking about how clean nuclear power is, and those that shout "what about the fuckin' waste?"

What about the enrichment though? What about all the noxious chemicals involved in separating the fissile isotopes from the 99+% useless U-238? What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end? Nobody ever seems to bring that up.

I'd like to see what the pro-nuke side has to say about dealing with the environmental effects of this part of the system.

Re:Other environmental effects. (1)

JackHolloway (773660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849810)

"What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end? Nobody ever seems to bring that up."

Three words

Depleated Uranium Rounds (for tanks, and anti-tank guns)

Jack

Re:Other environmental effects. (1)

colenski (552404) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849824)

Pebble bed reactors address that issue nicely. The composition of the pebbles is such that they contain all of the nasty stuff inside and are much more stable than traditional waste whether it be vitrified or what have you. A pebble is designed to remain stable for ~1M years, way beyond the radioactivity of even plutonium. Just put it in a nice, geologically stable formation like the Canadian shield, fill it in with concrete, and forget about it.

Re:Other environmental effects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849905)

I thought they were made from graphite, which burns quite easily in air. Maybe you should read the criticism section on wikipedia?

Re:Other environmental effects. (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849836)

I'd like to see what the pro-nuke side has to say about dealing with the environmental effects of this part of the system.

They'll insist, insist mind you, that the harmful effects due to the waste are exaggerated. "It's all Hype!" they'll say. "Oil and Coal are worse" they'll say.

I'll wait to hear what Greenpeace have to say. They mightn't be the most neutral organisation in the world, but it'll be interesting to see which they think is worse.

Re:Other environmental effects. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849847)

I grew up in a town that mined uranium [miningwatch.ca] . there was 0.1% uranium in the ground. For every tonne of rock they mined, they got a tonne or tailings. Which is a big chemical mess that's still not cleaned up 10 years after the mines are closed. There's a lot of waste created from mining uranium. I've seen lakes full of waste because of this stuff. I wonder if those pushing nuclear power think about this kind of stuff when they tout the advantages of nuclear power.

Re:Other environmental effects. (4, Insightful)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849880)

What about the enrichment though? What about all the noxious chemicals involved in separating the fissile isotopes from the 99+% useless U-238?

You can centrifuge so you don't really need any chemicals, and so little fuel is needed to get a given amount of energy that the amounts used are miniscule compared to what would be used digging up the same amount of coal/oil/etc.

What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end?

Ever seen a slag heap? The amount of waste is again going to be miniscule compared to what you'd produce getting the coal or oil needed to get the same amount of energy, the radiation danger is a tiny fraction of what you get from the radon you'll release mining coal. The toxicity is overstated, it's not really any worse than lead - yes it's not something you'd want to be too near, but neither are the much larger piles of stuff used for mining and oil-drilling.

carbon neutral (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849684)

At random I caught an interesting debate on BBC24 between 4 MEPs. They were discussing the need for nuclear power. There was an interesting claim by the Finnish chap that nuclear power produces no carbon output. The German Green countered that this was ignoring the carbon cost of plant construction, maintenance, production of rods, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc. Her general point was that those who argue that nuclear power is cheap and efficient ignore the overheads and invisible costs.

Another interesting point made was that the alternatives proposed by the anti-nuclear position have no chance of being developed and deployed on a sufficient scale and in time to meet the Kyoto targets. The greens countered that they were also trying to address the demand side of the energy problem, unlike the nuclear lobby who seek only to replace existing supply.

Re:carbon neutral (1)

AtomicRobotMonster (891499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849757)

Turning the clock back on demand is going to be impossible (unless we literally have our plug pulled). There's a correlation between quality of life and energy consumption per capita. Sure , we can and should strive to make more energy efficient devices but the energy usage genie is out of the bottle so to speak.

Nuclear energy subsidies (1)

kupci (642531) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849818)

Her general point was that those who argue that nuclear power is cheap and efficient ignore the overheads and invisible costs.

In the U.S., the industry is heavily subsidized [riverkeeper.org] . It is a credit to wind and solar that it has achieved as much as they have, with the negligible subsidies. I've noticed that the portable construction highway signs are now powered by solar. Very cool. Maybe if just a tad bit more of that money went to other, renewable energy sources...

According to a July 2000 report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power--96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.

Re:carbon neutral (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849928)

The greens countered that they were also trying to address the demand side of the energy problem, unlike the nuclear lobby who seek only to replace existing supply.

Yeah, because demand's gonna go down when countries with more than 2 billion additional people make the transition from agrarian to industrialized nations and we start to replace oil (and coal and natural gas) as energy sources for heating and transportation. We just got to remember to switch off the lights when we leave a room.

Of course they're right to a degree. If the Chinese and Indians consume energy like the Japanese instead of the USians in 50 years we're gonna be *a lot* better off and in the long run higher efficiency will save huge amounts of ressources and money but nevertheless I don't see how solar should provide all that (unless it's in space), there's a natural limit to hydroelectric and wind has some major environmental drawbacks, probably even more serious ones than the other two.

The public's general reaction... (4, Insightful)

ddx Christ (907967) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849712)

Is akin to a situation where someone tells you to lift a supposedly cold glass, but it's actually boiling. That's what initially happened with nuclear fission. Now that same person is asking us to pick it up again, but can we be sure it's inherently safe to do so and we won't receive 3rd degree burns? I'm not saying this is my point of view, but what I usually encounter when talking to others.

A bad reputation is very difficult to eliminate. Whereas a good reputation is ruined by one bad action, the same cannot be said for the converse. Nuclear power has clear advantages as well as disadvantages; technology has improved. But if we can't deal with mercury, toxic chemicals, and other pollutants, what are we going to do with nuclear waste? If we have a plan and are ready, then go ahead, but we should still look for alternatives and improvements.

But then again... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849715)

If we've got the likes of (Massachusetts Senator) Ted Kennedy opposing [dcexaminer.com] something as benign as offshore wind farms [capewind.org] with obvious NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) arguments, how can we expect people to agree to deal with transportation and storage of spent fuel rods which have a half-life [wikipedia.org] in the tens-of-thousands of years?

The problem with nuclear power... (4, Insightful)

mattotoole (872355) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849723)

The problem with nuclear power is that the nuclear industry is so enmeshed with top secret military programs that no one knows what its costs really are. They say it's cheap, but to what degree is it being subsidized? We'll never know. Also, nuclear power further encourages an overly centralized power grid, with too few, too-large power plants. For both national security and efficency, we should be moving toward a more distributed model. Smaller plants require less investment too, so they can be added/upgraded more easily as technology improves. I'm for millions of solar roofs; microturbines and fuel cells with co-generation; and everyone's meter able to run backwards.

Re:The problem with nuclear power... (1)

minerat (678240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849773)

Did you read about the pebble bed reactors on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_re actor [wikipedia.org] ? They are significatly smaller than current reactors. China is investing heavily in them. With their modular design, they can be spread out in all reaches of their country. When demand grows in one area, they can just tack another on to meet it. While it isn't as decentralized as everyone having their own solar roof & wind turbine, it's better than the supercentralized system we have now. Scientific American had a good article about them in January of 2002 (not available for free on web).

Re:The problem with nuclear power... (1)

AtomicRobotMonster (891499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849788)

Generation diversity is essential if we're going to get out of the mess we're in right now, especially given that no one option can replace fossil fuels alone (not even fission). I heard once that there isn't enough fissionable uranium on the planet to support 30 terra watt energy demands.

Better start eating more carrots.

what will happen to the middle east if (4, Interesting)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849782)

the world stops it's need for oil? We are starting to see many alternatives, natural gas, nuclear, current solar tech, new solar (e.g. nano-solar), fuel-cell, etc. Even harnessing the oceans waves are becoming practical. France already gets about 80% of its energy from Nuke power.

At present the Middle East doesn't do anything but sell oil (http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=006683. php [tompeters.com] , 270 international patents in 20 years). There are approx. 270 million Arabs in the middle east and the majority living off of oil profit. If things like Britain's initiative spill over into all the world's nations, the Middle East could very quickly loose its primary source of income within the next 20 years. Cars are quickly moving to electric engines wich will feed fuel-cell, and I can't imagine new jet tech is far off. The new scientist has pieces on projects to conserve up to 80% fuel costs.

Since the middle east (for the most part) doesn't make anything, do you think they will turn into a society similar to the warring African nations or step up to the plate and joining the world in creating/innovating?

Re:what will happen to the middle east if (1)

AtomicRobotMonster (891499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849823)

Expect to see more nasty little theocracies.

Environmentalists are Coming Onboard (2, Insightful)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849798)

James Lovelock the framer of the Gaia theory [wikipedia.org] ("...a class of scientific models of the geo-biosphere in which life as a whole fosters and maintains suitable conditions for itself by helping to create an environment on Earth suitable for its continuity...")

"Lovelock was among the first [wikipedia.org] researchers to sound the alarm about the threat of global warming from the greenhouse effect. In 2004 he caused a media sensation when he broke with many fellow environmentalists by pronouncing that "Only nuclear power can now halt global warming". In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of mankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions."

As an environmentalist, though not a proponent of Dr. Lovelock's Gaia theory, I endorse the development of nuclear power. Further, I think, environmenatlist should step up, admit their error in attacking nuclear power, and, actively push a nuclear power agenda.

It's All About Money (0, Flamebait)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849804)

I'm reading a lot about countries, Britan, Finland the US etc, pushing nuclear energy as a "safer", "cleaner" alternative. It's a PR stunt.

Nuclear energy is cheap. That's about all you can say for it.

As to safety. Well relative to single other form of electricity generation, nuclear power is the most dangerous. A coal plant's worst case scenario is a giant smog cloud. A nuclear plants worst case scenario is the permanent evacuation of the highly populated region surrounding Chernobyl, and a significant rise in lukemia rates, etc, etc. "That'll NEVER happen" I hear them say already. "Not with modern technology and computeeeerssss....". Oh Dear.

Cleaner? Coal and gas give off Carbon oxides and other nasties. Yes this is a problem. But nuclear power gives us all that lovely radioactive waste which quite simply has to be thrown in big holes and the lid sealed up for over 40,000 years!

40,000 years is just the half life of uranium! Is the UK even going to be around in 40,000 years. Offtopic, don't answer that. But riddle me this. How many engineering firms can build a nuclear waste disposal site that can be guaranteed to contain the radioactivity for 40,000 years. If you can find one, I've got this bridge...

Oh, but oil and gas are contributing to the greenhouse effect! Well yes they are, but does that justify building more reactors, generating more nuclear waste, AND more nuclear warheads? There' this thing called the sun. Provides loads of energy. The Wind! Water? Is nothing else viable? Well they work..... but Nuclear are much cheaper!

And nuclear plants ARE cheap. No question about it. Yes. Very cheap. No more oil importing. Cost reductions. Balence of Trade. What's a few nuclear drums? Yes. Very, very cheap.

no need for conflict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13849831)

He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions.

Indeed international treaties (such as Kyoto emission reduction) and nuclear power are not mutually exclusive, at least not in Finland. In fact, it is argued that Finland could not meet the Kyoto requirements without it.

Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor [bbc.co.uk]
Finland gets first Kyoto emission reductions from Honduras hydropower project [finland.fi]

Hmmm (1)

graveyhead (210996) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849843)

I wonder if he's being forced to say that by one of these guys [bbc.co.uk] who is secretly building a giant bomb on top of a time-fissure in Cardiff!

Nah, that couldn't happen. It's about as likely as hmm, a Doctor Who spinoff series starring a bisexual army captain. Oh wait, nevermind.

My concerns (4, Interesting)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849883)

I have no problem with nuclear power, modern plants are safe and quite useful.

However, I do not exactly trust the upper management of such facilities to always do the right thing, after years of shoddy practices by some owner/operators. In the past, I've encountered many stories of rather remarkable safety oversights and downright irresponsible decisions that have made certain reactors unnecessarily dangerous. Sure we have the NRC, but history has shown that they are not always on the ball...or quite far from it.

As with virtually every major reactor incident that has ever occurred, the human element is the potential problem, not the technology.

So fellow nuclear power supporters, please understand when some of us have genuine concerns about construction of new plants, and please do not lump us all in the "OMG ATOMS!!!!" category. In fact, fellow environmentalists here in Florida are only asking for a large exclusion zone around a new plant that is being considered. Obviously, they are going to get the zone for a variety of reasons, theirs being that it makes a fantastic nature preserve.

IMBY (in my back yard) (1)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 8 years ago | (#13849919)

i would love to have a nuke plant in my backyard - but alas, the environmentalists prevent any form of nuclear power in the US from growing.

i would love to get hydrogen from that plant - but alas, the envrionmentalists refuse to take SUV's out of the equation - SUV's powered by hydrogen piss them off too.

please - put a nuclear power plant in my back yard - i'm in Southern California.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>