Britain, France team up to take over Nuclear power

[Admiral Valdemar]

LOL I know that ad. It's so sensationalist.


There's conflicting reports on whether a fully-loaded 747 could penetrate the reactor housing, although the NRC states it's unlikely one can.

Any modern airliner would bounce off and kill only those poor schmucks on-board. The reactor, aside from being SCRAM'd within seconds once a plane was sighted, would be perfectly intact. Those domes are solid ferrocrete of a double-hull design, each being several metres thick with the reactor pressure vessel being various alloys that have to withstand immense temperature, pressure and kinetic variations. The big problem is waste, which is less well protected and can't be shut off.

But we have SAM sites around those places.

[CaptainChewbacca]

LOL I know that ad. It's so sensationalist.


There's conflicting reports on whether a fully-loaded 747 could penetrate the reactor housing, although the NRC states it's unlikely one can.

Any modern airliner would bounce off and kill only those poor schmucks on-board. The reactor, aside from being SCRAM'd within seconds once a plane was sighted, would be perfectly intact. Those domes are solid ferrocrete with the reactor pressure vessel being various alloys that have to withstand immense temperature, pressure and kinetic variations. The big problem is waste, which is less well protected and can't be shut off.

But we have SAM sites around those places.

Really? England kicks ass!

[Nathaniel]

It's probably the same for all first world nuclear sites.

[Chris OFarrell]

ANSTO's research nuclear reactor in Sydney, which was being built post 9-11 even had an upgrade specifically designed to deal with aircraft.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200712/r213182_821902.jpg

The reactor is buried deep inside the building, with heavy shielding and so on of course, but something as simple as a reinforced steal grating can make the whole thing academic. It won't STOP a 747, but it will deflect it and shred it enough so it probably won't even scratch the reactor shielding. Its apparently VERY tough.

And this is a bloody research reactor! It doesn't even produce power, thanks to the stupidity of the Australian population at large. Example, the original reactor on this site was build literally in the middle of nowhere, a LONG LONG way from human population. Even today, its in the middle of bushland, but the urban crawl has slowly expanded out in that direction and now the new locals are screaming for it to be shut down every other month because its 'dangerous'.

I mean WHY THE HELL did you MOVE THERE you TWITS? If you look at the place on GOogle Earth, you can see how houses have slowly been built closer and closer, following a couple of the highways that lead South from Sydney, but you can guess just how remote the place was when it was built!

[Shinova]

It's at this point that smart people buy huge tracks of property closer towards the reactor, build obscene mansions, and laugh and flaunt their abodes at the silly people.

[Sea Skimmer]

But we have SAM sites around those places.

Says who? Anyway, if that is true then it’s probably nothing more then MANPADS, given the small number of Rapier firing units in service, not a particularly good defense against a four engine airliner. But then, if terrorists hijack a 474 only to fly it into a nuclear waste dump rather then hitting a skyscraper with 20,000 people in it, that’s way better then thing could be anyway.

It's probably the same for all first world nuclear sites.

I doubt that actually, because the risk of a shoulder fired anti aircraft missile being stolen from one of those sites and used to shoot down an airliner is going to be an awful lot higher then the risk of a terrorist attack using a large aircraft.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Says who? Anyway, if that is true then it’s probably nothing more then MANPADS, given the small number of Rapier firing units in service, not a particularly good defense against a four engine airliner. But then, if terrorists hijack a 474 only to fly it into a nuclear waste dump rather then hitting a skyscraper with 20,000 people in it, that’s way better then thing could be anyway.

It is that. Though I recall reading of plans years ago to have Bloodhounds based around such sites permanently too, among other things. Generally speaking, no missile is going to get rid of a full airliner in one shot, but MANPADS can at least screw their approach. The dome shielding does the rest.

[Darth Wong]

Really? England kicks ass!

Commercial nuclear reactors in first-world nations have employed such protection for decades.



This is the old Pickering NGS site in Ontario, near where I grew up. See those round pill things? They're huge and very well-armoured reactor containment structures, which you realize when you walk into them and you realize how thick the walls and doors are. The big cylinder structure is a 50m tall vacuum building, which is maintained at near-vacuum and will automatically suck up any results of a leak if one should occur.

[Shroom Man 777]

I really hope this British-French thing, which has dudes in Germany and the UAE and in South Korea all perking up, is but the beginning of an international drive for nukey-nukey. Even here in the Philippines, there is some interest in nuclear power plants. I hope it won't be too late, and I hope it'll make tomorrow a safer place. Our friend, the atom!

The only opponent is public ignorance and fear.

[Shroom Man 777]

And to that youtube anti-nuclear ad, I say:

IF YOU SUPPORT NUCLEAR ENERGY, YOU HAET SOLAR POWER AND WIND POWER. DON'T GO OUT IN DAYLIGHT AND DON'T BREATHE AIR! ALSO, YOU HAET HYDRO ENERGY, SO DON'T DRINK TAP WATER.

I am a greenpeace.

[PainRack]

Really? England kicks ass!

Commercial nuclear reactors in first-world nations have employed such protection for decades.

Methinks the Wookiee was talking about the SAMs>>>>>>>>


So..... other than waste disposal and thermal pollution, are there any other disadvantages of situating a nuclear powerplant near a city?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Really? England kicks ass!

Commercial nuclear reactors in first-world nations have employed such protection for decades.

Methinks the Wookiee was talking about the SAMs>>>>>>>>

Yes, yes I was.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Update on the beeb:

UK push for big nuclear expansion

Twenty percent of Britain's power comes from nuclear sources
Business secretary John Hutton is to call for a "significant expansion" in Britain's nuclear power industry.

In a speech to the Unite trade union, he argues the industry should go beyond replacing its 23 ageing reactors, which provide 20% of the UK's electricity.

He will call for the creation of a £20bn industry with 100,000 new jobs - making the UK "the gateway to a new nuclear renaissance across Europe".

It comes as the President of France - a world nuclear leader - visits the UK.

Mr Sarkozy is due to discuss nuclear cooperation when he meets Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Nuclear energy provides about 79% of France's energy.

French energy giant EDF is among the private firms poised to build a new generation of reactors in the UK after the government came out in favour of nuclear energy in January.

Ministers have streamlined the planning process and approved a new generation of reactor designs in a bid to boost private investment.

'Energy independent'

Mr Hutton has refused to put a figure on the amount of energy he wants to see generated by nuclear plants in the future - but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it should be "significantly more" than the current level.


I want Britain to be leading the world in the development and application of this new generation of low carbon power technology
John Hutton
Business secretary

"I think if we are really serious about our climate change responsibilities, if we want Britain to be as energy-independent as possible - then I think we should be talking about a significant expansion over and above the current contribution that nuclear power makes.

"It's now about 20%. I think it should be significantly more than that, if we are really going to reap the dividend of switching quickly to a proven low-carbon technology like nuclear power."

Reactors have been proved safe and delaying using them more widely could be disastrous for the environment, according to Mr Hutton.

He added: "I think the technology is proven, not just in terms of producing electricity but in terms of safety as well.

"In terms of waste disposal, I don't think there is an argument about how it should be done - there is an argument about where it should be done."

The government has put its faith in nuclear power to prevent over-reliance on foreign energy supplies, such as gas from Russia, as North Sea oil runs out.

'Fantastic opportunity'

It also claims nuclear power will help the UK meet its carbon emission targets - although environmental groups say its likely impact has been overstated.

The UK government are becoming increasingly obsessed with the illusion that nuclear power is the "silver bullet" to tackle climate change
Mike Weir SNP energy spokesman

They have called for the money to be spent on renewables such as wind and wave power instead.

In his speech, Mr Hutton will say: "There has never been a greater global demand for finance, equipment and skills to build and operate nuclear power stations.

"I want Britain to be leading the world in the development and application of this new generation of low carbon power technology."

The nuclear industry currently employs around 40,000 workers and supports another 40,000 jobs indirectly.

No new nuclear power plants have been built in the UK since Sizewell B, which opened in 1994.

'Completely crazy'

Dougie Rooney, from Britain's biggest trade union Unite, supported Mr Hutton's idea.

"It's a fantastic opportunity. First of all we're talking here about jobs and security of supply in the long term, and the quality of life of people.

"We're talking about a fantastic opportunity for the manufacturing industry, we could kick-start our foundry industry, we could kick-start our fabrication industry."

But the SNP - which has said it would block any plans for new reactors in Scotland - said Mr Hutton had succumbed to a "severe bout of March madness".

The party's Westminster energy spokesman Mike Weir said: "The UK government are becoming increasingly obsessed with the illusion that nuclear power is the "silver bullet" to tackle climate change.

"This is completely crazy given that there is no solution to the huge problems associated with nuclear power, particularly the disposal of nuclear waste."

Love how all the comments are about how it's lunacy. A pity liberal tendnacies these days means anti-nuke. (In the popular media).

[Jade Falcon]

The SNP are nothing but a grandstand party, for instance, one of their promises was to not close two accident and emergency units in hospitals in Scotland, which they delivered on, but it's only a temporary delay.

Salmond is fond of the sound of his own voice, even more so than most politicians, and is so bloody smug and condescending.

[Shroom Man 777]

Dumb politics aside, you gotta love that British humour. March madness indeed.

Madness?!

Oh... well, you know the rest.

[Zac Naloen]

The party's Westminster energy spokesman Mike Weir said: "The UK government are becoming increasingly obsessed with the illusion that nuclear power is the "silver bullet" to tackle climate change.

What's climate change got to do with the disposal of Nuclear waste?

It's a completely seperate issue

[ray245]

Hmm, then is it viable for singapore to use nuclear power?

The sad thing is that we are so small, that in case of a nuclear power station screw up, we are more or less screwed.

[Rye]

The party's Westminster energy spokesman Mike Weir said: "The UK government are becoming increasingly obsessed with the illusion that nuclear power is the "silver bullet" to tackle climate change.

What's climate change got to do with the disposal of Nuclear waste?

It's a completely seperate issue

Uh, what? If you make lots of nuke reactors to produce energy in place of fossil fuels, you are dealing with climate change. The waste from nuclear reactors is difficult to deal with, so it should be viewed as a "con" to the technology.

[Dartzap]

Sarkozy actually gave a pretty good speech to the Commons and Lords. It made us all fuzzy and warm inside....for a split secound

[Zixinus]

It's good news to hear this. Hopefully other countries will follow example.

[Vendetta]

This is one of the reasons that democracy is overrated. The average person is too fucking stupid to make decisions like this, and would probably veto nuclear power because "Radiation! Scary!" That's why you need qualified experts making recommendations, and people who read reports based on those recommendations: something almost no regular people will do.

And a prime example is that smug condescending twat, Alex Salmon who is Scottish First Minister who has declared...

"Scotland does not want nuclear power"

Scotland is one of the few countries with sufficient coastline to population ratio to fulfil it's projected energy needs from wind and tidal power. So in that one case, nuclear isn't the only option.

Most countries, of course, can't.

[montypython]

If nuclear power ever starts expanding significantly again, at least make use of the nuclear waste material in breeder reactors instead of putting it in places like Yucca Flats...

[Adrian Laguna]

Commercial nuclear reactors in first-world nations have employed such protection for decades.

Methinks the Wookiee was talking about the SAMs>>>>>>>>

Yes, yes I was.

And as a result of the confusion, I spent several moments squinting at the picture of Pickering Site, looking for the launchers.