You’d be forgiven for thinking The Engineer’s online editorial is somewhat geared toward the greener, renewable end of the energy market and to some extent you’d be right.
After all, The Engineer focuses on innovation, and with legislation pushing UK and other EU nations down the route to significant cuts in their overall carbon emissions, this sector is the focus of much of the R&D in the energy industry. This is in turn is generating a significant amount of business and technology news from all engineering sectors.
An event starting this week, however, could soon have our news desk looking more frequently at nuclear new build.
Starting tomorrow at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London is the ‘Nuclear New Build Conference: Nuclear’s New Generation Overview’.
The topics on the agenda for the two-day conference include supply chain issues, the skills gap, regulation, decommissioning and best practice.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is currently overseeing decommissioning activities at 20 sites across Britain, putting the UK at the forefront of innovation in legacy waste. However, Sizewell B, Britain’s newest nuclear power station, gained its rating certificate some 15 years ago, and questions about home-grown skills will, once again be brought to the fore at the conference.
On a broader level, the conference will discuss the thorny issue of ‘hearts and minds’, and sessions will be held on public opinion toward new build. Nuclear issues seem to polarise opinion in much the same way as hunting with hounds, and conference delegates might do well to turn their company’s respective PR budgets to national campaigns in the pursuit of winning public opinion.
How so? Let’s look again at Sizewell B, where construction began in earnest in 1988. For seven years, that normally quiet corner of north-east Suffolk became a thriving, confident community that embraced the opportunities brought to it by the nuclear power plant.
Since gaining its rating certificate, the power station’s owners have been a good and seemingly transparent neighbour to Sizewell and the adjoining small town of Leiston. So winning ‘hearts and minds’ at proposed new-build sites which already have an existing nuclear presence – which many of them do – is maybe not the issue here.
Conference delegates might care to remember that, to the wider public away from the existing nuclear sites, the nuclear industry is shrouded in secrecy; or that nuclear power is not something they can have a say in. Then there are the effects on public opinion of the high-profile accidents; the incident at Three Mile Island or the Chernobyl disaster.
These are clearly exceptions in an industry that has generated safe, clean electricity for years. An industry that offers a diverse range of highly-skilled, well-paid engineering careers that can take people across the globe.
It is up to the nuclear lobby to bridge this knowledge gap and in doing so win the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider public.
Until there is a proved, tested and foolproof method of “neutralizing” nuclear energy waste the public will never fully accept nuclear power stations, and who can blame them. What country in its right mind would build large numbers of these power stations without knowing what to do in an emergency!
In one sense it beggars belief that this is till a matter of debate, being anti-nuclear power in the UK today is a preposterous stance, and has been for decades. Nuclear has its drawbacks, but they are less than almost any other form of power genreration. I agree with you, all that is needed is a little simple education of ‘the public’.
Alan, How does ‘neutralizing’ nuclear energy waste and knowing what do in an emergency have anything to do with each other!?
How to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider public?
Easy, don’t build nuclear power stations, then wait until the lights go out, general acceptance will come thick and fast. Of course by then it’s all too late – but this is Britain isn’t it?
i firmly believe that,in view of the fact that new nuclear generation is the only way to achieve green energy, a total rethink on the way new nuclear plants are designed is required.
new nuclear sites should be designed as PODS which would place 4 ( or more ) reactors on one site. each reactor would need to be designed to be easily decommissioned and would, before being finally sealedhave all the medium and high level waste generated during its operating life placed in the pod. this would remove the need to store waste offsite. each pod could be built as the preceeding pod was coming to the end of its rated life.
The people we need to convince are the activists such as Greenpeace, Friends of the earth etc. they seem to be the one who have sway over public opinion. They need to think things through to there logical conclusion. We have seen the call for bio fuels accelerate de-forestation. The campaign against GM foods with potential to help feed the starving third world and the finally years of political procrastination, when we should have been building nuclear plants. You only have to look over channel to France a country largely free from the worry of security of power supply.
Nuclear will never be anyones favourite..but it is proven technology that provides the countrys needs..Waste can be recycled and people have to understand it’s a learning curve and we will get better at it…So stop bickering and lets move forwards!
The world needs energy produced with minimum emission of “greenhouse gases”, and superficially Nuclear Energy fills that need.
The disadvantage is that when the fuel is “spent” by current standards, it still retains enough energy to be dangerous, for a very long time.
And we do not yet REALLY know how to deal with it, other than to bury it and hope for the best for our “Great to a large index” children that all will be well by then.
Should we not be VERY actively exploring methods of extracting more of that energy so that the spent fuel is no longer dangerous?
Alan:
We do know how to “neutralize” nuclear waste. This is done by reprocessing it and using the reprocessed fissionable material in a reactor. By doing the reprocessing multiple times you can eliminate all radioactive nuclear products from the wastes stream.
The reason this is not done is because some of the fissionable product are elements like Plutonium, which scares the general public even more than uranium.
The understanding of the technology to do this safely exists and can be readily implemented, so that in the end the waste is essentially zero. Unfortunately under the current nearly 95% of all the available energy from nuclear fission is still in the waste stream.
Maybe we will need nuclear energy – to keep “the lights on”. But maybe we would be able to stick with conventional power for much longer if the world wasn’t over-populated. More people, more demand – fairly simple. Increased contraception would be a safe alternative to lots of nuclear plants.
“Nuclear will never be anyone’s favourite..but it is proven technology that provides the countrys needs.”
It is not a proven technology. Sure it has provided a lot of power over the last 50 years but at what cost? The disaster at chernobyl broke the Soviet Union economically and the human cost was truely horrific. Gorbachev himself as stated that he cannot conceive of the use of nuclear power.
What mankind needs to do and rapidly is think of ways to live that require far less energy usage not think of ways to feed an insaitable demand
Maybe we should learn how to conserve energy first. As a return-on-profit option nuclear is a dead end. Without government subsidies it is a non-starter, and the enlightened public is aware of this. Keep adding pods and neutralizing steps to the process and see the new direct cost and time run-out. Stop the blame game and focus on reality.
To get this one right Scientist and Engineers must communicte axioms of the Nuclear proces as if playing Bach nothing else will wash with the public.Dont leave it to the Government or PR.
Unfortunately I suspect that convincing Greenpeace et al that Nuclear is a viable solution to our energy security will take a great deal longer than it will take to build a new generation of reactors! The ultimate solution to the world’s energy problems lie in Fusion, still a long way from a commercial solution, but we need to start throwing large amounts of money at it now and cooperating with other countries who are researching this energy source.
It maybe somewhat naive but if we could harness fusion effectively the political benefits would be huge as well, no more invading of oil producing states on the various pretexts that have been used so far and ultimately there would be no energy poverty anywhere.
Alan’s comment [on “neutralising” nuclear energy waste] is typical of those that are wrongly, (for the sake of free speach), given high publicity which underminds the UK nuclear industries service to our society that we have enjoyed since the 1960,s “abundant affordable electricity”. The comments are full of self opinionated, dramatic lanuguage issued without any factual background or substance and is nothing more than liberal ranting that is offered as an alternative opinion. The nuclear industry on the other hand has to constantly use facts and justify its responses which constrains its passion in argument. As an engineer producing HV insulated products over the last 22 years, I have seen the progressive demise of our SECURE power generators and the North Sea resources, which have been wasted as a sop to the anti nuclear lobby. This has resulted in the dash for gas where we have wasted our precious North Sea gas reserves on generation rather than domestic use, closed down our colleries in favour of overseas coal and brought about the added expense of the new Dutch interconector and over use of the Kent interconnector to France. We now import a significant and dangeous proportion of our energy resources, putting the UK in a worse position than in 1972 when we had the oil crisis and the 3 day week constaring out generation output. I for one do not want my children living in a country where candle light is reintroduced out of nessecity and thermal underware becomes the norm at home beceause we can’t afford to heat our houses. I have lived through the 50 year era of secure UK based generation and nuclear heated water for steam generators, has been a price worth paying for. I dont need Green Peace to lie to me that alternative power is now up to 5% when that includes all the old hydro schemes which also need renovation. If UK engineers are prevented from providing UK society what it needs when it needs it, then forget astorides distroying our way of life, this soft liberal minority will achieve it by using ignorance, (just as religon was used before it), to constrain an improving life style, so that a few Vegan nut cases can walk around in sack cloth and ashes and profess the end of the world is coming, which it will, when the real power shortages begin, and by which time it will be 8 to 10 years to late ……………. Please let’s stop giving media coverage to those who cant support their claims without facts …. Yours sincerely a life time engineer …
Alan, like a lot of people in this country has missed the point, but I can’t blame him. There are engineered solutions to the question of nuclear waste, albeit the legacy of its safe management is measured in thousands of years. There are 3 basic problems. Firstly, successive governments for decades have failed to deliver on a national policy and provide the cash for its implementation. Secondly, the nuclear industry has failed miserably to explain to the public what needs to be done to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Thirdly, the public is understandably NIMBY sceptical – who wants a waste depositary in their back yard? Finally a word for the “anti’s” – living in a civilised society we must all accept risk to maintain our standard of living. The NII watchdog protects us against the operational risk of nuclear “accidents”. Let there be no doubt an energy shortage is looming, which cannot be fully replaced by renewables. Fossil fuels give rise to CO2 emissions and global warming. There is not alternative but to go with the civil nuclear option.
The plain facts of the matter are that without nuclear energy the lights will go out in the UK. I predict that within the next ten years we will all have to accept rolling power outages because it’s already too late to prevent this scenario. This situation has been caused by weak leadership, persistent government prevarication and an irrational fear of offending minority groups. The overwhelming majority of people who live in the UK want to be able to enjoy their lives in reasonable comfort and security and short-time working, darkness, cold and death should simply NOT be on the agenda. I look to the government to grow a backbone and act NOW before it really is too late!
Gentlemen, I stand corrected, I merely wrote my point of view as a human being concerned with the safety of his country’s inhabitants if or when something goes wrong with a nuclear powered station. I am a special purpose equipment designer and know nothing of nuclear energy, so to those I have offended I sincerely apologize. Most people I speak to on the subject share my fears about nuclear safety but it seems that our fears are unfounded – everything is in hand. If all eventualities are catered for and terrorists cannot blow one of these stations up, and if all leakages are addressed instantly I can see no reason why we shouldn’t have them.
I am pleased to see that the majority of respondents have provided thoughtful and logical responses.
To address also the latest fashion for 5MW offshore windmills. There is insufficient consideration for the cost and extent of connection grids, interface converters and the associated maintenance.
Windmills, (like water mills) gave way to steam that was subsequently consigned to history as inefficient and not suitable for purpose.
The issue of these systems being so inefficient still remain. Only 1% to 5% of the fuel is burnt, the rest is waste and very troublesome.Let’s not fool ourselves here.The fuel availablity is limited.
Time to consider a nuclear alternative?-try LFTR thorium power – 99% used energy leaving 1% waste to attend to.Google “LFTR thorium”.
I was going ask why people feel we are so dependant on nuclear energy and to write about how much more efficient renewable energies are now but a later article does this for me;
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/1001269.article?cmpid=TE01&cmptype=newsletter
The bulk of the public are always going to worry about the nuclear waste already buried let alone any future waste. That is before you discuss how long and how costly it is to decommission each nuclear tower. Those costs are not always accounted for when the figures are presented for which fuel is more efficient and are then paid for by the public.