Nuclear power was thrust into local headlines last week when a report tipped that nuclear power could be coming to South Oxfordshire, if the Government decides to build an new generation of nuclear plants.
Experts suggested industrial sites at Didcot and nearby Harwell as possible locations for a new plant - and local residents reacted with horror at the thought of radioactivity creeping close to their doors. Oxfordshire is the birthplace of nuclear research in Britain, so I felt compelled to find out more about this mysterious source of energy.
I headed off to Harwell, the site of a former nuclear research centre, which is being cleaned up after closing in the mid 1990s. The centre is owned by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), a public body responsible for decommissioning the radioactive site by 2025.
By this time, it should be a safe place to build homes and workplaces on the green fields that are left behind.
In fact, it will have a lower radiation count than most places in the country, said my UKAEA guide Angela Vincent as I was shown around Area 462, where waste is stored in canisters, ready for burial underground.
My mind conjured up green-glowing crystals that looked like Kryptonite, so I was highly disappointed to find that the first piece of nuclear waste I saw looked like a dirty tissue.
advertisement
This is quite normal, says Angela. Most waste is just ordinary items that are contaminated during the daily workings of a nuclear operation.
A three-foot-thick glass barrier separates me from this killer waste, which could make me seriously ill if I handled it directly.
To move it, I operated a big metal robotic arm. When I clenched on my side of the glass, the arm on the other side scooped up the deadly material. It felt like I was playing a puzzle game on The Crystal Maze or fishing for soft toys at a fairground.
About 30 people operate the machinery, including Sharon Giddings from Wantage.
She said: "I really enjoy the job, being the only female sorter. I don't worry too much about working with radioactive material."
The control room looked like a scene from an episode of Star Trek. There was even an enormous red button labelled EMERGENCY STOP, which I had to try very hard not to press.
This is the hub of the site. Medium-level waste is put in lead-lined drums, packed in with concrete and taken for temporary burial on-site.
It all seems a very safe, clean place, full of happy nuclear-friendly people - but I got slightly scared when I was told I must be scanned for radiation before I leave.
I stood in a man-sized booth, slid my arms down dark tubes and pressed the front of my body against a wall. I was given the all-clear, but it was a bit disconcerting.
For the last part of my tour, I was driven to the site of the old nuclear reactors. Pluto, Dido and Bepo sound like Disney characters, but in fact they are the domed buildings where the most important nuclear research in Britain was done for half a century.
The spin-off science behind heart pacemakers, early computers - and the bubbles in Maltesers - were developed on this site. I was impressed. Head of site John Wilkins explained that as Harwell is decommissioned, it has started a new life as a science park of world-renowned status. He said: "When the site is cleaned up by 2025, we'll have to demonstrate that there's no danger at all left from radiation.
"Now we have the new Diamond Light Source facility on site (a giant microscope) and many exciting companies turning this into a site of innovation."
My whirlwind nuclear experience was over. I hadn't sprouted two heads or started "feeling a bit funny".
But as I left the fortified compound, exchanging a cheery word with the armed police at the gate, my thoughts turned to the sinister aspects of radioactive material and the security needed to contain it.
Stored away, buried, far from human touch, we hope that nuclear dangers will not affect our lives - making sure it stays in safely-gloved robotic claws, rather than slipping into the wrong hands.
There really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
There really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .
Nuclear power stations ARE needed but in addtion to other power generation technologies such as wind, hydro etc> the advances in nuclear power since the early stations are huge but I dont think one will be built at Didcot as coastal sites are much preferred.
Nuclear power stations ARE needed but in addtion to other power generation technologies such as wind, hydro etc> the advances in nuclear power since the early stations are huge but I dont think one will be built at Didcot as coastal sites are much preferred.
Posted by: Michael Stuart, Virginia, USA on 7:56pm Fri 15 Jun 07
CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy! Although Gerry Wolff has moderated his exaggerated claims of "500,000 Californians" what he still fails to note is that this power is only available about 20% of the time! While Gerry Wolff is harping on what's possible and what *can* be, he still has to live with the real world data of what is:
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/gro
ss_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/com
parative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/gen/fy98/24496.
pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy! Although Gerry Wolff has moderated his exaggerated claims of "500,000 Californians" what he still fails to note is that this power is only available about 20% of the time! While Gerry Wolff is harping on what's possible and what *can* be, he still has to live with the real world data of what is:
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/gro
ss_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca
.gov/electricity/com
parative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/gen/fy98/24496.
pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Posted by: Michael Stuart, Virginia, USA on 7:58pm Fri 15 Jun 07
In the letter above, please substitute "Robert Palgrave" for "Gerry Wolff". They have posted their form letter of dubious information all over the Internet.
In the letter above, please substitute "Robert Palgrave" for "Gerry Wolff". They have posted their form letter of dubious information all over the Internet.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
