<Extrapolating UK's oil production history to the World caseThe Oil Drum: EuropeJoint Energy Security of Supply Working Group>

71 comments on UK Energy Developments

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SHiFTY on May 17, 2006 - 8:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually the more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays into a safe element. Within a few decades, the spent fuel has only a few percent of the original radioactivity, and can be reprocessed (recycled) and used again. The waste created is nasty, sure; but it is a very small amount and is tightly controlled. Unlike say the thousands of tons of toxic ash and CO2 created by coal burning.

The problems of long term waste disposal is mainly political- deep underground storage is feasible and not too costly- the technology-loving Finns are building theirs right now. And after a few hundred years it's not going to be dangerous, given that its so deep and the 'hot' elements will have decayed away to almost nothing.

Bravo to Tony Blair's plan. Relying on the Russians and ME countries for security of supply in the future strikes me as a terrible gamble, and a combination of new nukes, renewables and conservation sounds like a sensible long term plan as well as good for CO2 emissions.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pondlife on May 17, 2006 - 7:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So we still have to rely on other countries. We have no uranium ore in the UK. Renewables are free and here
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.