Nuclear FiRST
It is now widely accepted that nuclear power is a key solution to the dual issues of reducing our environmental impact, and security of energy supply. Nuclear First offers a unique doctoral training programme that aims to address the need for specialist skills in nuclear fission and engineering.
On 9th November this year, the Government identified ten suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants. Public consultations are currently taking place around the UK to resolve where and how to host the resulting waste. This is seen by many as the most risky part of the nuclear process.
When making decisions, public consultations are almost exclusively focusing on safety and risk. However, there are also potential benefits for local communities that choose to host such a site, such as employment opportunities and access to a renewable source of energy. With this project I aim to combine the individual expertise of the doctoral students and those living in close proximity to nuclear plants through a series of workshops, to help consider both the deliberate and unexpected payback/consequences a nuclear waste facility could offer, such as the design/evolution of unique landscapes fed by an abundance of heat and energy.
On 9th November this year, the Government identified ten suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants. Public consultations are currently taking place around the UK to resolve where and how to host the resulting waste. This is seen by many as the most risky part of the nuclear process.
When making decisions, public consultations are almost exclusively focusing on safety and risk. However, there are also potential benefits for local communities that choose to host such a site, such as employment opportunities and access to a renewable source of energy. With this project I aim to combine the individual expertise of the doctoral students and those living in close proximity to nuclear plants through a series of workshops, to help consider both the deliberate and unexpected payback/consequences a nuclear waste facility could offer, such as the design/evolution of unique landscapes fed by an abundance of heat and energy.
Cesar Harada commented :
My websites, a couple of my blogs have been surgically hacked and destroyed after I published UK, Japanese and french nuclear waste locations in the oceans rifts (deep sea) in the late 70's and 80's. At the time, the governments were proudly showing off their technological advances and "forever lasting containers"... Nothing to be proud of these days, out of fashion it seems.
There is no freedom of information, nor governmental dialog and transparency on these issues, and when it comes to what is "widely accepted" I can testify from my own experience, it is not very difficult to make the loud one quiet.
I'll be quiet.
...
What I want to say here : in a developed country like the US, nuclear represents only 19.3% of the electric production (ref1). How can a not so "widely spread" technology receive such a wide strategical protection and undermining of oppositions? We can control way better the long term effects of fossil energies production and waste treatment, and, just to give an example, the cost per megawatt per hour (in the US again) for coal is inferior to nuclear, and equivalently reliable (Nuclear 30.0$/Mw-hr VS Coal 29.1$/Mw-hr) (ref 2).
So, I dont know what is going to be discussed during your workshop, but I question the starting point to be that : there is no more option but to accept nuclear power as an evidence, when there are other better options avaible.
I am not against nuclear, I just think they may be better options out there we must consider to be fair.
ref1 : Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer, (c. 2006), accessed 2008-03-28, Washington: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
ref2 : http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
There is no freedom of information, nor governmental dialog and transparency on these issues, and when it comes to what is "widely accepted" I can testify from my own experience, it is not very difficult to make the loud one quiet.
I'll be quiet.
...
What I want to say here : in a developed country like the US, nuclear represents only 19.3% of the electric production (ref1). How can a not so "widely spread" technology receive such a wide strategical protection and undermining of oppositions? We can control way better the long term effects of fossil energies production and waste treatment, and, just to give an example, the cost per megawatt per hour (in the US again) for coal is inferior to nuclear, and equivalently reliable (Nuclear 30.0$/Mw-hr VS Coal 29.1$/Mw-hr) (ref 2).
So, I dont know what is going to be discussed during your workshop, but I question the starting point to be that : there is no more option but to accept nuclear power as an evidence, when there are other better options avaible.
I am not against nuclear, I just think they may be better options out there we must consider to be fair.
ref1 : Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer, (c. 2006), accessed 2008-03-28, Washington: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
ref2 : http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
[Image: The Hanging Hotel by Takis Zenetos; think of it as the 
[Image: The Hanging Hotel, strung onto a cliffside like a musical instrument, by Takis Zenetos].
[Image: The Cable City of Takis Zenetos].
[Image: The Cable City of Takis Zenetos; the 
[Images: The Cable City of Takis Zenetos].
[Images: A turbined gorge by Takis Zenetos].
[Image: Courtesy of 
[Images: The rooms arrive by ship – before sliding open to form individual cabinettes. Courtesy of 
[Image: Courtesy of 
[Image: Courtesy of 
[Image: Courtesy of 