Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Nemesis said:
- Thread starter oldfella
- Start date
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
As they say in forumspeak - LOL! Or even INPML, although that one is FAR too vulgar for PPUK...
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I think the word you're searching for, Middi, is... eclectic.
Excuse me for breaking the reponse into several posts, having some puter issues atm...
I think 50 years is more than enough time.
This simply isnt true. These things have been studied all along, and have turned out much better than initialy expected.
ie you dont know. Coal is the prime contender for that. The available evidence for nuke is very favourable in that area, far more so than once expected. Chernobyll was a significant lesson in that respect, the 3rd party casualty numbers were very low compared to expectations.
Do you believe it was designed that way as a matter of 'pure luck'? I think you need to give the engineers rather more credit. With any engineering solution, the level of protection is proportional to the risk, and engineers have known how to do this for a very long time.
No, we continue to use them becuase regular assessment has found them to be viable and safe. Britain has reactors running way beyond their sell by dates. I'm not 100% certain but ISTR one of the ones I visited was commissioned in the 50s and still going.
With respect, engineers are not morons. We know how to look at every fault mode and design things to fail safely. Google fault tree.
Its true it has had a disproportionate amount of research money, due to the weapons connection. But this is of no relevance to our choice for our future. We just want to choose whats best, not whine 'it isnt fair.'
There is a reason for it, I just hesitate to say because my memory isnt 100% on that one.
it really isnt. Nuke has its issues but that isnt one. The carbon output arguments are nothing more than elementary illogic.
Pretty poorly? Well, if you count the ability to reliably and safely supply entire countries, yeah. There are very few generation technologies that can do that.
yes, I would like to see more input on some of those. But that makes no difference in any way to what we should choose for the future. We just need to choose the best.
NT
gsport george said:
I think 50 years is more than enough time.
This simply isnt true. These things have been studied all along, and have turned out much better than initialy expected.
ie you dont know. Coal is the prime contender for that. The available evidence for nuke is very favourable in that area, far more so than once expected. Chernobyll was a significant lesson in that respect, the 3rd party casualty numbers were very low compared to expectations.
Do you believe it was designed that way as a matter of 'pure luck'? I think you need to give the engineers rather more credit. With any engineering solution, the level of protection is proportional to the risk, and engineers have known how to do this for a very long time.
No, we continue to use them becuase regular assessment has found them to be viable and safe. Britain has reactors running way beyond their sell by dates. I'm not 100% certain but ISTR one of the ones I visited was commissioned in the 50s and still going.
With respect, engineers are not morons. We know how to look at every fault mode and design things to fail safely. Google fault tree.
Its true it has had a disproportionate amount of research money, due to the weapons connection. But this is of no relevance to our choice for our future. We just want to choose whats best, not whine 'it isnt fair.'
There is a reason for it, I just hesitate to say because my memory isnt 100% on that one.
it really isnt. Nuke has its issues but that isnt one. The carbon output arguments are nothing more than elementary illogic.
Pretty poorly? Well, if you count the ability to reliably and safely supply entire countries, yeah. There are very few generation technologies that can do that.
yes, I would like to see more input on some of those. But that makes no difference in any way to what we should choose for the future. We just need to choose the best.
NT
wobs said:
All this is very true for today and the near future. But the door could be widened, we do have options. With the ever falling price of electronic control we could, should we chhoose, move over to a dual tariff system, and have all no-hurry loads sett o use electricity at whatever times its cheaper ie more available. We do this non-intelligently today with economy 7, but in future it could be done by measuring supply frequency, and the 2 rates made available to all houses.
Only some loads could be off peak some of the time, but certainly some load could be shifted to coincide with good wind output this way. This could enable us to go above that 20%, though by how much I really dont know. However, it looks like that wont be the way things go in the near future.
What domestic loads could be time shifted?
Immersion heating: with good insulation it is no longer necessary to heat at time of use. One could heat to 50C at any time, and to 60C during cheaper power times, when the wind blows.
Washing machines could begin when power is cheaper, thus the heatup, which is the major part of their power consumption, plus often the rest of the cycle, would occur on cheaper electricity.
The robot hoover could recharge itself when supply exceeds demand.
etc
NT
quote gsport george
> Probably 90% of the homes in this country burn some form of fuel to provide heat. The high value heat from these fuel sources could easily be harnessed for micro generation of electricity.
its easy if you ignore all the gritty realities, the problems and issues. Dreams tend to sound simple and easy, but when you put them into action all the real world problems come up.
> Energy can also be stored, either as kinetic energy in flywheels or used to create hydrogen for these micro generation plants.
it can be, but neither is a realistic option for home use.
> The new batch of Nuclear Powerplants will take at least 5-10 years to come online, by then, Nano Solar will be producing cheaper cleaner electricity and the expensive plants will be a white elephant for our children...
Lets hope so! But to count on that would be utter folly. We still need a generation system based firmly in reality.
> We can do SO much better than this, but no government likes the idea of the death of the energy "industry" to be replaced by individual energy independence....[/quote]
No-one likes it because it isnt a realistic option today. The extra cost per person would be huge, there would be a major toxin issue, a lot of houses would have a lot of electricity down time, what a crazy choice that would be.
As far as industry and tax money goes, independant gen would bring in way more tax, as the costs are very much higher, but it just isnt a realistic option.
NT
> Probably 90% of the homes in this country burn some form of fuel to provide heat. The high value heat from these fuel sources could easily be harnessed for micro generation of electricity.
its easy if you ignore all the gritty realities, the problems and issues. Dreams tend to sound simple and easy, but when you put them into action all the real world problems come up.
> Energy can also be stored, either as kinetic energy in flywheels or used to create hydrogen for these micro generation plants.
it can be, but neither is a realistic option for home use.
> The new batch of Nuclear Powerplants will take at least 5-10 years to come online, by then, Nano Solar will be producing cheaper cleaner electricity and the expensive plants will be a white elephant for our children...
Lets hope so! But to count on that would be utter folly. We still need a generation system based firmly in reality.
> We can do SO much better than this, but no government likes the idea of the death of the energy "industry" to be replaced by individual energy independence....[/quote]
No-one likes it because it isnt a realistic option today. The extra cost per person would be huge, there would be a major toxin issue, a lot of houses would have a lot of electricity down time, what a crazy choice that would be.
As far as industry and tax money goes, independant gen would bring in way more tax, as the costs are very much higher, but it just isnt a realistic option.
NT
gsport george said:
Yes there is: quantity. Biomass + wind etc just wont give us as much as we need.
why? The technological knowhow is spreading around the globe, this will continue regardless of the wishes of those who now control the technology. And like most technologies, the cost per will continue to fall as the years go by.
Solar PV costs more and delivers less. This is quite workable for tiny loads, but that doesnt apply to even as many as 1% of British houses.
Solar PV has been extensively tried in South Africa, where minimal loads are workable, but system reliablilty has proven very poor.
Nuke is a major player in France, UK, US, and various other countries, so I'm not clear what definition of failure youre using.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, polluting and commits future generations (who have not been consulted) to look after the waste. And there really isn't much uranium that can be mined with a net energy gain.
Here's a recent article from
MoneyWeek
This piece from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. and Philip Smith (2004), "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance", explains that there is only enough nuclear fuel in the world to last three years if all electricity was generated by nuclear.
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
And the definitive article by David Fleming is here:http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm
Here's a recent article from
MoneyWeek
This piece from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. and Philip Smith (2004), "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance", explains that there is only enough nuclear fuel in the world to last three years if all electricity was generated by nuclear.
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
And the definitive article by David Fleming is here:http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm
Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
I won't get too involved in nuclear technology.Penners said:
Only very few radioactive compounds/elements are able to be used to create a controlled chain reaction.
Uranium isotope 235 and Plutonium isotope 239 are two atoms that can create a chain reaction.
The design of a nuclear reactor is specific to the atomic isotope being used to generate heat.
There are two main requirements of a reactor, namely to create a controlled chain reaction and to stop or moderate the chain reaction once started.
Just how that is done is quite complex as it is not simply a chain reaction as other nuclear changes occur as a byproduct within the reactor, some good some really bad.
There are many reasons fuel becomes spent.
Perhaps the most important are atomic breakdown, contamination and physical distortion of the fuel rod in shape, volume or integrity.
As the atoms breakdown (split) during the chain reaction their numbers are reduced making the chain reaction more difficult to produce.
Contamination occurs for many reasons and is often a byproduct of the fission process. Some contamination will disrupt the chain reaction while other contamination will create uncontrolled nuclear changes that can be severely damaging to the reactor and threaten it's integrity.
Distortion of shape and volume of the fuel rod means the mechanical control of the chain reaction is made difficult or impossible. The fuel rod could jam or fall apart.
Usually the spent fuel rod is much MORE dangerous to life when it comes out of the reactor than when it went in.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Some of the posts on this tread make for quite intelligent reading, I feell compelled to contribute.
As to nuclear physics and its reaction with the relevant isotopes in order to bring about a controlled reaction, this can be easily created in a simple home experiment , albeit the reaction is extremely difficult to control and the spent fuel can be just as devastating to the ozone and the wellfare of the planet.
Curry, chips, raw eggs, beans, chillies and a generous amount of alcohol has to be consumed at one meal sitting.
As to nuclear physics and its reaction with the relevant isotopes in order to bring about a controlled reaction, this can be easily created in a simple home experiment , albeit the reaction is extremely difficult to control and the spent fuel can be just as devastating to the ozone and the wellfare of the planet.
Curry, chips, raw eggs, beans, chillies and a generous amount of alcohol has to be consumed at one meal sitting.
Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
Did you know that your compelling and brave home experiment is the exact same experiment the operators of the chernobyl reactor were performing just prior to the explosion?middi said:
wobs
Member
- Messages
- 536
- Location
- Hull - there's a nip in the air.
Some data on the energy costs of power plants. Site specific nuclear plants, rather than pie in the sky figures:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
The claim that there's only a few years worth of uranium left is misleading in the extreme.
Firstly it assumes that the world's electricity is to be powered by nuclear. This is of course is a falsehood, as we're only talking about limited expansion, and the rest of the world is building coal, gas, nuclear and hydro, so it will never happen. Look at how much energy hydro produces. No-one is suggesting we close them down, and yet people still use the "world's electricity" figure.
China is building coal power stations every week, and there's a waiting list for large wind turbines in Europe. Go figure.
The world is in no danger from running out of uranium. Even if we quadrupled our nuclear energy (which we should do), and the rest of the world vastly increased nuclear output, there is no danger of running out.
As I have already stated, we have hardly started looking seriously for new sources, and so the idea we are in danger of running out is laughable. The figures stated in Biffs links quoted "known reserves" are misleading. Given no real prospecting has occurred for many years due to unexpected slow uptake of nuclear, this is not a realiable figure. Think about how much effort has gone into oil/gas exploration, and how much this has produced. Deffeyes & MacGregor have figures on how much is theoretcially recoverable.
Also, as far as energy investment goes, modern plants are far more simple than plants built in the early days. (No I'm not suggesting we should make Sellafield a listed building :wink: ). There has been lessons learnt in the building process, and the designs now incorporate decommissioning considerations, so less energy will be used.
How safe is nuclear? Well compare injuries and deaths with coal or other industries and look at how much energy each industry produces. Nuclear is one of the best in this respect.
The point is though that every energy source for producing electricity has an energy cost that we count in g of carbon. Solar, biomass, wind, etc, and nuclear come out the most favourable for this type of supply. No-one is suggesting we run entirely on nuclear, as this would be inpractical, but to ignore nuclear and not expand it would be bad for the enviornment and bad for the UK.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
The claim that there's only a few years worth of uranium left is misleading in the extreme.
Firstly it assumes that the world's electricity is to be powered by nuclear. This is of course is a falsehood, as we're only talking about limited expansion, and the rest of the world is building coal, gas, nuclear and hydro, so it will never happen. Look at how much energy hydro produces. No-one is suggesting we close them down, and yet people still use the "world's electricity" figure.
China is building coal power stations every week, and there's a waiting list for large wind turbines in Europe. Go figure.
The world is in no danger from running out of uranium. Even if we quadrupled our nuclear energy (which we should do), and the rest of the world vastly increased nuclear output, there is no danger of running out.
As I have already stated, we have hardly started looking seriously for new sources, and so the idea we are in danger of running out is laughable. The figures stated in Biffs links quoted "known reserves" are misleading. Given no real prospecting has occurred for many years due to unexpected slow uptake of nuclear, this is not a realiable figure. Think about how much effort has gone into oil/gas exploration, and how much this has produced. Deffeyes & MacGregor have figures on how much is theoretcially recoverable.
Also, as far as energy investment goes, modern plants are far more simple than plants built in the early days. (No I'm not suggesting we should make Sellafield a listed building :wink: ). There has been lessons learnt in the building process, and the designs now incorporate decommissioning considerations, so less energy will be used.
How safe is nuclear? Well compare injuries and deaths with coal or other industries and look at how much energy each industry produces. Nuclear is one of the best in this respect.
The point is though that every energy source for producing electricity has an energy cost that we count in g of carbon. Solar, biomass, wind, etc, and nuclear come out the most favourable for this type of supply. No-one is suggesting we run entirely on nuclear, as this would be inpractical, but to ignore nuclear and not expand it would be bad for the enviornment and bad for the UK.
wobs
Member
- Messages
- 536
- Location
- Hull - there's a nip in the air.
Of course some people aren't worried about energy, they're more worried about invasion!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10112006/140/earth-wide-open-alien-attack.html
Maybe Santa could help
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10112006/140/earth-wide-open-alien-attack.html
Maybe Santa could help
quote="biffvernon
>Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, polluting and
the facts are pretty much the opposite.
> commits future generations (who have not been consulted) to look after the waste.
The choice should be based on the serious matters that need addressing,
> And there really isn't much uranium that can be mined with a net energy gain.
Biff you need to do some reading.
This piece from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. and Philip Smith (2004), "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance", explains that there is only enough nuclear fuel in the world to last three years if all electricity was generated by nuclear.
if someone says something then it must be right.
NT
>Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, polluting and
the facts are pretty much the opposite.
> commits future generations (who have not been consulted) to look after the waste.
The choice should be based on the serious matters that need addressing,
> And there really isn't much uranium that can be mined with a net energy gain.
Biff you need to do some reading.
This piece from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. and Philip Smith (2004), "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance", explains that there is only enough nuclear fuel in the world to last three years if all electricity was generated by nuclear.
if someone says something then it must be right.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
rofl.NT said:
Not necessarily, but if Storm and Smith say something then it probably is right.NT said:
NT>> "the facts are pretty much the opposite."
maybe, but its how you interpret them thats important - if one third of all road accidents involve drink driving then its surely safer to have a few pints before setting off?
whilst i'd agree with what has been said about taking account of the entire embodied energy in a product, you need to also look at absolute amount of C02 emitted.
Your analogy of the concrete tile being more green that thatch doesnt hold imo. yes, you need to house the thatcher and school his children, but you also need to house the guy digging the cement, so housing etc becomes a common denominator. without actual numbers its not possible to argue in either case
[/quote]
maybe, but its how you interpret them thats important - if one third of all road accidents involve drink driving then its surely safer to have a few pints before setting off?
whilst i'd agree with what has been said about taking account of the entire embodied energy in a product, you need to also look at absolute amount of C02 emitted.
Your analogy of the concrete tile being more green that thatch doesnt hold imo. yes, you need to house the thatcher and school his children, but you also need to house the guy digging the cement, so housing etc becomes a common denominator. without actual numbers its not possible to argue in either case
[/quote]
gsport george
Member
- Messages
- 72
- Location
- Sheffield
NT I am glad you have so much faith in the Engineers.... I am one.
Sure the lorry full of radioactive waste had the opening at the bottom.... doesnt mean the Lorry would always remain upright though does it?
The inherant problem with Nuclear fission is that it is NOT "fail safe".
If ALL systems fail then it WILL go pop, as happened in Chernobyl, we may have one more layer of defence, but that doesnt ELIMINATE the risk, it simply skews the probabilities a touch more in our favour.
To stop the reaction something positive has to happen, the rods have to be pulled out, or the chamber has to be flooded with a supressant (I forget the exact proceedure) but the point is that things have to happen, systems have to work.
Nuclear Power HAS failed. It has failed to deliver CHEAP power. The majority of people ARE against it and since we are supposedly living in a democracy, this alone SHOULD be enough to cause the government to put serious efforts into promoting research into alternatives, which even NOW they arent doing.
The government commissioned TWO reports into the energy needs of the country and they BOTH said Nuclear was not the answer.... but the power of the nuclear lobby is such that a little thing like that isnt going to stop it.
Nuclear Fuel is at an all time high price, countless reports (such as those both I and Biff linked to) have pointed out that the quantities of fuel, that are sufficiently pure, are very low. And that the less pure fuel requires large fossil fuel inputs. Also a lot of this fuel would be coming from "sketchy" parts of the world..
Nuclear Power is NOT a viable solution for the whole world. Can you really see us encouraging Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Syria, etc etc to build nuclear power stations? They simply arent good things to put in "politically volatile" parts of the world as they afford either access to nuclear material for dirty bombs or simply are ideal terrorist targets.
Solar PV IS going to be a major energy supplier at some point. I believe that this will be fairly soon.
If you watch this video:-
http://www.parc.xerox.com/cms/get_article.php?id=543
(it's pretty long but skip to 39 minutes for the costings) you can see that we are looking at $1-50 a Watt (retail) by 2012 WITHOUT any government help (that works out at under 4p a kWh).... At this price and beyond, Nuclear IS an expensive white elephant, yet the new reactors wont even be on-line by then. What WILL be on-line is the numerous new polysilicon refineries in China and the rest of the world which will reduce the costs even further.
ALL this is using current silicon technology, yet this isnt even the frontrunner. non-silicon based nano solar solutions promise to blow this out of the water.
SO. As I said previously. Solar is not CURRENTLY a viable solution, but combined with wind, wave, geothermal, hydro, waste bio-mass (might as well use out rubbish as bury it); efficiency improvements; and storage innovations like hydrogen generation and nano-technology based super capacitors; THERE IS another way.
All these things are coming, we know we can do them, we just need the WILL.
During the second world war, we progressed technology enormously because there was the WILL to do it. We introduced Jet powered aeroplanes, electronic computers, and many other innovations. We constructed factories capable of mass-producing tens of thousands of tanks and aeroplanes a year (that werent even designed 2 years previously).
We constructed floating harbours for the invasion, and laid a fuel pipeline under the channel in 10 hours.... because we HAD to...
We need to be looking at global warming in these terms. We NEED cheaper solar panels, wave power and wind, so instead of fannying about saying it cant be done, we just need to get on with it.
Finally. It is notable that the costs of ALL the renewables continue to fall. Investors continue to move INTO this market, and it becomes more and more attractive. Meanwhile Fission gets more and more expensive and private investors cannot be attracted to even highly supported investment in it....
Under these circumstances, the SENSIBLE thing to do is move to meet the future and reap the benefits of getting in early on the technology. If we invest in it now, we can be net-exporters of IP instead of importing it later...
George.
Sure the lorry full of radioactive waste had the opening at the bottom.... doesnt mean the Lorry would always remain upright though does it?
The inherant problem with Nuclear fission is that it is NOT "fail safe".
If ALL systems fail then it WILL go pop, as happened in Chernobyl, we may have one more layer of defence, but that doesnt ELIMINATE the risk, it simply skews the probabilities a touch more in our favour.
To stop the reaction something positive has to happen, the rods have to be pulled out, or the chamber has to be flooded with a supressant (I forget the exact proceedure) but the point is that things have to happen, systems have to work.
Nuclear Power HAS failed. It has failed to deliver CHEAP power. The majority of people ARE against it and since we are supposedly living in a democracy, this alone SHOULD be enough to cause the government to put serious efforts into promoting research into alternatives, which even NOW they arent doing.
The government commissioned TWO reports into the energy needs of the country and they BOTH said Nuclear was not the answer.... but the power of the nuclear lobby is such that a little thing like that isnt going to stop it.
Nuclear Fuel is at an all time high price, countless reports (such as those both I and Biff linked to) have pointed out that the quantities of fuel, that are sufficiently pure, are very low. And that the less pure fuel requires large fossil fuel inputs. Also a lot of this fuel would be coming from "sketchy" parts of the world..
Nuclear Power is NOT a viable solution for the whole world. Can you really see us encouraging Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Darfur, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Syria, etc etc to build nuclear power stations? They simply arent good things to put in "politically volatile" parts of the world as they afford either access to nuclear material for dirty bombs or simply are ideal terrorist targets.
Solar PV IS going to be a major energy supplier at some point. I believe that this will be fairly soon.
If you watch this video:-
http://www.parc.xerox.com/cms/get_article.php?id=543
(it's pretty long but skip to 39 minutes for the costings) you can see that we are looking at $1-50 a Watt (retail) by 2012 WITHOUT any government help (that works out at under 4p a kWh).... At this price and beyond, Nuclear IS an expensive white elephant, yet the new reactors wont even be on-line by then. What WILL be on-line is the numerous new polysilicon refineries in China and the rest of the world which will reduce the costs even further.
ALL this is using current silicon technology, yet this isnt even the frontrunner. non-silicon based nano solar solutions promise to blow this out of the water.
SO. As I said previously. Solar is not CURRENTLY a viable solution, but combined with wind, wave, geothermal, hydro, waste bio-mass (might as well use out rubbish as bury it); efficiency improvements; and storage innovations like hydrogen generation and nano-technology based super capacitors; THERE IS another way.
All these things are coming, we know we can do them, we just need the WILL.
During the second world war, we progressed technology enormously because there was the WILL to do it. We introduced Jet powered aeroplanes, electronic computers, and many other innovations. We constructed factories capable of mass-producing tens of thousands of tanks and aeroplanes a year (that werent even designed 2 years previously).
We constructed floating harbours for the invasion, and laid a fuel pipeline under the channel in 10 hours.... because we HAD to...
We need to be looking at global warming in these terms. We NEED cheaper solar panels, wave power and wind, so instead of fannying about saying it cant be done, we just need to get on with it.
Finally. It is notable that the costs of ALL the renewables continue to fall. Investors continue to move INTO this market, and it becomes more and more attractive. Meanwhile Fission gets more and more expensive and private investors cannot be attracted to even highly supported investment in it....
Under these circumstances, the SENSIBLE thing to do is move to meet the future and reap the benefits of getting in early on the technology. If we invest in it now, we can be net-exporters of IP instead of importing it later...
George.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Yes, that's right.