Nuclear Power

68 lost souls

It wont fully solve that but it will help the overall problem. There is no one all encompassing method to solve every problem and there is some give and take required.

Smart metering, demand side energy management, appliance regulation and other methods will help with changing the demand curve. If smart meters were introduced properly it would really help, the SMIL lab over in Purdue is doing some good work on this http://www.tech.purdue.edu/ecet/SMIL/

The solar decathlon is growing with every event and is helping both raise awareness and further development in energy efficient housing.

Even small things like the introduction of the the energy efficiency rating on white goods is helping.

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

QUOTE=spankmemunkey;83065021]The powers that be, one of the reactors is incased in a Sarcophagus of concrete that is cracking and will need to be replaced with a new Sarcophagus this will only last for another 15 years and it will need to be done again
and again and again and again, for 100,s of thousands of years! Theres tons or Radioactive dust down there that is bad news for all concerned if it escapes.

But that's a far cry from saying it's going to erupt anytime soon, don't you think?
And when the Chernobyl plant is finally cleaned up - as it inevitably will be - it'll be done by nuclear and civil engineers. Not by hand wringing pessimists.
Present company excluded of course



Not quite sure I follow you there, I'm afraid!


This will be a fascinating barny, and one I feel sure the Greens will lose!
Hard headed German industrialists will be in there twisting the new government’s tail after the next elections and pointing out the error of their ways.
Anyone who thinks that whirly gigs are going to power the heavy industries of the Ruhr Valley wants their head examined.

Round one to the Nuke heads;
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_fuel_tax_ruled_unconstitutional_3001131.html[/QUOTE]

You think Germany are making product in Germany anymore? Its shifting towards india and china, youd be surprised how they print made in germany on the packs, poorly made medical instruments made in india with 5 percent German metal and they print on the final product made in Germany.

Opel Audia Volkswagen you name it have all been shifting production abroad, why would they pay Germans to make products that they can have made for much less abroad

The germans have miles upon miles of solar research in Africa and have a huge solar power boom

http://www.dw.de/solar-energy-on-the-rise-in-germany/a-16490941

spankmemunkey

Recidivist wrote: »

What about it?


The senarios you describe are fairly outlandish, Chernobyl, world war and large meteorite impacts? (What about the mutant zombies?)

I agree that nuclear power power is not suitable for Ireland, for rational reasons.

Ha its gas that you should laugh off the possibity of an Asteroid impact. NASA reporting a near miss today!

http://news.sky.com/story/1048633/asteroid-to-pass-earth-in-record-near-miss

Curly Judge

No

Interesting reading perhaps for all those who feel bit jittery about the effects of radiation?

http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/cp1-pioneers/

NTMK

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Ha its gas that you should laugh off the possibity of an Asteroid impact. NASA reporting a near miss today!

http://news.sky.com/story/1048633/asteroid-to-pass-earth-in-record-near-miss

The chances of a meteorite hitting a plant is very slim. they're also pretty good at predicting where comets and what not are going to hit earth fuel can be removed with enough time.

A 50 meter diameter meteorite can deliver the same energy as 150 nuclear warheads if a 1km meteorite hit earth the least of our problems would be nuclear power plants. a 5Km would guarantee our extinction.

Capt'n Midnight

NTMK wrote: »

The chances of a meteorite hitting a plant is very slim. they're also pretty good at predicting where comets and what not are going to hit earth fuel can be removed with enough time.

only the ones we know about in advance, a lot of the stuff that's come closer than the moon has been seen on the way out

A 50 meter diameter meteorite can deliver the same energy as 150 nuclear warheads if a 1km meteorite hit earth the least of our problems would be nuclear power plants. a 5Km would guarantee our extinction.

A nuclear warhead can vary between 0.01 and 100,000 Kilotons. (Davy Crockett - Tsar)

We need a standard nuclear warhead !

NTMK

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

only the ones we know about in advance, a lot of the stuff that's come closer than the moon has been seen on the way out

detection is getting a lot better though but still of all the various things that could cause a nuclear disaster a meteorite is pretty ridiculous choice to focus on:D

A nuclear warhead can vary between 0.01 and 100,000 Kilotons. (Davy Crockett - Tsar)

We need a standard nuclear warhead !

sorry should of stated ~20kt :pac:

AlmightyCushion

No

The possibility of an asteroid hitting the power plant is hardly a good reason not to have a nuclear power plant. We may as well use that logic to get rid of cities and just split people up into towns of <20,000 people because if an asteroid hit Dublin it would cripple the country, ruin the economy and kill about a quarter of the population. The chances of this happening is ridiculously small, but you know, let's not take the chance. We should also stop companies having more than 100 employees because a big employer (like Intel) could go out of business or just leave and then thousands will be out of a job and it'll cause social welfare payments to rise massively and really screw up the economy.

Jester252

No

The odds of an asteroid hitting us are less then two particles of dust on the opposite of large city, such as LA, hitting each other

Capt'n Midnight

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A nuclear warhead can vary between 0.01 and 100,000 Kilotons. (Davy Crockett - Tsar)

We need a standard nuclear warhead !

The Tsar was actually less than 60 Megatons on detonation, they designed it to be 100 Megatons but made it smaller to reduce fall out.*

*Not going against what your saying or anything just saying it out of historical interest.

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

The odds of an asteroid hitting us are less then two particles of dust on the opposite of large city, such as LA, hitting each other

“The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one” he said “The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one – but still they come!”

If the billions of years of the moon and tides slowing down the earth's rotation had been out by 4 hours 47 minutes St Petersburg would have been wiped from the face of the earth by Tunguska.

If Tunguska had happened during the height of the cold war war who knows what the response would have been.



There is a saying that lightening doesn't strike twice.
It's complete rubbish. The lightening conductor on the Empire State Building has been hit twice during the same storm. As we've seen recently when you get a 100 year severe weather event it doesn't mean you then have 99 years of plain sailing. And I'm still not sure the bean counters in the Nuclear Industry understand the way randomness works.

Japan has been lucky, not that there were no big earthquakes since the tsunami, but that the big ones they've had since weren't in the worst possible places.



Also just remembered a German mini-series where the plot was terrorists exploding a fuel air explosive near a Nuclear plant. And the basic premise was that it would have been impossible to upgrade the biological shield to take that sort of hit. In the real world you could use a propane tanker. When people talk about radio active discharges being low and they don't include the accidents and cover ups then they are misrepresenting the way the Nuclear Industry works. Just because BNFL were caught faking records doesn't mean that they didn't fake other ones or that no one else in the industry was/is doing it.

Capt'n Midnight

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

The Tsar was actually less than 60 Megatons on detonation, they designed it to be 100 Megatons but made it smaller to reduce fall out.*

*Not going against what your saying or anything just saying it out of historical interest.

The surplus neutrons from the fusion stage can be used to fission more uranium. It's a quick and dirty way of boosting yield. Instead they put lead in place of the extra uranium.

Anyone looking at the seismometer and then detecting the radiation would figure out that's what they did.

The design of the weapon was interesting since it was a cluster of nukes, and also in that is demonstrated beyond all doubt that there really isn't an upper limit on the size of such weapons if you have enough material.

The practical upper limit is set by the depth of the atmosphere - if your blast is bigger than that most of the energy will be directed into space. It's like dropping a boulder into a puddle 5mm deep, it just isn't going to splash as much as dropping it into a lake.

shootie

I can see it's benefits but I just don't see it happening I'm afraid. Too much amplifying of sellafield's issues to get the people, especially in Eastern counties, to support it.

Internal terrorism is a factor too I'm afraid. What's to stop some idiotic nationalist/unionist group threatening to blow stuff up unless demands are met?

We get enough wind and rain here to generate energy from other less costly means surely?

Capt'n Midnight

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The surplus neutrons from the fusion stage can be used to fission more uranium. It's a quick and dirty way of boosting yield. Instead they put lead in place of the extra uranium.

Anyone looking at the seismometer and then detecting the radiation would figure out that's what they did.

The design of the weapon was interesting since it was a cluster of nukes, and also in that is demonstrated beyond all doubt that there really isn't an upper limit on the size of such weapons if you have enough material.

The practical upper limit is set by the depth of the atmosphere - if your blast is bigger than that most of the energy will be directed into space. It's like dropping a boulder into a puddle 5mm deep, it just isn't going to splash as much as dropping it into a lake.

Yes it was an interesting design alright, I left out the details of adding the lead and just said made it smaller but you obviously have a good understanding about it yourself .

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

“The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one” he said “The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one – but still they come!”

If the billions of years of the moon and tides slowing down the earth's rotation had been out by 4 hours 47 minutes St Petersburg would have been wiped from the face of the earth by Tunguska.

If Tunguska had happened during the height of the cold war war who knows what the response would have been.

If the earth hadn't formed in this location we would not be here.
The world is full of if. If I had turned left instead of right walking home would I be here?
Can I ask you a question what if a wind turbine blade fell off and cut through a bus full of kids

There is a saying that lightening doesn't strike twice.
It's complete rubbish. The lightening conductor on the Empire State Building has been hit twice during the same storm.

Is that not what there meant to do?

As we've seen recently when you get a 100 year severe weather event it doesn't mean you then have 99 years of plain sailing. And I'm still not sure the bean counters in the Nuclear Industry understand the way randomness works.

I think the people that work with nuclear reaction have a high level of education and might know more about this than we do.

Japan has been lucky, not that there were no big earthquakes since the tsunami, but that the big ones they've had since weren't in the worst possible places.

I do believe that there exist building that can withstand an earthquake. Also how many major earthquakes has Ireland had in the last 50 years

Also just remembered a German mini-series where the plot was terrorists exploding a fuel air explosive near a Nuclear plant. And the basic premise was that it would have been impossible to upgrade the biological shield to take that sort of hit. In the real world you could use a propane tanker. When people talk about radio active discharges being low and they don't include the accidents and cover ups then they are misrepresenting the way the Nuclear Industry works. Just because BNFL were caught faking records doesn't mean that they didn't fake other ones or that no one else in the industry was/is doing it.

Most power plants have major security and one would think the same would apply for a nuclear plant.
Any plant that build is a terrorist target.

Less people have died from nuclear power than oil or coal

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

Can I ask you a question what if a wind turbine blade fell off and cut through a bus full of kids

Please won't someone think of the children.

So you are suggesting that we abandon a source of power because of the consequences of an unlikely accident

Is that not what there meant to do?

yes ,
you could also say that working safety systems are a good thing. And if they fail it's not a good thing. If the lightening conductor on the Empire State failed then it's very likely to get damaged in a future storm. My opinion of the nuclear industry is that we see lightening strikes and near misses all the time and we know they aren't spending money on upgrading the lightening conductors except to promise that any new buildings will use gold plated ones.

I think the people that work with nuclear reaction have a high level of education and might know more about this than we do.

we'd all like to think that, but isn't always the case.

I do believe that there exist building that can withstand an earthquake. Also how many major earthquakes has Ireland had in the last 50 years

At one US nuclear plant they retro fitted a pair of earthquake shields because they didn't originally understand the risks or to keep costs down. One was build backwards instead of being a mirror image of the first one because someone saved some money doing up the plans. This is like a surgeon removing the wrong kidney, any sort of a check list will prevent it but very scary and sad to say it happens

Most power plants have major security and one would think the same would apply for a nuclear plant.
Any plant that build is a terrorist target.

you can't protect everything, and this sort of protection costs money which affects the economics

Less people have died from nuclear power than oil or coal

we use a lot more oil and coal than nuclear , we don't know the long term effects of nuclear - neither the UK or US have a long term solution in place for the waste. The £67 billion to clean up Sellafield will impact the NHS budget because money doesn't grow on trees. And besides the Western world is moving to gas and renewables.

Sligo Quay

Its a strange irony, but the Goverment Minister most in favour of nuclear power was a very bad salesman and just didn't inspire confidence in the whole debate, Des O'Malley.
I remember in the late 70s when Des O'Malley was pushing for a nuclear plant to be built at Carnsore Point Co Wexford, when he made the ridiculous comparision between nuclear safety and the Widdy Island Gulf Oil tanker disaster in Bantry Bay in January 1979 which claimed the lives of 50people, a terrible disaster, but O'Malley tried to capitalise on the oil disaster to say that nuclear was far safer, a stupid comparision, not comparing like with like, was being dishonest.
Lets compare like with like, just imagin if there was a nuclear disaster instead of an oil disaster at Widdy Island all them years ago in 1979, we'd probably be still feeling the effects of it today in 2013 and for the next 10.000years. If I was in favour of nuclear power, Des O'Malley certainly turned me off. If your trying to push a debate, you try and debate with honest facts, Des O'Malley must have thought the people where really stupid, a strange irony, a guy who was very in favour actually killed it off for the next 30years and beyond.

Capt'n Midnight

shootie wrote: »

I can see it's benefits but I just don't see it happening I'm afraid. Too much amplifying of sellafield's issues to get the people, especially in Eastern counties, to support it.

One huge issue with Sellafield is the clean up cost which undermines most of the economics. And even then there isn't a plan for long term waste storage.

Some of the Eastern reactors are among the ones that need most patching up as evidenced by the EU wind safety review after Fukushima.

Total cost of Sellafield + EU safety reactor upgrades is about €100 Bn. This money will not deliver a single watt of power. It's just one of the hidden costs of nuclear power.

You could buy a lot for €100Bn - anyone know it compares to the total annual domestic bills for electricity in the EU ?




Just an aside wind power in the EU now produces as much as 39 Nuclear plants.
Last year the EU reached 100GW installed wind power

100 GW of wind power can produce the same amount of electricity over a year as:

• 62 coal power plants, or
• 39 nuclear power plants, or
• 52 gas power plants.

To produce the same amount of electricity as 100 GW of wind turbines in a year you would have to:

• Mine, transport and burn 72 million tonnes of coal, at a cost of €4,983 million, and emit 219.5 Mt of CO2, or
• Extract, transport and burn 42.4 million cubic meters of gas, at a cost of €7,537 million, and emit 97.8 Mt of CO2

Heroditas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You could buy a lot for €100Bn - anyone know it compares to the total annual domestic bills for electricity in the EU ?

Total EU electricity consumption in 2009 was 3037 TWh.
You could kinda do a back of the envelope calculation using that figure and maybe taking 40% of it to represent domestic demand and stick an average kWh price on it.
Using an average kWh price of 10c and 40% of that figure, I do believe we get about €120bn.

Capt'n Midnight

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Its a strange irony, but the Goverment Minister most in favour of nuclear power was a very bad salesman and just didn't inspire confidence in the whole debate,

You also have to take into account that was around the time of the Wood Quay protests.

We now have two concrete pill boxes there. Most of the site was undeveloped for ages. At the time it would have been a lot cheaper to have built them a mile away on another site.

We could have had a world class tourist site , the only intact Viking City left, almost guaranteed to have the entire population of Scandinavia and their American descendants visit it. ( Piss up in a brewery etc. (in the days before health and safety))

It showed that the powers that be had zero thought for the future and were more interested in stuff for themselves (nice offices) than for the rest of us.

Against that background there was a sizeable proportion of the population that was never going to accept government assurances that they had the best long term interests of the people at heart.

Gbear

No

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Lets compare like with like, just imagin if there was a nuclear disaster instead of an oil disaster at Widdy Island all them years ago in 1979, we'd probably be still feeling the effects of it today in 2013 and for the next 10.000years. If I was in favour of nuclear power, Des O'Malley certainly turned me off. If your trying to push a debate, you try and debate with honest facts, Des O'Malley must have thought the people where really stupid, a strange irony, a guy who was very in favour actually killed it off for the next 30years and beyond.

That isn't comparing like with like because a nuclear disaster isn't comparable to an oil spill.
Radiation is something all life forms have evolved to live with. Indeed, some bacteria can actually "eat" radiation.
Oil on the other hand isn't a constant thing in animals' everyday lives and so, just like a big carbon dioxide burst from a bog, it tends to kill things when it comes into contact with them.

The paranoia about radiation stemming from fear-mongering during the cold war and an inability to understand relative risk are probably the biggest factors in a lack of support for nuclear power.

I presume the point he was making is that nuclear is far safer and better for the environment than fossil fuels.

Capt'n Midnight

Gbear wrote: »

Radiation is something all life forms have evolved to live with. Indeed, some bacteria can actually "eat" radiation.

They don't eat radiation. Bacteria that metabolise sulphates can metabolise sulphates even if they are formed as a result of damage to molecules caused by low levels of background radiation.

The microbes were forced to survive on the leftovers that result when radioactivity from uranium, thorium and potassium in the native rock breaks down molecules of water, prompting a sequence of chemical reactions that produce hydrogen peroxide, break down pyrite, and form sulfates.

A better argument would have been to cite the organisms that ran the Oklo reactors. But even then it was a case where the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.


There are earthworms in the UK that live in areas polluted by arsenic and there are bacteria that can tolerate such high levels that few other organisms can survive there. It's not an argument to sprinkle arsenic on your cornflakes.



That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.
Friedrich Nietzsche

This is actually true but for the species rather than for an individual. A product that kills 99.9% of germs leaves 0.1% that will be resistant in future and lebensraum.

Heroditas

Nuclear power kinda reminds me of the new motor tax system in Ireland.
You might benefit from slightly cheaper motor tax but you need to fork out a ridiculous amount to avail of it!
Even then, all the extra costs associated with the new car, e.g. more regular servicing, means you're not really saving anything!

Sligo Quay

Gbear wrote: »

That isn't comparing like with like because a nuclear disaster isn't comparable to an oil spill.
.

What O'Malley actually said at the time and his point was, 50people where killed in an ''oil incident'' and nobody was killed in the nuclear industry, that was his point at the time, of couse all these points where made before Chernobyl, the Three Mile Island disaster details at the time where not public, the Windscale fire in the 1950s was largely covered up, some say it had effects in the Co Louth area, Windscale had its name changed to Sellafield, the rest is history.

Capt'n Midnight

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Windscale had its name changed to Sellafield, the rest is history.

And before that it was known as Calder Hall

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

“The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one” he said “The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one – but still they come!”

If the billions of years of the moon and tides slowing down the earth's rotation had been out by 4 hours 47 minutes St Petersburg would have been wiped from the face of the earth by Tunguska.

If Tunguska had happened during the height of the cold war war who knows what the response would have been.



There is a saying that lightening doesn't strike twice.
It's complete rubbish. The lightening conductor on the Empire State Building has been hit twice during the same storm. As we've seen recently when you get a 100 year severe weather event it doesn't mean you then have 99 years of plain sailing. And I'm still not sure the bean counters in the Nuclear Industry understand the way randomness works.

Japan has been lucky, not that there were no big earthquakes since the tsunami, but that the big ones they've had since weren't in the worst possible places.



Also just remembered a German mini-series where the plot was terrorists exploding a fuel air explosive near a Nuclear plant. And the basic premise was that it would have been impossible to upgrade the biological shield to take that sort of hit. In the real world you could use a propane tanker. When people talk about radio active discharges being low and they don't include the accidents and cover ups then they are misrepresenting the way the Nuclear Industry works. Just because BNFL were caught faking records doesn't mean that they didn't fake other ones or that no one else in the industry was/is doing it.

I'll say one thing for you Capt'n.
If you can't find something bad to say about nuclear power you have no problem making up porkies and innuendos to fill your posts.
I may get banned for cheeking a Mod but quite frankly I don't give a fiddlers because the level of debate on this thread is pathetic.
Asteroids crashing into nuclear power stations....... possible:rolleyes:
The blade of a wind turbine hitting a school bus..........highly unlikely.
Ye should all be writing Monty Python scetches!

Jester252

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

[/B]

I'll say one thing for you Capt'n.
If you can't find something bad to say about nuclear power you have no problem making up porkies and innuendos to fill your posts.
I may get banned for cheeking a Mod but quite frankly I don't give a fiddlers because the level of debate on this thread is pathetic.
Asteroids crashing into nuclear power stations....... possible:rolleyes:
The blade of a wind turbine hitting a school bus..........highly unlikely.
Ye should all be writing Monty Python scetches!

TBF I posted the turbine blade to show how far fecthed the asteroid is.
Cap: There is a huge difference between installed wind capacity and what is generated. Also wind farms require a lot of space with around a one turbine for a km/sq

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

TBF I posted the turbine blade to show how far fecthed the asteroid is.

This is After Hours
threads go off on a tangent like bits of an exploding wind turbine on a stormy night :pac:

Cap: There is a huge difference between installed wind capacity and what is generated. Also wind farms require a lot of space with around a one turbine for a km/sq

If you re-read the post you might spot the bit about 100 GW of wind power can produce the same amount of electricity over a year as:

And no they don't produce power when there is no wind.


Wind farms do not require a lot of space apart from the base of the tower.

You can still farm around them.

You can't build too near them but then again most people don't build in bogs or in the arse end of nowhere.

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is After Hours
threads go off on a tangent like bits of an exploding wind turbine on a stormy night :pac:


If you re-read the post you might spot the bit about 100 GW of wind power can produce the same amount of electricity over a year as:

And no they don't produce power when there is no wind.


Wind farms do not require a lot of space apart from the base of the tower.

You can still farm around them.

You can't build too near them but then again most people don't build in bogs or in the arse end of nowhere.

Turbine require aprox a km/sq to run with around a 10% array lost. Turbines are approx 3MW wind farms requir a lot of room and bog land would increses the cost in order to have a secure base. Ireland can have just 50% of its electricty needs from wind but we produce much more that has to be lost to avoid brownouts. This is due grid to the grids inertia that renewables don't add as the turbines are quick start and stop. A baseload is need to have inertia in the grid. Ireland went to happy with wind farms akin to the house boom. While Ireland needs to improve its grid wave energy is needed as its more perdictable than wind and waves have a higher power densiry. To me a perfrct grid would be nuclear as a baseload with the majority of electricity coming from renewables. A couple extra of interconnects would be nice also.
Sorry for any errors as I'm on my phone

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

Turbine require aprox a km/sq to run with around a 10% array lost. Turbines are approx 3MW wind farms requir a lot of room and bog land would increses the cost in order to have a secure base.

Yes they need a lot of room, but it's room that wouldn't be used for anything else. The land will still produce almost everything it would before the turbines were installed.

Ireland can have just 50% of its electricty needs from wind but we produce much more that has to be lost to avoid brownouts.

most other detractors usually suggest a much lower %

no one is suggesting that wind could ever supply 100% unless you invest in massive storage a lá Spirit Of Ireland. For Ireland wind hasn't reached reached diminishing returns yet.

We have have fossil fuel and a small amount of hydro. Turlough Hill can be used for a black start. In the future some tidal will be added to the mix, and there will be some biomass and waste to energy too. And it all adds up.

To me a perfrct grid would be nuclear as a baseload with the majority of electricity coming from renewables. A couple extra of interconnects would be nice also.
Sorry for any errors as I'm on my phone

Nuclear as a baseload means you need a new reactor. They are typically 1.2-1.6GW since we'd have to take a commercially available design and they take time to ramp up and down their power output.

Also we'd need to keep a similar amount of plant on standby in case it failed. Our existing thermal stations have multiple turbines so the reserve doesn't need to cover a whole station.

And besides a whopping great flywheel might be the answer to changes in wind. Not too sure if control electronics/load shedding/smart meters mean that the phase matching of wind not as big an issue as it was.