Nuclear Power

lockon...

No

Jester252 wrote: »

While Ireland needs to improve its grid wave energy is needed as its more perdictable than wind and waves have a higher power densiry.

Wave power has never worked commercially and will never work. You need to install vast structures into the ocean to get any worthwhile power. The engineering difficulties are too large to overcome at a reasonable cost.

Ireland needs to forget about wind. Let's drop the carbon taxes, subsidies, and PSO levies. Use cheap and plentiful gas that will produce cheap electricity, lower business costs and create jobs.

Jester252

No

lockon... wrote: »

Wave power has never worked commercially and will never work. You need to install vast structures into the ocean to get any worthwhile power. The engineering difficulties are too large to overcome at a reasonable cost.

Ireland needs to forget about wind. Let's drop the carbon taxes, subsidies, and PSO levies. Use cheap and plentiful gas that will produce cheap electricity, lower business costs and create jobs.

Troll?

spankmemunkey

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[/QUOTE]


We also talked about extreme weather and future problems with that, Wasnt there a Nuclear pland closed cos of the snow and cutting off power?

Capt'n Midnight

spankmemunkey wrote: »

We also talked about extreme weather and future problems with that, Wasnt there a Nuclear pland closed cos of the snow and cutting off power?

France had to reduce output and down some plants during a recent heatwave because of lack of enough cooling water.

using seawater means more corrosion problems so nuclear power stations usually use fresh water

European plants were affected in 2006 and 2009 and US in 2010. If you expect your plant is supposed to last 60 years you have to take into account the cost of cooling water over that time frame. There are hydroelectric dams in Southern Europe where the water is worth more for irrigation than electricity so they no longer supply power on demand.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather

The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production.
...

Spain shut down the Santa Maria de Garona reactor on the River Ebro, one of the country's eight nuclear plants which generate a fifth of its national electricity. Reactors in Germany are reported to have cut output, and others in Germany and France have been given special permits to dump hot water into rivers to avoid power failures. France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages.

spankmemunkey

Sure Nuclear power is fine everything is working perfect and theres no risk dont worry.

Sure our beef is the finest beef we only put the finest beef in our products!

Powers that be never lie or cover up? As i said before theres stuff going on that we have no idea about how do you do a DNA test on a power plant?

--Kaiser--

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Sure Nuclear power is fine everything is working perfect and theres no risk dont worry.

Sure our beef is the finest beef we only put the finest beef in our products!

Powers that be never lie or cover up? As i said before theres stuff going on that we have no idea about how do you do a DNA test on a power plant?

Wat?

spankmemunkey

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Sure Nuclear power is fine everything is working perfect and theres no risk dont worry.

Sure our beef is the finest beef we only put the finest beef in our products!

Powers that be never lie or cover up? As i said before theres stuff going on that we have no idea about how do you do a DNA test on a power plant?

You are talking about a topic you have no knowledge or understanding of.

--Kaiser--

No

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

You are talking about a topic you have no knowledge or understanding of.

This is After Hours - that's kind of par for the course

spankmemunkey

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

You are talking about a topic you have no knowledge or understanding of.

Your a nuclear technician are you? you have an intimate knoweldge of the running and safety of all nuclear plants around the world? wow what are you a nuclear an international nuclear inspector?

spankmemunkey

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Your a nuclear technician are you? you have an intimate knoweldge of the running and safety of all nuclear plants around the world? wow what are you a nuclear an international nuclear inspector?

No I'm not a nuclear technician but having taken a number of nuclear related courses during my physics degree and having been lectured by Ernest Walton's son Philip who is well known for his desire to see nuclear power in Ireland I have a general understanding of nuclear energy and radiation etc and I certainly have enough knowledge not to buy into the scare mongering, mostly pushed by people who haven't got the slightest clue about anything nuclear related.

spankmemunkey

So your not bias in any way? and who says i dont know what i am saying your being very presumptuos there!

Capt'n Midnight

spankmemunkey wrote: »

As i said before theres stuff going on that we have no idea about how do you do a DNA test on a power plant?

You can tell what type of plant it is because of the isotope ratios , possibly even ID the individual reactor due to the way it was operated and the timing of refuelling / reprocessing.



Of course the other view is that since you can measure radioactivity it should be easy to tell how much of a particular material you have at the end of a processing step.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindustry

The highly dangerous mixture, containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, has leaked through a fractured pipe into a huge stainless steel chamber which is so radioactive that it is impossible to enter.
...
Although most of the material is uranium, the fuel contains about 200kg (440lb) of plutonium, enough to make 20 nuclear weapons

Just to be clear none of this leaked into the environment.
And just to be doubly clear they didn't notice it was missing for nine months.

The report states that a ‘new plant’ culture existed and Thorp was simply not expected to leak.
...
Although Thorp was built to the highest standards, it has had problems in the past. In 1998 it was found that a hole had developed in a pipe in the dissolver cell. Material had been leaking for years and went unnoticed despite sump level, sump sampling and contamination evidence of a problem. At the time, recommendations were made about sump monitoring, but these seem to have been forgotten.

In February 2005 workers were ‘grossly contaminated’ because they carried out work in a part of the dissolver cell where leaked highly active liquor had accumulated. This was put down to a ‘new plant culture’.

The current problem had all the hallmarks of previous problems, yet went undetected anyway.

These two statements sum up my understanding of all "new" nuclear technologies and the plants are operated.
The report states that a ‘new plant’ culture existed and Thorp was simply not expected to leak.

The current problem had all the hallmarks of previous problems, yet went undetected anyway.

spankmemunkey

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

So your not bias in any way? and who says i dont know what i am saying your being very presumptuos there!

Of course I'm biased but I have an informed opinion compared to a lot of people who comment on nuclear energy who don't have a clue.

As I said before I would gladly work in a nuclear power plant if one were to be built in Ireland, why would I be willing to put my life at risk if I wasn't confident in how safe a modern plant would be.

twinytwo

andrew wrote: »

If the thread about Fukushima is anything to go by, people have a massive crazy fear of radiation in any quantity if the source of that radiation is related to nuclear power. I'd be massively in favour, and I'd love to see a nuke plant in Ireland, but I don't think it'll ever happen.

Andrew iv said it once ill say it again...

The irish government couldnt run a country.. the place is falling down.. houses are crap, roads are crap etc etc... you expect them to correctly look after a NPP?

Capt'n Midnight

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

Of course I'm biased but I have an informed opinion compared to a lot of people who comment on nuclear energy who don't have a clue.

As I said before I would gladly work in a nuclear power plant if one were to be built in Ireland, why would I be willing to put my life at risk if I wasn't confident in how safe a modern plant would be.

The odds are good that a particular worker at a particular plant wouldn't have any problems.

The whole radon in houses things first came to light when a worker was detected on the way in to work.

Of course you would have to compete with foreign workers who would accept less pay :pac:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-linked-new-jersey-man-sharif-mobley-arrested-yemen-worked-nuclear-power-plants-article-1.171697

Curly Judge

No

twinytwo wrote: »

Andrew iv said it once ill say it again...

The irish government couldnt run a country.. the place is falling down.. houses are crap, roads are crap etc etc... you expect them to correctly look after a NPP?

This is a complete red herring!
For all the faults of this country - and they are many - no evidence has ever emerged that organisations like the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland have ever acted incompetently.
Or that Aer Lingus - which handles [among other things] Boeing 747s - have acted incompetently when it comes to operating or servicing these complex machines.
One description I heard - by an aeronautical engineer - of a 747 was, "5 million pieces of technology flying in close formation".

You will have to move on to some other type of emotional slander in order to spread your paranoia.
The old one of, "The Irish don't know how to wipe their arse", has been played out for some time now.

Beginnis

Is the idea behind a nuclear plant to export energy for economic gain under the guise of ireland being green. Ireland should look after herself instead of trying to earn money from countries that dont need electricity. Link below is from an anti carnsore leaflet. The beauty of science is that once proven the principle doesnt change for centuries. I highlight the detail on the waste product plutonium. The same truths in the leaflet still apply.

Ireland doesnt have a supply of uranium so we have to import it at what outrageous market rate it will rise to in the future. What evidence is there of the electrical need for a nuclear plant?

How about the idea that we get by with less electricity rather than more.

Or how about ireland gets completely ahead of the game and develops large scale functioning tidal generation. Nuclear in the longterm is a short term solution

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/nuclear-power-no-thanks-anti-carnsore-point-leaflet-from-the-late-1970s/

AlmightyCushion

No

It's illegal to mine for uranium in Ireland hence why we have no supply. I remember reading somewhere before that there are areas of Donegal that would be commercially viable for uranium mining.

Curly Judge

No

Beginnis wrote: »

Is the idea behind a nuclear plant to export energy for economic gain under the guise of ireland being green. Ireland should look after herself instead of trying to earn money from countries that dont need electricity. Link below is from an anti carnsore leaflet. The beauty of science is that once proven the principle doesnt change for centuries. I highlight the detail on the waste product plutonium. The same truths in the leaflet still apply.

Ireland doesnt have a supply of uranium so we have to import it at what outrageous market rate it will rise to in the future. What evidence is there of the electrical need for a nuclear plant?

How about the idea that we get by with less electricity rather than more.

Or how about ireland gets completely ahead of the game and develops large scale functioning tidal generation. Nuclear in the longterm is a short term solution

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/nuclear-power-no-thanks-anti-carnsore-point-leaflet-from-the-late-1970s/

One rarely sees a historic document that ended up being so wrong on so many
fronts.
If we had gone ahead with Carnsore we would have had a nuclear power station [and hence a nuclear industry] in this country for half a billion sterling.
But of course no, we had to go along with the same Luddite mind set that once banned Yankee screwdrivers from Dublin building sites.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

If we had gone ahead with Carnsore we would have had a nuclear power station [and hence a nuclear industry] in this country for half a billion sterling.

And the lads in ESB international could have sold the technology on ?



Late 80's was when we couldn't afford £30million to finish off the M50. Instead we handed NTR a license to print money

If a £30m bridge is costing us a billion euro how much would £500m have cost us ?


How have the US/UK stations built around fared ?


Here is the consumer price index add to this cumulative interest rate charges - had we build a nuclear plant at the start of the 1980's the cost would have soared
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=CPA01C4.asp&TableName=Annual+Percentage+Change&StatisticalProduct=DB_CP

1977 13.6
1978 7.6
1979 13.2
1980 18.2
1981 20.4
1982 17.1
1983 10.4
1984 8.6
1985 5.4
1986 3.9
1987 3.2
1988 2.1
1989 4.0
1990 3.4
1991 3.2
1992 3.0
1993 1.5
1994 2.4
1995 2.5
1996 1.6
1997 1.5
1998 2.4
1999 1.6
2000 5.6
2001 4.9
2002 4.6
2003 3.5
2004 2.2
2005 2.5
2006 4.0
2007 4.9
2008 4.1
2009 -4.5
2010 -1.0
2011 2.6
2012 1.7

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How have the US/UK stations built around fared ?

Nuclear power stations in America have been producing 20% of America's electricity for generations without the loss of a single operative and without any serious leaks of radiation.
Britain has not been quite so fortunate, largely because they chose the wrong type of technology. Almost analogous with their car industry!
Instead of building Carnsore, we built Moneypoint which, of course, was built with a small credit union loan, bearing no interest and doesn't spew out tons of sulphur per hour to be spread right up across the country by the south westerly’s?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Nuclear power stations in America have been producing 20% of America's electricity for generations without the loss of a single operative and without any serious leaks of radiation.

Three Mile Island wasn't serious :rolleyes:

Interesting measure - NASA were doing well by that measure until the Shuttle Disasters. When doing a risk assessment you can't ignore near misses. The US military have had fatalities in the early days.

Yeah there been leaks - cba looking up the mining and processing ones too, and incidents that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are not all that rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States


The US still doesn't have a long term storage solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Pilgrim was 1 in 14,493, according to an NRC study published in August 2010

1:14,493 sounds low doesn't it ?
There are 437 nuclear plants world wide. If this risk was acceptable at all of them then you'd expect core damage every 33 years. Compare that to the lifetime of a reactor.


Nuclear economics are skewed, safety costs will continue to rise and it will be a game of catchup. If you have a sealed box designed to last 60 years then you have to design it for future safety standards. An awful lot of nukes out there have had to be upgraded - which is a pretty good predictor for the future.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188767-federal-regulators-agree-to-implement-tighter-nuclear-standards

The recommendations include new standards aimed at strengthening operators’ ability to deal with a complete loss of power, ensuring plants can withstand floods and earthquakes and improving emergency response capabilities.

The new safety standards will take as many as five years to fully implement, NRC said.

[/quote]Britain has not been quite so fortunate, largely because they chose the wrong type of technology. Almost analogous with their car industry![/quote]US have had massive problems with corrosion in steam pipes.

Instead of building Carnsore, we built Moneypoint which, of course, was built with a small credit union loan, bearing no interest and doesn't spew out tons of sulphur per hour to be spread right up across the country by the south westerly’s?

If you have real figures we can compare them.
And moneypoint was retro fitted with scrubbers.


Add Sweden to the list of countries that have had a recent scare.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/nuclear-scare-how-close-did-sweden-come-to-disaster-a-430458.html

spankmemunkey

Wow that meteorite shower really was like something out of a movie wasnt it, and an asteroid was also like something out of a movie as was extreme weather, all of which happened within oh 2 weeks of me mentioning it here and being ridiculed for it, never mind its impact on nuclear structures just the thought of it! ha!

Jester252

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Wow that meteorite shower really was like something out of a movie wasnt it, and an asteroid was also like something out of a movie as was extreme weather, all of which happened within oh 2 weeks of me mentioning it here and being ridiculed for it, never mind its impact on nuclear structures just the thought of it! ha!

All the meteorite shower did was brake glass also I must be living under the asteroid that hit the earth because I didn't hear about it.

spankmemunkey

Jester252 wrote: »

All the meteorite shower did was brake glass also I must be living under the asteroid that hit the earth because I didn't hear about it.

NO an asteroid didnt hit it will pass very closely, the point being that man isnt in control of natural events, that was the whole point of my arguement with another poster who said i was thinking of a hollywood blockbuster.

A Nuclear plant was closed in the states recently shutting down power due to extreme weather.

Oh and there was a ceiling collapse at Chernobyl recently due to Heavy Snowfall.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Three Mile Island wasn't serious :rolleyes:

Yeah, Three Mile Island was a PR disaster for the nuclear industry.
But... at the end of the day nobody was killed or even injured.
The release of radiation was minimal and the plant was brought under control in 15 hours.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interesting measure - NASA were doing well by that measure until the Shuttle Disasters. When doing a risk assessment you can't ignore near misses. The US military have had fatalities in the early days.

Can you point to any new technology in the history of the world that didn't have some fatalities in it's early years.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah there been leaks - cba looking up the mining and processing ones too, and incidents that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are not all that rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

Just look under the list of deaths and come back to me with a safer form of energy production?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The US still doesn't have a long term storage solution.

Oh yes it does!
It has a perfectly reasonable form of disposal worked out but you people refuse to let them get on with it.
Anyway it doesn't really matter because GEN IV fast breeders will use most of it up within 50 years leaving only a small residual rump of nuclear waste which will reduce to background in 300 to 500 years.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Nuclear_Power_Plant1:14,493 sounds low doesn't it ?
There are 437 nuclear plants world wide. If this risk was acceptable at all of them then you'd expect core damage every 33 years. Compare that to the lifetime of a reactor.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear economics are skewed, safety costs will continue to rise and it will be a game of catchup. If you have a sealed box designed to last 60 years then you have to design it for future safety standards. An awful lot of nukes out there have had to be upgraded - which is a pretty good predictor for the future.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188767-federal-regulators-agree-to-implement-tighter-nuclear-standards

Nice self fulfilling prophesy!
Ratchet up the safety to a ridiculous degree. Force through new regulations in the middle of contracts. Drag the utilities through the courts for years and then have the chutzpah to turn around and say, "Nuclear is too expensive"

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

US have had massive problems with corrosion in steam pipes.

And of course coal fired or peat burning stations have never ever had trouble with steam pipe corrosion? :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you have real figures we can compare them.
And moneypoint was retro fitted with scrubbers.

Sure they fitted scrubbers! After refusing point blank to fit them during construction and after they had polluted the countryside with their cheap, high sulphur coal.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Add Sweden to the list of countries that have had a recent scare.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/nuclear-scare-how-close-did-sweden-come-to-disaster-a-430458.html

And yet those silly Swedes:
On 17 June 2010, the Riksdag adopted a decision allowing the replacement of the existing reactors with new nuclear reactors, starting from 1 January 2011.

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

NO an asteroid didnt hit it will pass very closely, the point being that man isnt in control of natural events, that was the whole point of my arguement with another poster who said i was thinking of a hollywood blockbuster.

A Nuclear plant was closed in the states recently shutting down power due to extreme weather.

Oh and there was a ceiling collapse at Chernobyl recently due to Heavy Snowfall.

Do you know what you should do now spanky?
You should go home and get in under the bed and stay there, because it's quite clear that you are not fit for this world.
You are far too delicate and fretful!:)

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Oh yes it does!
It has a perfectly reasonable form of disposal worked out but you people refuse to let them get on with it.

Please inform me where the US is going to store it's long term waste. Because last I heard the repository was shelved yet again.

Finland have a best practice repository. Does anyone else ?

Anyway it doesn't really matter because GEN IV fast breeders will use most of it up within 50 years leaving only a small residual rump of nuclear waste which will reduce to background in 300 to 500 years.

oh breeders and burners, the future of the nuclear industry.
always have been, and always will

As I keep pointing out , it's technology first tried in the 1940's and they still haven't got it working.

Yes I would like to see safe clean economic anticide burners / liquid salt thorium as they would get rid of over 99.5% of the intermediate level waste - but I just don't see it happening any time soon

meanwhile silicon / lithium batteries have increased the storage capacity of lithium cells by a factor of three and you can now make flexible solar panels out of paper

And there is still a whole learning curve to go through with the new reactors, maybe this time they will get it right (just like they got all the previous ones :rolleyes:) or more likely given all the new untested technology , they could be another dreamliner

Ratchet up the safety to a ridiculous degree. Force through new regulations in the middle of contracts.

Anyone who thinks that safety requirements in the nuclear industry won't keep getting racheted up is deluded. Whatever you think about them it's going to happen. Ignoring the fact that future costs will increase is just sticking your head in the sand. I'd argue that this is either the nuclear industry not preparing for the future / standards being applied retroactivally because of failings

And yet those silly Swedes:
On 17 June 2010, the Riksdag adopted a decision allowing the replacement of the existing reactors with new nuclear reactors, starting from 1 January 2011.

and what have they done since ?

ted1

No

As above three mile island was a or nightmare nothing else.

Curly Judge

No

ted1 wrote: »

As above three mile island was a or nightmare nothing else.

I say again; Nobody was killed and the release of radiation was minimal.
Compare it to Bhopal or the Flixborough disaster?
But of course I keep forgetting that nuclear power is the Devil incarnate and must be rooted out with religious zeal wherever it shows it's ugly head.
Silly of me!