Nuclear Power

Calibos

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

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!

I think there was a typo in his post. I think he was saying PR nightmare, nothing else.....

Curly Judge

No

Calibos wrote: »

I think there was a typo in his post. I think he was saying PR nightmare, nothing else.....

Thanks Calibos and apologies to ted1 if that is so.

ted1

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

Thanks Calibos and apologies to ted1 if that is so.

No problem, silly iPhone keeps changing words. I want my HTC back

Jester252

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

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!

Wut?

Curly Judge

No

Jester252 wrote: »

Wut?

Context...Dear Boy...Context!

Jester252

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

Context...Dear Boy...Context!

What context? There no context. I looked all over

losthorizon

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

People may make reference to Japan:
When is the last time we had a tsunami or earthquake?

Chernobly:
Poor security, wouldn't happen in Ireland.

Sellafield:
NOT a NPP. It's a nuclear processing plant, poor disposal practises.

Terrorism:
When did we ever have a threat of external terrorism?

Dublin and Monaghan bombings for one.

You might say that is finished but who can predict the future. I mean to say i bet the people who were in Madrids Atocha station ten years ago did not expect to die.

Most nations in europe are phasing out their nuclear energy. Germany is getting rid of all its nuclear plants. Sweden has had problems with coroding pipes and cant fix the problem and in the USA at the moment the 67 tanks have leaked nuclear waste in Washington State. This is all since the Japanese disaster.

http://itsapoliticalworld.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/ireland-and-the-1755-1761-tsunamis/

If the volcano on the canaries ever blows asunder and breaks into the sea (which is a small probability) the chances of a Tsunami hitting Ireland and a big one are actually quite big.

The geologic record shows a number of Tsunamis down the years - very rare but not unknown.

Lucy and Harry

It would be good if Nuke power and bombs were never invented.Look at Japan and their reactors going nuts over a natural disaster.With terrorists hating on the West and the waste these plants make I would have to say I am against this form of energy.But unless we come up with a better way than burning fossel fuels we may end up having to use this energy in years to come.

Curly Judge

No

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

It would be good if Nuke power and bombs were never invented.Look at Japan and their reactors going nuts over a natural disaster.With terrorists hating on the West and the waste these plants make I would have to say I am against this form of energy.But unless we come up with a better way than burning fossel fuels we may end up having to use this energy in years to come.

We didn't invent it, nature did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo
And as for the bomb, while unfortunate, I'm glad our side got there before the Germans or the Japanese.
Personally I think that making a viable nuclear bomb would be beyond the resources of even the most well funded terrorist group.
The "Rogue States" are the ones that worry me!

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

We didn't invent it, nature did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo
And as for the bomb, while unfortunate, I'm glad our side got there before the Germans or the Japanese.
Personally I think that making a viable nuclear bomb would be beyond the resources of even the most well funded terrorist group.
The "Rogue States" are the ones that worry me!

Gerry Adams has posted on his site that he is campaigning to have Sellafield(spelling) cleaned up cos it does have an impact on us on this Island and nature in general, clean power my ass!

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Gerry Adams has posted on his site that he is campaigning to have Sellafield(spelling) cleaned up cos it does have an impact on us on this Island and nature in general, clean power my ass!

I rather suspect that Gerry Adams and his side-kick Arthur Morgan have done more harm to Ireland and it's people in their short miserable lives than Sellafield will do in 1,000 years.

tdv123

No

I don't really know. How exactly would it be used in Ireland & how would it benefit us (me)?

Capt'n Midnight

TMI was a near miss.

A Hydrogen bubble was discovered on day three and took a week to vent. Pressure peaked at 28psi


This bit is scary - not that a meltdown had occurred but that it was denied for over six years, even after video evidence. Far too much optimism in the Nuclear Industry.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi05.htm

To some few experts, one piece of evidence strongly suggested that a considerable part of the fuel in fact lay in the bottom of the reactor vessel, where none should be. A few hours into the accident the neutron detectors toward the bottom of the inner wall of the cylindrical concrete shield surrounding the reactor vessel (solid black in Figure 2.6) began reporting anomalously large numbers of neutrons. As only the uranium fuel itself, not any of its highly radioactive fission products, could be a significant source of neutrons, the onset and continuance of such high readings from detectors in the vicinity of the bottom of the reactor vessel pointed to a “relocation” of a considerable part of the fuel. But as no one could imagine that a considerable part of the fuel had melted, there was no plausible explanation for how such a “relocation” could have taken place.

The “relocation” hypothesis was so much at variance with the tendency of nuclear power plant engineers and operators to take at every stage an overly optimistic view of the seriousness of the damage to the core, that relocation was not accepted until finally it could be seen by video cameras some six years after it had occurred. And even when seen and accepted as fact, the conclusion that it had poured down molten was not drawn.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi10.htm

Only then, early in 1989, was it discovered just what that “slag-like” material lying in the bottom of the reactor vessel was—and thus, also, that there had been one really horrific moment in the course of the accident.

spankmemunkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

TMI was a near miss.

A Hydrogen bubble was discovered on day three and took a week to vent. Pressure peaked at 28psi


This bit is scary - not that a meltdown had occurred but that it was denied for over six years, even after video evidence. Far too much optimism in the Nuclear Industry.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi05.htmhttp://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi10.htm[/QUOTE]


Scientists and organisations lying in order to cover their asses? never???

Capt'n Midnight

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Scientists and organisations lying in order to cover their asses? never???

No,

They didn't know what was going on. They ignored the clues because they were too optimistic.


They were hoping for the best but not planning for the worst.

spankmemunkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No,

They didn't know what was going on. They ignored the clues because they were too optimistic.


They were hoping for the best but not planning for the worst.

All our lives lie in their hands!

Capt'n Midnight

up to date stats from https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm


Nuclear Power Plants, nuclear power capacity 1995 - 2011 (IAEA 2012)
Hasn't changed much since '95
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/nuc-power-capacity.gif

Nuclear Power Plants, energy availability factor 1995 - 2011 (IAEA 2012)
just below 80% in '95 and '11
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/npp-energy-availability.gif


basically nuclear power hasn't moved on since the 1990's

G Power

No

thorium ftw!!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Capt'n Midnight

G Power wrote: »

thorium ftw!!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

In 1946 the public first became informed of U-233 bred from thorium as "a third available source of nuclear energy and atom bombs
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4jgbAAAAIBAJ&pg=1842%2C3115323

The US Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) was a 2.5 MW thermal nuclear reactor experiment designed to attain a high power density for use as an engine in a nuclear-powered bomber. It used the molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel, was moderated by beryllium oxide (BeO), used liquid sodium as a secondary coolant and had a peak temperature of 860 °C. It operated for a 1000-hour cycle in 1954. It was the first molten salt reactor.

While it is thus possible to use uranium-233 as the fissile material of a nuclear weapon, speculation[7] aside, there is little publicly available information on this isotope actually having been weaponized. The United States detonated an experimental device in the 1955 Operation Teapot "MET" test

We knew about Thorium in 1946
We had working molten salt reactors in 1954
First bomb test (ie. large amounts of Thorium to U233 conversion) 1955

So we've had a good understanding of the materials and processes and technologies for at least 58 years.



About the only disadvantage with thorium is that it's harder to make a bomb out of it if unless you reprocess more. You end up with too much U232. And of course the disadvantage that that no one has got it working. Probably not producing enough neutrons to keep it going.

Curly Judge

No

G Power wrote: »

thorium ftw!!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

The US Air Force got jealous of the success of the navies nuclear reactor programme and decided to pump some money into developing a nuclear engine for their long range bombers.
A very silly idea but out of it came the LFTR which may one day save our bacon.
It's wrong to claim, as some people do, that it never worked.
It did work!
For years.
It was so stable that the researchers used to switch it off and go home for the weekend and start it up again Monday morning.
Research funding was withdrawn when their sponsors moved on to ICBMs. making a stupid idea not only infeasible but unnecessary.
A considerable amount of research does need to be put into it's fuel cycle requirements and designing the thorium blanket surrounding the seed fuel.
Serious engineers who champion the idea think that 500 million would leave us with a working system.
The LFTR has three great advantages; it operates at ambient pressures
but high temperatures, making it useful for "side orders" like desalination. fertilizer production and the manufacture of hydrogen.
There is enough thorium to last for 1,000 years.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

It's wrong to claim, as some people do, that it never worked.
It did work!
For years.
...
Serious engineers who champion the idea think that 500 million would leave us with a working system.

That's less than 1% of the cost of cleaning Sellafield.

In the nuclear industry that's throwaway money - in defence terms that would get you just two of the latest fighter jets.


But in the commercial world it's kinda important for power plants to be economic. And to be economic they have to work.

Best that's been done is some Thorium in the mix of the German pebble bed reactor (that jammed and released dust)

The LFTR has three great advantages; it operates at ambient pressures
but high temperatures, making it useful for "side orders" like desalination. fertilizer production and the manufacture of hydrogen.
There is enough thorium to last for 1,000 years.

Solar can do those too and it's good for a lot more than a few thousand years.

photohydrogen or algae have much lower capital costs
desalination by reverse osmosis uses a lot less energy than thermal means
fertilizer = electricity + hydrogen + nitrogen


Of course the LTFR has one little problem - not enough neutrons or somesuch has prevented anyone getting any working. (uranium in liquid salt has been done but different cross sections etc. )




This is really cool - laser cutter / 3D printer - just add sunlight and sand
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2011/06/markus-kayser-builds-a-solar-powered-3d-printer-that-prints-glass-from-sand-and-a-sun-powered-laser-cutter/

Curly Judge

No

Anyone interested in reactor development could do worse than visit this site;
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/17/ifr-lftr-exchange/
A very robust but knowledgeable debate on the two great white hopes of GEN IV
nuclear power; the Integral Fast Breeder Reactor and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
Obama, who is in grave danger of being remembered for nothing, apart from being black, should pump money into research for these two projects.
They have the capacity to restore Americas place in the energy stakes.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Anyone interested in reactor development could do worse than visit this site;
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/17/ifr-lftr-exchange/
A very robust but knowledgeable debate on the two great white hopes of GEN IV
nuclear power; the Integral Fast Breeder Reactor and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Uranium from seawater provides a backstop technology that sets the maximum cost of fissile material, much as coal-to-liquids provides a backstop for the cost of oil

LOL
still haven't seen a realistic EROEI for Uranium from seawater
backstop price for oil at present would probably be based on methanol from gas fracking, and all bets are off if anyone can figure out cheap photohydrogen

TBH I see the Candu as the great white hope as it cuts out a lot of the enrichment processing - at the expense of heavy water production up front. But heavy water is an asset and reusable. And it's a by product of hydrogen production technologies. It's the best of a bad lot.

Obama, who is in grave danger of being remembered for nothing, apart from being black, should pump money into research for these two projects.
They have the capacity to restore Americas place in the energy stakes.

I've already pointed out that the 500million suggested for reactor development is the price of two front line fighter jets - it's like one pound sterling for each US citizen



It's all rather like the money being spent on VASIM
http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/tms-in-the-news/thevasimrhoax

VASIMR, or the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, is not new. Rather, it has been researched at considerable government expense
by its inventor, Franklin Chang Diaz, for three decades. More importantly, it is neither revolutionary nor particularly promising.
...
Existing ion thrusters routinely achieve 70 percent efficiency and have operated successfully both on the test stand and in space for thousands of hours. In contrast, after 30 years of research, the VASIMR has only obtained about 50 percent efficiency in test stand burns of a few seconds’ duration, and that is only at high specific impulse.

The alternative to VASIM is the Hall Effect Thruster
http://fluid.ippt.gov.pl/sbarral/hall.html

Despite the great complexity of the governing physical processes of these devices, their technology is now relatively mature and enjoys an outstanding flight experience with over 100 units sent on the board of Russian spacecrafts since the 1970's.

Actually the number flow is now over 200 and there have been zero failures.

What new nuclear technology has been successfully commercialised since the 1950's ?

The Americans have a saying "If it works , it's obsolete"
Add to this the "not invented here" and continued optimism (in the sense of not planning / costing the down side) and IMHO the nuclear industry isn't really to be trusted


But you have to questing throwing billions into nuclear when there are other technologies that can give a far quicker return on investment
http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

All wind turbines installed by the end of 2011 worldwide can provide 500 Terawatthours per annum, around 3 % of the global electricity consumption.
· The wind sector in 2011 had a turnover of 50 billion Euro/65 billion USD.

that's turnover, not investment cost - still lower that the cost of the Sellafield clean up.

Nuclear in 2011 was 2518Twh, yes there is a limit to the amount you can get from wind, but with wind increasing at 20% a year it's possible that wind will generate more than Nuclear within 9 years.



Still waiting for someone to show where the waste can be stored economically.
Still waiting for realistic whole lifespan costs on nuclear power , including mining - how else can we tell if it's economic

Nuclear power plants are only run by organisations that have local monopolies on electricity supply.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Still waiting for realistic whole lifespan costs on nuclear power , including mining - how else can we tell if it's economic.

Can we be assured that when your beloved wind turbines come to the end of their useful life, the hillside will be restored to it's former pristine state?
The roads removed and the scars repaired?
The hundreds of tons of concrete and steel jack hammered out and the holes filled with the original rock [or something like it]
Perhaps you can point me to where the cost of all of this has been calculated 25 years hence and with what insurance or investment company the requisite bond has been financed and with whom it has been lodged?
Two can play at this ratcheting business, you know?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Can we be assured that when your beloved wind turbines come to the end of their useful life, the hillside will be restored to it's former pristine state??

Of course not - no one else removes access roads so why should they. If you go up to Turlough Hill you'll see the remains of St Kevins road through the bog. It's not like all these wind turbines are being build in pristine bogs.

Like I posted the most likely thing that will happen is that in 20-25-30 years (depending on results of maintenance) the turbines will be refurbished for a fraction of their initial cost and give another 20 years service.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course not - no one else removes access roads so why should they. If you go up to Turlough Hill you'll see the remains of St Kevins road through the bog. It's not like all these wind turbines are being build in pristine bogs.

Like I posted the most likely thing that will happen is that in 20-25-30 years (depending on results of maintenance) the turbines will be refurbished for a fraction of their initial cost and give another 20 years service.

Can I tell you what I think will happen?
In 20 or so years time these edifices will be overtaken by other technology and they will be left to rust against the skyline.
The scammers who built them and got subsidised by the customer will have long since flown the coop and they will stand there like shell shocked troops, with on blade up and one blade down and one blade hanging off, a monument to yet another Irish bubble.

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

Can I tell you what I think will happen?
In 20 or so years time these edifices will be overtaken by other technology and they will be left to rust against the skyline.
The scammers who built them and got subsidised by the customer will have long since flown the coop and they will stand there like shell shocked troops, with on blade up and one blade down and one blade hanging off, a monument to yet another Irish bubble.

Saw on the news tonight Japans people protesting at the prospect of the new government starting up Nuclear Reactors again, the previous administration said they wanted to phase out Nuclear power, There are also huge protests in Germany in support of the Japaneese and to support them for the second anniversary of the disaster.

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Saw on the news tonight Japans people protesting at the prospect of the new government starting up Nuclear Reactors again, the previous administration said they wanted to phase out Nuclear power, There are also huge protests in Germany in support of the Japaneese and to support them for the second anniversary of the disaster.

Logical???
Over 15,000 killed by the earthquake and tsunami and.... not a word about it
No one killed by nuclear power and.... the usual suspects are out in force.
Mark my words: most of the Japanese power stations will reopen!

Curly Judge

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

Logical???
Over 15,000 killed by the earthquake and tsunami and.... not a word about it
No one killed by nuclear power and.... the usual suspects are out in force.
Mark my words: most of the Japanese power stations will reopen!

Oh, ...I forgot to mention...so will most of the German stations as well!

Capt'n Midnight

And we have a serious amount of excess generating capacity so Nuclear just isn't needed for foreseeable future
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/2013%20D4WI%20Study.xlsx

Our record demand was 5,090MW compared to a minimum reserve at peak demand for the rest of the year of over 2,800MW

And our capacity is due to peak in 2016 and could be extended further by the simple measure of not decommissioning more old power plants.