Nuclear Power

Capt'n Midnight

StickyIcky wrote: »

In favour. Anything that can give me hot water 24/7 instead of having to heat my own in a big tin in my cupboard I'll be in favour of. Electricity prices in the country are a fecking disgrace. You get it for about 3 or 4 cent in countries like Sweden and Canada.

The UK uses about 365 twh of electricity a year (2011)

that's 365 Billion units of electricity

At your upper figure of 4 cent per unit the UK electric industry would haven an income of £ 9.2 billion pounds a year. (£0.67 = €1)

At that rate it would take the entire income for all electricity generatedn in the UK for nearly 7 years just to pay for the Sellafield clean up. (£67.5Bn)


If you include costs like the €1.5Bn a year for stalling, long term waste storage costs, the other nuclear sites, and interest charges it's hard to see how the UK could get away with charging 4c a unit even if they were getting the electricity free from France and Holland and ourselves.



Sweden uses a lot of Norwegian Hydro.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood
No prizes for guessing what happened on Dec 27 1999 :rolleyes:

"A report on a number of samples taken after the flooding on January 8 and 9 found that the event had had no quantifiable effect on radiation levels."

"Following the events at Blayais, a new method of evaluating flood risk was developed. Instead of evaluating only the five factors required by Rule RFS I.2.e (river flood, dam failure, tide, storm surge and tsunami), a further eight factors are now also evaluated: waves caused by wind on the sea; waves caused by wind on river or channel; swelling due to the operation of valves or pumps; deterioration of water retaining structures (other than dams); circuit or equipment failure; brief and intense rainfall on site; regular and continuous rainfall on site; and rises in groundwater. In addition, realistic combinations of such factors are taken into account."

Are you disputing the relative safety of nuclear versus other forms of electricity generation

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you include costs like the €1.5Bn a year for stalling, long term waste storage costs, the other nuclear sites, and interest charges it's hard to see how the UK could get away with charging 4c a unit even if they were getting the electricity free from France and Holland and ourselves.

No one said the UK charges or should charge 3/4 cents.

Although interestingly (according the EU figures) the UK has cheaper electricity than Ireland
And France is one the cheapest countries for electricicty
And Sweden gets 35%-40% of it's electricity from nuclear

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Are you disputing the relative safety of nuclear versus other forms of electricity generation

Nuclear can be clean, safe and economic.
Pick two.
Actually pick one.

Tell me of any country that hasn't had nuclear leaks or near misses / massive cost over-runs / and has a long term repository.0


I'm saying that the evidence worldwide going back decades is that the Nuclear Industry doesn't plan well enough for predictable events nor does learn from it's mistakes.
Piss up in a brewery comes to mind.


It's a culture of unjustified optimism. Of promising cheap electricity by cutting back on safety.


The €25Bn of remedial works in the EU are supposed to be done by 2015. The difference between this and fitting scrubbers to coal stations is that the nuclear plants were supposed to be safe in the first place and this €25 Bn won't generate a Watt more electricity nor will it make them cleaner than they were already supposed to be.


And still no one has posted up costs for a nuclear power station here.
BTW Solar panels now cost 1% of their 1977 prices and the trend is still downward

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW Solar panels now cost 1% of their 1977 prices and the trend is still downward

Still need something to povide power when it's dark

Funk It

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Still need something to povide power when it's dark

Wind, tidal, wave, osmosis (most of these are not commercially ready yet of course) with gas/coal backup. AD/Biomass/Waste to Energy plants would all have steady baseloads, still shocked how a country like Ireland does not have more AD plants, but that's down to subsidies I guess.

It should be noted that electricity demand is an awful lot less during the night as well.

EDF are the only company left in the running to build nuclear plants in the UK now, and they are still trying to come to an agreement over a strike price, which will be over that of an ever reducing £/MWh for wind power, which shows that nuclear might not be as economical as it is made out to be.

Nuclear fusion would sort out most of this energy mess though.

Atomicjuicer

It's not cost effective.

No company has ever been held to account for the cost of accidents.

We the people pay.

Curly Judge

No

old hippy wrote: »

I suggest you read my links properly which you so blithely dismissed and then read your link which proves there is at the very least, a risk of radiation related illnesses - something which you also initially dismissed.

I'm certainly not playing with the idea of nuclear power. I have family in Japan and I plan to retire there, so it's something that's of the utmost importance to me.

Why don't you answer the question about the genetic deformities?

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear can be clean, safe and economic.
Pick two.
Actually pick one.

General Electric have offered to build a PRISM reactor free of charge on the Sellafield site. Pretty economic I would have thought?

The PRISM reactor will be inherently safe by design so that it won't have to rely on human intervention to any great extent to shut down in an emergency.
Pretty safe I would have thought.

This reactor will not only eat up old nuclear waste, reducing actinides by up to 99% but the remaining waste will decay to background within 3 to 5 hundred years.
It will also use the 99.3% of uranium discarded at the moment - because it is non fissile - eliminating the need for any more uranium mining for at least a thousand years.
Pretty clean I would have thought?
And before you dismiss it as pie in some future sky, the PRISM or something akin to it will be up and running long before your side have an energy storage system, wind turbines that generate on a calm day or solar that works at night.

Chloe Pink

Funk It wrote: »

Wind, tidal, wave, osmosis (most of these are not commercially ready yet of course) with gas/coal backup. AD/Biomass/Waste to Energy plants would all have steady baseloads, still shocked how a country like Ireland does not have more AD plants, but that's down to subsidies I guess.

It should be noted that electricity demand is an awful lot less during the night as well.

EDF are the only company left in the running to build nuclear plants in the UK now, and they are still trying to come to an agreement over a strike price, which will be over that of an ever reducing £/MWh for wind power, which shows that nuclear might not be as economical as it is made out to be.

Nuclear fusion would sort out most of this energy mess though.

It's dark, it's cold, there's no wind, the tide is turning, it's 6pm and everyone's cooking supper in a warm and lit house with the TVs and computers on before having hot baths and going to bed - that leaves biomass and AD to power the country (and that's ignoring the extensive land use involved in biomass.)

Fortunately there's coal and gas for backup.
Which bring us back to nuclear versus coal and gas and safety and price and emissions etc:

I haven't checked the source of this but it's a start
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat
12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Re pricing, nuclear's working for France plus i've just seen the excellent post above.
Gas looks better than coal, some fracking perhaps

TheLastMohican

Nucleur Power fades your jeans

sink

No

The light water and heavy water reactors of past and present probably aren't feasible for Ireland due to them being too large and expensive with lots of safety concerns. They were designed to produce lots of highly enriched Uranium and Plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

However there are many thousands of ways to do nuclear power that are only beginning to be explored, molten salt reactors, fast breeders etc,. I wouldn't rule out one of these designs being suitable for Ireland in a couple of decades.

Capt'n Midnight

Funk It wrote: »

Wind, tidal, wave, osmosis (most of these are not commercially ready yet of course) with gas/coal backup.

the problem with osmosis is bio-fouling
other than that it has huge potential , it could be a game changer but I wouldn't count on it.

Of course there is a tiny chance that someone will figure out a fix for this. And if it happens it's likely to come from a research project with a budget of thousands not billions.

old hippy

Curly Judge wrote: »

Why don't you answer the question about the genetic deformities?

Because no matter how many links I post, you'll still ignore them.

You got rumbled, claiming there were no illnesses or risks and you've been proved wrong. Have the grace to acknowledge this.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

General Electric have offered to build a PRISM reactor free of charge on the Sellafield site. Pretty economic I would have thought?

With drug dealers the first hit is free.

Always look a gift horse in the mouth, the dental fees could bankrupt you

The PRISM reactor will "deliver all the promises made in the first decade of nuclear power" /quote]fyp :pac:

Seriously, it's still on the drawing board. It's not proven technology. And if you've looked back at my posts I've been very dismissive of stuff that been in development for ages. Come back and talk when it's been debugged , the Integral Fast Reactor was up and running back in 1965 so IMHO it's taking an awful long time to get right.

And before you dismiss it as pie in some future sky, the PRISM or something akin to it will be up and running long before your side have an energy storage system, wind turbines that generate on a calm day or solar that works at night.

True.
But no one is counting on solar at night (though co-orbital mylar mirrors would solve this at a cost far lower than a nuclear power station)

No one is counting on wind turbines on a calm day, though that is a good description of CAES

We are counting on tidal power, we are counting on Norwegian Hydro to have a knock on effect, we are still counting on fossil fuel even if we aren't using as much as before

We aren't counting on wave power, yet.

We aren't counting on waste to energy / biomass / micro hydro as the amount of energy generated isn't every going to be huge, it's more a case of taking it because it's available.

We aren't counting on geo-thermal, yet
I still reckon it would be a better investment than the hidden costs of nuclear, but there are better renewable resources. Of course someone may make a break through in tunnelling costs ( using sonic rays / dissolving limestone with acid - who knows ? but as one of the main cost's is energy usage is a geothermal self extending "breeder" possible)

We aren't counting on photohydrogen, yet

we aren't counting on demand reduction through insulation or smart meters, yet

we aren't counting on new battery technology / supercapacitors , yet - some massive improvements using silicon/lithium - costs still unclear

we aren't counting on energy storage in 'high' temperature superconductors, yet

we aren't counting on pipelines to store and transfer energy , yet
- hydrogen, methanol, redox , (and aluminium shipped from Iceland)

And

We shouldn't count on unproven nuclear technologies that have been in development hell for over 50 years.

Capt'n Midnight

Meanwhile in Japan :P

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-s-first-japan-extracts-fire-ice-from-ocean-floor-1.1192183

Japan says it has for the first time extracted so-called "fire ice," or methane hydrate, from deep under the ocean
...
An estimated 40 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrate -- a key ingredient in natural gas -- is believed to lie under the ocean floor off Japan. A study estimates there is enough energy to supply the country's energy needs for 11 years.
...
JOGMEC engineers managed to extract the methane hydrate from the sea floor using two different methods.

Under one process, hot water was pumped into the well, raising temperatures and causing the gas to “disassociate” from the surrounding ice particles and escape to the surface, where it is burned off at a surface ship.

Then a second method was tested, where crews depressurized the methane hydrate by reducing temperatures in the well, causing the gas to disassociate from its surrounding ice particles.

Curly Judge

No

old hippy wrote: »

Because no matter how many links I post, you'll still ignore them.

You got rumbled, claiming there were no illnesses or risks and you've been proved wrong. Have the grace to acknowledge this.

Perhaps you would like to point out the post in which I said there were no illnesses or risks?

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Meanwhile in Japan :P

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-s-first-japan-extracts-fire-ice-from-ocean-floor-1.1192183

The above post amazes me!
Such is the hysteria against nuclear that you advocate the tearing up of the ocean floor, boring holes deep into the earth, putting satellites in space that would fry you with radiation, etc... etc.
Anything but accept the only technology that might save us.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

The above post amazes me!
Such is the hysteria against nuclear that you advocate the tearing up of the ocean floor, boring holes deep into the earth,

It's more a statement of what is going to happen

Nuclear can't compete economically with cheap gas.

As for tearing up the ocean floor , what do you think trawlers do ?

putting satellites in space that would fry you with radiation, etc... etc.

OMG sunlight :eek:

won't someone think of the vampires

Yes it's a daft idea to have an orbiting heliostat , but still cheaper than building a nuclear power plant . This suggests 6c/Kwh
http://jxcrystals.com/publications/PVSC_38_Manuscript_Fraas_5-9-12.pdf

I still think a GEO would be much easier to sell, but a part of the Sahara would get very hot during the day , launch costs would double per Kg BUT you don't need fancy control systems for the mirrors so cheaper and lighter than it might appear.

Anything but accept the only technology that might save us.

Save us from what ?

Nuclear is the ultimate vendor lock in technology. Ten years to build and the next sixty buying fuel rods from one supplier. And there are unknown end of life costs. I say unknown because they have kept going up.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Save us from what ?

Anthropogenic climate change

Fossil fuels

And all the environmental damage and loss of life associated with these

old hippy

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to point out the post in which I said there were no illnesses or risks?

In regard to Fukushima. You said that nuclear power = no one dead. I pointed out that we don't know the legacy of the diaster and already there are reports of illness and cancer risks.

Which you then tried to deny.

Would you be happy with a nuclear power station on your doorstep? I wouldn't.

spankmemunkey

Sellafield is already causing problems for Irish people,

Funk It

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the problem with osmosis is bio-fouling
other than that it has huge potential , it could be a game changer but I wouldn't count on it.

Of course there is a tiny chance that someone will figure out a fix for this. And if it happens it's likely to come from a research project with a budget of thousands not billions.

True, but heard that Statkraft are due to construct a 2 MW test plant in Norway. It just so happens that most cities are located near prime locations (river estuaries).

Again, I understand that this project is a good bit away from being fully proven, but thought that it is very interesting that Swansea seem to be giving the go ahead for a land-connected tidal lagoon:

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2013/03/11/uk-tidal-lagoon-swansea-bay-could-produce-first-power-in-2017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OffshoreWindNews+(Offshore+Wind+%C2%BB+News)

I'm not against nuclear power at all, and think that it should certainly be considered to have its place in the Irish energy mix.

Like anyone though, I do have my reservations about living close to a nuclear power plant, typical nimby-ism I suppose. Also, with respect to the fracking/shale gas suggestion, I am living quite close to one of the big cases in the UK which was blamed for causing minor earthquakes, but has recently been given the green light to resume operations.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Anthropogenic climate change

Fossil fuels

And all the environmental damage and loss of life associated with these

China alone is planning 1,000GW of wind installed by 2050. Nuclear power at present is 372GW


http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2011/october/name,19874,en.html

China became the world’s largest wind market in 2010, surpassing the United States with nearly 19 GW installed in that year, according to Chinese Wind Energy Association. Looking ahead, ERI’s roadmap sees capacity of 200 GW by 2020 and 400 GW by 2030. The most recent resource assessments suggest a potential of more than 2 300 GW, equivalent to two and a half times China’s total current installed generation capacity from all energy sources.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm


Like I keep saying financing costs for new construction are major issue, except this time the banks aren't lending.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/world-atomic-power-output-falls-by-record-in-fukushima-aftermath

Atomic power accounted for 11 percent of all electricity generation.
...
Even countries such as the United Arab Emirates, intent on using nuclear power to meet a third of electricity demand by 2020, can’t get the financing they need, Schneider said in an interview.

“If banks don’t want to lend the money then where is this supposed to come from?” he said. “The financial situation has dramatically worsened since Fukushima and there is almost no exception to the rule.”

...
There are 59 nuclear reactors being built globally and at least 18 are experiencing “multiyear” delays, according to today’s report. Nine have been listed by the International Atomic Energy Agency as “under construction” for more than 20 years

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone like to defend India's experience with Nuclear power ?

Safe / Clean / Economic ?

Capt'n Midnight

Funk It wrote: »

True, but heard that Statkraft are due to construct a 2 MW test plant in Norway. It just so happens that most cities are located near prime locations (river estuaries).

Oh yeah it's interesting stuff , power 24/7 from the mixing of fresh and salt water, no huge dams to fail.

For a country like Norway or ourselves where there is a lot of rain it's worth a punt all right.

If only they can sort out the biofouling

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Sellafield is already causing problems for Irish people,

How?

Chloe Pink

thousands

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

China alone is planning 1,000GW of wind installed by 2050. Nuclear power at present is 372GW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83511535&postcount=548

"China's also a world leader in terms of installed coal fired power stations.
It's also expected to add about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years
http://www.thegwpf.org/china-india-b...r-plants-week/

And it's also a world leader in CO2 emissions which have more than tripled since 1990
http://www.ref.org.uk/presentations/...d-power-debate

Basically it's a large nation making industrial and economic progress.

Coal-fired power plants fuel 41% of global electricity.
In China coal-fired power plants fuel 79% of their electricity.

Pie chart at this link shows world electricity generation by fuel: http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-o...l-electricity/

Renewables apart from hydro power i.e. solar, wind, combustible renewables, geothermal & waste make up 3% of world electrcicty generation."


Which bit of wind generators don't remove any of the problems of nuclear because they are unlikely to replace or displace nuclear, haven't you grasped yet.

Your big obsession with wind is irrelevant to this thread.

Just as your big problem with nuclear was irrelevant to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83546194&postcount=554

As pointed out more than few times now - what do you want in your back yard:

Nuclear/oil/gas/coal power stations
OR
Nuclear/oil/gas/coal power stations plus a load of wind turbines

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2013/03/11/news/doc513d75cdcc89e757434823.txt


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-182_en.htmIn a nutshell this makes Nuclear power more expensive and next month we may find out if they are skimping on it.




Just a reminder that Fukushima was a triple meltdown.
And the reactors that didn't fail were already shutdown for maintainance. I'd say it's likely that had the other reactors been operating that they too would have failed.

Also take into account the near misses. The Nuclear Industry reckoned on a 4.68m tsunami but the Ibaraki prefecture did their own calculations and reckoned on 6 or 7 m.
The seawall at Tōkai was completed two days before the tsunami :eek: (actually most of the wall was completed 7 months before - still a near miss)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dkai_Nuclear_Power_PlantThey still lost external power and one of the three seawater pumps.

Onagawa was also a near miss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011
I've seen 4 out of 5 power lines elsewhere. But if you dig a little deeper you find this http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html

You obviously forgot to include this bit in your selection of quotes, so, being the helpful sort of person I am I put it in for you;
"Nuclear opponents cite Japan's disaster as a compelling reason for a ban. Oshima sees it as a mistake the country can learn from while still improving nuclear technology, which he regards as one of the world's great inventions behind only alcohol and go, an Asian board game.

You'll have to excuse me.... I'm off to see if I can find another barrel.

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

How?

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/EnvironmentalRadiation/Sellafield/


http://www1.american.edu/TED/SELLA.HTM

If its in the sea dont you think it might also be causing damage to Irish Health?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/04/nuke-a19.html