Nuclear Power

Capt'n Midnight

Ziphius wrote: »

Well, there is a difference between nuclear power generation and nuclear weaponry. Nuclear power stations aren't just big bombs ready to explode.

Just an aside all the old Cold War nukes have mostly been recycled already.

The Megatons to Megawatts program is on track to downblend the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads into nuclear fuel by the end of 2013.

666irishguy

No

One decent Nuclear plant would power a huge amount of the country's electricity needs and make us less reliant on oil or coal for a start. If there's any fears about what might go wrong, the solution is simple enough. Build it underground near the sea. If anything goes wrong it's not going to pollute into the atmosphere and it can be flooded rapidly with seawater and sealed off.

shedweller

And do what exactly to the seawater for the next god knows how long? Because you can't just go in there with a few jcb's!

Ziphius

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just an aside all the old Cold War nukes have mostly been recycled already.

The Megatons to Megawatts program is on track to downblend the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads into nuclear fuel by the end of 2013.

Interesting. Do you know if this was done because it was the cheapest way to decommission the weapons or cheaper than indefinite storage?

musings

666irishguy wrote: »

One decent Nuclear plant would power a huge amount of the country's electricity needs and make us less reliant on oil or coal for a start. If there's any fears about what might go wrong, the solution is simple enough. Build it underground near the sea. If anything goes wrong it's not going to pollute into the atmosphere and it can be flooded rapidly with seawater and sealed off.

Good Plan...what about the radioactive steam when you flood in the sea water?

jonon9

No

I think it would be a great idea it sure would cut down electricity bills (wishful thinking) BUT I wouldn't trust Ireland and the government to built it let alone run it. Does Ireland have an Nuclear Scientist?

cartell_best

By all accounts, and from reading the last few posts it seems a life is for rent...radiation isn't a matter of moving in a "few Jcb's" in the event of a nuclear accident, or considering an alternative...There isn't an alternative...life as we know it (and we have a lot to learn) cease's.... I for one, do not own a radiation suit or gas mask.....

jonon9

No

cartell_best wrote: »

By all accounts, and from reading the last few posts it seems a life is for rent...radiation isn't a matter of moving in a "few Jcb's" in the event of a nuclear accident, or considering an alternative...There isn't an alternative...life as we know it (and we have a lot to learn) cease's.... I for one, do not own a radiation suit or gas mask.....

Good point also a good documentary to watch is 'Battle for Chernobyl' ok ok I might be off topic but I guess it shows how devastating an accident can be

Agent Mug

Is Hidegen energy the way of the future, and will it be a safer than Nuclear energy.

Pompous

No

I'm all for nuclear energy, but remember that huge amounts of fossil fuels have to be burnt in the construction of the plant and to acquire uranium.

jonon9

No

I'v read some months ago that scientist are working on a Nuclear Fusion reactor or what ever you call it its meant to be even more powerful then a regular reactor in short its the same power that keeps the sun burning.

Capt'n Midnight

666irishguy wrote: »

If anything goes wrong it's not going to pollute into the atmosphere and it can be flooded rapidly with seawater and sealed off.

If you do that you will either get a steam explosion or if the pressure casing survives long enough for the temperature to get higher a hydrogen explosion.

cartell_best

Please forgive me if i speak in a derogatory term...a person I knew died in an "accidental" death. He died without another person being involved. Please forgive me but, I'm lost now. Me? I regard each and every single passing as sad. I could not, nor do I wish, to consider a death that is resulting from a complete catastrophy...that not only wipes out many people, but people with existence that matters. (I'm not being smart btw)

Pompous

No

jonon9 wrote: »

I'v read some months ago that scientist are working on a Nuclear Fusion reactor or what ever you call it its meant to be even more powerful then a regular reactor in short its the same power that keeps the sun burning.

It's experimental, but if we can build a fusion reactor that actually works, then we will have achieved unlimited free energy and a new age of prosperity for mankind.

Interesting fact, helium3 (a rare form of helium), is possibly the best candidate for fuelling the reaction; it's not found in high quantities on earth due to our atmosphere/magnetic field filtering out the particles of helium3 coming form the sun. It is however found in huge quantities on the surface of the moon, so a future moon based mining operation is actually a good possibility

sorry if this is off topic but i find it fascinating

Capt'n Midnight

Agent Mug wrote: »

Is Hidegen energy the way of the future, and will it be a safer than Nuclear energy.

The "hydrogen economy" is based on the premise that we will have enough energy to turn water into fuel without suggesting where this energy will come from.


Hydrocarbons (oil/gas) contain Hydrogen. And if we did find a cheap way of producing hydrogen in the future (algae or photolysis) we may convert into liquid form as an organic solvent.


Fusion as in free energy from seawater is a very long way off. H-Bombs have been around since the 1950's so we understand the physics of fusion. The engineering difficulties of getting a controlled explosion are just immense.

ted1

No

The Irish government should look at building a reactor within the sellafield complex, thus would greatly reduce the cost and make it an actual possibility.

As for those who think it'd dangerous. 3000000 people a year die of a result if fossil fuel plants. Only about 3 people died in Japan, less in little island. Uranium is mined in Canada, Australia which have stable government, oil and gas are generally from countries with unstable government who have questioanle human rights.

jonon9

No

Pompous wrote: »

It's experimental, but if we can build a fusion reactor that actually works, then we will have achieved unlimited free energy and a new age of prosperity for mankind.

Interesting fact, helium3 (a rare form of helium), is possibly the best candidate for fuelling the reaction; it's not found in high quantities on earth due to our atmosphere/magnetic field filtering out the particles of helium3 coming form the sun. It is however found in huge quantities on the surface of the moon, so a future moon based mining operation is actually a good possibility

sorry if this is off topic but i find it fascinating

I think I also read that it will created so much heat that it would melt the chamber the fuel is in, yes it sure is facinating

ted1

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Breeders eh ?

They've had plutonium producing reactors on the go since 1944. Since then there has been one semi-successful commercial breeder reactor, and it had an up time of 8%.


Yes it would be nice to see a liquid salt thorium breeder reactor. But that's what they said back in the 1950's when they started building experimental reactors to test those technologies.

Pebble bed reactors were a little later on.

The nuclear industry has been promising new technology and delivering nada for ages.





US is cancelling nukes since they have lots of cheap gas from fracking.




over the last 30 years the price of solar is falling 7% year on year due to economies of scale

only a few % of the worlds deserts would provide all our power needs, even if you assume the worlds population will stablilse at 11 billion

state of the art panels are several times as efficient as commercially available ones so lots of room for improvement


one of the Holy Grails for solar would be a cheap method of photolysis to produce Hydrogen. Or cheap batteries. Or superconductor interconnectors.


Nuclear provides 7% of the worlds electricity , there are 70 years of proven uranium reserves left. A nuclear power station costs so much that it can take 30-40 years or longer to pay back it's costs. It's like suggesting we convert all our existing power stations to use turf. There simply isn't enough turf to pay for the costs of converting them.

solar uses rare earth minerals, and that possess a problem to large scale roll out, uranium has 70 years because it isn't really be explored for as demand isn't too high, fast breeder reactors can usr the waste plutonium so there is more fuel, thorium reactors ate making progress in India, with plenty of supply available.

Pompous

No

jonon9 wrote: »

I think I also read that it will created so much heat that it would melt the chamber the fuel is in, yes it sure is facinating

Yeah man, 2 million degrees celsius tends to melt.... everything

ted1

No

Pompous wrote: »

Yeah man, 2 million degrees celsius tends to melt.... everything

yes, but they exploring ways of cotaining the heat, magnetic fields are being explored.

Pompous

No

ted1 wrote: »

yes, but they exploring ways of cotaining the heat, magnetic fields are being explored.

There are a lot of problems to overcome. Even if the heat can be contained, the reaction still can't be sustained for more than a second or two

Blisterman

Whatever happened to those guys in Dublin a few years ago who made a perpetual motion machine?
Why don't we build a few of them? Problem solved.

Agent Mug

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The "hydrogen economy" is based on the premise that we will have enough energy to turn water into fuel without suggesting where this energy will come from.


Hydrocarbons (oil/gas) contain Hydrogen. And if we did find a cheap way of producing hydrogen in the future (algae or photolysis) we may convert into liquid form as an organic solvent.


Fusion as in free energy from seawater is a very long way off. H-Bombs have been around since the 1950's so we understand the physics of fusion. The engineering difficulties of getting a controlled explosion are just immense.

So what your saying is.

It's possible.

mikemac1

No

My name is URL wrote: »

It would be quite Irish to start building Power Plants at a time when wiser and more sophisticated nations are phasing out the use of nuclear power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

I hate that phrase

Ruined your otherwise interesting post, sorry

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

solar uses rare earth minerals, and that possess a problem to large scale roll out, uranium has 70 years because it isn't really be explored for as demand isn't too high, fast breeder reactors can usr the waste plutonium so there is more fuel, thorium reactors ate making progress in India, with plenty of supply available.

some solar uses rare materials. Rare earths are usually used for magnets for electric generators as saves some energy in the field coil.

Amorphous silicon panels are made from silica which makes up 59% of the earths crust, though it is easier if you use sand. Yes some other panels use rare materials and are unlikely to provide multi-gigawatt installations. But there are organic panels too. Also by using lots of mirrors and cooling the panels you can get 100 times the energy from one panel. And there are lots of new technologies in the labs waiting to be commercialised.


How many times do I have to explain that we still don't have any usable breeder reactors despite having plutonium producing reactors for the last 68 years and the blindingly obvious benefits if such a system could be got working.

Thorium on the other hand has only been a dead end for just over fifty years.

Prick!

I'm all for Nuclear power. The main cost is building the plant. Running it is cheap as chips.

You get exponentionally more energy from uranium than the oil equivalent.

We're running out of oil.

What happens when we run out of oil, we'll have no plastic then either.

Capt'n Midnight

Agent Mug wrote: »

So what your saying is.

It's possible.

Which of the three different definitions of Hydrogen usage are you referring to ?

Prick!

And remember Ireland imports 87% of it's power. How dependant on europe are we.

Agent Mug

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Which of the three different definitions of Hydrogen usage are you referring to ?

Or ****e man come on, the one that solve the problem of course, which one are you talking about.

Capt'n Midnight

Prick! wrote: »

I'm all for Nuclear power. The main cost is building the plant. Running it is cheap as chips.

The main cost is acutally the interest payments on the loan to build the plant and the first charge of fuel.

You get exponentionally more energy from uranium than the oil equivalent.

huh ?
if we use twice as much uranium we get more than twice the energy

We're running out of oil.

What happens when we run out of oil, we'll have no plastic then either.

We are running out of cheap oil, and besides we can use bio-polymers.