Nuclear Power

Pompous

No

Prick! wrote: »

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.

Hehe. You're in for some shock. Everything is made form oil. Not just materials like rubber plastic etc. Food is made from oil. The machines that harvest the crops are ran on oil and built from oil powered factories. The fertilizers are made from oil. 'Agriculture is the use of land to turn oil into food'. Agricultural land has been sapped of nutrients to the point that it is now just a sponge onto which we pour our oil derived fertilizers. All transport runs on oil. That means all exports and imports. It goes deeper and deeper. How do you think we have gone from 1 to 7 billion people in such a short space of time? The entire developed world is a bubble waiting to pop, and when it does, well, lets just say 'inb4 ****storm'

If you want to learn more watch the documentary 'Collapse'. It's very interesting. And completely terrifying. I love being alive in the 21st century. So much to be witnessed in my lifetime.

again, sorry for off topic, can't help myself >.<

ted1

No

Prick! wrote: »

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

You get

The main cost is the decommissioning. This posses a problem as, who pays for it. What happens if the company running it just folds? Do we add a levy on to the kwh cost, are taxes imposed on profits to finance the decommissioning etc.

mikemac1

No

Split the costs with Northern Ireland?

Share the power, share the cost

Ziphius

No

Pompous wrote: »

Food is made from oil.

It is?

Pompous

No

Ziphius wrote: »

It is?

Yep.

Edit: I like how you took those five words out of context from my lengthy explanation in an attempt to derail my point.

Ziphius

No

Pompous wrote: »

Yep.

How?

Pompous

No

Ziphius wrote: »

How?

Ah man, I can't be bothered. You either didn't read my post or you're winding me up. In either case I'm not going to repeat myself.

Prick!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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


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


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

Running out of oil and running out of cheap oil is the same thing for the normal man.

pound of oil 2.4 x 10^7

pound of Uranium-235 3.7 x 10^13

Massive difference in energy.

Ziphius

No

Pompous wrote: »

Yep.

Edit: I like how you took those five words out of context from my lengthy explanation in an attempt to derail my point.

Indeed. How mischievous of me. But rereading your post I see that you didn't mean that food was literally made of oil. Merely that oil use is integral in almost everything we do. Can't argue with that. Apologies for misreading your post. Organic food lobby won't like that

Pompous

No

Ziphius wrote: »

Indeed. How mischievous of me. But rereading your post I see that you didn't mean that food was literally made of oil. Merely that oil use is integral in almost everything we do. Can't argue with that. Apologies for misreading your post. Organic food lobby won't like that

coolbeans

My name is URL

mikemac1 wrote: »

I hate that phrase

Ruined your otherwise interesting post, sorry

I usually hate the sentiment too, but feck it, it is typical of some Irish people to bleat on about energy security and sufficiency while they simultaneously argue in favor of fracking etc, and the cheap fire-sale of the little natural resources we do possess.

These threads come up quite a lot in AH.. there was a similar one just last week iirc. And many of the people that are in the pro-nuclear corner also seem to be in favor of selling off the natural resources we do have for a very slight and short term economic return. Too many people base their opinions on senseless and short-sighted ideologies.

jumpguy

musings wrote: »

You are factually wrong. It was not the failure of the generators that was the problem but rather the failure of the pumps. There was no other place to put the pumps other than at the water intake at ground level. So it was not poor design...it was the only practical design possible.

The Fukushima accident showed up how vulnerable these plants can be if for example a terrorist wants to cause a problem.

The generators that power the pumps were located at ground level. If you're telling me that water pumps must be situated at ground level then you're having a laugh, it's just the easiest place to put them from an engineering perspective.

The Fukushima accident did no such thing, unless you're suggesting terrorists have the ability to start tsunamis.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

high-return investment ??? - please explain this

If you get a good reactor up and running, it'll pay back over the years in energy produced. The fact that other countries who blazed the trail with generation III reactors are having trouble shouldn't stop us, it should be seen as an opportunity for us to improve on their designs.

666irishguy

No

musings wrote: »

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

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

I'd imagine this being fairly deep underground in a tunnel system that would be several hundred metres underground, more like a very deep non commercial mine and having some sort of one way flooding system leading to the reactor from the sea that could be resealed from the outside once it had flooded the system. It would be a total loss of the reactor/plant type event if it had to be used. If there was a steam or hydrogen explosion, it might collapse the whole structure in on itself and there might be no way of knowing what the remnants of the reactor are like, but at least it would be underground and not in the atmosphere. I don't know enough about the subject to say what the long term effects would be regarding stuff like contamination of the water table etc. Would such a system even be technically possible? It would be horribly expensive for sure.

ted1

No

Latest trend is to build the moderators into the roof, so that in the event of something going wrong it'll kill the reaction.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

No

the keen edge wrote: »

It costs ~$500 million to launch a space shuttle.

We're not talking about space shuttles launches or even satellite launches here; they require complex equipment like life support system, etc... All you need to launch nuclear waste into space is something like a minuteman missile, delta rocket, etc... The cheaper the better.

the keen edge wrote: »

+1 for the documentary Into eternity, really put the life span of the waste into perspective.

A deep underground repository is, of course, a better and more economically viable solution.

1ZRed wrote: »

Yeah fire it off and not deal with it until it eventually bites you in the ass sometime later. That's the whole reason why we are in so much difficulty with pollution and waste management. It was all put off with a "Ah, sure fuck it! We won't have to deal with it for years"
It's not a responsible mindset to have and we can't just go flinging everything into space like pigs. Space junk is already a big problem in our atmosphere without us polluting more of space.

Most "space junk" comes from missions that were intended for low earth orbit. If you direct capsules with nuclear waste directly up away from Earth's orbit or just allow them to crash into the moon, I don't understand the problem.

I don't see how releasing nuclear waste into space will necessary cause a pollution problem for humans in the future. Space is vast, Earth and it's produce are infinitely small in comparison. There's already enough radiation from the sun beyond the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field to kill you on spot so I don't see how a bit of radioactive waste would be too much to worry about in comparison when in outer space.

Even if you were to send the waste to the moon, the likelihood of that effecting humans in the future is nonexistent given that colonisation of the moon is unlikely, unless it's going to be used for mining Helium-3 fuel for nuclear fusion reactors in the future - only then will it be a problem.

parrai wrote: »

Don't think it's a good idea to go messin' about with it though!

The Sky God will smite us.

parrai wrote: »

Why do we have to be so destructive when we have wind/solar technology at our fingertips?

Nuclear waste in space isn't destructive though. I'd be more worried about asteroids and meteorites.

parrai wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense dumping crap in space.

Well it's better than dumping it on Earth.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Some of the incidents this year.

I don't think you got my point earlier, most of these problems are in older generation reactors.

Gbear

No

Fukushima was pretty much a non-event.
There was a Tsunami/Earthquake combo that killed 15k people. That was a disaster.

That kind of disaster is exceptionally rare, even for Japan. We don't get earthquakes and tsunamis regularly. I think we got one recently that was about 3 on the richter scale. Fukushima was about 9 - about 1,000,000 times stronger. And structurally the plant was fine. If they had built the flood barrier 2m higher it wouldn't even be involved in the discussion.
It killed noone. It's typical of the media that it was the "big story" when 15 thousand people were killed by the actual disaster.

Chernobyl's safety is no more relevant to nuclear safety than the Trabant or some other communist car is to a discussion about the inherent safety of cars. Something like 40 people were killed.
There's something like 9000 extra deaths from cancer predicted for those exposed. To put that in to context 6500 people are killed from smoking every year in Ireland.
Also, there is no evidence that any birth defects were caused.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf

Long story short:
Chernobyl was blown out of all proportion by people with anti-nuclear agendas.
It was nothing like nuclear plants constructed in non-communist countries at the time and even less like modern ones.


Three-mile island was a non-event. Some inert gas was released. Nobody was harmed.

The "dangers" of nuclear power are insignificant.

There's perfectly valid arguments to be had about the economics and the waste issue. There aren't any to be had about the dangers because relative to everything else you do in life - driving, smoking, getting struck by lightning; there are no dangers.

The debate would be more productive if people could move on from the non-issue that nuclear safety is.

Mr. Boo

We can't run focking hospitals! Never mind you nookyewlur power.

marcsignal

Nuclear Power ?

reminds me of every messy consumerist drunk i've ever met...


...who doesn't want to clean up after himself, in someone else's house...

parrai

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

We're not talking about space shuttles launches or even satellite launches here; they require complex equipment like life support system, etc... All you need to launch nuclear waste into space is something like a minuteman missile, delta rocket, etc... The cheaper the better.



A deep underground repository is, of course, a better and more economically viable solution.



Most "space junk" comes from missions that were intended for low earth orbit. If you direct capsules with nuclear waste directly up away from Earth's orbit or just allow them to crash into the moon, I don't understand the problem.

I don't see how releasing nuclear waste into space will necessary cause a pollution problem for humans in the future. Space is vast, Earth and it's produce are infinitely small in comparison. There's already enough radiation from the sun beyond the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field to kill you on spot so I don't see how a bit of radioactive waste would be too much to worry about in comparison when in outer space.

Even if you were to send the waste to the moon, the likelihood of that effecting humans in the future is nonexistent given that colonisation of the moon is unlikely, unless it's going to be used for mining Helium-3 fuel for nuclear fusion reactors in the future - only then will it be a problem.


The Sky God will smite us.



Nuclear waste in space isn't destructive though. I'd be more worried about asteroids and meteorites.



Well it's better than dumping it on Earth.



I don't think you got my point earlier, most of these problems are in older generation reactors.

I'm sorry bud, it's a cracked idea. We have no idea of the damage that could be done. As for crashing shyte into the moon, that's just nuts!!

zenno

What worries me is that top secret aircraft are flying around the world running on nuclear fuel so it's being used above americans heads and is worse than just asking about a nuclear power-plant, i'd smoke that if i could.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I don't think you got my point earlier, most of these problems are in older generation reactors.

Had you said ALL were older and shown that Generation III reactors hadn't had any problems then you'd have a point.

Regardless the fact remains that about 2% of nuclear power plants had unplanned shutdowns in the last two months.

Also many of the problems are in the quality of recent upgrades or operational error. It's the same companies who are offering us the new reactors.



Until Fukushima a lot of French nuclear plants had two reactors and were working on the principle that other reactor could supply cooling power. That's over a decade after 911 where companies used the other tower for offsite backups. Point is very very basic lessons aren't learnt or are ignored on a cost basis by the nuclear industry until it's too late.


This from last week.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/18/50387.htm

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CN) - Florida Power & Light fired a safety officer for shutting down a dangerously leaking nuclear reactor, because it cost $6 million to repair, the man claims in court.

ted1 wrote: »

Latest trend is to build the moderators into the roof, so that in the event of something going wrong it'll kill the reaction.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in the chase of Chernobyl and Fukushima the roofs were blown off.

I like the concept of Candu reactors or Molten salt reactors where you can just pull the plug. But at best they are less worse than other types of reactors. Pebble bed sounds good in theory, in practice pellets jamming caused problems.

Originally Posted by jumpguy View Post
If you get a good reactor up and running, it'll pay back over the years in energy produced.

That depends on interest rates.
And I'll remind you that solar panels are getting 7% cheaper every year

The fact that other countries who blazed the trail with generation III reactors are having trouble shouldn't stop us, it should be seen as an opportunity for us to improve on their designs.

Blazing a trial is perhaps not the best phrase to use.

Thing is if everyone has had problems with every generation of reactor - a technology that's been up and running on an industrial scale since 1944 - what makes you think that we could make it work.

musings

jumpguy wrote: »

The generators that power the pumps were located at ground level. If you're telling me that water pumps must be situated at ground level then you're having a laugh, it's just the easiest place to put them from an engineering perspective.

The Fukushima accident did no such thing, unless you're suggesting terrorists have the ability to start tsunamis.
If you get a good reactor up and running, it'll pay back over the years in energy produced. The fact that other countries who blazed the trail with generation III reactors are having trouble shouldn't stop us, it should be seen as an opportunity for us to improve on their designs.

No...the pumps were damaged too badly to be restored in time before the reactors overheated. At first the media had it that the diesel generators failed. If that had been the case, getting power to the pumps would have been a relatively easy job, had it been the only problem. It could have been solved by pulling a generator onto the site and restarting the pumps.

Obviously terrorist didn't cause the tsunami, but Fukushima showed that you can have you aircraft proof containment to protect the reactor, but if somebody or something cuts off your cooling water supply into the reactor, you're screwed as well.

bleg

No

Yup. Energy from Thorium is the way to go.

Meltdowns impossible and the spent fuel can't be used in weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

tuxy

No

zenno wrote: »

What worries me is that top secret aircraft are flying around the world running on nuclear fuel so it's being used above americans heads and is worse than just asking about a nuclear power-plant, i'd smoke that if i could.

I know this is after hours but are you saying you have access to top secret info from the U.S military?

B.A._Baracus

I aint a no nuclear scientist but my view on Nuclear power is that if you can make it safe in any event that may happen. Its fine. As the op said it has alot of benefits. But can they make it safe? make it full-proof? The japanese earthquake last year was of 8.9 magnitude. The highest on record was 9.5 in Chile in 1960. If you can't make it safe in a worst case scenario then should it be used?


But I wonder, what would happen if the epicentre of a 9.2 earthquake was where a nuclear power plant was? could they honestly say "it would be safe"

Sir Pompous Righteousness

No

parrai wrote: »

I'm sorry bud, it's a cracked idea. We have no idea of the damage that could be done. As for crashing shyte into the moon, that's just nuts!!

No idea about what? You're sending a capsule of nuclear waste on a rocket away from Earth! What damage would it do?! I take the part about the possibility of rockets exploding if there's a failed launched resulting in nuclear waste being spread thousands of miles over the atmosphere, but apart from that, I don't see the dangers in it. And no, the moon nuclear waste site isn't nuts.

Now for some Kraftwerk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBG1ilB3ao

Capt'n Midnight

bleg wrote: »

Yup. Energy from Thorium is the way to go.

Meltdowns impossible and the spent fuel can't be used in weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Thorium cycle was publicised in October 1946

U233 in a bomb was tested back in 1957.

Yes U232 makes it tricky to build a bomb, but wait a few hundred years and you are good to go. In other words waste storage better be secure or future generations will hate us even more.

Yes thorium means you can use close to 100% of the fuel instead of perhaps 0.5% in natural uranium. And yes there is the promise of an actinide burner to get rid of the nasty medium half life waste.

But there is still the troubling problem of getting a thorium reactor that actually works.

taibhse

Gbear wrote: »

Also, there is no evidence that any birth defects were caused.


Long story short:
Chernobyl was blown out of all proportion by people with anti-nuclear agendas.


The "dangers" of nuclear power are insignificant.

Think you'll find that position has changed

Also here

Maybe you could explain to the people who had been living in Chernobyl, that everything was just blown out of proportion.


And that's just the disasters. The fact is, there is currently no completely satisfactory way of dealing with nuclear waste. It has to be managed for thousands of years into the future.

Oil is estimated to have around another 40 years left, but new technologies are developing and new sources are being used like oil sands, so that figure is just an estimate. But that just takes into account human need, not the pollution factor.

Gas and coal have 100s of years of estimated use left and are cheaper but still contribute to climate change.


Solar and wind technologies are improving all the time so they will be a factor in energy sources for the future.

Another option is geothermal energy . It's clean, sustainable and can cover energy needs.

People also have to remember though that we have lived through an era of cheap oil, enabling us to live in comfort in the developed world. That time is rapidly coming to an end. In the future, energy may not be as abundant as now and people will have to get used to a lower standard of living perhaps.

parrai

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

No idea about what? You're sending a capsule of nuclear waste on a rocket away from Earth! What damage would it do?! I take the part about the possibility of rockets exploding if there's a failed launched resulting in nuclear waste being spread thousands of miles over the atmosphere, but apart from that, I don't see the dangers in it. And no, the moon nuclear waste site isn't nuts.

Now for some Kraftwerk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBG1ilB3ao

Why bother creating more pollution when there are cleaner alternatives.

Great tune by the way.

Calibos

No

taibhse wrote: »

Think you'll find that position has changed

Also here

Maybe you could explain to the people who had been living in Chernobyl, that everything was just blown out of proportion.

Eh? Both those articles talk about a small increase in the rates of birth defects and both articles point out that these birth defects can also be caused by Alchoholism and malnutrition of the parents and that the areas affected have endemic rates of eh.....alchoholism and malnutrition. :rolleyes: The conflicting study with the UN one did not control for these causes and even admits they are a possible cause for the birth defects.

And why are these areas alcoholics and malnourished?

They are dirt poor?

And why are they dirt poor?

Because overblown fears of nuclear meant they were forced to spend 200 billion to clean up.
Because overblown fears of contamination mean no one will buy agricultural produce from these areas.
Because the place is so poor now and overblown fears of contamination, no one will invest in the place.

Ironically it is the overblown fears of nuclear that have caused the small increase in birth defects and not the nuclear accident itself.