Nuclear Power

Herb Powell

Curly Judge wrote: »

And your evidence for this smug assumption is...???

Well who the fucck actually wants a nuclear disaster?

Curly Judge

No

Herb Powell wrote: »

Well who the fucck actually wants a nuclear disaster?

Mainly anti nuke types, so their prophesy of nuclear Armageddon can be realised?
I wouldn't be worried in the slightest if my daughter moved into a house near a nuclear power station. I would be seriously worried if she moved into a house north east of Moneypoint however.
It's a strange fact but the people who most fear nuclear power are those farthest removed from it. Do you seriously imagine that nuclear power operatives go to work each morning in fear and trepidation?

Gbear

No

Soz for the delay in replying. I was traveling from the US.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

yes there is more uranium
but it's going to get a lot more expensive
unlike renewables which are getting cheaper

But they're still incredibly expensive and inefficient right now.

And while PV can get very efficient at ideal conditions it will always be hamstrung by lack of light and cloud cover. We're still miles away from cheap, efficient storage.

Another question. Although there's massive amounts of energy to be tapped in the wind, if we started tapping a non-negligible amount could we start affecting the weather adversely? Taking all that energy out would start to have an effect at some point, surely?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we are only extracting 1/3 of the oil in a well , so lots still in the ground
the US has a new source of gas that is killing nuclear
Canada has tar sands , there is lots of coal. We have hundreds of years of non-conventional fossil fuel left. The real problem is EROEI , soon fuel extraction may produce more CO2 than electricity generation.

That's not surprising but there's a necessity to somewhat disregard the economics if they mean abandoning the planet to climate change.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No one has gotten Thorium working yet, even the latest Candu's are skimping back on heavy water so they could no longer use Thorium.

I've said before Thorium has advantages
- easier to pre process so fuel rods are way cheaper
- 0.5% of the waste - you could entomb it all in the reactor
It has two disadvantages
- in a few hundred years time the waste could be used to make bombs , (unless you mix in depleted uranium)
- despite the information being publicly available since 1946 no one has gotten it working

India will show the way forward on this. They actually have a reason to because they've got a boatload of thorium.
Has there been any incentive up until now to use thorium?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL
Have you seen how much DIY attic insulation costs in the UK ?
http://www.wickes.co.uk/invt/161279

Over here I'd say most of the grants go into the builders back pocket :mad:

I was suggest investment in developing the technology. LED's that are cheaper than existing light bulbs will happen in the next few years.

People in fuel poverty can't afford the capital cost for insulation. :mad:

The point about insulation is that lots of little capital expenditures will provide more benefit then big ones.

Look at badly Irish housing stock is insulated after record house prices during the boom. All the new build during the boom could have been close to passive heating without affecting the price by much.

We need to be increasing efficiency of our power usage - waste is waste regardless of the energy source.
Even if the government doesn't have much money, why not 0% interest loans to cover the capital outlay but get it paid back? Perhaps any savings made on electricity are paid to the government until the cost of the insulation is paid back? Long term it saves money and doesn't actually cost the state anything.
It's a form of capital investment that's basically free.

On LED's even though they're quite expensive, they're cheaper in the long run already. You save money on electricity and they last for like 10 years.
Even if you replace your lights one at a time with LED's (because they cost about 25 quid each) you'll eventually kit your whole house out with them.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We have two 500MW links to the UK, and more have been planned.

Interconnectors take 2-3 years to build and we'll have no problem exporting wind until the UK is up to 30% renewables. A billion would interconnect us with France (no need to go to Norway, the Scots are planning that)

Perhaps it would simply make sense to not bother with any power generation on this island (we have a few hydroelectric dams don't we? May as well keep them) and just get all our energy from the UK and europe? If we had enough interconnectors they wouldn't be able to fleece us because we'd have a few options about who we get our power from and it'd secure against one of the connectors going down.

Indeed, if we got our energy from France we could claim to have negligible carbon output from electricity.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear provides 14% of electricity.
19% of world electricity is used by incandescent light bulbs
Changing to LED's in the next decade will affect release more electricity than doubling the number of reactors world wide. LED's will happen within 10 years, based on past trends and commercialisation of existing discoveries. That many Nuclear reactors won't get built.
[...]


Please explain how a technology that provides less than 3% of our global energy can stop the CO2 emissions of transport ?

For transport, we can either move to electric or hydrogen. I'm fairly certain that both use a lot of electricity.

Incidentally, what's more efficient? Making electricity at an oil power station and using that electricity to power an electric car or having the car produce it's own electricity with an engine?

Anyway, the point is, that we still need to be getting the energy for somewhere. For the foreseeable future, that means fossil fuels or renewables and renewables are still pretty useless.

Unless we replace that fossil fuel source with a Nuclear source the efficiency gains aren't going to cut it in terms of preventing climate change.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

PV statistics are inherently dishonest.

please inform us of the cost of a nuclear plant including financing and clean up.

A 7% increase or decreases in either cost or efficiency are almost meaningless when at the cost end the base is so high and at the efficiency end of the base is so low.

that's 7% a year for the last 30 years

The basic problems with PV are: [1] It won't work in the dark.
[2] It is grossly inefficient at Northern latitudes.
[3]PV is limited to gathering the energy from the sun which falls on the earth. Even its most deluded proponents are not forecasting an ability to multiply or leverage the energy, [per square meter] which falls on the earth each year. Therefore the only option is to cover more and more of the earth's surface with its hideous footprint.

Of course we aren't going to run Ireland with panels here :rolleyes:

you stick the PV in a desert, I believe North Africa has some to spare, and run a long extension cable, or you electrolyse water and pump the hydrogen in a pipe. Or you use the electricity to refine Aluminium or Zinc and then use that metal in batteries for cars, and recycle it afterwards. ( Yes you could use boron but that's not been ironed out yet.)
Aluminium smelting has been proposed as a way for Iceland to export electricity.

And you are the one who constantly poo poos the option of thorium.
LFTRSs will be up and running and my aunt will have balls long before any of these become a major player.

Thorium has been tried without success since the 1950's

Don't get me wrong it would be far better than natural uranium but I just can't see them getting it working cleanly and reliably in the short term. The reactors proposed and the companies involved are the same old, same old that have been disingenous with the truth (cf. BNFL falsifying records - but stuff like that has happened worldwide.)


Solar panels are down to 75c per watt with 50c per watt on the horizon.

Transparent plastic solar panels (they use infra-red instead of visible light)
http://planetsave.com/2012/07/22/solar-power-generating-windows/

NTMK

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thorium has been tried without success since the 1950's

do you have a link to this because i was under the belief that it never went beyond a theoretical stage because the US couldn't make weapons from the byproducts

spankmemunkey

Is it completely 100 percent safe? NO

Does it have a deadly and dangerous by product? YES!

energy being used in the home is something that needs to be used more effectively and responsibly.

There should be an emphasis placed on how much power we are using and for what and that theres a cost to the planet for the production of that energy.

Look theres always a greener way to produce energy but the powers that be want to keep this repressed as best they can.

Anyway im not going to argue my point anymore Its dangerous and it only safe when its managed and controlled and lets face is world events are going to allow us to manage this forever.

What was it Jeff Waynes war of the worlds, We'll start all over againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Eh no we wont.

Curly Judge

No

NTMK wrote: »

do you have a link to this because i was under the belief that it never went beyond a theoretical stage because the US couldn't make weapons from the byproducts[/QUOTE

The Captain is not strictly correct as thorium experimental reactors were run in the sixties and the early seventies.
They were so docile that the researchers used to turn them off on a Friday evening, go home for the weekend, and start them up again on Monday morning.
What they lacked, and still lack,[through want of investment] is an economic method of covering the seed fuel with the breeding fuel, a fool proof and economic method of of fuel recovery and some more research into alloys needed in the high temperature molten salt environment.
Their great advantage over currently operated uranium reactors is that, although they operate at high temperatures [north of 800C and therefore very useful for producing relatively cheap hydrogen] they work at sea level pressures.
There is enough thorium in the world to last for 100's of years.

This link might be of interest to anyone seeking further information. http://www.itheo.org/

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Is it completely 100 percent safe? NO

Does it have a deadly and dangerous by product? YES!

energy being used in the home is something that needs to be used more effectively and responsibly.

There should be an emphasis placed on how much power we are using and for what and that theres a cost to the planet for the production of that energy.

Look theres always a greener way to produce energy but the powers that be want to keep this repressed as best they can.

Anyway im not going to argue my point anymore Its dangerous and it only safe when its managed and controlled and lets face is world events are going to allow us to manage this forever.

What was it Jeff Waynes war of the worlds, We'll start all over againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Eh no we wont.

Spanky has spoken!
We might as well all go home.

spankmemunkey

Damn straight!

jsd1004

No

radioactive wolves . Good doc. Think it is on youtube. Shows that chernobyl has turned into a wildlife reserve with no impact on the wolf population after quarter of a century. The huge catfish in the cooling pond is interesting too. They are huge not from radiation but from the lack of humans killing them.

TheUsual

Nuclear is a proven technology and better the current oil burning, gas burning and peat burning for the environment.
While I would back Nuclear from the point of view that it always on and available 365 days a year, unlike wind and sunlight, I would be wary of where we keep or transport the waste material for processing.
(Off the east coast of England would be my choice, see how they like it for a change).

As to where we build the station in Ireland, well we just find a group of people that everybody in Ireland hates and park it there.
And yes, Foxrock, I'm looking at you !!

Capt'n Midnight

TheUsual wrote: »

Nuclear is a proven technology

well yeah
Back in 1943 they proved that if you put enough fissile material close enough together it gets hot

the economics still haven't been proven and the costs keep going up

and better the current oil burning, gas burning and peat burning for the environment.

The best thing for the environment is spreading radioactive waste or toxic metals or dioxins , keeps the humans away.

While I would back Nuclear from the point of view that it always on and available 365 days a year, unlike wind and sunlight, I would be wary of where we keep or transport the waste material for processing.

The UK is looking at some Japanese reactors. They have a operating factor of 70% so not 24/365 more like 8.4 months a year.

Waste processing to recover fuel to be reused is one of the two efficiency gains since the 1950's. Unfortunatly that efficiency is only if you measure how much energy you get out of the uranium. Reprocessing isn't that much cheaper than once through, nor is it that much cleaner as you are adding more contaminated substances to the mix. The other efficiency gains are because new materials allow you to run at a higher temperature which means a higher Carnot efficiency. This applies to fossil fuel plants too and they've been able to benefit more.

(Off the east coast of England would be my choice, see how they like it for a change).

Are you telling us that you know nothing about the Sellafield discharges ?
Yes they were dumping it on their own doorstep from 1952 to 1994

Capt'n Midnight

NTMK wrote: »

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight View Post

Thorium has been tried without success since the 1950's

do you have a link to this because i was under the belief that it never went beyond a theoretical stage because the US couldn't make weapons from the byproducts

Perhaps if I had said commercial success ?


The Germans had a 300MW reactor that incorporated some thorium , probably the nearest anyone has got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/eon-exit-from-finnish-nuclear-reactor-may-trigger-failure.html

EON AG (EOAN)’s plan to pull out of a joint venture that’s building a nuclear reactor in Finland increases the risk that the project may fail

Another setback for the Finish power plant which was only running six years behind schedule.

Jester252

No

The only way to move forward would involve nuclear power in Ireland in one shape or another. Renewable, while needed, will never be able to support the energy demands.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176

An "intolerable risk" is being posed by hazardous waste stored in run-down buildings at Sellafield nuclear plant, a watchdog has found.

The National Audit Office (NAO) also said that for 50 years, the operators of the Cumbria installation failed to develop a long-term plan for waste.

Costs of plant-decommissioning has also spiralled out of control, it said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20231759

India and Canada have finalised the terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for Canadian firms to export uranium to India.
...
Earlier this month, India agreed to begin negotiations on a civil nuclear co-operation agreement with Australia, which holds an estimated 40% of the world's uranium.

Last year, it agreed a deal that will allow South Korea to export its nuclear energy technology to India.

This suggests that India isn't going to use Thorium any time soon as the Candu reactors would probably be the most adaptable to the Thorium cycle.

Neewbie_noob

No

Is there any chance of Ireland getting out of the dark ages and legislating for nuclear power? It seems that the most ignorant people in society have the most power unfortunately.

Capt'n Midnight

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Is there any chance of Ireland getting out of the dark ages and legislating for nuclear power? It seems that the most ignorant people in society have the most power unfortunately.

Yes the most ignorant people in society have the most power.

Look at how those who donated a lot to parties got treated during the boom. Construction industry were throwing up houses with almost no quality control. If there had been any political will than for a small increase in the cost of materials the boom could have left a legacy of modern energy efficient housing. It would not have affected house prices. Instead the only improvement we got over existing 40 year old housing stock was double glazing (can you even buy single glazing anymore ?) and a few cm of mineral wool behind plasterboard on exterior walls.

Just imagine Fianna Fail awarding the contract for a nuclear plant. Billions means there is plenty of room for snouts in the trough. The long lead time before there are any deliverables means no one has to do any quality work for years, by which time many of those involved will be safely retired, and if it gets cancelled no one even has to know how shoddy the work was.

spankmemunkey

Is it completely safe? No! Chernobyl is still an unresolved nuclear accident and one is enough, Theres all sorts **** going on that we dont even know about accidents leakages you name it, god knows how many cover ups theres been, Like someone else said you all love nuclear power but i bet few of you would love to live near a plant or raise kids near one.

You all have so much faith in people you dont know doing their job properly

AlmightyCushion

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Is it completely safe? No! Chernobyl is still an unresolved nuclear accident and one is enough, Theres all sorts **** going on that we dont even know about accidents leakages you name it, god knows how many cover ups theres been, Like someone else said you all love nuclear power but i bet few of you would love to live near a plant or raise kids near one.

You all have so much faith in people you dont know doing their job properly

I wouldn't have a problem with living close to a nuclear power plant especially if you get free or cheaper electricity for living near one like in France. I'd definitely prefer it to living close to a coal power station.

spankmemunkey

Well why is it that theyd offer you cheaper power?


I just cant believe how happy people are to promote such a dangerous means of power production, Oh i do yeah, its the fact that it may or may not damage you in your lifetime so you dont really give a crap, and then they say oh its better than coal, there are other ways.

I also think as i said before that there should be more education when it comes to where our power comes from, responsible use of power our families use power all the time but i dont think the point is made to them the cost to our environment simply flicking that switch on is, People talk about food waste i think alot more should be said about power waste and responsible power use, for example the Dail have spot lights all around the building on all night just to look good, this is replicated all over the world by homes and businesses.

ToddyDoody

No way. I shat my pants during the whole.fukashima.thing

Chuck Stone

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with living close to a nuclear power plant

Maybe you wouldn't mind this but I'd imagine a considerable % of people wouldn't like to live nearby a nuke-plant especially if the nuke-plant was in another jurisdiction that they had no say in.

Ya see, when a coal powered station blows it's a local issue. When a nuke-plant blows it's everyone's problem for generations.

radioactiveman

No

Defo in favour of nuclear power.

The alternative in a lot of cases is coal. That is a definite real problem vs the possible problem of a radioactive leak. There was a pollution image that New Scientist published a while ago of the US and the biggest clear spots were in the north east US where nuclear is used. The biggest polluter was the coal plants. I don't want to live in a world where there's no north pole ice and all the wildlife up there dies because of global warming to be replaced with oil fields so we can burn even more carbon fuels..

If wind and solar is possible that's a no brainer don't get me wrong , but It might not be possible in future especially with 10 billion people on earth.. I dunno..

Capt'n Midnight

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'd definitely prefer it to living close to a coal power station.

We have one coal fired station

and besides we get more power from renewables than coal

Capt'n Midnight

radioactiveman wrote: »

If wind and solar is possible that's a no brainer don't get me wrong , but It might not be possible in future especially with 10 billion people on earth.. I dunno..

Just to give an idea of solar power.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fullneed.jpg
The red squares represent the area that would be enough for solar power plants to produce a quantity of electricity consumed by the world today (Welt), in Europe (EU-25) and Germany (D). (Data provided by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005)

NB. that is the area for 10% efficient cells.
30% cells are available commercially.

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just to give an idea of solar power.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fullneed.jpg
The red squares represent the area that would be enough for solar power plants to produce a quantity of electricity consumed by the world today (Welt), in Europe (EU-25) and Germany (D). (Data provided by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005)

NB. that is the area for 10% efficient cells.
30% cells are available commercially.

You should take this plan with a pitch of salt.
While its possible they are just too many problems with the plan such as security and transport.
Also coal and renewables are level on the generation with Ireland reaching its current max on wind. Moneypoint is going to be shut down soon and we need to a replacement.

B.A._Baracus

Let me sum boards.ie in the future: :pac:

2012 - Majority of people vote that nuclear power is good.
20XX - Ireland finally builds a nuclear power plant.
20XX - ElWeirdo gets arrested for being a peeping tom.
20XX - Loads of people moan and bitch about the risks of said power plant.

Conclusion? 'as long as its not on my doorstep its ok' mentality oh and elweirdo gets arrested for being a peeping tom :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

Also coal and renewables are level on the generation with Ireland reaching its current max on wind. Moneypoint is going to be shut down soon and we need to a replacement.

soon ?

In which case there is zero chance of nuclear being ready.

The UK , who have experience of nuclear, have existing sites to build upon, may, if all goes well have the first new plant running by the mid 2020's.

We don't have the money, the infrastructure, public support, regulatory bodies or political will to do this properly in a similar time frame.


Also since it's not a UK approved design it's not even guaranteed to start.

spankmemunkey

radioactiveman wrote: »

Defo in favour of nuclear power.

The alternative in a lot of cases is coal. That is a definite real problem vs the possible problem of a radioactive leak. There was a pollution image that New Scientist published a while ago of the US and the biggest clear spots were in the north east US where nuclear is used. The biggest polluter was the coal plants. I don't want to live in a world where there's no north pole ice and all the wildlife up there dies because of global warming to be replaced with oil fields so we can burn even more carbon fuels..

If wind and solar is possible that's a no brainer don't get me wrong , but It might not be possible in future especially with 10 billion people on earth.. I dunno..

If there are problems with nuclear power there will be no man kind end of, do you think storing hundreds of tonnes upon tonnes of nuclear waste under the ground is seriously viable? where will be put the waste in the end?

We need to re evaluate the cost to the planet of our power consumption and adjust it accordingly too many people and governments are living for their life span and thinking it wont be their problem in 100,000 years when this by product starts to build up