Nuclear Power, yay or nay « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

[closed]

Nuclear Power, yay or nay

263 posts & 62 voices | Started 2 years ago by waynekerr | Latest reply from zokes

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1…678 Next »

Zulu-Eleven - Member

They don't sell them on the basis that they will produce a constant output then act all surprised at low tide. However, they will produce a fairly predictable output, which is a good thing if you're involved in balancing the overall electricity supply.

Yep, but that "balancing" needs a reliable and effective backup - which simply cannot be produced from "alternative" sources.

Zokes - if anything the figures would be lower than that - as you need to also factor in reserves, so if your generators at Bristol Channel go offline for some unknown unexpected just when they're needed reason, you have to be able to rank up generation at other sites to make up for the loss at very short notice.

At the moment, thats fairly easy as they push some more out of the nuclear reactors, which can respond quickly and keep some generation in reserve for just that reason, or use diesel generators which can kick in in minutes, giving time to warm up the backup coal fired stations.

Get rid of the nuke and fossil backups, and if the severn barrage goes down, we'll all be stood on the top of a nearby hill huffing and puffing to start the turbines going round again

Generating supply without an reliable backup is worthless.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

At the moment, thats fairly easy as they push some more out of the nuclear reactors, which can respond quickly and keep some generation in reserve for just that reason, or use diesel generators which can kick in in minutes, giving time to warm up the backup coal fired stations.

Get rid of the nuke and fossil backups, and if the severn barrage goes down, we'll all be stood on the top of a nearby hill huffing and puffing to start the turbines going round again

Generating supply without an reliable backup is worthless.

Whilst I see you're backing me up, Nukes are the hardest to ramp up and down. That'll be the gas we're running out of that we need to do that. (Or maybe the pumped-storage plants like that in Llanberis)

Posted 2 years ago #
Junkyard - Member

so if your nucleur power plant goes offline for some unknown unexpected just when they're needed reason, you have to be able to rank up generation at other sites to make up for the loss at very short notice.

Whatever the power source if it fails something needs to kick in. No one is suggesting we just have the severn for all our needs but the tide is pretty secure. All your argumenst can be used against any power source breaking. I assume no one knows - as it is new technology- the reliability of tidal generation.

Posted 2 years ago #
adam5555 - Member

HI,
I work at Torness power station. Im no Nuclear physicist or anything just a general bod but working in the nuclear industry has given me a bit of a different insight ( i guess you may think a one sided view) of the dangers and how safe these things are. So I have a few views id like to add

Safety. Due to the unpredictability of humans nuclear safety fail safes render the chances of a nuclear disaster nil. If the control rods failed to drop fully into the reactor during a trip (virtually impossible and has never happened to the last few generations of reators) nitrogen is automatically injected into the reactor, this would absorb the neutrons and stop the chain reaction. If this fails and the reaction had not been controlled (time frame measured in minutes) boron beads are injected into the reactor which will absorb all the neutrons and stop the chain reaction. If this ever happened it would be final and the reactor would never be able to start again.
Nuclear power stations have an extremely good environmental safety record especially when compared with other heavy industries. I always faied to understand the protesters at Hartlepool Power Station who would drive past the oil refineries and heavy industries of Middlesbrough, which over the years has polluted the ground with heavy metals and the air with various toxins in the pursuit of producing the plastics for toys, plastic bags etc.

Waste. Again im no expert on the issue, which has to be dealt with, but why is it supposed to be such a big insurmountable issue?

Waste is split into 3 levels low, intermediate and high. High level waste amounts to a fraction of the overall amount of waste and is the dangerous stuff (spent fuel etc). Intermediate waste. Well if you ever come across some take a few steps back or you may receive a dose of a few micro sieverts ( your only allowed 20,000 over a year to stay inside recommended safe levels) Low level waste,the vast majority, is fractionally above background levels.
In the posts above the question of the fact that waste is dangerous for thousands of years keeps croping up, dangerous for who? Someone who wants to dig hundreds of meters underground to eat it? Waste is Soild state, liquid waste is mixed with concrete or molten glass to achieve this. Contain this in metal and store it underground. In my opinion this should be able to be accessed by humans so it can be monitored but this can easily be achieved.
Who should pay for the waste? The people who make it. After the intial cost of building them the profits able to be reaped are massive (which is why the french are able to have cheap electricity). They (the french) are going to make alot of money out of us for building new stations so the costs of decommisioning, waste can be paid by them.

Nuclear is cast as some terrible bogey monster by the media but I think this has become a bit of a smoke screen for the renewable sector. The beutiful isle of Lewis came close to being completely covered in wind turbines only for the great distance the electricity had to be cabled to populations meant that 70 percent of the energy would have been lost. Massive power lines right through the centre of Scotland anyone? Bringing wave energy (Unproven) from northern Scotland to the central belt. Sounds inefficient to me.
In an ideal world nuclear would not be needed but as a stop gap I believe it to be the best of current technology. Renewables still need a lot of development, 20-30 years with the best intentions and the costs of carbon capture makes it unlikely to ever be used mass market. Just because the government says that wave technology and carbon capture are the future doesnt make it a reality now. Someone actually has to invent it. Building coal power stations and saying they have to be retro fitted to capture 2% of the CO2 doesnt sound that great considering how much we need to cut our carbon by.

Just my tuppence worth anyway.

Posted 2 years ago #
Zulu-Eleven - Member

Zokes, the latest French plants are reckoning ramp up from 25% to 100% in 30 minutes - thats pretty darned quick compared with coal etc - though of course you're right to mention gas fired and hydro which I'd omitted.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

So, following on from probably the most informed person on this subject yet to post, and IAEA stats, can we finally say that nukes are OK?

(And if not OK, at least necessary for the immediate future?)

From the data that's been shown it appears that nuclear power is actually remarkably reliable, even older plants. They have multiple safety devices to ensure Chernobyl can never be repeated, and even if the impossible were to happen, the loss of life would be minuscule in comparison to that if we carry on doing nothing to avert global warming. In addition, it appears they are a lot more low-carbon than most of us imagined...

Tomorrow's task then is to solve world peace!

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Zokes - nope. Not convinced for necessity at all. Nor by the safety thing. Nowt is safe from human error - even a nuke plant ( altho odds may be very low)

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

( altho odds may be very low)

I'll let you explain why the lights have gone out then shall I? Or perhaps you should apologise to the Bangladeshis for us and explain why we had to burn coal and flood their country rather than use uranium?

I know we don't *need* to do any of this, but one thing that's even more unlikely than a nuclear meltdown is us using less electricity, especially if we all start powering our cars by it one way or the other...

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

We don't "need" to use less energy - actually we do and its the cheapest easiest solution ( If I were in the dictator you would all be using less energy tomorrow)

We are just going to have to disagree on this one.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

Sorry, wasn't quite clear - we do indeed need to use less energy - not disagreeing there.

However just how much less, especially if all transport is to be powered by electrically derived H2 or batteries? As has been noted already, we're currently both wasting it having this discussion. For that matter, STW is as I'm sure we don't *need* this website - it simply amuses us and feeds a few people. Where do you draw the line? I could argue that as I'm also working right now that perhaps I do need the PC, but not the speakers currently playing music?

For people to start making sacrifices much bigger than that (which is what's needed), there's more chance of a cold day in hell, or a very warm day in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor near you...

Posted 2 years ago #
adam5555 - Member

I think stating that the risk of nuclear disasters as low is grossly overestimating the dangers. I find it strange that people are so blind to other industrial dangers which are so much greater but are so passionate about the dangers of nuclear because they have seen the simpsons. Can I ask do you have the same level of concern about the hundreds of tonnes of asbestos that are buried in landfill every year? what happens to that in 100 years? Would you rather live next to a nuclear power station or Bunsefield oil refinery?

Not convinced for necessity at all

We have to cut our carbon emmisions now. I cant see how building a coal power station in Ayrshire is going to do that and renewables great, but we really must invent them first.
Electricity usage is only set to rise as we move away from hydrocarbons electric cars, trains, trams etc and the technology for more practical electric boils in the home is already coming through to replace gas

Posted 2 years ago #
alex222 - Member

Yawn, how many times is this going to be recycled?

Energy demands go up. Load across the grid goes up more power stations have to be built. Can we supply enough energy by one method alone? Surely you have to live in cloud cookoo land to think that 60 million people can get all of their energy demands from the severn estury and 5 or 6 off shore wind farms at Scunthorpe.

I don't see what the issue with the dangers of nuclear power is. Its not like our oil or coal is ethically sourced. No ones yet pointed out the horible ends politicians will go to, to get these resources.

There are types of reators that actually generate fuel. Fast breeder reactors; also perhaps the risk of terrorist attacks would be greatly reduced if we stopped invading muslim countries rich in this sort of mineral wealth.

I think alot of this thread is absolute waffle, there are alot of people on a high horse who aren't looking at the bigger picture.

Is it ideal? What are we (the government) going to do about it? There has to be some middle ground and whilst nuclear isn't the only or the best answer at least it is an answer. If people keep going round in circles we will come to a point where we can't make or do anything we will be f-u-c-k-e-d. So decisive action must be taken even if it isn't the best action. A move in any direction is better than none surely.

No I'm not trolling and yes my grammer/spelling is shocking but. No I don't have the facts bt I think this has been done to death several times already.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

It does amuse me the slating I am getting for my position. Its my opinion based on a significant amount of reading and thought and it is not a stupid position. I simply believe that alternatives to the nukes are plausible - a series of measures from increased efficiency to decreased consumption to increased renewables. its not pie in the sky of dreamworld.

Increased use of energy is not inevitable.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

I simply believe that alternatives to the nukes are plausible - a series of measures from increased efficiency to decreased consumption to increased renewables. its not pie in the sky of dreamworld.

Increased use of energy is not inevitable.

Correct - increased use of energy is not inevitable. However, as the various blind governments of the world kid us that electric and H2 cars are the way forwards, you can be certain electricity use will increase. We can't even deal with replacing existing demand on electricity with renewables, let alone increased demand. Your great idea demands reductions in electricity to work.

You forget that electricity accounts for less than half the UK energy at present, with heat and transport being the main users. So even if we stopped using everything electrical from tomorrow, we still wouldn't cut our energy demands by 50%. As oil and gas decrease, more and more that was fuelled by those fuels will require electricity to power them instead. So just how can we use less electricity?

Moreover, if all transport and heating switched to electricity overnight, and we stopped using all existing electrical appliances, we wouldn't have enough electricity to power it at present, never mind with your proposed cuts in generation capacity...

I simply believe that alternatives to the nukes are plausible

A large proportion of the world's population believe in various, auto-exclusive monotheistic religions. It's quite easy to see how daft that is...

Posted 2 years ago #
igm - Member

Alex -
5 or 6 off shore wind farms at Scunthorpe

Sorry to do this - Scunthorpe is not on the coast, nor in the sea. Please do not do the navigating on any group rides.

By the way has anyone noticed that large amounts of energy, from any source, are by their very nature dangerous. That doesn't mean unsafe - safety and danger are two very different concepts - but if something were to go wrong a couple of GigaWatts up your padded lycra would (briefly) focus your mind.

Of course the most amusing thing I found out today is the length of time it takes to build offshore windfarms. It looks like one turbine a week per transportation / installation boat would be good going in good weather, which at a guess looks like half the year. A 4GW farm will need in the region of 1000 turbines, so let's say 10 boats, makes about 4 years. And that's not one of the bigger windfarms. It's going to take a while to build these.

Or Nucs to be fair.

Or much else.

Switch a few lights off would you.

Posted 2 years ago #
aracer - Member

Its a simple point. I was told in the 70s how wonderful the nukes would be and they turned out not to be as reliable or as cheap as promised. This leads me to be sceptical of promises of what they will do in the future.

If someone lies to you several times will you believe themn in future?

So fundamentally your position is based on sociology rather than physics and engineering? In which case surely you should consider the evidence properly. The people telling you "lies" in the 70s about something with no previous scientific data to support their position didn't go away once nuclear power stations became more mature - they simply moved on to the next thing to lie about. Good thing there aren't any new energy generating technologies with unsupported claims being sold to us at the moment...

Posted 2 years ago #
rightplacerighttime - Member

So fundamentally your position is based on sociology rather than physics and engineering?

Sounds reasonable to me. You think there have been no more liars or incompetents entering adulthood since the 1970s?

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

Sounds reasonable to me. You think there have been no more liars or incompetents entering adulthood since the 1970s?

No, but instead they now lie about what they're going to do to the banks, whether we should go to war, the 'threat' of terrorism or even how much better off some parts of the UK will be on their own in the long term...

Nobody who is arguing against a new generation of nuclear reactors on this thread has yet come up with a viable alternative that is low-carbon, and can cope with increasing demand on electricity as gas and petrol become more scarce. Could that be because there isn't one?

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

zokes - feasible in your opinion. IMO the nukes won't solve it and the measures I suggested could.

Its all about political will.

Posted 2 years ago #
rightplacerighttime - Member

Could that be because there isn't one?

Yep.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

IMO the nukes won't solve it and the measures I suggested could.

Its all about political will.

Look at the facts. Even if you can reduce use of electricity now, what will happen to electricity demand when the entire transport sector needs to run on H2 or batteries rather than oil? Given current government rhetoric on this issue, it's already starting, and as electric / H2 cars get more affordable, and more like the ones we have already more people will use them. What is going to generate this extra electricity?

Removing one option of electrical generation for no logical means (you can believe what you like about safety and storage of waste - you're certainly wrong about the risks there) puts more pressures on renewables that could only hope to power the country's electricity demands (without added electric-powered transport) with a massive reduction on current usage. Any views to the contrary are simply the ostrich with his head firmly in the sand.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Guys - you keep asserting that it is inevitable energy usage will increase. It is not. the cost of one nuke put into energy conservation ( home insulation mainly)would reduce the countries energy usage by more than the power station would produce ( you do get into diminishing returns quickly tho)

There are many easy measures that could be taken to reduce energy usage - all it requires is political will. From prevent office blocks lighting being kept on overnight to preventing excess consumption in the home.

combine this with renewables and you have an alternate solution. Teh problems are twofold - firstly it requires political will and leadership that out politicians seem to be unable to provide and the second is that there is not the money for the big businesses in doing so. They have a vested interest in increasing consumption not decreasing it.

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time - why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

Now you guys may not want to believe this could work - but many folk do and the numbers add up.

I am giving up on this. Zokes - you are obviously well informed but you keep making assertions with no evidence. There simply is no inevitability about an increase in energy consumption.
edit - you say - look at the facts and then start making assertions about the future that are pure conjecture.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

Guys - you keep asserting that it is inevitable energy usage will increase

No I'm not, I'm guaranteeing that electricity usage will increase. I'm fairly sure overall energy usage will decrease substantially. If electricity usage increases, we need more generation capacity. If we were to build as much renewable generation as feasibly possible, we could not match the demand of transport and other sectors that currently do not use electricity as their primary energy source, but will have to as oil and gas become scarcer.

There are many easy measures that could be taken to reduce energy usage - all it requires is political will. From prevent office blocks lighting being kept on overnight to preventing excess consumption in the home.

combine this with renewables and you have an alternate solution. Teh problems are twofold - firstly it requires political will and leadership that out politicians seem to be unable to provide and the second is that there is not the money for the big businesses in doing so. They have a vested interest in increasing consumption not decreasing it.

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time - why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

So you are suggesting we build less generation now to take into account modest cuts such as those you suggest, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room?

Then there is the option of deeper cuts in energy usage that will require changes to the way we live, This will have to come at some point in time

Correct, so why not be prepared for it by having the generation capacity to wean ourselves off oil and gas slowly?

why not do it now in a controlled manner rather than in the future when it is forced upon us.

So what I've just suggested then?

Edit:

edit - you say - look at the facts and then start making assertions about the future that are pure conjecture.

q) Will oil run out and become increasingly expensive?

a) yes

q) Will gas run out and become increasingly expensive?

a) yes

q) How do you propose we heat our homes and power transport?

a) um....

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE. NONE. This relies on political decisions.

You are a very clever man to predict the future with such certainty.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

You analysis is reasonable - you conclusions are flawed. everything you want to do can be done without nuclear.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE. NONE. This relies on political decisions.

You are a very clever man to predict the future with such certainty.

So we'll all just give up heating our homes, driving, and transporting freight then? It's one option or the other, but any transfer from petrol / gas to electricity is an increase in electricity. As currently less than half the UK energy consumption is via electricity, ANY transfer from oil / gas to electricity will be an increase. As I said last night, if we stopped using EVERYTHING that is currently powered by electricity, the UK energy savings would be less than 50%. Our current use of electricity isn't the problem - it's what we have to use to heat our homes, power our cars and transport our goods that's the problem.

All current suggestions to solve the latter two issues are centred around electrolysed H2 or batteries. What do we need to electrolyse water or charge batteries?

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

everything you want to do can be done without nuclear.

Yes, it can be done by burning coal - the one fossil fuel we have plenty of still. As I said before - 1bn from climate change vs 100k from a very unlikely event such as Chernobyl. Your call...

Posted 2 years ago #
alex222 - Member

Yes my post was not in anyway based on facts but I was trying to illistrate a point (however badly)

The point is that the population is growing, maybe not in this country but overall in the world we are in a population boom, so even if we halve our energy requirements (UK) all the rest of world (most of the worlds) energy demands are going up as the billions of people move from very little energy usage to probably a 'X' fold increase. These economies are growing and these growing economies with growing populations are going to move into a more comfortable lifestyle which invairiably will require more energy. So by us halving our energy demands what impact will that have on the rest of the worlds energy requirments? Next to sweet FA I would think.

As for actually reducing our use of energy, look at the world climate convetions what has been achieved? Nothing. How is joe puplic across the whole world going to be convinced to reduce energy consumption when people are so selfish.

So I guess we are all doomed which ever way you slice it.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

All current suggestions to solve the latter two issues are centred around electrolysed H2 or batteries. What do we need to electrolyse water or charge batteries?

wrong There are many other solutions to reducing energy usage in domestic heating and transport

Yes, it can be done by burning coal - the one fossil fuel we have plenty of still. As I said before - 1bn from climate change vs 100k from a very unlikely event such as Chernobyl. Your call...

Wrong Reduce energy usage and we reduce CO2 emmisions

The choice is reduce energy usage by easy measures available with current tech while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

Posted 2 years ago #
luked2 - Inactive

THERE IS NO INEVITABLITY ABOUT INCREASE ENERGY OR ELECTRICTY USAGE.

We've got a rising population in this country (for whatever reason). So that alone will make it hard to avoid increased energy usage.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

I did not say it wouldn't be difficult to avoid - but it still remains that there is no inevitability about it.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

TJ - you are in the realms of fantasy. There is no feasible way you can attain the g CO2 / kw figues an old nuclear plant can achieve by burning coal. You have construction of the plant, you have carbon sequestration measures that have to use energy by the laws of thermodynamics, then you have the CO2 being generated day after day as you burn coal.

If you think we can reduce our energy consumption by more than 50% (seeing as I keep stating, ALL our electricity accounts for less than this figure) then you're living in cloud cuckoo land...

while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

So now using your crystal ball you're certain we'll crack a form of power that is appreciably lower in carbon than nuclear, whilst still having the scope for the sheer amount of electricity we need? The closest currently on the radar at all is nuclear fusion. This was 50 years away when it was first touted more than 50 years ago. It's if anything, further away now than it was then.

wrong There are many other solutions to reducing energy usage in domestic heating and transport

Which are...

1) Drive less - yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership. In addition, we're now also expected to commute further to work, and be more flexible about taking jobs elsewhere. Both my partner and I have a 45min commute by car, in opposite directions. Despite trying, neither of us can find a job closer. I suspect a 45 min / 30 mile commute is considerably shorter than many when you consider the country as a whole.

2) Move goods around less - ditto the above. Where was the PC you're using now made?

Both these energy uses will require more and more electricity. At present, charging a g-whizz at night would use more electricity for transport than I do...

3) More insulation at home. This reduces the need to heat, but when gas runs out we will either have to go back to burning coal, or use electricity to some extent. The reason we started using coal was because there weren't enough trees 200 years ago - there certainly aren't now

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Whats that wooshing noise? something right over your head.

You are missing my point completely or deliberately ignoring it.

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

This has become totally pointless.

edit - I'll just pick up on one point
Drive less - yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership.

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

Posted 2 years ago #
ooOOoo - Member

Any idea when are we expected to reach 'peak uranium'?

Zokes you make some good points about energy use, based on current practices, but even if we go nuclear that is a finite resource.

I know a lot of the public still believe we are on some unswavering course towards a jetsons/star trek future, with infinite energy on tap. But assuming fusion never properly works, at some point we have to face the limits of our surroundings.

Posted 2 years ago #
zokes - Member

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

You claim we can make reductions in energy usage. I then agree, but point out that as more than 50% of the UK's current energy isn't electrically-based, in all probability we'll need more electricity generation to make up for the gas and petrol we won't be able to burn for much longer.

You then doggedly respond by saying that we will make further cuts. You decline to provide us with examples of how this may be done.

Out of all the technologies feasible to produce large amounts of low-carbon energy, nuclear fission is one of the few currently available. You suggest instead of that we invest the money in finding something new. What do we do in the mean time? You think there's an energy-gap looming now? Just wait until 20 years time if we don't build more nuclear power stations now.

Or we could build coal, but as I keep saying, and you keep dodging - 1bn projected deaths attributable to climate change. At least if there's a nuclear disaster in the west, it would be us who paid for our energy usage. What have the Bangladeshis done to deserve their entire country being inundated by rising sea levels?

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

So make it MORE expensive. You then price those who can't afford it off the road, leaving only those who can. Rather elitist don't you think?

There is no other way approaching reduction in car usage and transportation in a democracy. You state the need for political will, frankly there's less chance of a government that puts forwards plans to stop us driving staying in power, than a nuclear reactor near you melting down. Maybe in China, where we'd be told to stop driving and lump it, but not in the western world. Personally, I prefer even Gordon Brown's unsavoury style of government to the totalitarian regime in Bejing.

Posted 2 years ago #