[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target

Based on what? Our sterling efforts at reducing energy usage to date?

What efforts? We haven't made any significant ones.

Lets see - sensible achievable measures that we could do.

Proper insulation of all housing stock.

Creat mechanisms to prevent commercial buildings leaving lights on overnight ( could be legislative could be financial)

Stop lighting up historic buildings all night

Move to LED lighting

Turn some streetlighting off in the small hours of the morning

Build local CHP plants

Give consumers a greater financial incentive to reduce consumption.

And many many more.

Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction and in use of renewables then it does make nukes look reasonable which is why Aracer does this

Neatly glossing over the enormous CO2 production burden in building the nuclear plants and the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.

What efforts? We haven't made any significant ones.

That's exactly my point - the post was sarcastic.

Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction

No-one's ignoring it - I'm certainly not.

to those of you still arguing, it's best to remember the serenity/engineers prayer,

“Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.

When the vast majority of people can't afford anything other than either a load limiting or expensive time of use peak tariff that should help solve the energy reduction conundrum. The problem is that it will inevitably be seen as a tax on the poor, so whilst the rich will still be able to consume energy, the less well off simply won't be able to afford to put (all) the lights on. Look at countries like SA, using aircon in peak demand is prohibitably expensive for all but the rich.

Of course we will need to be a significant way into the smart meter roll out programme for that to start to have an effect and Distribution Networks are predicting supply issues as early as late next year.

Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.

Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.

I'll check back in another 800 odd posts then...

I'll check back in another 800 odd posts then...

Aracer - Its not a lie its an opinion based on looking to the record. to build ten new nuclear power stations in 10 years when the sites to build them have not been selected let alone the tender documents written or contractor appointed is a very tall order.

Look at thelead times for other major construction projects and for reactor builds in other countries.

DJGlover - again - scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor. 🙄

It does amuse me how the pro nukes make loads of assertions without a shred of evidence but atttack me for the same. Gross hypocrisy

Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor

Like your fuel duty increase idea from a few weeks back?

quite simply the 'edukator' guy is a numpty.... my comments about his own effort have been that he's effort for his own lift are laudable....

unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....

DJGlover - again - scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor

Could well be, but I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come..!

For example a programme of real house insulation. In rented accommodation the landlord pays, in owner occupier the owner pays unless they are on benefits when the taxpayer pays.( obviously simplified) Thats an energy reduction measure that is no tax on the poor

Do you often praise numpties for their efforts?

For example a programme of real house insulation

But gas provides most of the heat in UK homes and insulation won't solve that problem, its the lights, TVs and white goods we are talking about really TJ.

I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come

Hmm, but there's an easy way round the stick - it's called democracy.

Eh? Insulating homes won't save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won't save gas?

I am talking about reducing energy usage thus CO2 production accross the whole country in every energy using way.

unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....

if you are referring to Edukator there, he's not german he's a British faux Frenchman call John with a chip the size of the eiffel tower on his shoulder.

Eh? Insulating homes won't save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won't save gas?

No, he's saying that saving all the gas in the world won't address the nuke issue. Which is true.

Eh? Insulating homes won't save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won't save gas?

I am talking about reducing energy usage thus CO2 production accross the whole country in every energy using way

Sorry, confused, late to the debbate which I thought was about power, not gas. Yes insulation cleary helps save gas, but doesn't save much power, so won't help the power demand situation and need for future nuclear in the UK

You are right about efficiencies TJ, I'll give you that.

Molgrips - but it is not true at all see my explanation above.

The aim is to reduce the CO2 output of the country as a whole. Put very simply if you reduce Co2 output from non electric sources you don't need to do so much from electricity generation to have a reduction in CO2 overall.

You see I am looking at what is achievable to reduce CO2 output from the country as a whole to meet Kyoto pledges without using nukes.

And we are looking at whether or not you need nukes to keep the lights on whilst reducing CO2 [i]from electricity generation[/i].

DJGlover - its about reducing the CO2 output from the country in line with Kyoto pledges. I want to do this without using nukes. Because of the various factors with electricity I might need to increase and certainly will find it hard to reduce fossil fuel usage in electricity generation. (as electricity efficiency and renewables will be hard pushed to fill the gap created as the nukes are taken off line) however If i reduce energy usage across the rest of the energy using areas thus reducing CO2 output then I can meet Kyoto pledges in CO2 reduction without using nukes.

You see to me its about looking at the broad picture.

Now that's false accounting.

You are saying taht we need to get down to a certain value so we can rob Peter to pay Paul.

However, our emissions need to be [i]as low as they can be[/i]. Why don't we aim for lower than Kyoto?

I want to do this without using nukes

I might need to...

I can meet Kyoto pledges

If i reduce energy usage across the rest of the energy using areas

Sounds like you are very serious about sorting things out Jez. I hope they are paying you well for solving the worlds problems.

You also need to balance it against energy security then, nuclear is attractive from that point of view as the russians can't just turn off the tap, or push up prices too high.

Hi, Klunk. T1000 can't read. Read the thread through and you'll find all the information you provided except my name. My passport in French BTW. Care to post your own name in the intersts of fairness?

The japanese are currently demonstrating that cutting electricity demand is possible. The government has asked the population to reduce consumption and they have.

but if one person can live like this it is therefore possible to do it

T1000 can't read

Can we not just leave off the cattiness? Jeez, it's almost as if you WANT everyone on this thread to be annoyed.

You're forgetting my investments in other alternative energies, Aracer, which means that even when the sun isn't shining things I've helped finance are producing. Check back through the thread and one of the first things I demonstrated was that there is enough hydro to support my level of consumption for everyone in Europe.

I'm convinced that we can't rely on governments to do the right thing. Political parties and governments are reliant on the "baddies" for cash and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Change will come from the bottom up if change there is to be. If you look at countries with a high proprtion of renewables it's where the people are prepared to invest themselves, vote accordingly and also get out and protest.

How reliable is hydro btw? River flows go up and down a fair bit don't they?

Change will come from the bottom up if change there is to be.

Ah yes, you've summed it up there nicely.

What you are saying is that we need to persuade people to actually give a sh*t about each other and the environment.

Not asking much is it?

Blame Thatcher! (Does this finish the game? Is it like Mornington Crescent?)

I actually want everyone on this thread to insulate their home, buy some energy efficinet appliances and invest in renewable energy, Molgrips.

T1000 can't read. I have never stated or implied I'm German. I said I have German friends and I've linked German news sources when they report things the BBC haven't such as the "out of control" quote when the technicians had to evacuate the control room. He jumps to lots of strange conclusions so I'm not too worried about him calling me a numpty.

Hydro schemes use reservoirs which have capacities ranging from a few hours to several months.

T1000 can't read.

He clearly can.... Why the aggro?

I actually want everyone on this thread to insulate their home, buy some energy efficinet appliances and invest in renewable energy, Molgrips.

Me too. I also want world peace and an end to hunger.

Are you prpared to put your money where you mouth is though, Molgrips? Or will you spend it one some consumer toy instead?

Where's the aggro from me? Quote please, Molgrips. I've said T1000 can't read because he's stated I'm a German living in rural France. I'm a French national of English origin living in a town of 150 000 and have never stated otherwise.

I specifically mentioned working for Welsh Water before emigrating. As I've also stated that I'm living at 43°N in SW France.

Are you prpared to put your money where you mouth is though, Molgrips?

Yes, eventually.

I have so far spent it on other things, quite right. Like a house on which to mount the panels, a modern car, that kind of thing 🙂

Where's the aggro from me? Quote please, Molgrips.

Saying T1000 can't read is aggro. He blatantly can. Perhaps he wasn't concentrating quite hard enough on the general drivel on here (which has been going on for weeks), so he made a mistake. We all do that, no need to accuse someone of illiteracy.

Pretty negative attitude that, and I hate it 🙁

T1000 calls me a numpty and then posts a factually incorrect paragraph about me and you think it's me being negative. I think saying he couldn't read was a remarkably restrained response. It was either that or acuse him of being... #forum rules prevent honesty#

T1000 calls me a numpty and then posts a factually incorrect paragraph about me and you think it's me being negative.

Yeah. Two possible responses:

1) "Well you clearly can't read!"
2) "Check back, that's not quite what I said"

Which do you think is more egregious?

It proves it is possible for one person to do so. Not that it is possible for everybody to do so.

One obvious fundamental flaw being that he relies on his electricity company pumping water to provide him with power at night - not enough pumped storage (nowhere near) for everybody to do that

Well dancing som more on the pin whilst we split the hair it does prove we all could reduce our energy use vastlty like wot he has done -

Lol - a few thousand commited people vs millions of everyday folk is NOT splitting hairs! It's the fundamental issue!

Oh btw - can you make your own local pumped water system? Strengthened loft joists and large tank?

EDIT: just done the calcs, answer is no. 2000 gallons up in the loft would store 0.15kWh.

Neatly glossing over the enormous CO2 production burden in building the nuclear plants and the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.

From Sustainable Energy- Without the hot Air

To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel – one ton per person. Annual world steel production is about 1200million tons, which is 0.2 tons per person in the world. During the second world war, American shipyards built 2751 Liberty ships, each containing 7000 tons of steel – that’s a total of 19 million tons of steel, or 0.1 tons per American. So the building of 60 million tons of wind turbines is not off the scale of achievability; but don’t kid yourself into thinking that it’s easy. Making this many windmills is as
big a feat as building the Liberty ships.

For comparison, to make 48 kWh per day of nuclear power per person
in the UK would require 8 million tons of steel and 0.14 million tons of
concrete.

The problem is TJ if you are thinking re-newables you have to think country size scales to replace something like coal, gas and nuclear. Even more implausible than bringing new nuclear on line and with an even more enormous CO2 burden.

The CO2 comes in large part from the production of the concrete used. Ten times as much concrete per KW in nukes as in conventional. Offshore is a high load in the materials used tho for sure

On this thread was posted some interesting figures about embedded energy in different power generation methods that showed nuclear to not be that good.

again you have not included the decommission and disposal of the waste nor the mining of the fuel

You need to look at total environmental penalty over the whole lifespan.

Up on the downs - there is a serious strand of critique of Sustainable Energy- Without the hot Air

for example
http://www.claverton-energy.com/has-professor-mackay-frs-underestimated-britains-potential.html

It's not only 'nukes' which can catastrophically fail causing death and destruction....

From Wikipedia

The Banqiao Reservoir Dam in Zhumadian Prefecture, Henan province, China infamously failed in 1975.

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people

🙁

Lol - a few thousand commited people vs millions of everyday folk is NOT splitting hairs! It's the fundamental issue!

Interesting (but controversial and hotly contested) article in this week's New Scientist about renewable energy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html

- there's not as much wind/tidal energy around as you might think. Take too much out and you start to do bad things to the environment, things that are just as bad (if not worse) as global warming. And we're surprisingly close to that limit.

- solar is better (one less conversion step) but you still have problems to solve like scattering - put a solar cell in the sun and it warms up and radiates heat, resulting in a warming effect. And solar cells are made from things that are quite hard to find.

there is a serious strand of critique of Sustainable Energy- Without the hot Air

Ok TJ lets for the sake of argument accept the scenario in the website you quoted. They claim that we could derive 50GW from onshore wind.

Whitelee wind farm near Glasgow has 140 turbines with a peak capacity of 322MW and covers 55 sq km. Assume a load factor of 33% and it will produce 107 MW. Therefore we would need 467 Whitelees covering 25700 sq km or 10% of the area of the UK. Now I'm not saying that its impossible to build and install and get planning approval for 65,000 wind turbines but I think most environmentalists really fail to grasp the scale of what is required. Add at least a similar scale of construction, for offshore wind and tidal and pumped storage and do you really think that's a practical proposition? Like I said we're talking country scale amounts of hardware.

You exaggerate the contribution from mining uranium fuel. To get the same energy as 16kg of coal would take 2g of uranium reacted in a conventional fission reactor. The resulting waste weighs 0.25g. To furnish 2g of uranium would take about 200g of ore. Thorium fission is even better as the thorium would not require enrichement and the waste has a shorter half life.

Lets get the scale of the nuclear waste issue into perspective. High level waste from Britains existing reactors and from 10 new reactors over their lifetimes would be equivalent to 10 swimming pools. Again not a trival problem to solve but not insurmountable.

I'm giving up with you now as your mind is closed. At least I'm prepared to admit that re-newables have a place but unless we commit to historically unprecedented amounts of construction totally changing the face of our country there needs to be another power source in the mix which at the moment is best provided by nuclear.

Interesting breakdown on energy usage from the US:

[img] [/img]

48kWh per person per day. In our household we draw less than that per person from the grid in the whole of December.

up on the downs

And as usual in this debate you are giving a position to me that is not what I actually have.

Where have I argued for 50GW of onshore wind?

clearly not all energy can come from onshore wind. Offshore wind tidal and wave along with solar all have a part to play as do some fossil fuels

To get 50 GW from nukes would mean 40+ new reactors - an unprecedented building project as well and one we do not have fuel for and a huge amount of CO2 production during construction - that would be a massive increase in the UKs CO2 production during the construction phase ( with payback later)

You also talk bobbins on mining of uranium and of waste. Yes the mining is a small amount of energy embedded but it is still there and missing from your calculations. Does it not have to be enriched as well - so actually much large amounts of ore than you claim? Forget thorium. in the time scales talked about thorium cannot be on line.

Waste - again you totally gloss over the difficulties in dealing with it - like all pro nukes and the large amount of CO2 production in attempting to get the waste into a storable form and the high CO2 release form all the associated plant and storage facilities.

I am not the one here with the closed mind. The pro nukes on this forum continually move the goalposts and use totally ridiculous comparisons to rubbish any non nuclear solution and refuse to acept known robust and effective technology because of their blinkered love for nukes.

Oh

and there still is the whole series of questions about nuclear that the pro nukes refuse to answer

48kWh per person per day. In our household we draw less than that per person from the grid in the whole of December.

Wah?

Surely you realise that that is the figure for total national production, not the figure for individual consumption - so, someone grows your food, refrigerates it, puts it in a shop, lights the shops, streets, hospitals, schools, pubs, factories, libraries, offices, etc. - let alone production and transmission losses!

All this comes out of your 48kWh per person, per day - unless you live off grid and grow your own food, then your personal electricity usage extends far, far beyond your own electricity meter!

(Though sorry, I haven't got a wikipedia reference for you to show figures! :roll:)

Wave power - going nowhere fast. Everything that gets installed so far gets destroyed pretty quick. lots of companies folding because they can't finance the next stage of research.
Tidal power - I know guys involved in the surveys on sites, they can't get there survey equipment to stay on site with tons of concrete, how they are going to build there no-one knows.

Jambo - pelarmis has been running fine of the coast of portugal, tidal turbine in a Strangford Lough and in Norway working fine. Both been thru a couple of winter already

No it hasn't. Pelarmis been plagued with reliability issues. Don't believe everything you read in regurgitated press releases.

The blades fell off the turbine in strandford loch.

About a third of consumption is reckoned to be household Z-11 (feel free to insert your own researched figure) so assuming that the 48 kWh really does include everything (it's not clear from upon the downs quote) then the household part of the 48 would be 16 kWh per person per day for domestic use. That's still over ten times what we actually consume domestically. See the scope for savings.

They are shockingly wasteful in the US, for sure. Without really realising it. There's a place where a bit of education would go a long way.

See the scope for savings

See the alternative source for savings - have a look at that chart of US domestic energy producton - the majority of all energy used is electricity production is wasted at the generation end of the cycle - stop pissing money up the wall on end user savings, and invest in researching and developing more efficient methods of production using our current mix of fuels, and the prospect for savings is immense!

and there still is the whole series of questions about nuclear that the pro nukes refuse to answer

Check back through the thread and one of the first things I demonstrated was that there is enough hydro to support my level of consumption for everyone in Europe

Where have I argued for 50GW of onshore wind?

No idea if you have or not but that website you quoted criticising David Mackays book did. I stupidly thought you might have given that some credence since it appears to gainsay MacKay's analysis and therefore support your position.

clearly not all energy can come from onshore wind. Offshore wind tidal and wave along with solar all have a part to play as do some fossil fuels

I agree but you refuse to comment on the scale of construction of offshore wind, tidal, solar and pumped storage and its practicality.

Forget thorium. in the time scales talked about thorium cannot be on line.

Complete rubbish. In the time scales talked about construction of renewables on the required scale and implimentation of thorium fusion are on the same timescale.

continually move the goalposts and use totally ridiculous comparisons to rubbish any non nuclear solution and refuse to acept known robust and effective technology because of their blinkered love for nukes.

LOL Where have I rubbished a non-nuclear solution? I've merely pointed out the scale of the construction projects required to provide a totally re-newable solution so stop getting all emotional about this. I don't have a love of nuclear power, blinkered or not I'm just a pragmatist and think that nuclear has to have a place in a practical decarbonised future.

That link wsasmerely to point out that that book has critisims of it aneeds to be taken with a pinch of salt - notice its endorsents come from the big energy companies that are hardly disitereted bysatnders in this

I have commented numerous times on the scale of construction needed to get significant amounts of renewables - its a huge construction project there is no doubt. This is one of the reasons we cannot afford to waste more money on nukes so we can afford to build the renewables.

so in ten years you will have thorium electricity generation on line? Its a promising line for further research. Its not an available tech now

continually moving goalposts - all the time - you do it here talking about all elecrticiy generation from renewables and a decarbonised future.

As I have said right from the beginning all I want is to meet Kyoto standards without nukes which is feasible and plausible - but now thats not good enough to satisfy the pro nuke lobby.

As I have said right from the beginning all I want is to meet Kyoto standards without nukes which is feasible and plausible - but now thats not good enough to satisfy the pro nuke lobby.

Is that all?

Under the Protocol, 37 countries ("Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level.

Well we could probably manage that without nuclear power (nukes are parlance for nuclear weapons BTW not nuclear power) but you're rowing back a bit from a decarbonised future. Bit lacking in ambition when we're at or near peak oil. Even a non-tree hugger like myself realises we've got to be a bit more ambitious than the Kyoto protocol in order to keep the lights on and avoid being held to ransom by unsavoury regimes sitting on top of the remaining oil and gas.

Jeeze. No way could my ADHD keep up with all this. 😯

Anyone care to summarise? 😀

they still dont agree

About what?

Is it time for some more pics?

Unsavoury regimes sitting atop the remaining oil and gas

you see I am interested in what is feasible, sustainable and realistic and in providing a lead to the world. It would be nice to place the UK in a position where we could sell expertise and machinery to the trest of the world.

You can go on with pie in the sky thorium and so on. I want to see real tangible and credible steps taken not some flights of techno fancy that are taking us up a blind alley and are no solution to a global issue

Anyone care to summarise?

Meanwhile renewables are perfectly safe, run at full power all the time, will be able to provide enough electricity for the whole of the UK in a few years time (provided we all install low power bulbs) and actually absorb CO2.

Well aracer that totally sums up the attitude of the pro nukes. Rubbish all alternatives, rubbish anyone who opposes you, make up a load of nonsense.

Shows how thin and flimsy your case is

make up a load of nonsense

There are three of us, Aracer. You've also forgotten that we produce 120kWh in December so net consumption is only 120kWh. I'm intelligent enough to run the washing machine and immersion heater when the panels are producing.

There's the averaging effect as well, not everybody turns on the kettle at the same time. They used to when almost everybody watched Eastenders but people are living less synchronised these days.

Plenty enough hydro for my level of consumption. On your figures and adjusting for the fact there are three of us and consume half what you assumed net then there's plenty left over for industry and infrastructure assuming they make the same efforts.

The Germans voted for an energy saving, renewable, less nuclear future last night (Europe 1).

Europe 1 has announced that Fukoshima is now considered a level 7 incident and the Japanese fear the amount of radioactive material released into the enviroment will be higher than Tchernobyl. That tallies with the radiation levels measured by the France 3 journalists when far enough away from the plant to need a telephoto lense to film it.

and the Japanese fear the amount of radioactive material released into the enviroment will be higher than Tchernobyl.

No they don't. It's more than Three Mile island but it is still estimated at 10% of Chernobyl. This was also a reclassification exercise there hasn't been any additional release of radiation.

and instead of an explosive release, the 'released' material is still mostly inside the reactor buildings.

Thorium reactors are no more 'pie in the sky' than the idea of getting 10GW* from scottish tidal power...

both could be done, both should be done (imho), but neither are happening any time soon.

(*just a number i plucked out of thin air to match the 10GW we could get from a Severn Barrage)

I don't know what you lot are rabbiting on about, but the situation in Japan concerning those nuclear reactors which they still cannot control, is looking really grim - according to the Japanese anyway 😐

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8444746/Japan-raises-nuclear-crisis-to-highest-level-the-same-as-Chernobyl.html ]Japan raises nuclear crisis to highest level - the same as Chernobyl[/url]

[b][i]"The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl," an official from the company told reporters in Tokyo. [/i][/b]

Using a controlled nuclear explosion as a source of energy is turning out to be a really crap idea. Let's hope lessons are learnt from this incident and we don't go down that road anymore.

it's not been raised to a 7 because it's got worse, it's been raised to a 7 after 'reassessment'.

but as discussed above, the 2 incidents are hardly comparable (sofarfingerscrossed).

Yup, it's been reassessed........it is far worse than they had first thought.......grim eh ? 😐

Using a controlled nuclear explosion as a source of energy is turning out to be a really crap idea.

It's a reaction not an explosion, in the same way that normal combustion is burning rather than an explosion.

And remember it is still not under control and is still leaking radioactivity including core material into the ecosphere.

So all those folk on here who said it was nothing to worry about at the beggining ............................

.....grim eh ?

Yes very. Does that mean they knew all along that it was that bad but were withholding information, or does it mean that everything is out of control, or did they really not comprehend the gravity of the situation in the first place?

One thing that struck me when reading some of the papers on Chernobyl was that they had 200,000 - 300,000 "liquidators" that went in to clean up the site. These poor chaps got some huge doses and significant increased cancer deaths. If Chernobyl happened any where other than the Soviet Union where would the liquidators come from ?

Maybe all pro-nuke advocates should be registered so they can be press ganged into service in the unlikely event we need some liquidators.