[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Combine the two and you knock the peaks off demand both daily and in winter

You can't iron the peaks out completely. We all want the lights on when the sun goes down, and we all want a cuppa at half time in the FA cup final. Plus factories will want to be running in the daytime.

ahwiles - Member
(i'm assuming we're not going to reduce our consumption - there's no harm preparing for the inevitable)

Does anybody really think the consumption will go down significantly?

Gas is presumably going to go up in price making it less attractive for heating/cooking, and a lot of new builds don't seem to have it included any more.

Secondly due to rising petrol prices & tax breaks on electric cars I personally think we are going to see electric cars taking off over the next 15-20 years in a big way.

Does anybody really think the consumption will go down significantly?

Not voluntarily.

For every 1 TJ (or Edukator) there are 2 of 'me' (understand the problem, doing what we can to reduce [u]where it's easy[/u]) and 10 who couldn't give a flying fig. (completely made-up numbers)

Consumption will go down if/when either costs go up or we legislate for it. We're already doing that (e.g. insulation, double glazing, the death of the 100w light bulb) but would have to do more, probably stepping into politically unpalatable areas.

Electric cars will take off of their own accord (no, not a Toyota recall issue) once they become affordable and practical. Even the shorter ranges models today would be popular if they were the same price as a petrol car.

I mean the Leaf is what, 25 grand? If you can afford a 25k car then you're going to have to be pretty environmentally committed to spend it on a car that would be half the price in petrol form...

probably stepping into politically unpalatable areas

And this is the biiig problem. As long as people want stuff they'll vote for the party that offers it. Major flaw in democracy there.

We all want lights on, I agree. Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet? More light than an 11W "economy bulb" instantly. My town is replacing all the traffic lights with LEDs. The potential for saving in lighting is enormous.

You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time. You can't/won't run all those at teh same time if you've opted for a power-limited meter that significantly cuts the tarif you pay.

molgrips - Member

Electric cars will take off of their own ... once they become affordable and practical...

agreed, then we'll need 65GW...

Congratulations Edu - you've got me looking a bit more into energy efficiency. Only another 59,999,999 people to go.

I agree. Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?

My town is replacing all the traffic lights with LEDs. The potential for saving in lighting is enormous.

You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time.

Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?

Been wanting them for ages but they were £30 each last time I looked 🙁

You can have a cuppa at half time but only if you aren't running the dish washer, washing machine, immersion heater, dryer and an electric heater at the same time.

Whilst that causes peaks in your own consumption, surely over the whole country it'll smooth out and simply be the usual (and hard to avoid) peaks in the evening and morning?

Ok so you can set your diswasher and washing machine to run in the middle of the night, but with lighting and cooking it's less easy.

Can someone suggest how much energy would be saved if our fridges and/or freezers had a cold-air intake from outside to save energy in winter?

Have you adopted the latest 3W LED bulbs yet?

Been wanting them for ages but they were £30 each last time I looked

They were more like £20 when I did it (to get decent ones with the right colour balance) and I know academically that I'll get all that (and more) back over the lifetime. But it's still a wallop in the wallet when you do it. Maybe I am £20 a month better off this month and every month but I don't feel it. I certainly felt it when I had £400 less to spend on shiny bike bits.

First thing is to change the ones in the kitchen cos we have early GU10 CFLs which are awful. That's £80 right there.

They were more like £20 when I did it (to get decent ones with the right colour balance) and I know academically that I'll get all that (and more) back over the lifetime.

The question is, are you saving money with them faster than they're getting cheaper? Can't believe they're going to stay that expensive for all that long

Dunno - had to dive in at some point.

Can you get leccy meters that tell you where your power is going in general terms? Ie lighting, cooking etc?

I think the TV and the fridge are the only big consumers in our house. I'm sorely tempted to add my own cold-air induction system to it...

I think the TV and the fridge are the only big consumers in our house.

So..... Edukator, how would you edukate someone that light switches can go 'off' as well as 'on'?
(as my Saturday morning family meetings are not working)

if no-one else noticed, oil just went through $120/barrel...

(well, a coupla days ago)

crumbs. 😐

Higgo - fit automatic light on and off sensors.

I understand that replacing every bulb with a 3W LED right now might be a little costly but doing the lights you use most is a start. The bulb in the cupboard you open once a year can wait. They're down to 7e now for basic ones and 15e for "quality" brands.

Perhaps it's something to add to the conspicuous greed thread.

Is there a green thread? I've got more questions about domestic savings...

Just came across some figures in the BMAs 'Guide to Living with Risk' (from 1990 i think). I assume that's regarded as an OK source?

A selection of risks of an individual dying in any one year from various causes:-
Smoking 10 cigarettes a day - 1 in 200
All natural causes , age 40 - 1 in 850
Road accident - 1 in 8,000
Accident at work - 1 in 43,500
Hit by lightning - 1 in 10,000,000
Release of radiation from a nearby power station - 1 in 10,000,000

And on radiation in particularit gave some annual doses (in microsieverts):-
Eating 135g of brazil nuts - 10
Dental X-Ray - 20
A glass of mineral water each day for a year - 65
Return flight to LA - 140
Minner annual dose - 1,200
Brain scan - 5,000

It equated an annual dose of 1000MicroSv = 1 in 25,000 risk of death (the same as playing football).

As a rule, anything which uses electricity to heat (immersion heaters, electric ovens, washing machines, tumble driers) are going to be very energy intensive. IT kit (PCs etc) can also be energy heavy.
Pop some sub meters on your electrical circuits (might costs a few bob) and see what's using what. It's very difficult to reduce what you can't measure.

Like I say not using leccy for any heating apart from the kettle. Also mostly using laptops not desktops. I only ask because I don't think we can go much lower.

Cooking? Telly and stuff on standby? |can use surprising amounts of power.

If yu want to check get one of the usage monitor things - I have one. Turn stuff on and off and check he amount of leccy used

I am using 310W at the moment - I desktop one laptop 2 amps, two alarm clocks, power supply to boiler, cooker

Gas hobs, oven rarely used, most things switched off at the wall and are modern so should be reasonable anyway.

Only things on all day are router, cordless phone, microwave, fridge of course, washing machine doesn't tend to get switched off at the wall or cooker.

You may well be doing all that you can in that case. Domestic properties are not easy places to reduce energy consumption. I'd say just minimise washing machine use, check your refrigerator/freezer door (check seals, turn the thermostat as high as you dare, gas charge and wipe condenser coil), ensure good light switch discipline.

I quite like edukators idea of limiting electrical supplies.
I also think that only "A" rated (or better) appliances should be allowed on the market.

We're using 450W at present: fridge, two computers, TV, amplifier, satbox, Fibreoptic box and a battery charger. Over 1500W production though.

Leccy bill is about 20 per month, I feel it could be lower.

Interesting report in the Herald today...

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=hs&id=N0439221302098236431A

So, without wishing to be argumentative, but really trying to get some facts out of this painful thread:

1) The UK can produce all its electricity from renewables, [b]IF[/b] we include some massive tidal barrages, and cut our usage by 75%

2) However, cutting our usage (from the anecdotal evidence from green-minded people on this thread) by that much appears to be an almost impossibility, even for those who care. In a real world democratic situation, despite what the idealists may think, such cuts cannot be made

3) Even if they were, with gas and petrol running out, it would be reasonable to assume that electricity powers more transport and heating than it has traditionally. So in actual fact, to cut current electricity usage to give some room to these sectors would require even greater reductions in 'traditional' usage

4) So what will fill that looming and large energy gap? Simply believing it not to be there is effectively tacit approval to build more cheap fossil-fuelled stations when it looms ever closer.

5) Admittedly when they go wrong, uranium cycle nuclear power stations aren't great places to be. However, from an ecological perspective, a disaster such as Fukushima is minor compared to the destruction that would be caused by a large barrage or hydro scheme. Anyone who thinks that on a global scale, the very rare releases of harmful radiation from the nuclear sector are more damaging than the CO2 and other pollutants released in the day-to-day operation of coal-fired plants needs their head seeing to.

No tidal barrages are needed. Did you not bother to read all the links on this

so zokes - you are going a lot further than anyone in power with saying all fossil fuel must be replaced with something that produces minimal CO2?

Nice moving of the goalposts. so from a position of looking to replace the existing nukes and the old worn out power generation capacity with new and reducing CO2 output you have now gone to a totally ridiculous position of a zero emmisions power generation. That would require 50+ new nuclear stations and is completely unfasable anyway as nukes cannot be turned on and off quickly as demand alters. One of the issues they are finding in France with their 75~% nukes generation. 100 % is completly impossible to do

Now what I was arguing for was a reduction in CO2 output in line with Kyoto and similar agreements. Electricity generation is only a part of what produces CO2 in the UK.

Energy conservation in all energy using sectors has the potential to reduce CO2 output significantly as does renewables energy production.

So we can reduce the total amount of electricity used easily, we can reduce the amount of energy used to heat homes and businesses and that used in transport, we can significantly increase the use of renewables - these measures combined will mean we meet the targets for CO2 reduction.

Reneawables include tidal, wind, wave, solar as heating and photovoltaics. other measures that increase efficiency are such things as combined heat and power at a local level, increased insulation.

Cuts in energy consumption can be made easily across the UK

Anyone who thinks that on a global scale, the very rare releases of harmful radiation from the nuclear sector are more damaging than the CO2 and other pollutants released in the day-to-day operation of coal-fired plants needs their head seeing to.

What utter rubbish

Anyone who thinks the all too frequent releases of radioactivity has no significant effect is burying their head in the sand. Look at the state the Irish sea. People are still dying from the release at Chernobyl. Teh releases from Fukushima are still unknown but clearly getting worse still and will kill people for decades - how many we don't know.

, a disaster such as Fukushima is minor compared to the destruction that would be caused by a large barrage or hydro scheme.

🙄

What utter rubbish

But then you follow it with this tripe. 🙄

Anyone who thinks the all too frequent releases of radioactivity has no significant effect is burying their head in the sand

Get real TJ.

Go and have a look at the ecological and human damage anthropogenically-driven climate change is already having, never mind its predicted impacts. Then come back here with cold, hard, peer-reviewed data (not your self-important myopic views) showing me that the impacts of radiation from civilian nuclear power generation is even on the same scale.

Your bias is ridiculous.

the very rare releases of harmful radiation

all too frequent. Not very rare at all.

a disaster such as Fukushima is minor compared to the destruction that would be caused by a large barrage or hydro scheme

Utter ridiculous assertion. NO TIDAL BARRAGES ARE PROPOSED OR NEEDED

You equate large scale release of radiation with building a dam?

How about your shifting of the goalposts to fossil fuel free electricity generation? You total refusal to acknowledge that significant energy / CO2 production reduction is possible

Just a ridiculous set of baseless assertions from you.

It is only proposed to build 16 gw of new nukes. Still leaves that gap. How are you going to fill the other 40 GW needed?

we can significantly increase the use of renewables - these measures combined will mean we meet the targets for CO2 reduction

Anyone who thinks the all too frequent releases of radioactivity by coal fired power stations has no significant effect is burying their head in the sand.

Look at the state the Irish sea.

People are still dying from the release at Chernobyl.

Teh releases from Fushiyama are still unknown but clearly getting worse still and will kill people for decades - how many we don't know

How are you going to fill the other 40 GW needed?

How quickly do you think you can get nukes built - not a shred of a chance of getting any new nukes on line by 2020 ( or do you really think they can be built in 8 1/2 years} whereas 5 + GW of tidal is at planned and installation has started. and will be online in 2020. Planned, costed, planing consents given, funding in place.

News from Japan? I have been following it. Have you? They are having to empty a containment pool of "mildy radioactive water" into the sea so they can fill the pond with highly radioactive water from the reactors where containment is cracked.

They still don't know how much of the cores are damaged and how much containment is breached. deaths are absolutely certain from the amount of radioactivity being released could be dozens could be thousands - we don't know as they have not stopped the releases. The leaks you refer to are from containment into groundwater. They are hopeful they have stopped or slowed this - however that is not the only source of radioactivity releasead they don't know how many cracks there are - and the leak pluggng is not permanent solution. permanent meaning needs to last for thousands of years

I have repeadedtly said how the 16 GW can be covered. renewables,energy efficiency in all energy consuming sectors means we can reduce CO2 release as a country.

Now you tell me how you are going to get new reactors built in 8 1/2years.

deaths are absolutely certain from the amount of radioactivity being released

you tell me how you are going to get new reactors built in 8 1/2years.

I have repeadedtly said how the 16 GW can be covered.

Got any hard data on where that 5GW (presumably peak, so needs a bit of derating even if it's true) of tidal is going to be? You'll have to forgive me for being dubious given your own links suggest [url= https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=16754ac3-5095-477e-abf8-ab802975e710&groupId=57143 ]Tidal stream and wave generation deployment could account for 1 to 2.5 GW of installed capacity in Europe by 2020[/url] and [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15 ]By around 2015 Scotland will host 17.1 GigaWatts ( GW) of renewable capacity. At that stage only a minority of the capacity (3.0W) is likely to be from marine sources[/url] - noting that their marine source capacity includes 2.4GW of wind, and the only significant capacity beyond 2015 it mentions is "ten exclusivity agreements for six wave and four tidal projects with a potential capacity to generate 1.2 GW of marine energy in the Pentland Firth".

Like smoking, you can't ascribe any one cancer sufferer's disease to radiation exposure, it could just be chance. However, when dealing with larger samples then you can ascribe higher incidences of cancer to various lifestyle choices and risk factors including radiation exposure. There's enough data from nuclear testing, nuclear bombing and nuclear accidents to predict roughly how many excess deaths per 100 000 you'll get from a given dose.

So, Aracer, given the level of exposure of Fukushima workers being reported (repeated yearly doses in a few hours according to Eins Extra) you need to use something like "there will be deaths due to radiation exposure resulting from the Fukushima accident". The death toll won't be zero and will be measured in units, tens, hundreds or thousands depending on how many people have been exposed to how much radiation.

Interesting piece in yesterdays Guardian, not sure if it's already been posted. I make no comment on the truthfulness or otherwise of what it says.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world ]Nuclear comment[/url]

given the level of exposure of Fukushima workers being reported

The death toll won't be zero and will be measured in units, tens, hundreds or thousands

Of course sad as it is, workers get killed in almost every industrial situation - coal mining, hydroelectric, windmills... TJ of course is busy trying to imply people other than the workers are at risk 🙄

Your bias is ridiculous.

In what way, in that I'm reporting facts and you're doing some myopic arm-waving?

No tidal barrages are needed. Did you not bother to read all the links on this

Really? So we're simply going to plant tidal turbines everywhere just like that, when there's 5-10 GW on offer in the Severn. By using the same reasoning you have as to why nuclear apparently competes with renewables, surely large, capital projects win though in the real world, regardless of merit? Or is there another reason why nuclear is competing with small-scale renewables?

so zokes - you are going a lot further than anyone in power with saying all fossil fuel must be replaced with something that produces minimal CO2?

This is because I happen to believe that the damage this is currently being caused, and which will continue to increase due to anthropogenically-driven climate change is more than a little more worrying on a global scale than a Chernobyl or Fukushima once every 25 years. Our thirst for energy will always cause some damage to the world, but screwing up weather patterns, rainfall, ocean currents, and sea levels strikes me as something to be a damned sight more concerned about than a once-every-25-years major nuclear event, that mostly harms only humans. How much damage has been caused by oil exploration? Do you not recall a few years ago large swathes of forests being decimated by acid rain? These things happen in normal operation of fossil-fuel driven energy cycles

If you want to ignore all this and simply carry on your idiotic stance that radiation trumps everything else, well, I'd suggest you write an open letter to the residents of Cornwall and advise them on leaving. You'd also better never eat any bananas or other K-rich food (lots of natural K-40 in there you're ingesting). Guess what, that UV from the sun that gives you a tan - radiation too. Then if you're ill - the doses become staggering rather quickly compared to simply living near a nuclear power station.

But then what do I, or many scientists with a much greater knowledge of this field than either of us know? It appears very little, we must all listen to the all-knowing TJ

Nice moving of the goalposts. so from a position of looking to replace the existing nukes and the old worn out power generation capacity with new and reducing CO2 output you have now gone to a totally ridiculous position of a zero emmisions power generation. That would require 50+ new nuclear stations and is completely unfasable anyway as nukes cannot be turned on and off quickly as demand alters. One of the issues they are finding in France with their 75~% nukes generation. 100 % is completly impossible to do

I didn't really move the goal posts. Just I worked out that as I was arguing correctly that coal power causes far more environmental damage than nuclear, it seemed a logical progression.

Again you take one half of my argument without the other - why can't we have some energy reductions equating 20%, renewables at 20% and nukes taking the other 60%. You also state that nukes can't be turned on and off easily, which in the older designs is true. In the newer designs this is getting better - who's to say a little R&D won't improve things further? As ever, I am not the one suggesting that it's renewables vs nukes, only the short-sighted-to-the-point-of-blind posters are doing that.

Now what I was arguing for was a reduction in CO2 output in line with Kyoto and similar agreements. Electricity generation is only a part of what produces CO2 in the UK.

And what I am arguing for is that we generate our energy by the least-damaging means. I thought this was your argument against nukes, until most people proved you wrong.

Energy conservation in all energy using sectors has the potential to reduce CO2 output significantly as does renewables energy production.

And so would nuclear power. We save 20 %, we use renewables to take up at least 20%, we use nukes for the remainder - U-fission initially, and as Th becomes more viable, we replace as plant age dictates. Either way, if we don't suss fusion soon enough, the entire argument will become academic.

So we can reduce the total amount of electricity used easily, we can reduce the amount of energy used to heat homes and businesses and that used in transport, we can significantly increase the use of renewables - these measures combined will mean we meet the targets for CO2 reduction.

But still leave coal and gas belching out emissions. The Kyoto protocol was agreed nearly 15 years ago, based on old science, and by the time its targets are met, it will be older science. Why are you objecting to my suggestion that we can reduce our emissions by more than the Kyoto targets, if you want to be pious about being 'green'?

Reneawables include tidal, wind, wave, solar as heating and photovoltaics. other measures that increase efficiency are such things as combined heat and power at a local level, increased insulation.

Well I never - education 🙄

Now would you like me to state the blindingly obvious about how not all nuclear generation is the same?

Cuts in energy consumption can be made easily across the UK

But quantify this statement for it to be meaningful. You turning off your PC would be an energy saving. We both agree that 20% seems a reasonable aim. But by not supporting nukes, you leave a huge energy gap that will only be filled with coal - either existing or new. To consider burning coal as less damaging than nuclear power is quite simply wrong if you have any grasp of climate science. No IMO needed there - that statement is backed by a large body of peer reviewed evidence, some of which I have posted, that you still refuse to read.

What utter rubbish

TURN IT DOWN FOR ****'S SAKE!

Be nice or it'll become a stupid row again, and I can't stand it any more 🙁

Aracer - /zokes - I suggest you actually read the links on the amounts of tidal being proposed and what is proposed. Just in Scotland there is far more planned and than you claim. If England joined in as well there would be much more. However while all the money is being spent on Nukes there won't be.

You also totally discount the amount of energy available from other sources

I was only every arguing for a modest and sustainable reduction in CO2 from a mixed bag of practical measures not elimination entirely - which is a totally ridiculous position.

So now you want what - 40 new nukes in the UK?

How many world wide? You want to see multiple nukes in areas of political and geological instability? there is not enough uranium to power the world. You are also again arguing for the use of tech that does not exist

Go my way we might well need some new fossil fuel plants. I propose CHP on a local scale - this of course has a huge efficient advantage in that effectively you are heating homes and businesses from the waste heat that currently is lost. Massive CO2 savings there. However given the efficiency savings possible in all sectors we can still reduce CO2 output significantly even if some new more efficinet conventional fuel is used

Herein lies one of your fallacies. a once in 25 years nuclear accident - increase the numbers of reactor exponentially as you suggest then these accidents will be far more frequent.

Climate change is not the only consideration in looking at the safety record - and you continue to do what you accuse me of - comparing the data from 40 yr old conventional power plants with your theoretical new nukes.

And finally - it is an either or situation to major extent. Both new nukes and large scale reneawables require massive investment. We will find it very hard to do one. We will not do both - again the history shows this. Investment in remnewables R&D is minuscule compared to nuclear. its only since we got holyrood that is not blindly wedded to nuclear that we have had some progress on renewables but only in Scotland. Westminster still does almost none.

Remember the 5 gw of tidal that is going to be on line by 2020 is only in Scotland.

So haow many new reactors worldwide? How are you going to fuel them?

zokes - Member

"Your bias is ridiculous".

In what way, in that I'm reporting facts and you're doing some myopic arm-waving?

You continually refute the potential of renewables despite the hard data. You continually propose that there is no possibility of any energy saving, you gloss over the difficulties in building new nukes, you downplay the dangers of nukes conveniently forgetting that the danger are more than climate change and that nukes are not carbon zero anyway

You latest one is to claim that there is some mysterious way round the issue of being able to alter the output of nukes to match demand. Apparently some new tech will come along to allow that.

Quote the numbers you've seen reported then Aracer. Mine (heard not seen) from Eins Extra are pretty clear : more than a year's dose each time they went in. Don't forget that three had serious radiation burns. After that kind of dose Tchernobyl experience says they will die prematurely.

yes, we could change the 'severn barrage plan' to a 'severn lagoon plan'

but then instead of 10GW, we'll only get 2 or 3 GW.

(this is actually my preferred option - a barrage would be very destructive)

you can't just dump a turbine in the sea, and expect it to work - producing 5MW every day. there are site conditions to consider, and they need to be right.

(speed and duration of current, condition of the seabed, shipping lanes, ecological concerns, etc.)

maybe there are thousands of suitable sites, maybe there aren't... i don't know, but to get 10gigawatts, we'll need thousands of turbines.