[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

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.

Using a controlled nuclear explosion as a source of energy

Which isn't really how it works.

Problem is that all the other ideas are also crap.

Which isn't really how it works.

Really ? I thought it was the exactly the same process. What's the difference?

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia.

What's the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Burning fossil fuels. Actually no, that's way worse.

What's the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Molgrips - get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Gas hob is not an explosion. Explosion is a rapid expansion of something.

Nuclear fission reactors are a very slow controlled reacting. In the same way that you control a wood stove with the damper, you control a nuclear reaction with control rods, the nuclear equivalent of cold water. Risky yes, explosion no.

Fusion technology IS a controlled explosion tho imo.

Molgrips - get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Well aware of that mate. However, anthropogenic climate change is STILL way worse than that imo.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?

Jeremy; read up on how many people are dying now as a result of climate change.

(just to play devils advocate).

TandemJeremy - Member

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff[b] as poisonous [/b]into the ecosphere and have the effects [b]last for millenia.[/b]

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?

Correct.

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

If a substance causes damage then it's effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?
Correct.

Help me out here, I'm struggling.

Uranium atoms spontaneously decay on their own. When they do they release a neutron that can knock into another atom and cause that to decay, releasing another neutron and so on. If there are enough atoms (critical mass) then enough of the neutrons hit other atoms, and it triggers an avalanche of decays ie an explosion.

However if not enough of the neutrons hit other atoms then an explosion won't happen. To make a bomb, you set it up so that there will be an explosion. To make a reactor, you set it up so that there won't. It's why reactors catch fire, leak, melt down etc but they don't explode Hiroshima style.

A controlled explosion would be like in a car engine. Each spark triggers an actual explosion, but a small one contained in a cylinder. In fusion you have to pressurise and heat the gaseous fuel to the point where it would be exploding if you weren't containing it somehow - either with a magnetic field, or by some other trickery.

put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Completely irrelevant straw man - the stuff released form Fukushima and causing the "disaster" is I-131, half life about nine days!

Plutonium has been released as well due to the containment being breached

Oh dear TJ - the sky still isn't falling!

[i]Reports that plutonium had been detected at five locations inside the grounds of the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant set off a flurry of activity on blogs and twitter accounts today. But the truth is that plutonium around the facility was to be expected--and the levels found do not pose a threat to human health.
Indeed, TEPCO officials believe that three of the five samples found on March 21 and 22 were actually deposited on the site many years ago following the testing of nuclear weapons by various countries in the atmosphere, which left trace amounts of plutonium in the soil of locations around the world. The other two traces of plutonium came from fuel of reactor No. 3, a MOX fuel that contains roughly 5% plutonium. These samples of escaped plutonium were of similar concentrations to the decades-old plutonium, and therefore do not pose a threat to human health.[/i]

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

I had to check the definition of "explosion". It turns out it means :

[i]ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.[/i]

A 'sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures' works for me.

Of course I could be wrong - my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

Indeed, TEPCO officials believe

I had to check the definition of "explosion". It turns out it means :

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

A 'sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures' works for me.

Of course I could be wrong - my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

The reason it doesn't fit that definition of an explosion is that it is not 'sudden' - the release of energy is controlled, ramped up, held stable/continuous and ramped down when required. There is nothing 'sudden' about it.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

You wouldn't thought so would you ?

nb, you did see my use of the word "controlled" btw ?

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

Seems to me that the nuclear bods like to have it both ways. Apparently Fukishima is old technology, so therefore this disaster doesn't count, because new stations wouldn't fail like that, yet on the other hand its prefectly reasonable to then drone on about global warming due to the consumption of fossil fuels over the past 300 years or so. Guys you can't have it both ways, either old stuff counts or it doesn't.

If a substance causes damage then it's effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

Utter crap. Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog and the fact that air quality in the Western world was improved consistently year on year for the last 50 years or so? The problem is that when they started out with industrial consumption of fossil fuels they were unaware of the issues, so they carried on without concern. Once we were aware we have acted to change, and the nuclear industry is in fact evidence of that change. In respect of nuclear energy we are already aware of the issues, and furthermore the scale of them when something goes wrong is of an entirely different order to that which happens with any other single station source of energy failing. So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels. Alternatively if you believe as I do that it is criminal to pretend that everything in the garden is rosy when self evidently it isn’t, we should be having an open discussion about the reality of generating energy in this way, and the reality is that in return for Jam today we are taking a very substantial risk with our futures, Fukishima is just the latest evidence of that fact.

A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a [b]sudden[/b] and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases

Nuclear fission reactors do not run on a sudden release of energy. Therefore not an explosion.

The accident at Fukushima was an explosion (not a nuclear one), but that's not what we were talking about.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here

No, that was just for j_me's background information.

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels

I disagree (with that bit - didn't really understand the rest of your post or why you thought my bit was crap). My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.

Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog

I presume this picture must be really old:
[img] [/img]

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Anyone seen [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html ]this?[/url] linked on from the [url= http://youyouidiot.blogspot.com/ ]ENTSCHWINDET & VERGEHT[/url] blog.
Interesting viewing.

Isn't arguing about the pros and cons of nuclear power a bit pointless anyway?

The fossil fuels will run out. Fact.

There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet for it not to be an issue. Fact.

We need energy. Fact.

Humans are not going to cut down on their energy use. If anything, they will want more. Fact.

Really, what we want is fusion. No pollution, tons of energy, plenty of fuel. Just it's hard to optimize at the moment - we don't have the tech, or the funding.

Wind, solar, tidal, burning logs, etc. etc. is never going to cut it. If you covered the entire Sahara desert in solar panels, you would provide more then enough energy for the world. But that's completely infeasible of course, for a hundred reasons. Wind is pretty useless, even when it is windy. Tidal destroys coast lines and is very expensive for what it gives. It also means that countries without large coastlines are dependent on other countries.

So the obviously conclusion is we need something to give us energy in the gap between the fossil fuels running out, and fusion being perfected. Nuclear. Doesn't matter if you don't like it. There's nothing you can do about it. Unless you're a fusion specialist.

Care to post the number of coal miners that have died since the tsunami, Aracer.

[img] [/img]

So the very small dangers associated with nuclear power

no sorry you've got that back to front they are very large dangers with a low frequency, although that too is a moot point and is dependant on how you measure them, and over what period of time. That is entirely my point the debate is neither open nor truthful.

Try going to an enquiry for the building of a nuclear power station and asking why its being built so far away from the population centre that needs the power. Be insistent on a proper answer and you'll get escorted out. The simple reason is they are ****ing dangerous and its not politically acceptable to stick them in or close to a city.

Dangerous more locally. That's why they are in remote places.

However coal is dangerous GLOBALLY.

Hurrah! so we've crossed the rubicon and agreed that they are dangerous then?

Of course there's a risk.

However it's small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.