[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

One thing that will happen is that Scotland and England are moving in different directions. No new nukes in Scotland and an investment in alternatives with the aim of making Scotland a world leader with skills and installations to export. as well as exporting power to England 🙂

we will know in ten years time which was right

We have world leading tech in wave and tidal and also in hydrogen storage

around the coast the tide is at very different times

Looks to be a couple of hours in it as far as I can tell from the BBC tide tables, between Scotland and the South West.

As for hydrogen storage - can't imagine how you'd process and store enough H2 to cover that kind of demand in such a short space of time. And then what to do with it? Can you spin up a H2 generating station in a short space of time?

we will know in ten years time which was right

Zigakly.

So why to you pretend to already know the answer - explicitly excluding one proven generation technology simply because you are incapable of considering it objectively?

You can bleat about the scale of the disaster at Fukushima as much as you like, but whilst appearing drastic, it has had exactly no effect on a global level. By the very reason you're pushing renewables, I assume you're only too aware of the effect the routine operation of fossil-fuelled plants has? These are what will be built to replace the existing nuclear plants if no more nuclear facilities are constructed.

With time, a lot more renewable energy would be great, and you are correct, short-term storage technologies are improving all the time to iron out the bumps. But we're still a long way away from them being a major part of any industrialised nation's energy portfolio. If only would would grasp that noone on here being a 'nuclear evangelist' in your eyes sees U-fission as a long term solution competing with renewables. Instead, what we are all proposing is that a new generation of U-fission would not only reduce the need for new fossil-fuelled stations to replace ageing nuclear and conventional generation, but it would provide new impetus to improve R&D into both thorium fission and potentially fusion technologies. The fact is, we need both these and much improved renewable energy to create a long-term sustainable energy production system to cater for current and future energy demands.

As for hydrogen storage - can't imagine how you'd process and store enough H2 to cover that kind of demand in such a short space of time. And then what to do with it? Can you spin up a H2 generating station in a short space of time?

The current CCGT gas stations spin up in a couple of minutes, so I doubt this would be an issue. We're already pretty good at storing large amounts of gas anyway, so it being H2 probably won't pose too many issues. The use of 'excess' electricity to electrolyse water to H2 certainly makes a lot of sense.

Having watched the fusion saga for over thrity years I've noted that each time the scientists get a bigger, better accelerator to play with, they they realise an even bigger one will be needed to get a sustainable plasma. We are now further from success than 30 years ago if you still take any notice of their promises. Renewable is here, now and working wherever it's been installed.

I assume you're only too aware of the effect the routine operation of fossil-fuelled plants has? These are what will be built to replace the existing nuclear plants if no more nuclear facilities are constructed.

~This is utter bullshine. Energy efficiency and renewables can easily replace all the energy produced by nukes and more. Remember to look more widely at the nations total energy usage and total co2 production.

This is the crucial point you don't want to accept.

So why to you pretend to already know the answer - explicitly excluding one proven generation technology simply because you are incapable of considering it objectively?

zokes - Member

"As for hydrogen storage - can't imagine how you'd process and store enough H2 to cover that kind of demand in such a short space of time. And then what to do with it? Can you spin up a H2 generating station in a short space of time? "

The current CCGT gas stations spin up in a couple of minutes, so I doubt this would be an issue. We're already pretty good at storing large amounts of gas anyway, so it being H2 probably won't pose too many issues. The use of 'excess' electricity to electrolyse water to H2 certainly makes a lot of sense.

Its a new tech needed further research but is working on a very small scale already.

I suspect the amount you need to store will be a the limiting factor but its a couple of hours generation worth not a few days. Fuel cells turn on instantly.

It is not as easy to store as natural gas. Also by the time you go from tidal to electricity to hydrogen to electricity you have introduced a load of inefficiencies. If you get 30% of the kinetic energy gathered as electricity at the end I would be surprised.

What about energy density of H2 versus natural gas? And is it liquified in those big storage gasometer tanks?

At 43° N I'm further south than parts of Spain

Are you suggesting that countries achieving 16% (average - doubtless a lot less than that for significant periods) electricity production from renewables means they can achieve 100% (or even 50%) if they just try a bit harder? If so then you're a liar. You might think you know the way, but 16% != 100%, and there are all sorts of issues in that gap you're either ignoring or are ignorant of. Though j'écoute si vous m'edukate.

[img] [/img]

Just taking wind, Germany is Europe's biggest electricty user and currently produces 7% with wind turbines. Cycle around its coast and through the middle and you'll soon realise that the potential sites could easily generate fifteen times more. Then take PV; a lot of roofs have panels but the remaining potential is enormous. The potential is there, we simply need to exploit it.

As for energy saving, have a look at your own abode. How well insulated are your walls. Double glazing and shutters, or triple glazing? Heat source?, Roof insulation to R8 or more? (at least a foot of most insulators). Under floor insulation?

~This is utter bullshine. Energy efficiency and renewables can easily replace all the energy produced by nukes and more. Remember to look more widely at the nations total energy usage and total co2 production.

This is the crucial point you don't want to accept.

If it's so easy, why hasn't it happened? What's the issue? According to you, renewable energy is plentiful and cheap, so why aren't all the profiteering energy companies making a killing from it? You continually bleat on about how energy efficiency will just 'happen'. If the world had more people like you and Edukator, then this might be the case. But it doesn't, so it won't. If anyone is talking complete bullshine consistently on any thread to do with nuclear power, then that would be you, TJ, and noone else.

(Note stage two of the 'TJ defence' now in play - give up arguing a point's merits, and instead start laying into the opposing viewpoint with low-level insults in the hope that they'll get fed up with arguing)

Proven to be polluting, dangerous, unreliable

Renewable is here, now and working wherever it's been installed.

Unless it's cloudy, or not windy enough, or too windy, or the tide's turning, or, or, or....

When will you get edukated? It's not either/or nukes/renewables, it's both. The either/or is coal/nukes. This is the argument the more rational of us on here are trying to make, whilst you hijack it with emotive straw men about renewables or mega-disaster-3-headed-monster technology.

Proven to be polluting, dangerous, unreliable

Nah, he's talking about coal....

Ever heard of lobbies, vested interests, funding of political parties, corruption, friends in high places, monopolies, cartels, NIMBY and so on, Zokes? You'll note that where legislation breaks down some of those barriers micro producers are ready and willing to invest, genrate renewable energy and reap the rewards.

This is slightly OT. I actually work in the industry, as a safety engineer no less. I feel I may have something constructive to add to the discussion (although zokes has said much of what I would), but the vehemence of TJs posts has sucessfully put me off. I wonder how many other users/potential users of this (otherwise excellent forum) he dissuades from posting.

Edukator - you're not listening. It's all very well saying how much potential for wind power there is, but wind power is proven to be unreliable - or hadn't you noticed? How do you get 100% from renewables in December if the wind isn't blowing?

By reducing demand, Aracer, so that the pump stored energy, tidal energy and is adequate. PV still produces half the energy I use in mid december. It's never a flat calm all over Europe.

Anyone care to answer the questions about the energy efficiency of their own homes? I'm sure you could all cut your energy use and I'd like some info so I can give you an idea by how much.

I wonder how many other users/potential users of this (otherwise excellent forum) he dissuades from posting.

Sadly, plenty. Last time the effect his posting style has on other users was discussed, he 'flounced' for a while, but now sadly seems to be back to his old self. Pity, he usually has lots of worthwhile and intelligent things to say on most threads. For some reason, he just can't bear to grasp the argument most of us are [i]actually[/i] making is about nuclear vs coal, NOT nuclear vs renewables. Same goes for the ironically-named one....

By reducing demand

So we're back here again. You may want to reduce your consumption, many of us can see the need. However, the vast majority of the population take exception at the concept of having to use a slightly different form of lightbulb. Good luck convincing them that they can reduce their requirements by the levels you have attained.

the argument most of us are actually making is about nuclear vs coal, NOT nuclear vs renewables

Did I miss something ?

Ironically, those on this thread - even those of us arguing in favour of nuclear - are mostly (if not all) very much in favour of reducing energy consumption, and the use of renewables. The rest of the population and industry in general a lot less bothered.

Go on then, Aracer. What were your gas and electricity bills last year? How many people in the household? Answers to the questions about insulation. I seriously doubt that your being in favour of reducing energy consumption means you've done anything to reduce your own consumption.

My electricity consumption last year was 2200kWh and is lower so far this year. No gas consumtion. Electricity production 3200kWh.

Now compare.

PV still produces half the energy I use in mid december.

Even at night?

And as for Hydrogen, I work with it on a daily basis and I'm sure most people don't realise just how explosive/dangerous it is. Remember that a lot of the damage in Fukushima was caused by a Hydrogen explosion.

There's a pump storage hydro scheme less than 40km away which can store up surplusses produced in the day for use at night. Don't make the mistake of seeing anyone one renewable source in isolation. They are complementary.

LPG is explosive too, we manage that OK.

Go on then, Aracer. What were your gas and electricity bills last year? How many people in the household? Answers to the questions about insulation. I seriously doubt that your being in favour of reducing energy consumption means you've done anything to reduce your own consumption.

If you're doubting those of the population environmentally aware enough of the topic to waste their time talking to people on the internet who seem to be incapable of taking their blinkers of, what makes you think the population at large gives a flying fish about your major energy conservation to the point where they seriously have to change their lifestyles?

Next election:

Labour policy - efficiency the only way, large scale cuts in use coupled with spending your own money on PV etc. vs

Tories - You can keep your lights and 52" plasma on - we'll build more nukes.

Given that a large proportion of the population bases its vote choice on The Sun's prevailing editorial policy, what makes you think, back here away from your yurt, that a majority would vote for Labour if that was the deciding issue between the two parties?

Likewise, as most people now seem to think global warming is at best non-anthropogenic, and at worst fabrication as a means of bringing in more taxes, do you think they'd have any qualms over a new generation of coal? It avoids the emotive nuclear issue, so what's the problem.... It really baffles me how, when you obviously have some nouce to have adopted your lifestyle, you seem to be lacking the perception that the majority will not, and no democratically elected party (if it wishes to remain elected) will be able to force the issue.

This is very frustratingly going round in circles....

There's a pump storage hydro scheme less than 40km away which can store up surplusses produced in the day for use at night.

What, all night, for everyone? You really have no grasp of the scale required for large-scale pumped storage, do you? Dinorwic, one of the largest plants in the world, and in one of the few places in the world suitable, barely manages to keep the lights on when the adverts come on during Corrie in the winter, and that's just a few cups of tea....

Tories - You can keep your lights and 52" plasma on - [s]we'll[/s] [b]the French[/b] will build more nukes [b]for us[/b].

FTFY

Go on Zokes and Areacer, what were your gas and electricty bills last year?

LPG is explosive too, we manage that OK.

LPG isn't in the same league when it comes to the range of explosive mixture (Explosive limits of hydrogen in air are 18.3 to 59 percent by volume).

[url= http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm ]http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm[/url]

Hmm appears to be able to supply the equivalent to Sizewell B for 5 hours and then the water has to be pumped back up the hill again unless you want to wait for rain to fill the lake 🙄

Go on Zokes and Areacer, what were your gas and electricty bills last year?

I couldn't honestly tell you, in the past year I've lived in three houses in two hemispheres. Also, as I (and an increasingly large proportion of the population) rent, there's not much I (or they) can do on the insulation / efficient heating / PV / wind front.

FWIW, in both my old houses in the UK, heating was on for 30 mins in the morning to take the chill off. Thereafter it was wood in the log-burner. Over here, I think I may need a solid-fuelled air conditioner instead, so no log burner (and little need for one).

Still no idea what this would do to help your argument - we already accept that the basis for your irritatingly pious position is a fairly unique home set up with some fairly major lifestyle changes from the average European resident.

EDIT: Quite an irony that given my field of work, I've flown further in the last 12 months than I had in my previous 27 years.

Don't make the mistake of seeing anyone one [s]renewable[/s]electricity source in isolation. They are complementary.

As for my energy bill, sorry don't have it in front of me, and really cba going to find them this evening just to satisfy you. I doubt they're particularly low if that keeps you happy - we've had the heating on quite a bit, and sometimes use the tumble drier. Though all that really proves is that even somebody concerned about these things and willing to put a bit of effort in isn't really doing a very good job. Now explain to me exactly how you're going to persuade the great mass of public not even as bothered as me?

Now explain to me exactly how you're going to persuade the great mass of public not even as bothered as me?

What kind of car do you drive, and how much more efficient and less polluting is it compared to the average car on the road 30 years ago ? Or indeed on the road in America today ?

However if you actually look at the list - I have only had a brief glance - very few decommissioning completed at huge costs. None in the UK

Most of the reactors on that list are not in fact decommissioned, and those that are have in effect been taken away and buried in a hole, rather than made safe per se. Its also noticable that its costing hugely more and taking longer than anticipated. So yet more dosh going into the nuclear program by default.

To me its a bit like that first motor we all once had. Cheap as chips and then you have to stump up a huge bill for a bit thats failed, so before you know it you've invested loads into it that you never intended to. Then you get into the "rather than cut my losses I'll keep it so I get my investment back" school of thought that inevitably leads to more mopney going into it until before you know it you can't afford to do the smart thing and off it in favou of something more sensible.

I drive a 12 year old car. That makes it far less polluting than most cars on the road, but I don't see most people being happy with that!

I posted yesterday asking what’s the cost of PV, Wind, Tidal V Nuclear per KW installed and didn't get an answer...
I've seen lots of negative comments about nuclear and green technologies yet no one seems to have an answer.. I'm not convinced by either the fine sounding words and predications’ of doom...
Show me the nr's....

Leaded or unleaded fuel ?

Neither

Low sulphur diesel ? LPG ?
My point is; behaviours can be changed. But it takes a sound policy, education and some carrots/sticks.

I drive a 12 year old car.

Which was new once. So how is it less polluting than most cars on the road now? The majority of those cars will still be here in 12 years I suspect.

How long is a piece of string T1000? The nuclear industry conveniently forgets the cost of decommisioning and long term storage, and the cost depends on how safe a reactor you buy; PV requires calculating for each location, as do wind, hydro, tidal and wave; fossil fuel generation costs depend on the cost of fossil fuels which are far from constant. There is no one answer but a range of costs depending on location.

A 3kW PV installation cost me 20 000e but would be a bit cheaper now as costs are coming down. I get 3200kWh a year decreasing to no less than 2700kWh over a 25 year period and hopefully longer. About 0.3 euro/kWh assuming some maintenance costs. You might find that expensive, I don't.

PV requires calculating for each location

aracer - Anyone mount these things on a wall instead of a pitched roof?

I get 3200kWh a year decreasing to no less than 2700kWh over a 25 year period and hopefully longer

Edukator - fine, but what if you are not planning on staying somewhere 25 years?

If anyone based in the UK wants to invest in renewable energy there are plenty of projects to invest in that are located where they will be efficient. The first thing to do is to change your energy supplier to one that uses renewables; more demand for their product will encourage thme to increase their capacity.

Investing in insulation clearly results in greater savings in the Uk but that hasn't stopped me investing in the south of France. Besides, it keeps the place cool in summer so we don't feel the need for air-con.

I don't follow your logic Molgrips. A PV roof adds value to a property so you get your money back if you sell. On your logic nobody would fit double glazing if they didn't intend to stay in a house at least 20 years.

Anyone mount these things on a wall instead of a pitched roof?

If anyone based in the UK wants to invest in renewable energy there are plenty of projects to invest in that are located where they will be efficient. The first thing to do is to change your energy supplier to one that uses renewables

Edukator - fine, but what if you are not planning on staying somewhere 25 years?

It's included in the sale?
(unless you demolish every house you move out of)

Somebody selling PV panels said:

A PV roof adds value to a property so you get your money back if you sell.

Zokes - the historical record on nukes is plain to see - unreliable, dangerous and polluting. Sizewell b - our best performing reactor has down time and is running well below capacity now.

Please tell me how to deal with the waste?

You call me for pig headed and blind - but why will you not accept the argument is not between nukes and coal ad you keep claiming- because properly developed efficiency and renewable and other sustainable tech will easily close the gap.

Your position is a defeatist one.

Dibbs - Member
And as for Hydrogen, I work with it on a daily basis and I'm sure most people don't realise just how explosive/dangerous it is. Remember that a lot of the damage in Fukushima was caused by a Hydrogen explosion.

I realise this - its also difficult to store.

zokes - Member

I wonder how many other users/potential users of this (otherwise excellent forum) he dissuades from posting.

Sadly, plenty. Last time the effect his posting style has on other users was discussed, he 'flounced' for a while, but now sadly seems to be back to his old self

Tehre simply is no need for nukes when with the same amount as the nukes would cost spent on energy efficinecy and renewables the small amount of energy we get from nukes could easily be covered by these two things

It might help with pointing them more directly at the sun in the winter, but even here we get 30 degree incidence angles in summer, so you'd lose a lot of efficiency then.

Would make more sense to optimise for winter would it not, when the incidence is weaker and usage is greater...? Or is it just a case of writing off the winter?

Just thought of it because our house has no South facing roof, but a huge blank 3 storey south facing wall..

I suppose you take the roof tiles with you when you move house, Higgo. You are typical of the anti-rewable mob, inventing problems that don't exist. Why would selling a house with PV panels on be a problem? The new owner can use or sell the production as he/she wishes.

There are real headaches with nuclear that are currently making themselves felt and the best you can come up with a bout PV is that it would complicate selling a house.

Most people go for the highest yearly output, Molgrips, which means 30-40°. With vertical panels you'll get less total return but will produce more in the morning and evening, and in the Winter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12960655

[s]TJ is Antony Froggatt and I claim my £5[/s]

Actually Antony is nowhere near negative enough about nuclear to be TJ.

By Antony Froggatt Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House

Given that only a few decades, rather than millennia separate the accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (which were also thought to be at minimal risk of core damage) it is clear that nuclear operators and/or regulators are significantly underestimating the inherent risks associated with nuclear technology.

For nuclear power to play a significant role in meeting future energy demand a significant scaling up of its use will therefore be required, amplifying many-fold the existing problems of nuclear safety, siting and waste management, as well as causing new worries about the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Numerous studies have shown that renewables along with energy efficiency can deliver all or virtually all of our global energy needs, and that therefore nuclear power does not have to be part of the future.

that is pretty much exactly my position in that piece -

and the best you can come up with a bout PV is that it would complicate selling a house

That's not the best we can come up with against PV. The best is that it doesn't work at night, the second best is that it doesn't work very well in the winter at northern latitudes, the third is that it's really expensive.

Significant issues to be overcome there. I desperately hope they are overcome mind, and soon.

Numerous studies have shown that renewables along with energy efficiency can deliver all or virtually all of our global energy needs

Also strikes me that numerous studies have shown the opposite too.

I suppose you take the roof tiles with you when you move house, Higgo. You are typical of the anti-rewable mob, inventing problems that don't exist.

I think you may have misread me or I was unclear (possibly because someone replied while I was typing). Of course I wouldn't take my roof tiles with me. And if the house had a PV roof I'd consider it an asset when selling the house.

Also, I'm not part of any 'anti-renewable mob'. I'm all for renewables - my favourite is tidal (but I have to admit that's largely because I like the sea and all things to do with it!)

that is pretty much exactly my position in that piece

"Virtually all" is wrong IMO

The gap currently filled by nuclear and more? Feasible

Sizewell b - our best performing reactor has down time and is running well below capacity now.

I've just checked and Sizewell B was running at 100.5% of reference unit power at 08:00hrs, my maths may be bad but I don't think that can be described as any way near well below capacity.

Oh and I'd just like to clarify something. If someone expresses doubts about the current capability of renewables to provide the country's energy needs, it doesn't mean they are 'anti renewable'.

I am very much pro renewable, but I don't think we could just switch now and all would be fine... I do think that nuclear could help slash our carbon emissions to where they need to be, and would cause much less damage in the long term even with an accident a decade or so.

With vertical panels you'll get less total return but will produce more in the morning and evening

What about slightly angled panels on a vert wall?

Roof panels would be useless on our house.

Dibbs - Member

Sizewell b - our best performing reactor has down time and is running well below capacity now.

I've just checked and Sizewell B was running at 100.5% of reference unit power at 08:00hrs, my maths may be bad but I don't think that can be described as any way near well below capacity.

Was sizewell b not offline for a large part of last year? And a chunk of 2008 - both unplanned?

Was its out put not reduced permanently a couple of years ago to 70~%or so of its rateing because of boiler cracking or am I confusing it with a different one?

Hinkley was downrated not sizewell. My mistake.

~Still stand tho that it has been unreliable

Decommissioning: "its costing hugely more and taking longer than anticipated"

Yes that may be the case, and I don't dispute it. I only disputed TJ's error that it had never been done. And his error about Sizewell; and his anti-commercial bias; and... 😀

Edukaor{A 3kW PV installation cost me 20 000e but would be a bit cheaper now as costs are coming down. I get 3200kWh a year decreasing to no less than 2700kWh over a 25 year period and hopefully longer. About 0.3 euro/kWh assuming some maintenance costs. You might find that expensive, I don't[s]}

so TJ commented only 70% availability so looking at the above quoted PV figures they are only 11% efficient... still not selling it...

so you need 6 1/2 times as much pv etc or something else when the sun doesn't shine + a means of storing it.... sound mighty expensive to me..

Can't help but think that quite a lot of people on this thread should read this....

http://www.withouthotair.com/

A few numbers and facts about the viability fo supplying energy in the future as opposed to politically motivated positioning...

Still stand tho that it has been unreliable

What about slightly angled panels on a vert wall?

Why don't you try putting some numbers in yourself and see?
http://www.nrel.gov/midc/solpos/spa.html

(bung in your location, 0 for "Surface azimuth rotation" and your panel angle in "Surface slope", where 0 is horizontal 90 vertical, select "Surface incidence angle" as output - alternatively edit my links, replacing "slope=30" with your panel angle, and "latitude=52" with your latitude).

Though bear in mind that even if you have a moving panel tracking the sun, you're still trying to make use of a pretty scarce resource up here for a significant chunk of the year (ie 4 months worse than Edu's worst day).

Looks to be a couple of hours in it as far as I can tell from the BBC tide tables, between Scotland and the South West

not that I'd imagine either of those has decent enough tidal flows, but that's not the point

Not that time no, but it is a good one.

If we took say the top 10 best sites in the UK, would we have enough coverage? And what might the generating capacity ultimately be?

Was its out put not reduced permanently a couple of years ago to 70~%or so of its rateing because of boiler cracking or am I confusing it with a different one?

Hinkley and Hunterston are operating at 70% of original design power but they've both been running for 35 years and would you run a 35 year old car flat out 24/7?

So infact nuclear is unreliable then. size B is the best of our reactors. Shut down for months last year, shut down for a short time in feb, shutdown for months in 2008. The rest of our reactors admittedly old are either shut down or running below capacity because of problems and failures. Thats a good basis to base our energy security on.

Still no solution to the waste issue of course.

Molgrips - tidal - the energy is huge - virtually limitless. The issue is extracting it. The trial plant in the sound of islay is 10 mw. The pentland firth has a potential of 10 Gw Total potential for tidal generation in Scotland is 35 Gw or if my sums are right more than half of the UK needs. Thats just Scotland - include the english sites and you get more

Shut down for months last year, shut down for a short time in feb, shutdown for months in 2008

Do you have similar stats for coal or gas fired power stations?