[Closed] Nuclear power , not that cheap or safe it appears

Come on guys, nobody really wants an electric car or an ipad, everyone really wants to stop using electricity and start burning wood again to keep warm during the winter, you all know we don't need nuclear power. We definitely don't want to run a Mars mission or keep CERN finding out awesome things about the universe we exist in.

Also nuclear fission kills millions of people every day, Herbert L. Anderson, Eugene T. Booth, John R. Dunning, Enrico Fermi, G. Norris Glasoe, and Francis G. Slack are worse then Hitler don't you know.

They just need to work on a cheap rocket and blast the nuclear waste into space, there's relatively little of it generated in comparison to the power generated.
Then again if the UK shale gas reserves are as big as some are saying then who cares, we're fine...

I’m happy to see more nuclear power here. It’s been proven over the last 20 years or so that it’s a reliable source of energy. I’m surprised that successive Govt’s here have been so reticent TBH. As for wind farms I’m all for them, more offshore if possible, but I’m happy with them in my back yard, shame others think differently, If there is some way of making wind farms more efficient and give better ROI then that would be good as currently they are inefficient, so too tidal gates, bit heath robinson at the moment with the only reaserch going into them are a few universities, shame the mahooosive energy companies aren’t ploughing more of our hard earned into finding other ways to supply humans with the basic needs of heat and light.

But really with all this talk of renewable energy.. .. we ought to have been thinking and putting in place this back in the 70’s at the latest
Never say never, now’s as good a time as any.
Only thing I worry about is if we build all this/these nuclear power stations is, do we have the skill base here in the Uk or indeed the world, to cover the builds.. I fear we don’t. I fear we’ll start some rushed programme and suffer the consequences.

so too tidal gates, bit heath robinson at the moment with the only reaserch going into them are a few universities,

tidal turbines are up and running and are being installed. This is proven tech

I doubt there are enough tidal turbine locations to meet the demand created by homes like yours though TJ.

TandemJeremy - Member
tidal turbines are up and running and are being installed. This is proven tech

How much output is expected? How many installations are needed to generate a flat-ish output suitable for base-load?

See dead spots here:
[img] [/img]

Tootall - the tidal is being installed now with proven tech. It will provide base load quicker than new nukes which will take more than ten years to do so. In ten years there should be enough tidal for Scotlands base load. Its a multiphase plan for many many years. stage 1 is get the north south interconnect up and install the offshore tidal wave and wind - this is all underway.

I'd be interested to see the reports that say that there will be enough tidal to support Scotland's base load. It sounds fairly contrary to anything I've read. Who's published this?

I take it you capture the carbon from burning the wood, edukator?
Well done for being energy negative. Out of interest, how do those figures tally against what the providers estimated that you'd get?

(Regarding Dounreay)

You will be told this is not representative and modern stations will be much easier to decommission.

correct.

well done TJ, it seems that you do listen after all 🙂

[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXWYC4HXHMnGZ_jGdJJF3A_AZqYiA58FzYWev3t4LL_c6NnBDGKQ [/img]

retro - the two locations for the tidal flow generator arrays are such that the high tides are around 2 - 2 1/2 hrs apart IIRC so you would have another blue line almost exactly out of phase with the one on that chart.

Ian - "some base load" might have been better - but the potential is there

awhiles - but no one has actually decommissioned a modern generator yet and I for one do not believe the numbers from the nuclear industry - as they have been proven to be wrong time and time again and its very noticeable that no private company will have anything to do with a reactor unless the government underwrites the cost of decommissioning.

Its a huge open ended unknown cost

Aye, Scotland definitely has some good opportunities to make a lot more of it's base-load renewable in the near future.

The wood is garden waste so carbon neutral assuming the bio-mass in the gardens it comes from doesn't go up or down over the years.

The panels were predicted to produce 3089 kWh/year. They produced 3218kWh the first year and 3392kWh the second year. Obviously it's weather dependent.

Yup I know the Scottish trials and all that, tidals a good idea but needs far larger generators. Only problem with sticking turbines in the sea are those pesky creatures that live in it.
But it’s a good step, small step. I’m not saying too little too late, far from it, but we’re at least 25 years away of even remotely coming up with viable ideas of solutions, currently we’re only scratching a very thin surface with very few people with vision and skills to to come up with ideas.

A simple example, planning for 3 solar powered conversion panels placed on a roof has been turned down because “it’s not in keeping with the environment”

Once you kick that limited and outdated view out of the system we’ll start to break through this limited and reticent view that’s so prevalent in this country.

But I’ll be dead long before any of this comes to fruition. I’ll be remembers as one of the infighting generation (the Now) with a whole world full of limited views, party politics and gerrymandering for the “latest quick short term hit”

Observing the world from my shoes it’s seems only a few lucky enough countries have been able to have foresight and tap into natural sources of energy, those left in this world without such are left holding an empty bucket, with a hole in it, hoping we can top it up from some else’s rather full bucket.

Before you get carried away with this renewables malarky, need to worry about this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111110125635.htm

Maybe more investment in fusion is the answer.

See dead spots here:

Blimey - so, realistically you've got to install at least 10 times the generation capacity needed to be assured reasonable continuity of supply, and then it still falls below that on occasion? 😯

Maybe we could have an extra bit tagged on to the end of the weather forecast? [i]"well everyone, its going to be windy tonight, so don't forget to turn your washing machines on when you go to bed"[/i] 😆

Bikebouy it is not "trials" as such it is large scale commercial installations 10 MW in the first phase but 1600 MW planned which is a significant % of Scotlands energy needs. No evidence of issues with sea creatures at all - the turbines move slowly.

The real problem will be the robustness of the system - How much of it will be left after the winter storms?

The wood is garden waste so carbon neutral assuming the bio-mass in the gardens it comes from doesn't go up or down over the years.

I meant by burning the wood. The amount of wood you have burnt is small but if we all did it, we could not offset that carbon unless we capture it.
Another point RE turbines. A recent visit to CIBSE revealed that turbines are not even carbon neutral in such that they will not (at current figures) produce as much energy as it took to manufacture them.

"gearfreak - Member
Before you get carried away with this renewables malarky, need to worry about this"

In wind this is less of an issue for existing technology, and relates more to the emerging technology turbines that have no gearboxes and do everything within the generator.

wrecker - if he grows a tree to replace the one he burnt it is partly carbon neural - excluding the energy to cut and transport the wood

However it needs an unsustainable area of woodland to do this - it is not the answer for everyone. there is not enough area on the planet to grow biomass to supply everyones energy needs

Exactly what I was getting at TJ. He could capture and store the carbon, which as long as he has a sustainable source would be pretty much carbon neutral.

Wood from managed woodland (or gardens) is carbon neutral. Trees stock carbon as they grow so the trees now growing in the gardens are capturing the carbon as fast as I burn the wood. Even if we all burn wood it's still carbon neutral so long as we don't burn wood faster than we grow it.

Given the energy needs of a passive house, gowing sufficient wood to provide the very low levels of energy needed to heat all the homes in the land is entirely feasable - so long as all the houses are insulated to passive house standards.

Don't know anything about the subject, so maybe you can help.
Can you have passive high density housing? Or does the building need a certain quantity of land and sky per a person to be effective?

edukator - the energy required to plant, cut, prepare and transport the wood?

The energy required to create the insulation, the energy required to build all these new houses?

Its as small part of the answer but can never be more than that - there is also the polution from the smoke to consider - a serious issue in cities

Not that I'mm suggesting we heat all the homes in the land with wood. Wood is just part of the energy mix suitied to individual houses in areas where the transport distances are short and land plentiful.

In cities then using electricity from renewables is the obvious option. Again, insulate to passive house standards and there's already enough alternative electricity production in many European countries.

Improving standards of insulation is a huge part of the solution thats for sure along with other energy conservation methods

I don't know what passive house standards are but part L of the building regs requires a high standard of insulation (and pressure testing).

The Prototype tidal turbine in Scotland, quotes below (from The Engineer)

“Installed as part of the Deep-Gen III project, co-funded by the UK government-backed Technology Strategy Board, the Rolls-Royce prototype tidal turbine is currently deployed at the European Marine Energy Centre’s (EMEC’s) offshore test site off the Orkney Islands, Scotland. It is the first EMEC-located project to receive Renewable Obligation Certificates and to reach 100MWh of supply to the grid.

The tidal unit’s three-bladed turbine is attached by a tripod to the seabed and can operate, fully submerged at water depth of 40m. It is reported that its design allows the turbine to continually rotate to face the incoming tide at an optimal angle. In addition, the turbine unit is semi-buoyant and can be towed to and from the point of operation, minimising installation and maintenance costs by avoiding the need for specialist vessels.

As part of the Energy Technologies Institute-funded ReDAPT (Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal) consortium project, Rolls-Royce is currently building a 1MW tidal turbine demonstration unit that will be deployed in mid-2012 at EMEC in Orkney.

Dr David Clarke, ETI chief executive, said: ’The UK is already a world leader in this exciting renewable sector. However, the long-term viability of tidal technology depends on it becoming competitive with other renewable energy sources. Continued investment and new partners are urgently needed to maintain momentum and bring the technology to scale.’”

Nice to see so many different organisations involved, all producing some sort of “certificate” and with similar tests being carried out in triplicate no doubt. Lots of grants and subsidies too, but those ought to fade out when it comes on stream (no pun intended) in the future months. All stil at prototype stage but better than nothing.

I still worry about deep sea wildlife migration/habitation and the ability of these turbines to withstand both pressure and corrosive nature of the sea/sand/mud environment.

But hey.. More please, more please without grants and susidies and we'll be able to turn a ligh on somewhere.

If the events in Fukushima did anything they proved that even if you have a reactor that is decades out of date and of questionable safety you can site it right on a major geological faultline and hit it with a massive tsunami.....and it still doesnt do anything like the damage that Greenpeace would lead you to believe.

Germany bravely decided to decomission its nuclear industry but will be happy to buy nuclear generated electricity from the French.

Lets build more nuclear power stations and keep working on tidal, wind, solar and so on......I'd rather not have to buy gas from Russia or oil from the Saudis thanks.

The energy to build a passive house is one of the criteria in it being called a "passive house". A timber framed house with straw insulation takes less energy to build than a traditional house.

This [url= http://www.lamaisonpassive.be/standard-maison-passive ]Belgian site[/url] is the one I use as a reference for passive house standards but I'm sure there are similar sites that you English configured browsers will find if you Google "passive house definition" or similar.

Yup insulation would improve things greatly, though I think there would need to be some changes in legislation. For instance in the rental sector there is currently no real reason for property owners to improve insulation as they don't have to pay the heating costs.

In my own home I've so far used 128 m2 of locally grown FSC 22mm pine boards and I've secondary double/triple glazed rather than buy new windows, doors and shutters. I don't use straw but recycled polyester (made from recycled bottles).

Unless the french cut their electricity consumption this winter we'll be buying German electricity from their coal-fired power stations. There's lots of energy-saving propaganda on our TVs as EDF braces for the 19:00 peak if we see -10°C again this year.

Bikebouy the AR1000 is already installed and running. Nice to see some competition going in this field. Competition breeds progress.

Oh and just how do you consult with everyone along the route the train is going past, and are going to suffer if it goes bumpty bump off the track spilling its contents.

Reminds me of the nuclear flask crash test from the 1980s... Saw it on the news at the time (I thought the whole stunt had some interesting flaws...)

Made interesting PR at the time though:

ETA - the YT clip had a link to this - whic had a "driver's eye" view...

Bikebouy - and that is old stuff.

Its moving beyond that quickly. a full size 1 mw was installed this year and 10 of them are going in over the next two years. several different companies involved

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/09/worlds-largest-subsea-tidal-turbine-installed-in-scotland

Don't worry, there's a plan.

What the Govt/Whitehall is currently planning on doing is arguing about Nuclear and carbon capture until it is too late to do anything about any of them. They don't actually want to build these things because they are too politically (financially) difficult. We will then be forced to build more gas power stations and some small amount of renewables, but no one will be able to criticise because by then there will be no option.

Of course we will then be totally at the mercy of Russia for our energy supplies.

And climate change will be completely out of control (but it probably is already and it now looks as if the politicians are off the hook on that "sorry, we were much too busy sorting out the debt crisis - not our fault")

Best bet is to go down Edukator's route and DIY your energy if you can, or at least start to wean yourself off overuse if you can't.

Improving standards of insulation is a huge part of the solution thats for sure along with other energy conservation methods

Yup insulation would improve things greatly

It would, but space heating is only a small part of energy consumption (about 20% as far as I can make out) so improved insulation doesn't get you away from having to make hard decisions about energy supply.

No - but its one place amongst many to reduce energy consumption.

...no one has actually decommissioned a modern generator yet...

well, we haven't 'finished' one yet, but we've started several.

[url= http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/ ]decommissioning sites[/url]

Nuclear decomissioning is something we have to do even if we all agree that nuclear = badness.

Hedating is indeed only a part of domestic, commercial and idustrial energy use.

You know all those "economy" light bulbs you were given, they're really quite greedy, as well as being very irritating because they take ages to warm up and are never as bright as you'd like. I've replaced most of ours with LEDs that consume abut a third, come on instantly and have a light colour I prefer.

Solar hot water heaters are low tech and work great. Supply the washing machine (and dish washer if you really must have one) direct with solar-heated water on the fill cycle and your washing machine uses 80% less energy.

Do you really need that freezer or would the freezer box in your fridge do?

I've quoted my consumption figures, families in passive houses achieve similar figures without any compromises in terms of lifestyle or comfort. These savings can be made in all buildings, not just domestic property. If we all make an effort there won't be enough demand to justify the nuclear reactors.

It amazes me that people are still advanmcing intermittency as an argument against wind, as if the national grid haven't thought of it! They've already said that they can accommodate up to 20% of total supply from wind without too much difficulty.

The point is surely that we keep fossil fuels in reserve for days when renewables aren't operating at a high enough capacity.

But the fundamental issue is that we need to use much less.

Solar hot water heaters are low tech and work great. Supply the washing machine (and dish washer if you really must have one) direct with solar-heated water on the fill cycle and your washing machine uses 80% less energy.

Only if your machine has a hot-fill, and most don't. On average, domestic solar hot water will save a household around £50 worth of gas per year. Not a big deal, really.

Not a big deal, really.

Won't happen ransos, Power stations are very expensive to turn up/down. So much so that dynamic demand is becoming more popular.
Consuming less is the absolute key, however edukators points cannot be transferred to commercial buildings.

You could be right on that one, best not waste my time, energy or money on anything then, thanks for the tip.

No problem.

Won't happen ransos, Power stations are very expensive to turn up/down. So much so that dynamic demand is becoming more popular.

It's not me telling you this, it's the national grid. I think they know a thing or two about balancing supply and demand.

My parents had solar hot water and got far more than that even in west coast Scotland.

however edukators points cannot be transferred to commercial buildings.

Why not?

My parents had solar hot water and got far more than that even in west coast Scotland.

The Energy Savings Trust did a long term trial. From their website:

"Solar water heating systems can achieve savings on your energy bills. Based on the results of our recent field trial, typical savings from a well-installed and properly used system are £55 per year when replacing gas heating and £80 per year when replacing electric immersion heating; however, savings will vary from user to user."

When set against the cost of the system, it's absolutely not worth it.

A typical household gets through about [url= http://www.ddmagazine.com/1004-eau-chaude-sanitaire-cout-de-production.html ]£250's worth[/url] of gas just for hot water. The bill will be higher if you use electricity.

My own experience at 43°N is that the solar hot water heater produces 100% fo our hot water for between five and six months, makes a significant contribution for another four and takes the chill off the water for a month either side of the winter solstice. I suggest a saving of between £100 and £200 is more realistic than £50.

Thats the sort of number my parents got in West coast Scotland - a couple of hundred pounds a year

When set against the cost of the system, it's absolutely not worth it.

I've replaced most of ours with LEDs that consume abut a third

Efficiency of LEDs is similar to CFLs, so that seems unlikely unless you've improved the distribution of the light at the same time. I'm replacing our CFLs when they fail (which is usually long before their expected lifetime) as otherwise I would be wasting the embedded energy of production as well as creating unnecessary waste and pollution. If you're replacing them when they still work you're most likely wasting energy, not saving it. I agree that the CFLs are crap as a light source though.

Because washing machines and dishwashers aren't areas for reduction.
PV isn't financially viable and unsuitable for many buildings (aspect, shading, planning etc), biomass is unreliable and still contributes carbon and solar thermal has little application with the exception of DHW (which generally is gas fired) and there is often insufficient heat available here in the UK.
All sounds very anti, but this is my experience. There are better ways to make buildings consume less energy.

Ah - I thought you meant passive heating standards.

there is certainly a huge amount that can be done in commercial buildings. Local CHP is one good one I believe and better control of lighting and heating would help .

😆

Control is the most often neglected TJ, you are absolutely correct.
CHP can be good but must be sized according to heating load (great for swimming pools). Modern buildings are so efficient thermally and densely populated that many still have the chillers running even now, in November!

A typical household gets through about £250's worth of gas just for hot water. The bill will be higher if you use electricity.

The Energy Saving Trust say you're wrong.

As an aside, my last two quarters were a total of £85, and that includes cooking, but the heating was turned off. Family of three.

Show me any system that's worth it when looked at from a purely financial payback point of view.

Insulating my walls and loft. Replacing light bulbs with CFLs.

If someone asks me for advice on energy efficiency, I would never advise them to spend several thousand poinds on a system that will save them less than £100/ year. Maybe that's just me.

What are the un-subsidised costs and payback periods of those, in financial terms?
Let's not forget, it's not just about the money.

wreacker - if they are thermally efficient they wouldn't need chillers!

What are the un-subsidised costs and payback periods of those, in financial terms?
Let's not forget, it's not just about the money.

Irrelevant diversion. You asked me for examples that payback and I gave them to you.

Next!

wreacker - if they are thermally efficient they wouldn't need chillers!

Irrelevant diversion. You asked me for examples that payback and I gave them to you.

Maybe we could have an extra bit tagged on to the end of the weather forecast? "well everyone, its going to be windy tonight, so don't forget to turn your washing machines on when you go to bed"

Why not?

We already set our dishwasher and washing machines to come on during the middle of the night, not because it saves us money, but because we know that all of that important "base load" generation isn't really doing much at that time, so that it is probably better for us all in the long run to try and help run it efficiently.

What annoys me about all the short sighted people who trot out the usual line about wind/renewables being intermittent and that we therefore need all this back up capacity to replace them when it is not windy, is that they conveniently forget that demand isn't constant either.

The smart way to use electricity is to use more of it for non time critical things at times when there is more of it available. No?

Control of passive / solar gain, decent ventilation systems.

Not necessarily TJ. The sensible and latent heat gains from occupation, lighting and equipment are huge and since the fabric U-values are so [s]high[/s] low and there is no natural ventilation due to air tightness, the heat must be mechanically removed. In most cases, the mech vent isn't man enough to do this as it's sized to supply the fresh air and not as the primary heating/cooling source.

We already set our dishwasher and washing machines to come on during the middle of the night, not because it saves us money, but because we know that all of that important "base load" generation isn't really doing much at that time, so that it is probably better for us all in the long run to try and help run it efficiently.

This is dynamic demand as I mentioned earlier. Companies are currently being paid (per kWh switched) to turn their machinery on at low loads so that the power companies don't have to turn the power stations down as it's expensive.

Control of passive / solar gain, decent ventilation systems.

Do you mean high or low for the U-values, wrecker?

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

I am sorry - building a "passive" building that requires air con is summer is missing the point and target by a mile

Well spotted DS. Low!

mcboo said,

If the events in Fukushima did anything they proved that even if you have a reactor that is decades out of date and of questionable safety you can site it right on a major geological faultline and hit it with a massive tsunami.....and it still doesnt do anything like the damage that Greenpeace would lead you to believe.

I just find this attitude unbelievable.

80,000 people have been evacuated from their homes and are unlikely ever to be allowed to return.

What would be your threshold for seeing a problem?

You actually haven't, have you? Anything that is subsidised is going to have an unfair advantage.

You asked for examples of measures that pay back in pure financial terms. And I gave them to you. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.

This is dynamic demand as I mentioned earlier. Companies are currently being paid (per kWh switched) to turn their machinery on at low loads so that the power companies don't have to turn the power stations down as it's expensive.

And we can all do it domestically right now at zero cost.

What's your excuse?

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

I am sorry - building a "passive" building that requires air con is summer is missing the point and target by a mile

Get designing TJ, I've not seen one that the occupier is happy with yet!

So provide some natural ventilation in a size that will do the job? Vents that open when it hot and close to return to the air tightness when cold.

Got the design in my head right now 🙂 YOu able to get it out?

Again of course it needs energy to be much more expensive so people have more of an incentive to save it - possibly a sliding tarrif so the more yo use teh more expensive it gets

First the LED bulbs:

I've got a bathroom mirror that came with 3 x 40w bulbs. I replace with 3 x 9w "economy" which were dimmer so put one 40w back. I then replaced the 40w with a 3w LED and found it to be brighter than both the 40w and 9w economy. Logically there are now 3 x 3w LEDs.

You asked for examples of measures that pay back in pure financial terms. And I gave them to you. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.

I just don't see that financial payback is relevant (unless you don't have the money) - the main thing is that it makes sense in carbon terms.

Most of what we spend our money on isn't financially sensible.

At the time you spend your money on a Rolex you are trading a lot of money for some sort of satisfaction at a rate that you set and that is personal to you. You could just buy a cheap Casio to get the same functionality. Financially it makes no sense. We're currently having some walls internally insulated as part of a refurbishment project and I haven't even bothered to work out the extra financial cost - it probably won't pay back in pure financial terms, but I am sure it will save carbon, and that will make me feel good, which is why I don't mind spending money on it.

which is why I don't mind spending money on it.

My gas consumption for the first year I occupied this house was 602m3, about 800e at current prices including the standing charge. Last year I cut the gas off. There has been an increase in the elecricity bill due to topping up the hot water in winter, say 50e and the wood I burn would be worth about 120e if I had to pay for it. Saving: 630e/year.

So 630e a year saved thanks to all the money invested (pesimistic guesstimates):

Roof insulation 750e
Solar hot water heater (home made) 1100e
Wall insulation 900e so far
secondary double/triple glazing and insulating doors/shutters 400e
Under floor insulation (in progress) 700e
More economical appliances 450e
Wood burner 1000e
Tools (I owned them but the ones you'd need) 750e

Total 6050e. Time to pay for all the investments 6050/630 = Under 10 years. If you DIY it is economically viable.

I haven't included the photovoltaïque which will pay for itself in 6.5 years.

I like making things so I've enjoyed doing it. It's also nice walking across a warm floor barefoot and not having clothes go mouldy in the wardrobe.