Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

I ain’t looked at them all. Longgannet has has issues on a similar level IIRC,

However it gives lie to the pro nuke folks denial of nuclear poor reliability

size B is the best of our reactors… shutdown for months in 2008

No it wasn’t.

The rest of our reactors admittedly old

Hence not really a good basis on which to determine likely performance of future ones – even SB isn’t exactly that modern.

However it gives lie to the pro nuke folks denial of nuclear poor reliability

Not if you refuse to compare the reliability with the reliability of other power stations it doesn’t. Given nothing is perfect we’re just after the best reliability, and (modern) nuclear still does better than anything else.

Though of course we’ve done all this before – even back before the major shutdown last year when SB’s record was almost spotless you were already doing the “nuclear is unreliable” line, presumably in the hope if you said it often enough it might come true?

It is true tho – simply look at the record. 🙄 Sizewells Bs record almost spotless? Pull the other one

You keep saying they are reliable – in the face of the history which shows they are not. If you keep saying it often enough do you think it will become true?

In the light of most of our electricity being in the hands of EdF, what’s the record of nuclear in France? They generate something like 70% of their electricity via nukes, don’t they? And I certainly haven’t heard of any major problems there. There again, they respect engineers.

in the face of the history which shows they are not

Until someone shows me a list of down-time of ALL power stations of a similar age regardless of fuel then we can’t say if nuclear is reliable or not. Yes, we understand that there has been downtime.

To make it absolutely clear – I am listening and understanding what you say, but I do not feel that you have supplied sufficient information to conclude your argument in this area. I am asking for this information, not ignoring your argument.

As an aside – anyone know how much fuel a nuke requires on a yearly basis? A coal power station relies on a supply train – mining, transport, shipping etc. How many tons of fuel per year do nukes consume and from where does it come?

In 2008 Sizewell had a planned refueling shutdown (completed ahead of plan) and a 1 day outage that was nothing to do with the nuclear side of things (I think it was power transmission but I could be wrong). The four day outage in Feb this year was due to a low oil level in a pump, something that could happen in any technology using pumps.

The 2010 outage was unplanned and lasted about 4 months, mostly because the problem could not be fixed using existing approaches so a number of new techniques had to be developed. The event was rated zero on the INES safety scale, with no safety significance.

In itself though, one major unplanned outage is not enough to declare that “nuclear is unreliable”. All power generation has unplanned outages so without comparing actual/planned over operational lifespan for all technologies it’s a meaningless statement.

I really am not anti-renewables – these are provided for balance:

http://www.highvoltagesolution.com/docs/HVSJune06windfarm.pdf

http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/power-outage-cold-causes-portsmouth-wind-turbine-to-stop-spinning

http://ws9.iee.usp.br/SipdaXI/papersX/palestras/yokoyama.pdf

I’m sure there’s plenty of evidence of unreliability in gas and coal too. I suspect tidal is too new to have meaningful history but anything with moving parts is going to have failure.

I really am not anti-renewables – these are provided for balance:

I wouldn’t bother, where the word ‘nuclear’ is concerned, there is no balance for TJ.

I do wonder what his views of nuclear technology would be if he ever needs any medical attention in the form of nuclear medicine. Thanks to moronic views such as his, the medical terminology for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (nothing to do with radioactivity) is known as MRI – Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Quite how anyone intelligent can be scared of a word, but there you go.

In fact, ironically enough, a lot of climate science is based on either chasing ‘bomb carbon’ about the place, or short-term 14-C tracer studies. The former wouldn’t have been possible without nuclear weapons testing, and the latter require a nuclear reactor to make the 14-C.

Thank you for calling me moronic. I think the same of your views in your slavish devotion to nukes despite all the evidence and your dismissal of renewables / energy efficiency despite all the evidence.

Its really simple – nukes cannot be a part of the solution. They cannot be on stream quickly enough, they cannot do anything meaningful on a world scale. The history of nukes shows how unreliable they are.

I have no issue with research reactors. Its just the case for new power stations based on current designs does simply not add up.

Sizewells Bs record almost spotless? Pull the other one

Go on then – if you think it’s not, you provide a list of the unplanned outages. Just to save you wasting your time, it didn’t have a single one for the 3 years before 2008, so you’ll need to look further back than 2005.

You keep saying they are reliable – in the face of the history which shows they are not

The history of 1950s design reactors I presume, as that’s what you normally like to use to back up your assertion that any 21st century nuclear power stations will be unreliable? Are you completely incapable of accepting that of those power stations in this country SB is far more representative of any new builds (though still a couple of generations behind), hence it’s far more realistic to look at the reliability of that? It would be equally valid for me to suggest that wind power is completely incapable of generating electricity at all, given it didn’t for the first several thousand years of use – as opposed to you using the example of reactors designed less than a decade into the use of nuclear power.

If SB is unreliable, then so is every other method of electricity generation – only more so. Yet you consistently refuse to compare reliability of other electricity generation methods. In fact whilst you have some valid points in other areas, given your complete refusal to consider the facts properly on this aspect, your opinions are totally worthless.

Or are you just trolling, given how ridiculous it is suggesting something with >90% availability is unreliable when advocating wind power?

The history of nukes shows how unreliable they are I haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about

FTFY

You’re doing it again TJ, reiterating your original stance instead of progressing the discussion…

Pot kettle black. Zokes and Aracer keep doing the same. its the limitation of these debates and why they are useless.

No, zokes and aracer are trying to add more to the conversation. You’re just repeating yourself with more and more vitriol (which is totally unnecessary and brings the tone down).

You simply cannot say nuclear is unreliable without comparing it to coal or gas. How can you?

Thank you for calling me moronic

I did not call you moronic, I said that blinkered views such as those you and others appear to portray about the word ‘nuclear’ are.

You can choose to be insulted if you like – I’ll assume the cap fits in that case.

You then spout a load of ‘bullshine’, backing up my assertion that some of your views are certainly unfounded and totally biased to the point of being totally irrational – probably verging on moronic in an objective person’s eyes.

You appear to think the cap fits. You then back this up. Looks like you’d better wear it…

For example – on a world wide scale nuclear only meets a very small % of demand. For nukes to a part of the solution we would need thousands more plants. We do not have the fuel for them to say nothing of the need to build in places of political and geological instability.

On a UK scale we need new generating capacity more quickly than new nukes can be online.

By going for a few huge powers stations rather than lots of smaller ones we compromise our energy security considering the poor reliability record of nuclear plants – which is there and I simply do not believe the nuclear lobby given their record of lying,misleading and obfuscation

There is still no answer to the issues of waste and decommissioning. a toxic legacy for thousands of years

And with that I bow out of this completely. Its just a complete waste of energy as everyone is simply repeating entrenched positions and no one is listening or wants to hear anything that does not fit in with their position.

We do not have the fuel for them to say nothing of the need to build in places of political and geological instability

Numbers please.

On a UK scale we need new generating capacity more quickly than new nukes can be online.

Numbers please

poor reliability record of nuclear plants

Numbers please.

and no one is listening or wants to hear anything

Just asked you three questions.

. Zokes and Aracer keep doing the same

No we do not, the discussion progresses significantly whilst you don’t post. You then reiterate your ‘bullshine’ with very little link to actual reality, and drag us back into it.

On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK’s ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.

At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.

And with that I bow out of this completely

TFFT!

Usine marémotrice de la Rance

The Rance (aptly named) tidal scheme has been running for years. As a water scientist I can’t be overly enthusiastic about widespread adoption of such schemes but if you aren’t worried about water quality, fishery status, wildlife habitat and so on they are certainly econmically viable.

In the right place then by all means but the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way.

D !

Oh go on then – I can’t resist

On about three threads on nuclear power in the past three years I have posted load factor stats for the UK’s ageing fleet of reactors, yet every time there is a new thread, you ignore this cold hard data and reiterate some moronic propaganda with little, if any, factual basis.

Yup – the data that shows how unreliable they are 🙄 Load factor way way down. ten reactors. One running at 100% for part of the year. others at 70% because of major cracks in the cores. Others running well below capacity or shut down. How much electricity has HUnterston produced in the last few years?

At no point has anyone here suggested that nuclear power should replace renewables. You are having an argument effectively with yourself.

Yes you are. Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables

“I can’t resist”

This is your #1 problem and why you have a reputation on here.

Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone’s understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?! Do you mistakenly believe you could be right about “everything”, without even a cursory check?

Experts on here, with proper knowledge and experience, who are not random tandem cyclists, disagree with you on this. Challenge them yes, but why don’t you trust them?

Because I have nothing further to add at this juncture, I’m just watching from now on. Let’s hope the lads Fukushima have some luck.

and I simply do not believe the nuclear lobby given their record of lying,misleading and obfuscation

TJ- Have a read of Monbiot’s column in the Guardian today.
He points out that the anti-nuclear lobby is doing exactly that by exaggerating the risks of nuclear, overstating the capabilities of renewables.

A 1000 incidents in French nuclear plants last year of which three level 2.

As a commentator on Europe 1 noted. If we are recording this number of incidents in relatively modern reactors built to a quality rather than a cost it is quite astonishing that other countries report much lower numbers of incidents.

As for overstating the capability of renewables Monbiot should take a trip across Spain to see how few of the potential sites are needed to make a very significant contribution to total energy demand.

Edit: the numbers Monbiot quotes are by his own admission conservative. He then massages them to support his arguement. It’s very much a case of lies, damned lies and fudged numbers which take no account of what other countries are already achieving – with an enormous potential still remaining. He doesn’t even consider the impact of micro generation. Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in the country and you cut demand dramatically.

Insulate every building, legislate electric resistance heaters out of existance, favour heat pumps, fix consumption limits for appliances and Monbiot’s objections disappear.

Put a solar water heater and a 3kW solar instalation on every south, east or west facing roof in the country Spain or the South of France and you cut demand dramatically in those areas

FTFY

We’ll see what the production is from TJ’s parent’s panels. There aren’t many worse locations.

Yup – the data that shows how unreliable they are

You’re still claiming that? I thought you’d given up.

What does it tell you about SB? You explain to me how the reliability of far older power stations than SB is more relevant to the reliability of any future build nuclear power stations than the reliability of SB and we might have something to discuss. Here’s some data for you to help you out:

Nuclear fission: 1938
Pile-1: 1942
EBR-I (first electricity generation): 1951
Obninsk supplies electricity to the grid: 1954
Calder Hall is first commercial nuclear power station: 1956
Hunterston B began construction: 1968
Sizewell B began construction: 1987

Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Hunterston B starting construction: 12
Years between first commercial nuclear power station starting production and Sizewell B starting construction: 31

Reneawables and energy efficiency means no need for nukes. None. The few % of UK energy needs supplied by nukes could easily be covered by efficiency and reneewsables

OK, so answer me the question nobody has yet managed – where does our electricity come from when it’s not windy in December (or October, November, January, February and March)? Are you really totally sure that we’ll be able to cover all of our electricity needs with tidal – even with energy efficiency – something which isn’t at all proven on a large scale?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

the Severn Estuary project never did go ahead despite the tidal range being huge. It was economically viable but a host of other considerations got in the way

Thank God for that. We didn’t decide to destroy a natural ecosystem and a unique (to the UK) natural phenomenon for the sake of making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.

AFAIK it’s not a tiny dent tho is it? It would do something ridiculous like power the south west…?

I could be wrong – though I’m fairly sure it’s not as much as you’re suggesting. Definitely not worth it anyway IMHO.

Wiki suggests 5% of the UK’s total for a 10 mile barrage.

Interesting article actually – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage#Power_generation_potential

Suggests lots of alternatives to a barrage, including turbines on the sea bed that could generate 13TWh/year

The Severn projects I was privy to in the 80s were good for a least 10% of UK power needs with the most ambitious being well over that. Google it, something must have made it onto the Web.

Wiki quotes 5 or 6% for the 80s projects.

There are less environmentally degrading options afloat now.

buzz-lightyear – Member
Your seem not to grasp the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone’s understanding. You have been shown stridently asserting incorrect facts in support of your opinion. How fake is that?

Yes its my opinion based on facts. what that I have been shown to be wrong – reliability – a matter of opinion. I ask again. How much electricity has hunters ton produced recently?

aracer – Member

……………..

making a tiny dent in our energy needs and a tiny reduction in worldwide carbon emissions.

Renewables – each turbine in the islay array is a megawatt. ten are going in as a trial this year. Proven technology reliable and robust. Feasible non barrage potential for tidal generation just in Scotland is 30 gw or 3 sizewell bs.

!0 new nuclear power stations have been mooted as needed. Well thats 3 we don’t need of the ten just on tidal. Tehn add in solar for water and heat, add in a bit more wind, wave, go for local CHP in cities for massive efficiency improvements, go for massive energy conservation measures etc etc.

You say

the purpose of dialogue is to share, challenge, and explore knowledge. But your remarks are not advancing anyone’s understanding.

to me.

well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago. Aracer seems to think tho that you need a destructive barrage and that its an insignificant amount of energy still.

As I said earlier – people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts. it all becomes about asserting your own point of view and refusing to hear and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices.

well I explained and gave links to this info pages ago.

The issue often is that your links raise further questions. You seem to think that as soon as you link to something then that makes it an irrefutable fact. Well sources can be debated also.

As I said earlier – people ( including myself) are not listening after a few posts.

It’s ONLY the threads where you get involved that end up like this!

and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices

Don’t call me prejudiced you arrogant fkwit! I take part in these debates to LEARN, you seem to only care about WINNING. I do not pretend to be a world authority and I want to listen to those who know more than me.

You never do, I suspect you believe that no-one knows more than you. It’s certainly how you act.

*bangs head on wall*

Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.

No one disputed the links or info – after all its hard info from the government.

I do not pretend to be a world authority. 🙄 I merely can read the articles and make my own mind up.

earlier Buzz told me to respect the experts on here – all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links.

Pentland firth tidal scheme – 4 GW

Am I getting my megawatties confused? 30 GW is the total tidal resource that is practical to extract. thats 30 sizewell Bs is it not?

everywhere I look for the numbers they vary. Not suprising as they are estimates. It certainly many GW of tidal available play wave and wind.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4546182.ece

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/15

https://ktn.innovateuk.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=16754ac3-5095-477e-abf8-ab802975e710&groupId=57143

Its not only the threads I get involved in -= it happens all the time.

We’ve had lots of nice pleasant debates without you. It really is JUST YOU that does this.

after all its hard info from the government.

Lolz at that for a start!

all of who totally dismiss renewable despite good data and links

No they bloody well don’t! They are saying that there are issues with it. Everyone knows that.