Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN

So what about the other countries not deemed responsible?

Is that not a horribly paternalistic idea?

Nuclear releases less radiation on average (even taking into account all the accidents ever recorded)

c
got a source for that? usually when this is claimed its excluding accidents and ignoring waste

What about those countries failing your test – would their populations never have their living standards raised?

It isn’t my test, it should be the UN’s test, in much the same way as they decide who can have Nukes and who can shoot their own populations. We are getting better at technology, we are beginning to yield incredible things, superconductors and carbon nano tubules and all sorts of wild stuff. All this stuff takes loads of energy to develop and nukes seem to be the best option until we can perfect cold fusion or turn the Sahara desert into a vast solar farm.

I don’t see how abandoning one of our best technologies is the best way forwards. Don’t get me wrong, I love renewables as much as the next man and hope we can use the sun like a big battery eventually but until then, nuclear is the best tech we have.

Answer the question.

got a source for that?

the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

Considering there are only relatively few major nuclear incidents, and considering the sheer number of coal power stations there are out there in the world, I would be willing to make a modest bet that I am right but I can’t be arsed to prove it. I shall leave that to you google warriors. 😉

Answer the question.

Calm down you excitable oaf.

Torminalis – and the waste? And the radiation emitted in accidents?

want to answer Druidhs question?

druidh – Member

“If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like “

How would you guarantee that such a country would remain “stable”? What about those countries failing your test – would their populations never have their living standards raised?

How would you guarantee that such a country would remain “stable”?

You can’t. But then that is a calculated risk, we could apply the starbucks rule if you like.

What about those countries failing your test – would their populations never have their living standards raised?

Because we don’t want the North Koreans to have it, we shouldn’t let France either? Don’t be silly.

the waste?

Not getting into that again, hows about soon we can send it up into orbit on our space elevator and send it back to the sun.

And the radiation emitted in accidents?

I think I heard on radio 4 the other day that standing 50 yards from the reactor core at Chernobyl was the equivalent of getting a Chest X ray per year. Measured in nanosieverts. Modern reactors are improving all the time. Don’t panic chaps.

Torminalis – Member
Because we don’t want the North Koreans to have it, we shouldn’t let France either? Don’t be silly.

It’s easy to take two extreme examples, but what about those rather more “grey” areas? Saudi Arabia? We’re friends with them, right? Iraq? They were the good guys too.

Venezuela. used to be a pal of the US – not so much now

It’s easy to take two extreme examples, but what about those rather more “grey” areas? Saudi Arabia? We’re friends with them, right? Iraq? They were the good guys too.

I don’t know old chap, but I am sure the chaps at the UN will think they do.

What about the grey areas? They are deeply nuanced political negotiations to be had over many years, always refining and improving the framework for solving poverty throughout the world by provision of the latest and best technologies. Hopefully it will be as successful as its opposite, the arms trade.

I daresay it is probably a little ambitious for us to think we can wrap it all up before bed.

Venezuela.

Used to be pals with the US until Chavez started trying to keep more of the oil money in Venezuela. Not sure who I trust most between ’em to be fair and what on earth does that have to do with whether we should abandon nuclear tech?

It would appear my work is done here. 😀

A more intelligent debate on the risks of radiation here…

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110406/full/472015a.html

“But the fact that you can’t measure a risk in an epidemiological study doesn’t mean that the risk isn’t there.”

Indeed, Zokes.

I’d love to know what constitutes a ‘”dirty green” house’, T1000.

Torminalis – Member

Venezuela.

Used to be pals with the US until Chavez started trying to keep more of the oil money in Venezuela. Not sure who I trust most between ’em to be fair and what on earth does that have to do with whether we should abandon nuclear tech?

WE are asking you to define which countries deserve nukes and which don’t – ie pointing out a significant flaw in the arguement that nukes can power the world.

TandemJeremy – Member
if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?

Torminalis – Member

“If a country is deemed responsible enough by the UN, they should be allowed to build nuclear power stations wherever they like “

druidh – Member
How would you guarantee that such a country would remain “stable”? What about those countries failing your test – would their populations never have their living standards raised?

druidh – Member (to TJ after TJ asking the question)

Don’t expect to get an answer. The pro-nuclear lobby tend to put their heads in the sand about this one.

Yup – lots of awkward questions with no answers.

I’d love to know what constitutes a ‘”dirty green” house’,

Zokes.

“We feel that those studies don’t have a lot of value,” says Maher. “They may make the public feel better, but they’re not going to see very low-dose effects.”

And its precisely these very low dose effects that concern me – and as edukator pointed out and indeed this agrees low dose effects get lost in the “noise”

And its precisely these very low dose effects that concern me – and as edukator pointed out and indeed this agrees low dose effects get lost in the “noise”

Try not to worry about things that are not statistically significant, particularly when compared to the harm to human health caused by burning fossil fuels for electricity.

How patronising. This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby. How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to “worry about it”?\ There is debate over this but many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.

This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby.

On a point of technicality, if the risk to health is not statistically significant or ‘lost in the noise’ I wouldn’t describe it as “real”. It is conjecture.

It’s all about where we do our worrying. All power generation harms human health in one way or another. If we know that burning fossil fuels kills more of us per MW than nuclear and if we believe that renewables are not yet the complete solution then it makes sense to me to replace some coal with nuclear.

On the geopolitical thing… I agree there are places we shouldn’t have nuclear due to political or geological instability. But then I’ve never thought of nuclear as the one solution for the entire world. It doesn’t follow that because you shouldn’t have one in Burma, we can’t have them in the UK.

many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.

There are studies in Sweden showing a correlation between the decline of the stork population and the birth rate.

So how will Burma generate its electricity then? Fossil fuels?

How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to “worry about it”?

You don’t get it, do you TJ?

If a study shows a correlation that is not statistically significant, then its impossible to prove cause and effect, its entirely possible that the correlation is merely down to chance!

The numbers do vary from place to place for sure and that does lead to confusion. I may have been including some wind in the numbers as it is I am easily confusinged.

FTFY – so not exactly the “hard data” you were claiming.

I cannot find the sources of the 5 GW I have been quoting

Despite telling us to “read the links on the amounts of tidal being proposed”? Well what a surprise.

so thats tenders out / expressions -of interest asked for for 10GW of offshore reneaables

jeez – do you even read what you quote? That’s the document I’ve been referencing for a while in which “marine” includes wind power. All but 1.2GW of what you mention is wind.

What is clear is that tidal generators are being installed in the tens of Mw

Given a new nuke is 1.6GW, tens of MW isn’t really all that significant.

Why do you need to discount tidal by 50%?

Do you really need this explaining to you? The tide doesn’t flow continuously, and numbers being quoted are doubtless peak.

can I discount nukes by big % as that is what the historical record shows?

Oh goody, lets argue this one again with TJ talking a load of rubbish. Can I just stop you right there by saying “Sizewell B”?

Anyway – this continues to go around in circles fairly pointlessly.

You mean with one side quoting referenced facts based on proper science, and the other side mentioning numbers they can’t later find a reference for?

further back aracer stated stated 25 gw as the Scottish consumption

26GW actually – I even provided the link at the time I mentioned it (maybe a habit you should try). Here it is again. I can only assume you don’t even bother reading the stuff you put up as references on the rare occasions you do, given it was originally one of yours 🙄

AS I have repeatedly said this in the end its a faith argument

Only if you’re relying on something other than the hard data on which to make your judgements. For me it’s a question of proper scientific assessment of the information available, not faith.

if the answer is nukes for the UK how about worldwide? Do you want hundreds of times the number of reactors that we currently have and have them installed in places of political or geological instability?

So now you’re using the same argument you’ve complained about others using. Can I just check are you a pot or kettle (I’ll point out that I’m neither, given you only ever accuse me because you’ve not read what I’ve written)? Clearly nuclear is only part of the mix of worldwide energy generation. A part which will help to stop the lights going out in the UK. Just because it’s a sensible solution for us doesn’t mean it is for other countries, and suggesting that we shouldn’t have nuclear power because some other countries don’t is quite ridiculous. I can’t believe others have even attempted to argue with this strawman of yours.

Falls of lora is one hell of a tidal rip

It might well be, but high water speed != potential for lots of energy generation. In any case are you proposing more environmental destruction?

So how will Burma generate its electricity then? Fossil fuels?

That’s Burma’s problem. Maybe they have a lot of wood? Maybe they have a lot if rainfall and mountains? Maybe they could burn human rights activists? Maybe they will have to burn coal or oil. I just don’t know.

It’s not relevant to the argument that I think I’m having which is that the UK should:
1) get rid of as many fossil-fuel power plants as possible as quickly as possible
2) reduce consumption as much as practicable
3) generate as much power as feasible from renewables
4) fill the gap with nuclear

If we get through points (1-3) without needing (4) I’d be happy. In fact I’d do a little skip of joy.

Good science includes the philosophy of doubt, accepting that the current best fit hypothesis is there to be challenged and a recognition of the limits of statistical techniques.

If oil companies required the level of proof the nuclear industry requires to show a link between cancer and low doses of radiation before drilling they’d never drill. Holes costing millions are drilled because a geologist using his experience and some scruffy seismic log data has a hunch and is prepared to stick his neck out. Sometimes the hole is dry but more often it comes up trumps. Science isn’t always exact but that doesn’t make it unscientific.

How patronising. This is a real risk to health that is ignored by the pro nuclear lobby. How many extra childhood cancers does it have to be before its acceptable to “worry about it”?\ There is debate over this but many studies show a correlation between nuclear power stations and increased childhood cancer.

TJ, I posted the nature article up there because it does a much better job of arguing both sides of the story than you or I have. I accept that it is clear that more research is needed, but if you are worried about long-term low-level radiation doses, then the nuclear industry ironically isn’t the one you should be targeting. Instead, I’d take a long, hard look at coal (gaseous emissions that we all breathe) and PV (low-level radioactive waste from the refining of the REEs in the panels) in particular.

That’s just radiation however. In all this, your argument seems to be that the very low risk of full-scale nuclear catastrophe, and other radiation emissions from nuclear power trumps all else, and that this is why no more should be built. My proposition throughout this is that if we’re looking at environmental, ecological, and human costs associated with energy generation, you need to take a much more holistic, objective view as to the real damage caused by other sources of energy. An informed decision can then be made taking into account all these facts. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen whilst educated ‘experts’ go around screaming “OMG nuclear we’ll all die!!!!”

Personally, I think Edukator just hit the nail on the head:

If oil companies required the level of proof the nuclear industry requires to show a link between cancer and low doses of radiation before drilling they’d never drill.

My personal viewpoint is that whilst current nuclear fission technologies are less than ideal, they are considerably less risky to the environment on a global scale than burning coal, even in reduced quantities. This is an educated viewpoint, based on my own consumption of the scientific literature, and is shared by many others. Given that there has been little R&D in nuclear following Chernobyl until recently, it is hardly surprising that the newest technology available hasn’t advanced much in the last 20 years is it? However, thanks to decoupling from the military angle, thorium cycle reactors look to be a good way forwards. Assuming this decoupling can last, your statements about not enough uranium become a moot point, as reprocessing negates quite a lot of this.

I also take higgo’s preferences, however, I cannot conceive how we will reduce our energy demands enough so that we don’t need (4).

Interesting article on Fukushima Iodine-131..

Monitoring for radioactive iodine believed to be linked to the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has been stepped up in Scotland.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency said very low levels of iodine-131 had been detected in almost all its air samples from across the country.

…….

The agency has found the presence of iodine-131 in sewage sludge in Glasgow.

Sepa said that this could be linked to a combination of the isotope in rainfall together with authorised releases from hospitals.So, we’re already accepting a degree of radiological contamination for medial purposes.

Good science includes the philosophy of doubt, accepting that the current best fit hypothesis is there to be challenged and a recognition of the limits of statistical techniques.

Would that apply to anthropogenic climate change too? Does the scientific consensus mean nothing?

Druidh – I’ve certainly conducted lab studies where urine and faeces contaminated with I-131 was cleared for disposal into normal sewage… so, its clearly out there, just that it doesn’t last long

Would that apply to anthropogenic climate change too?

Yes

Does the scientific consensus mean nothing?

No

{edukator]

I’d love to know what constitutes a ‘”dirty green” house’, T1000

I like Zulu-Eleven’s description myself

where do I start…… all the houses / buildings with some PV / Solar thermal / wind tubines Slap’d on the roof etc…. where they’ve not fixed everything else 1st…. clearly in most cases they havn’t

nothing sader than a badly insulated building with a ‘environmental garnish’ so often it’s the oohh look at me I’ve gone green brigade……

lets not start on petrol hybrid’s shall we….

such a waste of public subsidies… far better to fix the properties with the existing building stock 1st….. then look at neighbour hood/ district solutions than bolting short lift toy’s on to buildings….which are wasteful in terms of asset life and maintenance costs……

In terms of climate change the hypothesis hasn’t changed in decades j-me. Space probes gave us an insight into the atmopheres of other planets and how they influenced climate. Some gases were found to have disproportionate influence on the energy regime within the atmophere, the so-called greenhouse gases, which in the case of Venus explain an extremely high energy atmosphere. That knowledge was applied to how the Earth’s climate reflected atmopheric composition and by the 80s the role of CO2 in climatic variations demonstrated. The hypothesis that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to a higher atmospheric energy regime still stands as best fit.

lets not start on petrol hybrid’s shall we….

Go ahead, if you’ve got actual proper evidence.

So from where I’m sitting:

going upwards: 1cm plaster, 100mm rockwool, 21mm pine, 1cm plaster, 200mm fibreglass, 85mm fibreglass, tiles or PV panels.

going outwards: 21mm pine, air gap, plaster, 2 x air brick wall, rendering.

going down: 29mm pine and 30cm air gap. The project for this year is to insulate between the floor beams in the kitchen.

Openings are at least double glazed, mostly with well sealed shutters at night, or when the room isn’t being used and doesn’t have sun on it. I’ll start triple glazing sometime soon.

I know several people with PV roofs and the PV was the final touch having gone through all of the energy saving measures first. The energy advisor I went to see in 2005 set out the priorities as: 1/ Insulate 2/fit a wood burner, heat pump or condensing boiler. 3/ solar water heater 4/ PV. I followed his advice.

Dirty green house?

Dirty green house?

Clearly not, however some are.

going outwards: 21mm pine

You have pine clad interior walls? 😯

Yup, every external wall is pine clad, wood is a good insulator and stocks carbon. It’s fairly cheap to do as nicely finished 21mm floor boarding only costs about 8e/m2 down here in SW France. As Fotopic is bust I’ll have to set up a Flikr account and post some pics. The floor and most of the furniture is pine too so the overall impression is of living in a pine box. Not ot everybody’s taste but my wife likes it.

Yup, every external wall is pine clad, wood is a good insulator and stocks carbon

It also looks awful 🙂