Home › Forums › Chat Forum › Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?
- This topic has 1,149 replies, 106 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by j_me.
-
Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?
-
mjbFull Member
If we can’t have nuclear is it OK to build loads of new gas fired power stations now that we’ve worked out how to get more gas out of the ground?
T1000Free MemberDirty green house?
Clearly not, however some are.
as laudable as your efforts to do the right thing….
from where I’m sitting most are…..and those that try hard are only papering over the cracks…
hmmm woodburner….. regulate large combustion plant emmissions then allow joe public to pump out all those lovely particulates…..
Hmm heat pumps…..where does all that lovely electricty come from… nice if you can genrate enough via pv…….
domestic condensing boilers….. short life high maintenance…..
to do all these things properly don’t use the energy in the 1st place….. if your serious about low carbon and using these technologies then you need to use a local distric system and generate your pv locally whithout shunting it back into the grid….. just bolting loads of small installations onto building means that society has higher maintenance cost and the installations have uneccessarily short replacement cycles…
these technologies have merit but only if properly evaluated…
j_meFree MemberEdukator – In terms of climate change the hypothesis hasn’t changed in decades
I’m well aware of that….but in your own words “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”. So the answer to Zulu-11s question is Yes. There is still some level of doubt, no matter how small, and we must accept that (however unlikely) someone may come up with evidence that disproves this.
EdukatorFree MemberT1000.
Micro PV installations have a similar life expectancy to large ones and require no more maintenance. Solar world guarantee the output of their panels for 25 years. Micro production cuts infrastructure demand and transmission losses. The ideal way of distributing the power they produce is through the grid which helps balance local variations in production due to clouds (or wind gusts in the case of wind turbines). Feeding into the grid also means that excess production can be stored in pump storage schemes (if avaibable)
Household wood burners are much more efficient and cleaner than large-scale commercail ones as householders generally respect long periods of drying before burning. The Jötul I have is somewhere between 75 and 80% efficient on fully dried wood given the length of flue pipe used. Green-wood commercial plants struggle to reach 35% (France Culture radio report on Metz which covered collective heating schemes and a green-wood power station). Drying wood on the required scale is a logistical headache yet to be solved.
In my case all the wood comes from local gardens. If I didn’t burn it the small stuff would be composted and the bigger stuff burned in the local incinerator (which does produce electricity).
T1000Free Memberedukator…..noooo you plainly don’t know anything about anything other than mickey mouse scale installations or about infrastructure….25yrs is no time doh….. waste of time trying to educate you…….
so amusing that you believe the advertisements……
EdukatorFree MemberThey’ll probably last longer than 25 years but that’s how long the output is guaranteed for. PV panels have been around long enough to know how long they last and how the production tails off.
Solar hot water heaters are just plumbing and in the case of the one I’ve made requires no pumps, sensors or electrics of any kind. It therosyphons as soon as the water in the panel is warmer than the water in the primary tank. Hot enough for a shower now. Hot enough for the washing machine in December when it aminly serves as a preheater cutting electricity demand by a third even in the worst month.
Remind me of the design life of a nuclear plant, how often it needs to be refueled and how long the waste needs to be kept under controlled conditions for.
EdukatorFree MemberAs for me knowing nothing about infrastructure, anyone that does know anything about infrastructure will read my posts and know I’m right.
I repeat: micro PV generation(or any other micro production close to the point of consumption) cuts transmission losses and reduces infrastructure needs. If you disagree with this statement then provide resoned arguements against it. I’m am totally confident of being able to back up my assertions with logic, maths and physics.
TandemJeremyFree Memberfurther 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
Ah – another shift of the goalposts. 26 GW is the total energy consumption not just the electricity.
“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.
Doubtless peak? Assumption? tidal flows are for much much more than half the day especially in the pentland firth.
aracer – 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?
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.
so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn’t it.
You cannot have this both ways – either nukes are essential to prevent global warming and thus everyone must have them or they are not needed so no one needs them.
Its a global issue remember.
T1000Free Memberedukator clearly you do not
theres an old saying those that can’t teach those that can do…..
your replacing large scale long life infrastructure with short life systems 25yrs is nothing…. which require diversities of 800 % over large scale infrastructure…
oh + learn to read I comented that strapping toy’s on individual houses isn’t the answer for society ….. a far better way of using is in local district system…….
whilst you’ve been making laudable attempts on sorting out your own footprint, I’ve been doing this in the real world for the past 30 yrs…..
EdukatorFree MemberGo on then, post up your credentials and dazzle us all, T1000. Persoanlly I’d rather rely on the strength of my arguments than the strength of my CV.
A quick Google reveals 60 years as the highest projected life of a nuclear reactor after which it needs decommissioning. Solar panels will last beoyond 25 years and faultly panels are easily swapped out in a few hours. Hydro reservoirs silt up which isn’t great but wind turbines and tidal turbines can provide power reliably for long periods with maintenance and replacement of individual units having little impact on total production. Nuclear stations require shut down for maintenance.
I’ve already gone into intelligent meters and tarifs to spread demand. The worst month’s PV production was December with 120kWh and the best last April with 394kWh. You work it out.
You might be interested in the savings made by progressively improving the insulation of a house. Consumption of gas with a thermostat set at 18°C in the evening:
02 602m3 house with basic roof insulation and double glazing
03 468m3 properly insulated roof.
04 503m3
05 514m3
06 490m3
07 359m3 first rooms lined with wood
08 326m3 more insulation of shutters and windows
09 270m3 more wood and a double back door
10 236m3 yet more woodAt that point I cut off the gas and installed a wood burner. Electricity consumption has been between 1235kWh and 2385kWh so no, we haven’t replaced gas consumption with electricity consumption.
It really is easy for households to cut consumption as I’ve proved. And it’s cost effective so long as you do the work yourself. The total cost of the insulating work has been no more than 2500e. The saving in gas was worth about 400e a year before I changed to wood.
molgripsFree Membertheres an old saying those that can’t teach those that can do…..
Yep, and it’s a stupid saying made up by those who want to discredit the teaching profession. Perhaps because they feel threatened, I dunno.
aracerFree MemberDoubtless peak? Assumption? tidal flows are for much much more than half the day especially in the pentland firth.
How else would you measure the output other than peak? Do you think the numbers quoted for windmills are what they produce on average, or when they’re operating at their best? Should the quoted output of conventional power stations be reduced due to the time they’re down for maintenance? We’re talking a power output here, not the energy per year, anything other than the peak involves some sort of fudge factor. Whilst the tide is flowing for the majority of the time in the Firth, it’s not flowing at full speed for the majority of the time – it varies between slack and full on, with the average power available being approximately half the peak.
so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn’t it.
You cannot have this both ways – either nukes are essential to prevent global warming and thus everyone must have them or they are not needed so no one needs them.
Its a global issue remember.
Ah – I see what you’re saying. So because England has no geothermal Iceland shouldn’t bother. Because Iceland has no PV, Spain shouldn’t bother with that. Because Saudi has no hydro, Norway shouldn’t waste its time. Because Switzerland has no tidal, why on earth are you installing it in Scotland? In fact, given all the new coal fired power stations China is building, what a waste it is anybody installing renewables. Thanks for clearing that one up for us, TJ.higgoFree MemberTJ said…
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?Aracer said…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.
TJ said… so no answer to this then. You argue nukes are absolutely essential to prevent gloabl warming but still you are going to deny other countries the alleged benefits. Makes it a bit pointless doesn’t it.
(hopefully I’ve got the ‘who said what’ right)
Let me try and simplify this for you TJ. Nobody’s said that nuclear is the complete solution for the whole world. Far from it. Nuclear is part of the solution and helpful. If new nuclear means we can close one coal-fired station, good. If we can close ten, great and if we can close a hundred, that’s flipping fantastic.
I can get a train to London but I can’t get a train to work. That doesn’t make trains “pointless”
So there (again) is an answer to the question that you say nobody will answer.
EdukatorFree MemberMy wife teaches. Before that she was a successful business woman. I taught. Before that I did lots of things. It’s a job with its advantages and disadvantages, if you’re good at it it’s a great way to make a living. I doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife.
The original was “those that can do, those that can’t teach”. Anyone that’s done a PGCE will add “those that can’t teach, teach teachers”.
aracerFree MemberI doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife
As a teacher? 😯 What does she teach? Why do you bother going to work if she earns so much?
TandemJeremyFree MemberDruidh was right. None of the pro nukes people will provide an answer to that question.
Lots of obfuscation and beating around the bush but no answer.
Aracer – Higgo – it has been said by the pro nukes on here nuclear is essential. to stop the lights going out an to stop global warming.
However it is only essential for the UK and other chosen countries – its not only not essential its not allowed for unfriendly countries.
No parallel with teh various case you make out.
Now try again. if it is essential / imperative for us to have new nukes why does this not apply to all countries?
iDaveFree MemberMy wife teaches…… I doubt anyone on this forum earns more per hour than my wife.
There goes your credibility….
higgoFree MemberDruidh was right. None of the pro nukes people will provide an answer to that question.
You really do confuse me. What is the unanswerable question?
edit: can you phrase is so it only requires a yes/no answer? If you can, I will answer it for you.
TandemJeremyFree Memberif 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?
If you claim as people have done on this thread that it is essential for the UK to have nukes – not desirable but essential then explain why its not essential for Iran.
Edit
Yes / no answer. – difficult as it requires a rationale.maybe in a few parts.
Is it essential for the UK to have new nukes?
If it is essential for the UK is it essential for Iran and other similar counties(can’t be done in yes/ no)
If you answer yes to the first ( as people have claimed on this thread) and no to the second what is the fundamental difference?
aracerFree MemberNo parallel with teh various case you make out.
I just knew you’d say that. But it’s actually exactly the same argument.
In order to clarify exactly the question you want answering, I’m going to have to ask you a question – you think it would be OK for us to have nuclear power if all countries around the world had nuclear power?
TandemJeremyFree Memberaraer – it is not the same argument as I don’t claim it is essential to have those other things Thats the key. You have claimed it is esential that the UK has nukes. Essential. Imperative.
Geothermal is not essential, hydro is not esential – they are desirable
you claimed that nukes were essential in the UK but not in other countries.
BTW there is geothermal potential in England.
rightplacerighttimeFree MemberGiven a new nuke is 1.6GW, tens of MW isn’t really all that significant.
I think that regardless of scale EROEI is something we should always be thinking about.
Just looking for info on EROEI of nuclear (other than figures produced by the nuclear industry) and came across this.
Have to say it’s good to see that there are people out there discussing these things (both sides of the argument) who actually seem to know what they are talking about.
It’s hard to follow, but interesting, and the discussion in the comments even more so.
molgripsFree MemberSurely Iceland doens’t need nukes, nor do many Middle Eastern/North African countries?
aracerFree MemberTJ wriggled about a bit and came out with:
You have claimed it is esential that the UK has nukes. Essential. Imperative
Quote me.
I very much doubt I’ve said nuclear is any more essential than you’ve said tidal is essential. Something new is essential to stop the light going out. Nuclear is the best solution from those available. Essential, no, we could build more fossil fuel powered stuff instead I suppose – I don’t suppose the world would end if we did.
Geothermal is not essential, hydro is not esential – they are desirable
Anybody chip in for some tickets so TJ can pop over to Iceland and Norway and argue against their power sources?
TandemJeremyFree MemberOn a different tangent I said I would ask my folks about their PVs and see what they get fronm them
The only data my dad had to hand was in the form of monetary value.
Over the Autumn they got about £40 a month worth of electricity from the panels, over the winter around £20 a month ( and there was snow on the panels for weeks)
Expecting to get £60 a month over summer.
Thats on a roof in suburban Glasgow.
I don’t know what the KWhr that translates into – about 20p a Kwhr? – so its what – a few KWhr a day? Have I worked that out right?
Not covering all their electricity consumption but in summer will be nearly enough. I think
molgripsFree MemberThat would cover our consumption.
How much did it cost them to install?
Zulu-ElevenFree MemberThats Great TJ – **** knows what difference their PV cells are going to make when they want to boil a kettle when its dark outside mind 😉
EdukatorFree MemberI don’t go to work, Aracer, I haven’t for nine years, though official retirement age is still a long way off.
Whilst I’m not going to demand the closure of existing nuclear power stations before time I am convinced we won’t need as many as we have now if we commit to energy saving and renewable sources.
There were two reasons I wanted to cut off the gas. 1/ less greenhouse gas emissions. 2/ I’d rather my country didn’t have to sell its vinyards to pay to keep me warm in winter.
I’d rather not consume nuclear electricity. 1/ the real cost is high and we leave a legacy of waste for future generations. 2/ accidents are messy resulting in human suffering beyond what the industry will admit and tracts of land written off for long periods. 3/ renewable alternatives are viable and adequate if only we shift the emphasis from producing more to consuming less.
higgoFree MemberIs it essential for the UK to have new nukes?
No. It is desirable so we can stop burning coal/gas.
If it is essential for the UK is it essential for Iran and other similar counties
I imagine Iran gets a lot more sunlight/person than the UK.
Local solutions for local problems (where the problem is providing power for the populace)
TandemJeremyFree MemberMolgrips – about £9000 IIRC but some grant available – I don’t know the details
Unlikely to pay back the cost of them at current ellecy prices but the grant makes it worthwhile for the housholder
TandemJeremyFree MemberHiggo – so nukes are not essential to stop the lights going out in the UK and to prevent global warming? So actually they are a choice not an imperative.
global warming is a global problem
EdukatorFree MemberAs I have it to hand here is my PV production for the last year at 43°N/ Our highest consumption is about 240kWh a month in December with 2200kWh consumed last year (you can add a bit for what we consumed when on holiday which was quite often).
306 kWh March 2011
199
129
120 Dec 2010
138
280
324
320
373
356
394 Avril 2010
312aracerFree MemberWhilst I’m not going to demand the closure of existing nuclear power stations before time I am convinced we won’t need as many as we have now if we commit to energy saving and renewable sources
Not an unreasonable standpoint in France where you currently get 75% (?) of your leccy from nuclear. I note you’re not suggesting you won’t need any!
Meanwhile here in the UK we’re looking for something to replace aging nuclear and conventional plants, not to rival France for proportion of nuclear.
aracerFree MemberAs I have it to hand here is my PV production for the last year
I thought you suggested you were only in deficit in December, or was your consumption in November/January far less than December?
higgoFree MemberHiggo – so nukes are not essential to stop the lights going out in the UK and to prevent global warming? So actually they are a choice not an imperative.
They’re not essential to keep the lights on. We could burn more coal instead but that wouldn’t help with climate change problems.
global warming is a global problem
Correct but it doesn’t follow that there will be one global solution, nuclear or otherwise.
aracerFree Memberglobal warming is a global problem
Ah – I knew we’d get to the crux of the matter eventually. Let’s build lots more coal/gas stations – it’s not our problem, it’s China’s.
EdukatorFree MemberI didn’t say that, suggest it or imply it. I said December was the worst month. We were in deficit for three months last year. This year looks better thanks to the 3W bulbs and more efficient kitchen appliances.
EdukatorFree MemberGoodnight Higgo. Tomorrow is MTBing in the morning and a visit to the DIY shop in the afternoon. There has to be a way of getting electricity consumption below 120kWh for December, perhaps a longer ski holiday. 😉
The topic ‘Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?’ is closed to new replies.