Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

I didn’t say that, suggest it or imply it.

Sorry. I’d have checked back, but this thread is getting that long it’s kind of hard to find the useful information amongst the TJ arguing round in circles noise.

On that thought, I’m sure you’ve mentioned it, but can’t remember, can you remind me what you do for power at night – do you have battery storage or use nuclear grid power?

perhaps a longer ski holiday.

Skinning up I presume? 😉

Usually cross-country skiing but yes we skin up too. The really awful thing is that we sometimes drive up the hill and worse still, sometimes drive to other hills.

Like any other intermittent producer I’m reliant on EDF to pump water up the hill for me when I produce a surplus so I can turn the kettle on at night.

global warming is a global problem

Which, astoundingly, means everyone could do to do something about it.

As I stated above, your myopic view is that the risk of localised pollution from nuclear plants outweighs the cost of emissions that affect the planet from fossil-based generation. You can think that all you like, but it doesn’t make it correct.

We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it. Everyone is agreed on this. You simply discount the damage caused by fossil-based generation because it doesn’t cause the media frenzy Fukushima has. It should do, it’s a damned sight more serious than a 30 km exclusion zone. The whole of Bangladesh will become an exclusion zone if predicted sea level rises are correct…

Zokes – I do not discount damage caused by fossil fuels. you discount the damage caused by uranium cycle nuclear. The pollution is a global issue, the pollution can last for millennia.

Thre is more to pollution that globalwarming.

The pollution is a global issue, the pollution can last for millennia.

What ecologically significant damage is there as a result of radiation leaks that is remotely of the same magnitude as climate change? The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is one of the most ecologically valuable sites on earth – precisely because we’re not there to **** it up. And that’s quite obviously at the very extreme end of the spectrum.

[sighs]

The vast majority of the pollution from fission products is present in such low concentrations that it has precisely no effect on the ecology of the planet. Just because we can measure 1 ppt Tc in seaweed does not mean that the 1 ppt is remotely harmful to anything. What is more, whilst I agree it appears that the jury is out on the effects of VLL radiation, surely you must be able to comprehend that there are many more industrial processes producing such VLL emissions than uranium fission. I’m sure you recall the ‘toxic sludge’ in Hungary? Well, I hope you don’t use anything made from aluminium, because that toxic, ‘mildly radioactive’ sludge is a by-product of its manufacture. It has also been repeatedly stated on this thread that the production of PV panels also leaves large volumes of toxic VLL radioactive waste relative to the size of the eventual product.

The most obvious is coal-fired power, but then whilst you don’t like the idea of a nuclear plant producing some that mostly stays in the liquid or solid phase, you seem to have no issue with tonnes of the stuff being belched out as vapour.

That’s just radiation though, which by its very nature, decays. What of the chemical pollution – highly toxic and carcinogenic bottom- and fly- ash? That doesn’t decay anywhere. By using your same arguments about nuclear waste, we don’t know what to do with it. We currently put most of it in landfill sites, which of course never leak anything 🙄

I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it.

On the question of whether coal or nuclear is more ecologically damaging to the ecology of its planet and its human population, you are quite simply wrong if you think for one moment from those two, nuclear is the one you should be concerned about. That’s not a point for debate, it’s about as clear a fact as you will ever see.

I think it was on a google tech talk I heard that there is enough usable Thorium in coal mining waste globally to provide all the worlds electricity needs for a few hundred years.

Radioactive coal…

Thre is more to pollution that globalwarming.

Indeed – and nuclear power stations produce less of it than lots of other types you seem to be OK with. But hey, we all know your dislike of nuclear power stations isn’t actually all that rational.

But hey, we all know your dislike of nuclear power stations isn’t actually all that rational.

He says, after putting an inordinate amount of effort for several weeks arguing the point with him.

He says, after putting an inordinate amount of effort for several weeks arguing the point with him.

What’s you point, caller?

Well I’m not going to give you any clues………..try to figure it out.

I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it.

Indeed we should – do you finally see sense?

you are quite simply wrong if you think for one moment from those two, nuclear is the one you should be concerned about. That’s not a point for debate, it’s about as clear a fact as you will ever see.

And this is where you are simply wrong

What is the half life of plutonium and the other waste products? What are you going to do with the waste? You have no answer to this. Its not a fact – it is an opinion and one you can only form if you use a very narrow definition of damaging.

to talk about the emissions from the plant as the only pollution is utterly false – the waste left over is pollution, all the “accidental” discharges are pollution.

Actually your love on nukes is irrational position..

you want to waste money on a power source that is polluting, ( an yes there is plenty of co2 release as well) and that produces waste products that are highly toxic, long lived and that we have no way of storing. Nuclear will to leave a highly toxic and radioactive residue that will last for millennia that we have no way of getting rid of.

You won’t answer a string of questions about nuclear because the answers would show the irrationality of your desire to have nukes

I reiterate my point: We should be striving to produce energy by the least-damaging means, and use less of it…

Agreed.

However there’s nigh on seven billion of us and the number is increasing all the time. The prevailing economic model is dependent on population growth which is most of the problem.

Nuclear Power is a lovely idea, but there’s fifty years of mineable Uranium left. Thorium is a much better bet, but of course it can’t be used to make bombs so no-one is interested.

Our politicians meanwhile are happy to sell us out to energy companies selling wind power which is the least offensive option for the NIMBYs, regardless of the fact that there are cheaper and more efficient renewable options out there.

Thorium is also unproven – sounds good tho and needs the investment and research to prove it.

According to the pro nukes we only need 50 years of uranium as fusion power will be available then 🙄

Oh – and nukes are reserved for countries we think can be trusted with it. I don’t know what the countries we don’t trust have to use instead ( the pro nukes won’t say). One of the hypocrisies and illogical positions of the pro nuke lobby.

You won’t answer a string of questions about nuclear because the answers would show the irrationality of your desire to have nukes

No, I’ve just taken to only reading half your posts because I get bored after 5 minutes of your drivel. If you want to re-state the questions, I will do my best to answer them. However, I suspect you’ll find answers to most of them in what I have already written. I base my views on rigorously reviewed scientific literature, whereas you seem to base yours on propaganda from the Greenpeace website.

you want to waste money on a power source that is polluting, ( an yes there is plenty of co2 release as well) and that produces waste products that are highly toxic, long lived and that we have no way of storing. Nuclear will to leave a highly toxic and radioactive residue that will last for millennia that we have no way of getting rid of.

You are correct, it will, as do most energy sources to some extent. But, what you seem to be wilfully ignorant of is the fact that many other energy sources do too. Cd, Pb, Hg, As – all in high concentrations in coal ash, all non-degradable, all currently just buried in a hole in the ground. They are all highly toxic, non-degrading, bio-concentrating pollutants that are also volatilised in the normal operation of coal-fired generation. Yet, curiously, you still seem to think that nuclear is the only form of electricity generation we should be worried about in terms of pollution. I know nuclear power is not C-neutral, and have never claimed as such, but it is equally clear in numerous LCAs that it comes up considerably better than any fossil-derived power.

Actually your love on nukes is irrational position..

I have no love for nuclear, I have a desire that we don’t make a catastrophic step backwards in energy generation as a result of irrational views of policy-makers. It is a desire backed up by hard, scientific fact, whereas your irrational paranoia of nuclear is a well documented psychological phenomenon linked to the emotive nature of media reporting and the industry’s unfortunate military connotations. It’s simply a case of ‘wood for the trees’.

Nuclear Power is a lovely idea, but there’s fifty years of mineable Uranium left.

Actually, it’s more like 85 years, but then this is what ‘reprocessing’ is for… In any case, I would hope that we’re not still reliant on U235 in 50-85 years time, and if we are, then something has gone wrong given the recent advances with thorium. I’d like to suggest that the weapons issue is a read herring – vast stock-piles of nuclear weapons are being deactivated, and whilst the idea of none being retained is probably a political pipe-dream, I doubt there’s much need to produce any more fissile material for that market in most countries.

Thorium is also unproven – sounds good tho and needs the investment and research to prove it.

Yup, such research is, surprisingly enough, carried out by nuclear scientists. Those people you seem to think shouldn’t have any funding. I’ll say it again, if you remove the vast majority of R&D money from an industry for 25 years, is it any wonder that the industry is still reliant on old technology?

According to the pro nukes we only need 50 years of uranium as fusion power will be available then

See my above point. What is your issue with fusion? Is it that word ‘nuclear’ again? Funnily enough, getting a fusion reaction from bench-scale to industrial scale is more than a little tricky, although I believe that there is fairly good evidence at the centre of the solar system that it does work on a large scale 🙄

Oh – and nukes are reserved for countries we think can be trusted with it. I don’t know what the countries we don’t trust have to use instead ( the pro nukes won’t say). One of the hypocrisies and illogical positions of the pro nuke lobby.

Now you really are coming out with moronic statements. If the UN (which probably knows a lot more about the political stability of any region than you or I) is happy for a country to have a civilian nuclear industry, then I have no issue with this. If you are saying noone should have nukes because some countries ‘aren’t allowed’ them, then that’s a particularly childish standpoint. Pretty akin to previous comments suggesting Iceland shouldn’t be allowed geothermal because we can’t, actually.

I really hope that nuclear fusion becomes a reality. It’s not “free” energy, but it’s a massive step forward that if done properly will ensure that our grandchildren are spared the energy conflicts that we risk facing in the meantime.

Thorium energy could well help us bridge the gap…

I don’t get the hysteria over nuclear power. A properly designed nuclear power station is generally safe – provided it isn’t built too close to a fault line – so I don’t get the anti nuclear hysteria. We learn, we do it better. Is that not how humankind approaches all problems from mathematics, aeronautics and bicycle design?

PJM1974 – Member

I really hope that nuclear fusion becomes a reality

good news! – it’s happening now![/url]

no doubt the word ‘nuclear’ will upset some people…

…I don’t get the hysteria over nuclear power…

there is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to.

no doubt people will pick holes in these solutions, which is good, because it’ll mean they’re well-thought-out solutions.

In reality we’re at the point where we’ll get back roughly the same energy as we’ll put in. According to an acquaintance, the limiting design factor right now isn’t physics, it’s containment – having to mimic conditions in the sun’s atmosphere is no small task.

We managed to find enough money for Apollo in the 1960s, a fraction of that today would help ensure that we can meet our energy needs further down the line.

In reality we’re at the point where we’ll get back roughly the same energy as we’ll put in

that’s all JET[/url] was ever built to do – it’s a brilliant success.

next step = ITER.

exciting times!

exciting times!

Exciting indeed.

JET has thrown up more headaches than it has solved if you critically read through its own upbeat reports. It’s put sustainable fusion further way than it was before JET was built in that it’s scaled up the machines that might just contain a sustainable plasma.

I base my views on rigorously reviewed scientific literature, whereas you seem to base yours on propaganda from the Greenpeace website.

If you have a look at the record of both then Greenpeace does rather well. They haven’t had to make a major change to policy following the publication of new research. Much of the power industry, oil industry, nuclear industry and chemical industry reporting on environmental issues has since been discredited though.

I was at loggerheads with the CEGB in the 80s when running Welsh Water’s acid rain projects (my name was the first on a paper in the Journal of Environmental Management In 1987 and you might have seen me on the tele). The CEGB wriggled, squirmed, denied, published bad science and finally started fitting sulphur scrubbers on stacks, they’re now getting around to nitrogen-oxide scrubbers. I’d had enough of weeing into the wind and emmigrated. Greenpeace has a record of being right.

Anyhow, you now have some credentials and know where I’m coming from – one of the organisations that now make up the environment agency. One of the anomalies that I discovered back then was that we were responsible for every aspect of pollution, except nuclear. Worrying eh, the nuclear people don’t get policed by anyone else – except Greenpeace.

That’s all very well and good, Edukator. But – does Greenpeace have a workable real-world route to less polluting energy? I’m not sure, I’m sure that they must have one, but whether it’s workable – well, that’s a question they will always have the luxury of never having to answer. Just as C.Legg et al. have found out, postulating whilst in opposition is a damned sight easier than actually having to make policies work in power.

I’m still puzzled as to where you get the idea that the majority of scientific research is biassed though. I’ve a pretty good publication record for an early-career scientist, and I have never had the slightest bit of weight put on me (or even heard a notion of it) by funding bodies or others to give the ‘right’ answer. If you assume this is the case for most peer reviewed science, maybe the climate doubters have a point

Zokes –

Actually, it’s more like 85 years, but then this is what ‘reprocessing’ is for…

Creating far more very toxic waste for which we have no answer. Meaning transporting highly dangerous waste all over the world.

In any case, I would hope that we’re not still reliant on U235 in 50-85 years time, and if we are, then something has gone wrong given the recent advances with thorium.

Hope 🙄 so you want to rely on hope and unproven tech[/quote]

Yup, such research is, surprisingly enough, carried out by nuclear scientists. Those people you seem to think shouldn’t have any funding. I’ll say it again, if you remove the vast majority of R&D money from an industry for 25 years, is it any wonder that the industry is still reliant on old technology?

I have no problem with research and have said so – and nukes have had vast money thrown at them compared to renewables. If we had spent the money we have wasted on nukes on renewables how good would they be now

I am not suggesting no one should have nukes if some countries cannot be trusted with them What I am doing is pointing out a massive hypocrisy and flaw in the pro nuclear position.

there is a huge logical fallacy in your position that states we must have nukes to prevent global warming but other countries cannot have them. Its so important for us to have nukes that you are willing to overlook all the major issues but for other countries you believe that they cannot have them. Either it is so crucial to have nukes that we must overlook the very real dangers and drawbacks if so then every country must have them, or it is not that important to have nukes as some countries must not have them – so there is no imperative for us to have them. nukes

This is one of the points you have refused to answer.

Another one being What to do with the waste?

ahwiles – Member

there is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to.

Quick – apply for your nobel prize if you have developed a solution – no one has anwhere in the world.

If we had spent the money we have wasted on nukes on renewables how good would they be now?

I don’t know.
Do you?

On fusion – its been 50 years away for all of my life. 🙄

It very interesting how other countries who have invested more in renewables are further ahead and how once the political will is there ( in Scotland now) how quickly it can move to be a reality.

Teh UK has an appalling record on investment in reneewables being a tiny fraction of that invested in nuclear.

Higgo – no I don’t know but again this shows up another huge flaw in the pro nuke case. The claim is that Massive investment over deacdes in nuclear power generation is not enough money spent, minuscule investment in renewables meaning not very developed plant proves they don’t work. A huge logical fallacy. the issues of nukes can only be solved by pouring money into them, there is no point in putting money in renewables because of the issues.

TandemJeremy – Member

On fusion – its been 50 years away for all of my life

we don’t know how long it will take, but we have to try, we are trying, and we’re making progress.

this stuff is basically the same as magic, and we’re making it happen, hooray for science!

“there is the small matter of dealing with the waste, which is not a minor concern, but we do have solutions to“

Quick – apply for your nobel prize if you have developed a solution – no one has anwhere in the world

we’ve been here before Jeremy, i haven’t developed anything. But reprocessing, breeder reactors, and geologic containment* will probably all play a part – even assuming we never build another reactor we’ve still got to deal with the stuff left behind by our grandparents.

*bury the worst stuff inside a granite mountain – a nice big one that hasn’t moved for a few hundred million years.

none of this is ideal, i wish there was a ‘make-the-nasty-stuff-go-away’ machine that turned radioactive waste into rainbows and butterflies, but there isn’t.

there is however, a world full of bigger problems, much, much bigger problems, than the unlikely prospect of a seismically dead granite mountain cracking clean open in the next few thousand years.

anyway, like i said, you’ve convinced me; nuclear energy is far too dangerous. but that means that coal/gas/oil/hydro are out of bounds too – for being even more dangerous, and we’ve still got 40GW** to find – it would be around 45GW if electric cars became popular, but cars kill loads of people, so they’ll be banned too.

**we need 60GW, and i doubt this number will come down, and i don’t see how we’ll get more than 20GW from tidal without destroying the severn estuary and the valleys of south wales to provide hydro-storage.

So infact you don’t have a solution to the waste. People keep claiming there is a solution as you did but when pressed there isn’t one.

solution: reprocessing / breeder reactors / burial.

what’s wrong with that?

Reprocessing – creates more waste and involves transporting the waste further. Breeders – create more waste and don’t really work as intended anyway – see superphoenix. Burying it – we have to keep it safe for thousands of years, it needs to be made into a chemically stable form, its irrevocable – if it goes wrong and starts to leak into the ecosystem we cannot retreive it to do anything else with it Thousands of years remember – apparantly putting fly ash into a hole in the ground is not safe – but you want to do it with some of the most toxic stuff known to man?

No one world wide has come up with a satisfactory solution.

more or less, yes.

what else would you suggest? – remembering that this stuff is real, we already have more than enough – and it’s got to go somewhere.

it seems our grandparents made it because they were scared of the russians, and … hang on, we’re going to make more … because we’re scared of the russians (turning off the gas taps).

we don’t have the luxury of simply saying ‘sounds nasty – no thanks’ – we committed ourselves to this path 50 years ago, we have to do the best job of it that we can.

On fusion – its been 50 years away for all of my life.

When I was about fourteen or so I went on a tour of the Culham Joint European Torus project just near Abingdon, on a hot summer’s day, back before anyone had even thought of global warming. Very impressive it was, especially the massive flywheel energy storage things. In about fifty years time, they said, we’d have power from nuclear fusion on a commercial scale.

A year later and we were fighting a war in the South Atlantic and trying to make sense of Geoffrey Howe’s monetarist ideas and learning that the lady’s not for turning.

Last I heard about fusion (at least the torus approach) was that the energy of the neutrons coming out of the plasma turns the steel containment vessel into radioactive swiss cheese in a very short period of time.

Granite is highly fractured and permeable, not ideal. High grade metamorphic rocks, clays and tuffs are the rocks under consideration at present. Low level waste has already been buried – in shallow trenches. :-/

TJ there will not be a trully safe storage soloution [in the sense you mean]as you cannot make it inert or safe. Given its existence you just need to decide if the chosen method/s are acceptable or not. I suspect that no method will meet your criteria of safe [ and I agree with this up to a point] but the opposite is true no method [ well ignoring stupid ones] is inherently unsafe either. Many factors are at play though the timescale involved adds extra risks that make it hard to quantify.

So we don’t have safe disposal . Given this is it really sensible to make more of the stuff? If the pro nukes have their way many many times as much of the highly dangerous high level waste than we have now.

So we have no safe way of disposing of what we have – but you want to make loads more?

Again you just keep saying no safe way – which I assume means a method with zero risk. Well this is true for almost anything. Riding a MTB is not zero risk [nor getting out of bed]but that does not mean it is unsafe either.
In the sense you mean nuclear waste is not safe [it is not inert] but nor can you prove a storage method is necessarily unsafe [something will go wrong], you can only show it has associated risks which everyone accepts.

EDIT: for the record i am not pro nuke and my view is closer to yours and edukators. Reduce consumption , fund alternative renewable methods is my preferred option.

Junkyard – there is not even any consensus for the most safe manner – and people want to make more.

I would store it on the surface in the site of the decommissioned reactor. No transport issues, easliy accesable if / when abetttermethod is found.

I agree there is no consenus and it is dangerous stuff [has risks associated with the storage] that requires monitoring whatever we do. i dont know enough to suggest an appropriate method.

My point junkyard is that to make more – much more of the waste is stupid given we have no way of dealing with it even to an acceptable level of risk