Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

just pointing out that fervent anti nuclear protesters tend not to have a particularly realistic appraisal of the risks

Of course some would say exactly the same concerning the fervent pro-nuclear lobby.

If you read my own posts Ernie – you’ll see……

Well you’ve spotted the weakness in my argument ratty – I can’t deny that.

The pollution from Chernobyl still means some UK farms are unable to sell teh sheep as they are not safe to eat.

Not strictly true. They can sell their sheep but they have to be checked first and as far as i know, none have failed now for over 5 years. Also if they do fail they are just moved to the lowland pastures as the caesium is excreted from the body in a few days, after which they are tested again and then sold. Obviously that’s not ideal but i think you need to be a bit more factual with your statements.

the pollution from Fukishima has reached the UK

That’s because we can measure tiny amounts of radiation, far smaller than will ever have a measurable effect on us (e.g. the amount that a banana or brazil nut gives off!). Some that we measure comes from a lot further away than Japan. Again not ideal but you need a bit of perspective.

Interestingly about 95% of all of the Iodine 131 released from Fukishima has now degraded into Xenon.

the risk from nuclear is so much higher. a really serious accident would dwarf all deaths from conventional generation and nuclear will not reduce this anyway by a significant amount as nuclear will only replace a small amount of the energy used worldwide as you won’t share it with some countries

Really? From an acute perspective, if the TGD went, that would be pretty catastrophic compared to the worst a nuclear reactor could manage. Oh, it’s probably safe for now, but what might happen if it were to suffer an unexpectedly large quake?

From a chronic perspective, millions, if not billions are expected to suffer as a result of AGW, either to extreme weather and sea level rise directly, or from famine and draught as a result of changed weather patterns.

If you pay any of these suggestions any credence, you’ll see they easily dwarf the estimates of deaths from an also extremely unlikely nuclear disaster which makes Chernobyl look small.

EDIT: Doh! just realised I pasted the wrong qu in – got to head out now – will try again if I’m more awake later…

Looks like a biased source

Well spotted. It also isn’t anything about embedded energy, and indeed nor does it refute my point about the CO2 generated by wind power during construction being vast amounts higher than that for nuclear (hence the point stands that if you object to nuclear on that basis, so should you for wind). What’s more, the whole premise is deeply flawed – he gets very close to admitting as much himself before fudging a bit and claiming that overcomes the objection. I’m not even sure what you think it is proving, but suspect it doesn’t even do that.

As for the Greenpeace link, I didn’t make it to the second page, what with all the usual hyperbole about the dangers of nuclear and unrealistic stuff about renewables similar to those you always use. All became clear about where you get your source material – remember Greenpeace is a political, not a scientific organisation.

draught as a result of changed weather patterns

😆

Japan upgraded its month-old nuclear emergency to a maximum seven on an international scale of atomic crises Tuesday, placing it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster a quarter-century ago.

The reassessment to a “major accident” with “widespread health and environmental effects” was based on the total radiation released, which officials said was one-tenth of the 1986 accident in the then Soviet Union.

However, an official for operator Tokyo Electrical Power Co. (TEPCO) said that “the radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl”, media reports said.

…. although I thought most of the radiation from the Fukushima plant was iodine which decays very rapidly into xenon, ejected when the hydrogen in the containment buildings exploded.

At Chernobyl, the core itself blew up, which has not happened at Fukushima and isn’t going to.

We shouldn’t forget that the number of people killed by the Fukushima plant’s radioactivity so far (as opposed to being drowned or having a crane fall on them) is zero.

The argument for banning nuclear power is really an ideological one – safety is just a convenient cover to attack it with. Otherwise there would be lots of other things that would have already been banned. Cycling for example.

oldnpastit – Member

At Chernobyl, the core itself blew up, which has not happened at Fukushima and isn’t going to.

right – clairvoyant now are we?

At the beginning of this episode all the pro nukes were saying the containment was safe. Well its breached and core material is escaping.

If the reactors are so safe why not build them in cities?

the anti nuke argument is based on two things they cannot contribute significantly to a reduction in CO2 gas emmissions worldwide and the are inherently dangerous. Minimal utility thus the risk outweighs the utility.
cycling does not contaminate huge areas of ground for generations

placing it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster a quarter-century ago.

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHH!

I’ve been trying to avoid this as it’s my job, but you’re a complete idiot if you think that fukishima is as bad as chernobyl. The only reason that they’re both sevens is that there’s no higher catergory to put chernobyl in!

At chernobyl a CORE ACTUALLY EXPLODED, scattering chunks of highly radioactive material over a wide area, and the remaining material inside the reactor burned fiercely, pushing a plume of radioacive material into the stratosphere (iirc). Nobody in the west knew until radiaion alarms at a plant in scandanavia were triggered to such an extent that they thought they had a leak!

And breathe!!!!

Some articles here charting the progress of the problems at Fukushima, and debunking most of the media scaremongering and bullshit flinging.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/%5B/url%5D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/fukushima_panic_breaks_completely_free_of_facts/%5B/url%5D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/%5B/url%5D

As for wind power, utter joke. Unviable economically, environmentally unjustifiable, and terribly inefficient.

Recent UK wind power efficiency report

http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

clairvoyant now are we?

You don’t need to be, just have a basic understanding of physics.

If the reactors are so safe why not build them in cities?

I note just how many power stations of other types there are built in cities.

the anti nuke argument is based on two things

Well your argument appears to have been based upon a whole series of untruths and exaggerations. How is nuclear power more inherently dangerous than all the other things we do which kill vast amounts more people, how does it not contribute significantly to CO2 reduction compared to all the nice cuddly renewables which contribute orders of magnitude less (and even kill more people relative to their power output)? Or as usual can you not argue beyond your assertions because Greenpeace doesn’t provide you with that information?

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt. Both of these things have been shown to be lies. Core material is escaping into the ecosphere

We have shown beyond all doubt that uranium reactors can never be more than a few % of the worlds energy usage thus cannot contribute significantly to the reduction in CO2 – and that they cannot get on line quickly enough anyway whereas renewables can be a larger % and can be on line more quickly

Once again the actual facts show how ridiculous and thin the case for uranium cycle nukes is and the hysteria with which anyone who makes an anti nuclear case is treated shows how desperate the pro nukes are.

f the anti nuclear case is based on half truth and lies the pro nuclear case is based on deliberate sytemic lying and falsification of the evidence as proven time and time again.

upgraded its month-old nuclear emergency to a maximum seven

the pro nuclear case is based on deliberate sytemic lying and falsification of the evidence

Well, not really. I haven’t even been watching the coverage of Fukushima.

I don’t believe a track record NECESSARILY dictates future performance.

Zulu-11 – you’ll see that the main sources I’ve referred to are the WHO and UNSCEAR – though obviously they’re just part of the global conspiracy lead by the NWO and the Bilderbergers

They are not without bias. Don’t you read other posts ? Let me recap for you…..

The IEAE exists to “promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies” so has an inherent pro nuclear bias. The WHO cannot publish research not approved by the IEAE (So inherits the same bias).

Where in the thread did you quote UNSCEAR? As far as I can see you only mention them here, where you flippantly dismissed their research.

More on the upgrading of the incident here[/url]

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt.

You were? By whom? I wasn’t.

A Chernobyl-style incident was, and continues to be, unlikely.

The contrast between those who use hysterical language vs those who use reasoned argument is exaggerated when discussing any emotive topic. You have been shown using hysterical and exaggerated remarks yourself. Best not to throw stones in a glass house.

At the beginning of this crisis we were told he containment would not be breached, we were told that it was impossible for the fuel rods to melt.

Project managers fib, so the whole technology should be binned…?

Project managers fib, so the whole technology should be binned…?

More likely that (if) they deliberately fibbed to limit the effect of panic and allow an orderly, and therefore safer, evacuation of the area.

Yes, especially given the hysterical way people respond to anything with the word ‘nuclear’ in it.

Gonfishin – you really believe that? 🙄

Well, I’m off for a swim. Anyone care to join me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

Gonfishin – you really believe that?

No, what I actually believe is that they gave out the best information that they had available to them at the time which was then updated as better information became avaiable. What I certainly do not believe is that there was some sort of high level conspiracy to deliberatel withold information.

Obviously that’s not ideal but i think you need to be a bit more factual with your statements.

Fair point but I was only using fewer words than you but yes it was misleading

Well, I’m off for a swim. Anyone care to join me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

I’m not sure I’d want to swim in the Sellafield ponds themselves but I do take the occassional dip in the sea off West Cumbria.

Anyone who thinks Sellafield is the most dangerous place in Europe clearly hasn’t been out in Warrington on a Friday night.

😆

I’m almost getting bored of correcting TJ’s lies factual mistakes. Has anybody been keeping count?

We have shown beyond all doubt that uranium reactors can never be more than a few % of the worlds energy usage thus cannot contribute significantly to the reduction in CO2 – and that they cannot get on line quickly enough anyway whereas renewables can be a larger % and can be on line more quickly

I’m fairly sure what we actually showed is that we have 16GW of new build nuclear proposed, and that a nuclear plant can be built and brought online in 7.5 years. Meanwhile there is less than 3GW (I’m being generous) of baseload renewables proposed and that it’s liklely to take rather longer to even get that much going.

Recent UK wind power efficiency report

http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

You are joking, right? Have you read it? Its hilarious, from cover to cover, from the “assumptions” they are ‘tackling’ to the ‘consultant’ they’ve used, who is actually just an anti wind farm campaigner (check out his hilarious visualisation work at http://www.syvisuals.co.uk/)

JMT have made themselves look pretty stupid by doing that report.

TJ’s Posts are not factual mistakes or lies. He is looking at the whole planet not some rainly little island with only 60 or so million people living on it. Renewable potoential is enormous and won’t run out. Nuclear is limited by the amount of uranium which wil soon run out if you up world consumption to what a few “trustworthy” countries consume.

There is enough renewable energy for the whole planet, why use more polluting alternatives? An intelligent humanity would use its fossil fuels sparingly and in applications such as plastics, pharma, concrete and steel production where alternatives are so much more complicated to use.

There is enough renewable energy for the whole planet

Overall, perhaps. However getting it to where demand is is very difficult.

That Muir report is highly misleading. Some of the quotes are gems.

In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output
the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there.

Read up about Spanish wind power then read the Muir report. The Spanish have already achieved what Muir claim is impossible.

TJ’s Posts are not factual mistakes or lies

Not even the bit about how quickly they can come online, or the multiple other assertions he’s made (nuclear power is unreliable, nuclear power generates more CO2 in construction than renewables etc.)?

psycorp – Member

As for wind power, utter joke. Unviable economically, environmentally unjustifiable, and terribly inefficient.

😕 well that must make nuclear energy a pretty big joke too then……. I’m fairly certain that there isn’t a single example anyway in the world of the nuclear industry standing on its own two feet.

Everywhere, it has needed public money to fund it – whether it’s to build the power stations or/and deal with nuclear waste.

Nuclear energy is, according to the strict rules of the market, completely non-viable economically, and therefore “terribly inefficient”.

You can argue whether it is ‘environmentally justifiable’. Although I think you might struggle a bit if you are pitting it against wind power.

Aracer – one last correction of your factual inaccuracies – we cannot get 16 GW of new nukes online in 7.5 years – you even contradict yourself on this. 15 years you admit to build sizewell b on this very thread. Look to the new reactors worldwide – 10 years is the very minimum. You might get one new reactor in ten years – you will not get 9

sizewell was 7.5 years in building once all the politicking was done The 16 GW of new reactors don’t even have sites chosen yet let alone planning or contractors or contracts signed.

We have also shown beyond all doubt that new nuclear cannot make any significant reduction in CO2. You will not let the technology be shared, it is only a few % of the worlds energy consumption.;

Wheras renewables are coming on line much more quickly and can be a much larger % of the planets energy consumption.

BTW – I did not say tht renewables create less CO2 in the building of them.

And yes – nuclear needs massive government subsidies to be built. And it is unreliable – this is a fact looking tat the historical record.

That would not only mean realistic prospects of low-to-zero carbon emissions: it would also mean no need to much care about the opinions of various unsavoury regimes around the world, or to funnel revenue to them to spend on weapons. Cheap nuclear energy would hugely boost economic performance. It would also offer effectively unlimited fresh water supplies, and realistic options for space travel beyond low Earth orbit.

Now that has to be a Joke ! 😀

You might get one new reactor in ten years – you will not get 9

Do they have to be built consecutively?

We have also shown beyond all doubt that new nuclear cannot make any significant reduction in CO2

Did we? Did I miss that bit?

Yes we did.

The logic is thus. nuclear only supplies less than 20 % of the worlds elecricity ie less than 5% of the world energy usage. It is not CO2 zero – large amounts are released during the building phase especially so less than 5% reeduction in CO2 if we double he number of reactors. We won’t share the tech with some countries and some countries won’t have them and there is only 85 years worth of ore left at current consupmtion – so double the number of rectors and we oly have 40 odd years of fuel and less than 5% reduction in CO2 .

It would also offer effectively unlimited fresh water supplies, and realistic options for space travel beyond low Earth orbit.

Now that has to be a Joke !

Well I’ve seen small modular reactors proposed to power desalination plants but I think space travel is a bit optimistic!

So nuclear cannot make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 output – and if you accept that we cannot afford to do both nuclear and renewables seriously ( as the historical record shows) then actully going down the nuclear road will give a lessor reduction in CO2 than alternative methods

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So, there’s a nearly 5% reduction in CO2 then in your scenario?

The cost of I reactor spent on insulation saves more energy thanthat reactor will create

So if you build nukes you can’t insulate houses?