Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Where do people find these PV red herrings?

I did some research on the energy cost of making solar panels before buying and came to the conclusion that a panel pays for itself in energy terms in the first year of use. In northern Europe it would be a year and a half. The anti-PV people are still quoting sources from the mid 70s when the first cells took over six years to produce the energy used to make them.

On the PV maintenance issue. Compare washing them once a year with the maintenance of a nuclear power station. 25 years is half the life of a nuclear station and it takes a few hours to replace them. I chose Solar World as they have a take back scheme, their panels are entirely recyclable and contain nothing toxic. They are guaranteed for 82.5% of max production after 25 years.

The power loss in the less than 4m of cable running at 700V linking my panels to the onduleur is negligible and a fraction of what is lost in the grid from the nuclear station which is thankfully 150km away. There are hydro stations a few km away but given the distance from my local step-down transformer the losses will still be greater in the grid.

Almost forgot to say, Fukushima is now out of control. Who was it who said it couldn’t happen?

and contain nothing toxic

I seriously doubt that – what are the cells made from?

Where do people find these PV red herrings?

Amusingly enough, the ecogumph justifying the apalling building I used to work in’s green credentials. In North wales they expected 45 years to break even, whilst the building’s design-life was 40 years. Even more astounding (and admittedly this isn’t directly the PV panels’ fault) was that they were positioned over the glass roof of the atrium. You’ll never guess what had to be kept on most of the day then as no light could get in… 🙄

Dam(n)

Almost forgot to say, Fukushima is now out of control. Who was it who said it couldn’t happen?

Do you have a source for that ?

It’s been the headline caption on N24 since about 5:00 this morning your time, Cranberry. The radiation levels are such that they can’t enter the control room so the plant is out of control. They are finally talking about boron in large quanties rather than a feeble quantity of boric acid in the sea water coolant. Korea is sending supplies that can be dropped in from a helicopter. The containment vessel of #2 reactor is thought to be breached and at least partial meltdown probable. All from N24.

N24 TV’s website

Die Lage im Katastrophen-Atomkraftwerk Fukushima in Japan ist vollkommen außer Kontrolle

I don’t think that needs translating but will all the same: “the situation in the catastophe hit Fukushima nuclear plant is completely out of control”.

From the BBC ( time is GMT ):

0759: If you’re just joining us, the latest on the nuclear crisis in Japan is that staff have returned to work at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant, after a rise in radiation levels forced them to temporarily abandon the facility. Earlier, a blaze struck reactor four at Fukushima Daiichi for the second time in two days, and smoke was seen billowing from reactor three.The pant has suffered several explosions, triggering radiation leaks.

From The Times:

07.24 GMT: Live TV footage is showing an army helicopter its on way to dump water on stricken nuclear plant in Fukushima in northeastern Japan. Meanwhile the plant’s operator has released a statement saying the temperature has stabilised and pressure dropped at the No. 2 reactor.

07.04 GMT: Japan’s Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency says the computer that forecasts the spread of radiation at the Fukushima nuclear plant is not working because of malfunctioning monitoring posts, according to Japan’s national broadcaster. It has also been reported that the spike in radiation earlier this morning may have been caused by a radiation leak in reactor No 2

06.55 GMT: It turns out the workers who were evacuated from the plant because radiation levels were too high eariler this morning, were later allowed to return after about an hour.

“the temperature has stabilised and pressure dropped at the No. 2 reactor.”

That’s a huge relief. Lets hope the others stabilise soon too.

(Where do people find these PV red herrings?)

try ignoring the greenwash….. and do some real research

Pv is a useful technology and has a place in the energy mix…especially so when some one else is subsidising it. 😉

As a commentator on N24 said the pressure drop could be (is likely to be) due to a hole in the reactor containment unit which would explain the sudden increase in radioactivity along with a pressure drop.

Subsidising it or simply paying the real cost of clean, sustainable energy. I would argue that the real cost of nuclear power and greenhousing the planet with fossil fuels will ultimately be higher. I’ve done the PV research, quoted it and linked an article with graphs anyone can understand.

Edit: Actually, i’m not getting involved in this.

In North wales they expected 45 years to break even

In money terms or energy terms?

A PRV lifting can’t explain a pressure drop. The PRV will maintain the highest pressure allowed. Any pressure lower than that is due to a lower temperature or a leak or both.

[ I’ve done the PV research, quoted it and linked an article with graphs anyone can understand]

go on post the link again lets have a laugh……

As a commentator on N24 said the pressure drop could be (is likely to be) due to a hole in the reactor containment unit which would explain the sudden increase in radioactivity along with a pressure drop.

That would be the radiation that’s now dropped, would it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12745186
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/fukushima_update_tuesday/

I know this is exactly the sort of incident the anti-nuclear lobby have been waiting for to demonstrate just how far they can’t see past the end of their noses, but really – whilst it is certainly serious, the emotive issue tends to cloud sensible objective judgement somewhat…

Ah, just found a report saying that the pressure has dropped to 1atm,(was ill yesterday and missed the news). So yes, it’s jiggery buggered.

In money terms or energy terms?

Energy, apparently. Dread to think how long it would take from an economic perspective. Stupid – given the location, a wind turbine would have been far more effective.

scary stuff in japan! the fact the french are imposing a moratorium on nuclear energy is quite telling of the scale of this problem.

on the subject of PV, my father is re-roofing his chapel and has haggled the price of a massive solar roof down from £30k to £9k (its a very big roof) just by being the tight fisted guy he is! expected pay off is £5-7k per year with FIT’s
nice retirement plan i think!

In money terms or energy terms?

Is there a difference? Surely money represents end-to-end energy.

I’ve done the PV research, quoted it and linked an article with graphs anyone can understand.

The graphs (from my rudimentary German) seem to indicate that the panels do indeed produce some electricity, some better than others, and most of it in summer. Hardly surprising.

[Dons simulated anti-nuclear hat] Well, it would say that, it’s produced by a company selling them [/hat off]

Nowhere does it say what your ‘pollution-free’ panels are actually made from (that a non-German speaker – like most of this forum – can discern). Please feel free to edukate (sic).

I accept they may in some circumstances represent a ‘greener’ source of energy, but the spin you’re giving is almost as bad as the infamous ‘too cheap to measure’ line that I suspect just about anyone involved in energy policy or the nuclear industry wishes had never been uttered…

It’s worth noting that there are bad PV installations and good ones though zokes.

I thought about our house – we would almost certainly be better off putting them on the end wall rather than the roof I reckon.

It’s worth noting that there are bad PV installations and good ones though zokes.

I’m aware of that, and these were laughably bad (especially as in the next door, much taller building overshadowing the one I worked in, is a chemistry research group working on new PV technology!) However, they are certainly not all good either, which is the point (I accept, rather obtusely) that I was trying to make.

sorry zokes is your argument about nuclear power stations or PV arrays? it seems fitting for both 😉

it seems fitting for both

It is. I guess I tongue-in-cheek recycled the anti-nuclear argument for PV…

Anyway, this has somewhat degraded into the usual straw man argument of either renewables or nuclear, when any vaguely educated person should be able to see that the correct answer is both.

Either that or carry on polluting with fossil fuel on a scale magnitudes higher than Chernobyl in terms of health and environment. One thing is for certain, energy usage will not decrease by the levels needed for either nuclear or renewables to deliver the majority of requirement individually any time soon. (Unless any government imposing such regulation has no wish to remain in government…)

EDIT: What people forget is that by stopping investment into nuclear after Chernobyl, research was all but stopped into better nuclear – thorium and fusion, as well as improved conventional designs

However, they are certainly not all good either, which is the point (I accept, rather obtusely) that I was trying to make

True, but beware of inadvertently jumping on the anti bandwagon – just because something can be done badly doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically useless as you understand – but this argument gets absolutely mired in people thinking the pro side is stupid and thinks that some solution is the golden bullet.

Everyone with half a brain knows that it’s not. So there’s no point in people (not necessarily you) trying to prove the obvious and widely accepted.

Why wouldn’t I vote for a government that’s given us a bonus/malus system on cars that mean low emmision cars are cheaper than ever, tax breaks on home improvemnts that save energy (and also make the house more comfortable), tax relief on renewable energy investments. I might hesitate to vote for a man that wears a Rolex but it won’t be his energy policy that holds me back.

Why wouldn’t I vote for a government that’s given us a bonus/malus system on cars that mean low emmision cars are cheaper than ever, tax breaks on home improvemnts that save energy (and also make the house more comfortable), tax relief on renewable energy investments. I might hesitate to vote for a man that wears a Rolex but it won’t be his energy policy that holds me back.

I’ve news for you chum. I suspect that (sadly) people as environmentally concious as you are are very much in the minority. As most of the western world works under a democratic system, I feel you may find that a disadvantage in getting whoever you vote for into power with policies such as those. Just google the furore happening here in Oz because the PM has mentioned ‘carbon tax’….

I doubt merely bonuses and enticements will get you the 75% saving you were aiming for a few pages back.

true true. people are generally either ignorant (as in unaware not stupid) or they just dont care. governments base their policy on the wants of people educated by a hysterical media. one thing i like about combined renewable is that it can create jobs locally but as you say it has to be a combination of nuclear and renewable. the uk gov are still trying to build COAL power stations for f sake!
but both need to be sited well. its stupid to build pv at high lat just as its stupid to build nuclear close to the sea.
its a shame the world wont share power in an on/off peak system

Well the French government has just introduced a 1000e scrapage programme for non -condensing central heating boilers, we’ll see how the uptake for that is. I reckon it wil be pretty good as the pay back period is very short. Between the bonus, tax breaks and an interest free loan the cost of the boiler is low enough to pay for itself quickly with the roughly 30% saving in gas/fuel oil.

Heat pumps and air to air air-con units heat much more efficiently than simple resistance heaters.

The biggest problem is the buy-to-let owners that don’t pay the bills and therfore have no incentive to invest in energy saving.

That’s quite laudable Edukator, but it’s hardly 75%, is it? I believe there was something similar in the UK too.

Nor, for that matter, is it electricity, which is presumably what we’re talking about when disregarding nuclear as an option.

governments base their policy on the wants of people educated by a hysterical media

Not entirely. Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when it knows better. All three parties are somewhat eco (although they could be way way better they could also be worse, be fair), despite most of the electorate not giving a flying fig. Plus they are all pro Europe and I doubt if most voters are – at least for the Tories.

its a shame the world wont share power in an on/off peak system

Too technically difficult I feel.

We could cover the Sahara desert in PV but how would we get the energy to where it’s needed? If we could use the power to synthesize some kind of carbon based fuel from the air that we coudl then ship around then we’d be onto a winner I reckon.

Or better still – algal biofuel, let nature do the work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899

So Germany are shutting down their reactors in a response to an earthquake on the other side of the world. I am genuinely perplexed.

Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when thinks it knows better

They’re hemmed into Europe and have no choice there, the last lot started an illegal war based on fabricated evidence; and the current lot seem to think the best way to stimulate the economy is to sack everyone, take money from the poorest, and let the people who caused the whole mess carry on earning their millions.

from the horses mouth.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300252224P.pdf

Our govt does generally do stuff on its own when thinks it knows better

It often sometimes does. Tonto just slagged off the electorate for being stupid mind, so knowing better than the majority of us isn’t hard.

I’ve already given the example of my 30s house Zokes but I’ll repeat it.

The house already had double glazing (which your Oz house may not) and roof insulation and gas consumption with a conventional boiler was 600m3 a year. With further insulation consumption went down to 220m3. I installed a wood burner but had I continued with gas a condensing boiler would have reduced consumption to 150m3. That’s a 75% saving.

Since installing the wood burner I’ve further insulated. The room I’m in is currently at 19.7°C and hasn’t changed since my first post this morning. It’s 11°C and raining outside. The TV, amp and computer are maintaining the temperature with no heating (the appliances are consuming less than the solar panels are producing). I can do a lot more and will.

Edukator, that’s great. I’m not disputing that it can work in some cases. What I am disputing is your apparently naive view (and that of TJ on previous anti-nuclear threads) that these cuts can be made on a national or international level without a dictatorial political system. As discussed above: sadly, most don’t know, the rest don’t care.

Also, whilst those cuts are fine, what if everyone needs wood for their heating, and what happens when people need to charge their cars in some way rather than burning fossil fuel? The very reason we moved on to coal in the first place was that there weren’t enough trees back then, and there’s a lot more demand for energy now.

not stupid, ignorant
big difference