Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Naive maybe but I think that if the US and British populations were exposed to responsible media reporting without red herrings they they would start making similar choices to the Germans and French. Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It’s just the attitude of domestic consumers.

They are linked though tonto, often.

And Edukator – those energy savings seem to refer to gas, no? Saving 75% of leccy is harder. Once you’ve already gone to energy saving lights.

MrSmith – Member

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

Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?

Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It’s just the attitude of domestic consumers.

Interesting edit – surely a person’s / country’s emissions should include those deferred to other countries like china who do the emitting when manufacturing goods for us ‘clean, green’ westerners?

Saving leccy:

Solar heated water for your washing machine and dish washer (if you have one). The pumps consume very little, it’s the water heaters that consume a lot.

A solar hot water heater to feed your electric immersion heater if you have one.

Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box.

More efficient appliances: Our old oven consumed 3.5kW but the new one only 2.2kW

If you heat with electricity use an air to air air-con unit which is at least three times more efficent unless it’s really cold outside.

I don’t worry much about the electricity I consume in the day as we’re nearly always producing more but three of us only consume 2200kWh per year in a house with no gas.

I agree Zokes, blaming the Chinese is not fair when we consume a significant proportion of what they produce. I think you’ll agree that the US figures are particularly disturbing considering that they too buy massively in China.

But as I keep trying to point out, your situation is laudable on a personal scale, but it cannot work for everyone. Not enough biomass for heating to start with, and no possible political means of staying in government, and forcing those who don’t want to / see the need to take what to most appear to be quite drastic measures.

Crossed post – yes, the US figures are disturbing but hardly surprising. An interesting question came up at a meeting I was in yesterday along these lines:

“When considering exported carbon emissions, who do they actually belong to when the fossil-derived energy source is what’s being exported i.e. Australian coal to China?”

Logic says it’s an Australian emission, but in that case, someone’s nice made-in-china flat-screen in the UK isn’t causing emissions in China, it’s causing emissions in Australia instead. I know this may appear semantics, but in a carbon trading economy, it’s actually quite an interesting question….

the french who know more then most about nuclear are extracting people from japan

This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.

The industry minister, Eric Besson, told BFM television:

Let’s not beat about the bush. They have visibly lost the essential of control (of the situation). That is our analysis, in any case, it’s not what they are saying. (from the guardian)

Where are you putting these tidal generation stations?

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/wave-tidal

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/92-industry-invite-northern-irish-offshore-renewables.htm

and barrages like the severn certainly aren’t the main technology being focussed on, more like great things like this:

http://www.marineturbines.com/

In terms of having a constant supply of tidal energy, even within Orkney waters alone there can be over an hours difference in timing of slack tide between locations, never mind between locations further apart around the UK.

Corryvrekan is very interestig ‘cos it has great potential for little impact on the ecosystem. Estimated 2 GW of energy available – how much we can get out is as yet unknown. Thats worth having. How much does a nuke generate ( I can’t be bothered looking it up)

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid the child in me can’t resist this:

This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.

So the French are retreating – quelle surprise!

Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box

Interesting one this. Which uses less energy:

a) growing veg locally in season and storing it in the freezer either industrially or at home
b) using heated polytunnels to grow out of season
c) ship from overseas by boat?

Of course the best option is

d) if it’s not local, don’t eat it – use tinned/dried/pickled/preserved stuff

.. but that’s not palatable to many folk who want broccoli year round.

Bottled not tinned, Bisphenol A! 😉

The forzen food industry requires a long series of refigerated buildings and trucks before it ever gets to the home freezer. Eat fresh or bottled.

Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it’s made in a communal oven.

Estimated 2 GW of energy available

Just another (badly needed) drop in the ocean then…

Eat fresh or bottled

Like I said. But which is best out of a, b or c?

i get most of my veg out of my garden year round. ok i am getting a little sick of kale and leeks but the purple-sprouting broccoli has just started yum yum
still as talked about earlier its not the norm to think like this. ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped 😯 ! needles to say they were short relationships
(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)

“ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped ”

One of the staff at work was almost sick at the idea of eating the apples i brought in from my tree because they had not been bought in a supermarket so “insects could have crawled on them”.

Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it’s made in a communal oven.[/s]

Oh and bin the PV’s & toy windmills and buy energy from the power company where it’s made in a communal power station. 😉

Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it’s made in a communal oven.

Thanks for the useful advice – I’ll drive to the bakers to pick up my loaf instead of using that wasteful breadmaker in future.

(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)

My understanding was that c beats b even if air transport is used.

I read about a big farm next to a power station that not only used waste heat from the power station for most of its needs but also piped CO2 from the chimneys into the tunnels to help the plants grow.

CO2 makes plants grow like mad, apparently atmospheric levels are only just above starvation for plants.

Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?

on the internet.
if i told you i would have to kill you.
never compromise your source….

If ‘c’ involves purchasing from a developing country, there’s plenty of other reasons why it can be a lot better than ‘b’, and occasionally ‘a’…

Here

It’s a boiling water reactor, so it’s supposed to have steam in the top part of the core – think of it like a constantly boiling kettle that they collect the steam from to run turbines for power generation. You have to keep adding water or it’ll boil dry. If it boils dry you could damage the kettle.

[/quote]

Nope. It’s a closed system. The water is converted to steam in the reactor core. This steam drives a turbine. It is then converted back to water in a condenser fed by external cold water, then reintroduced to the reactor core to start over again.
If it ever gets to a serious danger point they can just drain out all the coolant and let it all melt with no danger of gasses building up that could cause blowouts, at the cost of wrecking the reactor totally.

[/quote]

Right, I am aware that it is closed – but you have to keep pumping the water through the heat exchanger or you’ll have too much steam and expose the fuel elements, which is precisely the problem they are having – they have no power to drive the pumps, and thus the pressure in the core is rising too much, due to too much steam. My kettle analogy is apt, but if you want to be pedantic, extend it so the kettle boils and the steam rises from the spout and turns a child’s toy windmill thing (the turbine), and then condenses on a baking tray above the kettle that has one end submerged in a large amount of water to keep it cool. The kettle is replenished from this supply of water (so it cycles) [assume the kitchen is closed and you only have as much water as is in the big tank that the baking tray empties into].

The problem they have is that they need electricity to move the water from the tank back into the kettle, and they don’t have enough. More modern BWRs have been designed with this sort of thing in mind, to operate with passive cycling of water. The 40 year old BWR1 in this plant needs power to be able to maintain that circulation.

I can safely say that we’re all glad you’re not in charge. You seem to be suggesting that a meltdown situation wouldn’t be that bad. Google ‘China syndrome’. Whilst melted fuel would hardly reach the opposite side of the globe, the reactor would not be able to contain the fuel as you suggest. It would burn through the base of the reactor and end up in the earth below, contaminating water tables and goodness knows what else.

No, it really wouldn’t. The fuel will melt and be contained by the concrete containment structure as it was designed to do in the event of a full LOCA with no one left on site to do anything else (like flood the thing with seawater). The physical properties of melted nuclear fuel are well understood, and the containment structure was designed with them in mind. It would not burn through and contaminate the water table – although that was a possibility during the meltdown of Reactor 4 at Chernobyl after the explosion due to inadequate containment underneath the reactor.

They test this sort of thing – here’s some, for example fuel and reactor lava – “corium”, to see what effect is has on concrete as it cools and flows. They design the containment structure to spread it out more thinly so it can cool more effectively, and make the concrete thick enough that it won’t be able to burn all the way through. The concrete containment under the BWR’s in Japan are shallow-dish-shaped, for example, for just this reason.

The containment was designed so that in the worst possible case (the core melting completely due to no coolant being present), it would still be contained inside the concrete.

They don’t want it to melt like this of course, because it will be harder to clean up than if the core is still intact but partially damaged, hence the attempts to cool it, but if it does totally melt it will stay inside the containment structure.

Edit: and “China Syndrome” is a film, and a *theoretical* postulation by a physicist about what would happen in the event that the core melted through the containment structure. It’s hardly “proof” that in the event of a LOCA or a meltdown that groundwater contamination or fuel escape at all would occur.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274

and make the concrete thick enough that it won’t be able to burn all the way through

And crack proof after having been subjected to a massive earthquake and hydrogen explosions ?

China Syndrome. I suppose what worries is that it’s not just that the fuel is molten at around 3000C, but it’s actually reacting and generating vast amounts of energy as long as it’s coalesced. But I can imagine how an upturned dish shape will spread it out and make it go sub-critical. I’m reassured somewhat by the picture of molten lava spreading over the “catcher”.

Bump. The first pages make make interestign reading with hindsight, Graham. “Where’s the problem” you asked. Well you have your answers now. Care to comment now, Flying OX, Aracer, Olly, Buzz and Co.

Can’t we just build some in Scotland? It’s so bloody cold and wet up there all the time, there’d be no issue with cooling.

And if one went a bit wrong, then it wouldn’t have anywhere near disastrous consequences as one nearer civilisation.

As I said on the wind turbine thread; you could bung em inside mountains, then they’d be protected and safe.

Care to comment now

Well we might do if you care to point out how exactly it’s become a catastrophe which bears any comparison to the destruction caused directly by the earthquake/tsunami. Or even just point out exactly what has happened which we were suggesting couldn’t (and that none of the news agencies appear to have noticed). Or maybe even just come clean when recommending PV electricity and remember to point out where it is you live when you’re busy implying it’s useful for people in the UK.

Check my PV posts and you’ll note I give energy payback periods for northern and southern Europe.

In answer to Graham’s question.

The “steam” realeased into the containment building was hydrogen rich. It exploded destroying much of the building, and preventing rapid restoration of power and cooling. The cores of #2 and #3 overheated and suffered partial (if not complete melt down. The containment vessels failed releasing highly radioactive material out into the local area and atmosphere. Attempts to cool with sea water have resulted in salting up and the overheating continues despite claims by some that it would all cool down within a couple of weeks. Stored fuel also became a problem with overheating resulting in yet more discharges of contaminated water locally and releases into the atmosphere over wide areas.

I have no intention of comparing things you’d like me too aracer. I’m pointing out that the blind faith of the pro-nuclear brigade in the safety of the reactors was misplaced. Attempts to distract me will fail. My point is that you were wrong. It would appear you are too proud to admit it.

Edukator: It’s clear you have anti-nuclear bias. It’s quite right that there is public anxiety about radiation releases. I suggest that the public (me to) are only pro-nuclear (Uranium fission) in the context of the Energy Question and Climate Change problems; the public are aware that this type of electricity generation has peculiar and potentially far-reaching safety concerns. But we are also aware that there are hundreds of reactors, and that serious problems are few and far between.

If it was felt that short to medium-term viable, inherently safer, but as reliable alternatives existed, I suggest that everyone would be anti-nuclear (Uranium fission). What this event may do, is convince governments to further increase investment developing those alternatives, which is a good thing.

To qualify some of your remarks – much of which I agree with:

The “steam” realeased into the containment building was hydrogen rich. It exploded destroying much of the building

It surprised me that the safety design of the plant doesn’t deal with this scenario. I wasn’t aware of the chemistry. It’s a boiling reactor so fuel rods could be exposed to steam and create Hydrogen in quantities which needs venting safely. This is certainly an area where all reactor designs should review their safety cases IMO.

and preventing rapid restoration of power and cooling

I don’t see this as related to the Hydrogen explosions. Cooling and control system power were lost due to the plant not being designed to survive a combined earthquake and tsunami event of this size. Again, safety cases must be reviewed.

The cores of #2 and #3 overheated and suffered partial (if not complete melt down

As far as anyone knows, absolutely true

The containment vessels failed releasing highly radioactive material out into the local area and atmosphere.

“Failed” is being disingenuous. The vessels are structurally intact and continue to contain the integrity of the reactors – contrast with Chernobyl. Sure, they are leaking small quantities of nasties. This is very serious and urgent that this is stopped. But the radiation leakage to the environment is very small compared with the effects of an un-contained reactor fire. As always, plant workers are the people at real risk.

Attempts to cool with sea water have resulted in salting up and the overheating continues despite claims by some that it would all cool down within a couple of weeks.

No. It’s well known that it takes ages for the heat of the decay products to cool sufficiently before withdrawing the fuel rods for external cooling. Given partial meltdown, the reactor is un-serviceable and the cores will have to cool in-situ over a long period, just like TMI.

It’s unfortunate that seawater had to be used. But the tsunami damage meant that there was no viable alternative.

Stored fuel also became a problem with overheating resulting in yet more discharges of contaminated water locally and releases into the atmosphere over wide areas

Absolutely! The safety of on-site storage like this is definitely something that needs reviewing in the light of the loss of secondary containment from the Hydrogen explosions. It remains to be seen if they were storing too much spent fuel in the pools, so much that reaction could restart without the moderating coolant being present.

i don’t have blind faith, i have cautious trust.

what’s happening at fukushima is bad, but how bad is it?

(i suggest we wait and see, try and learn something)

radon gas kills thousands of people in the uk every year (1 in 10 cases of lung cancer).

my god! – we must evacuate cornwall! – quickly! – set up a 500mile exclusion zone! – think of the children!

etc.

calm down, get a grip, you’ll live longer.

(got kids? – don’t have a radon detector? – you reckless bastard)

Check my PV posts and you’ll note I give energy payback periods for northern and southern Europe.

You provide claims (which are far, far more optimistic than any real figures I’ve ever seen for the UK) but no figures to back them up. What’s more “northern Europe” conventionally means France, Benelux, Germany – the sun incidence even where I live in the midlands is much lower than it is there.

In any case given all the inaccuracies in your comments about the Fukushima power station I’m not sure how much faith I have in any of your claims about anything else.

I have no intention of comparing things you’d like me too aracer

But nothing is absolute. Presumably your attitude is that one death due to nuclear power makes it horrendously dangerous as you refuse to compare with the deaths due to any other form of electricity generation?

My point is that you were wrong

Well my point is that you are always wrong. Evidence? I’ll provide some when you attempt to justify why I was wrong, rather than just making unsubstantiated assertions.

Northern Europe according to Wiki.

I don’t think anyone would claim Pau is in Northern Europe, except maybe you aracer.

D’un point de vue géographique, l’Europe du Nord peut se définir comme étant l’ensemble des régions s’ouvrant sur la Manche

Which would appear to include France, Benelux, Germany. Thanks for that confirmation, Edu.

Aracer – you still deny the severity of the japanese accident. Well still don’t know the full extent but it is far greater than you or anyone else on the pro nuke side said possible.

It is quite possible that thousands will die from this – its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.

There are uncooled pools full of fuel rods that should not have been there, there are melted cores, containment is breached, there is serious radioactive contamination and every day the news gets worse

Levels of radioactive iodine in the sea near the tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are 1,250 times higher than the safety limit, officials say.

This northern/southern Europe thing in the context of solar panel production is very revealing, aracer. A free thinking person would see the meaning immediately and logically divide Europe up with an imaginary line running somewhere through central France and continuing along the Alps on the basis of sunshine intensity. A psychorigid person will decide that even if most of France is far enough south to be considered southern Europe in the context of solar production it can’t be in southern Europe as some of it’s regions are on the Channel.

The same lack of mental agility is seen in an inability to interpret the news from Fukushima other than as comforting your view there’s nothing to worry about and that we shouldn’t be investing in viable alternatives to nuclear.