Not the nuclear thing again...

[AndyF]

The vast majority of nuclear stations are sited next to the sea or a large body of water for a very good reason, Andy.

Yes, but that large body of water can be an inland lake like Trawsfynydd in Wlaes. There is no functional requirement to use the sea. Lots of stations inland in Europe and Russia.

Yes, but Europe and Russia both have vast tracts of reasonably 'flat' land, whereas Japan doesn't as it's mostly mountainous (and significantly more so than, say, Wales) And as for the majority of the flatter land it is densely populated and close to the sea.

Japan (and I've worked there) has lots of lakes and if it didn't you can build a resevoir. Nuke stations don't take much space, and you don't have to have major transport links for fuel, just a decent road.

But its academic, lack of flat space isn't a compelling reason to build nukes on the beach in a tsunami zone! You could have built a coal fired station in the same location and imported coal rather than uranium.

 

[Peter Burgess]

You know so much stuff, Andy. We are all so impressed.

 

[owd git]

Believe wikki' and you deserve all you get! 
No one has yet mentioned the safety and cost ,fiscal and ecological, of spent fuel and other waste from these beauties. :tease:
O. G.

 

[paul]

Believe wikki' and you deserve all you get! 
No one has yet mentioned the safety and cost ,fiscal and ecological, of spent fuel and other waste from these beauties. :tease:
O. G.

I know. Nor whether there is enough uranium which can be economically mined if the number of nuclear power plants worldwide drastically increases.

But, then again, no one has mentioned any realistic alternatives to nuclear in the UK either.

 

[whitelackington]

In Europe we should not think we are immune to natures disasters.

Italy has volcanoes.  Example Pompei.
The Minoan civilization was wiped out by a tsunami.
Not exactly in Europe but Turkey suffers dramatic earthquakes.
The Storrega Events of the North Sea. The North Sea was once land but became flooded, possibly the last Storegga event washed the land bridge away between England & France.
The Canary Islands are due for a massive landslip, which may push a tsunami across the Atlantic.
The Black Sea & the Mediterranean were once both dry.
The Lisbon Earthquake killed a huge amount of people.
Iceland could blow its top.
etc etc.

 

[owd git]

In Europe we should not think we are immune to natures disasters.

Or unnatural ones, Look to the Houses of parliament (both sides and middle, Andy.)
would you trust them with your wallet?

O. G.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Whether you think nuclear is the way forward or not, think about this:

Let's say we go heavily down the renewables route. We have a heterogenous mix of wind, wave, tidal, and hydro power. Now let's say that wind contributes no more than 10-15 percent of our electrical needs. Now imagine 7 days of quiet high pressure over most of the UK, not unusual in any year, winter or summer. We immediately lose 10-15 percent of our generation capacity. It's a bit like cutting out the nuclear element of today's mix. Look what has happened in Japan now they have also lost a significant proportion of their generation capacity. What do those who support the 100 percent renewables route suggest we do to mitigate this serious problem? Japan is currently suffering power rationing, and major industrial consumers are shutting their doors. And that's after only 4 days. Sometimes quiet weather can persist for weeks.

If you want constancy of supply, you MUST have the flexibility to cope with nature's vagaries, not disasters, but normal day to day, week to week variance. Current power technology may have its risks and issues, but one thing it can ensure, disasters notwithstanding, is much greater reliabilty and consistency.

PS. Anyone else enjoying laying into the deceased old nag?

 

[AndyF]

You are correct that its a problem, wind renewables have this in particular, and solar is a waste of time in the UK. Hydro and wave are more predictable but yes you need to have the capability to take up the slack with other means.

The easiest one is gas fired, since (unlike coal) it can be turned on and off very quickly to cope with changes in weather. Nuclear is also has a fast turn on cycle, coal is a long way behind. So at the moment you would indeed need maybe 80-85% capacity by non renewables.

You can improve things if you increase storage in the grid. At the moment we only have one real place to do that, at Llanberis in N.Wales with the pumped storage scheme. Adding more, similar plants allows the percentage of renewables to increase, since you have more storage for the slack periods.

The key is as always to reduce demand. thats the best thing you can possibly do, but the government doesn't even have a policy to to promote this, other than giving away a few low energy bulbs and insulation mats.

 

[ChrisB]

there will be a long and difficult job of de-commissioning them made far harder by the fact that the fuel which will need to be removed is by no means spent

An excellent example of the rubbish in this thread from people who appear to have no understanding of nuclear power - spent fuel is more radioactive than new fuel. The higher the burnup, the more radioactive it is.

 

[SamT]

Just a point about future demand for electricity and reduction in consumption.

YES - we all need to reduce our demand at home, energy saving this that and the other

BECAUSE - all the electric cars that we WILL be driving in the not so distant future are all gonna need  a hell of a lot of chargers.

consumption of electricity WILL go up.

 

[paul]

The easiest one is gas fired, since (unlike coal) it can be turned on and off very quickly to cope with changes in weather. Nuclear is also has a fast turn on cycle, coal is a long way behind. So at the moment you would indeed need maybe 80-85% capacity by non renewables.

Your'e right about gas but the problem with relying on gas is that the UK needs to import its gas and we only have enough stored for a very short time and supplies can be cut off at the vagaries of foreign suppliers. We must ensure that electricity generation is dependable and secure. Think back to the chaos in the 70's when OPEC first started fooling around with oil supplies and hiking prices and imagine the same thing happening again with gas supplies.

You can improve things if you increase storage in the grid. At the moment we only have one real place to do that, at Llanberis in N.Wales with the pumped storage scheme. Adding more, similar plants allows the percentage of renewables to increase, since you have more storage for the slack periods.

These storage facililties have their use but cannot cope totally with peaks in demand. Electricity generation just cannot be switched on and off nor realistically stored. Dinorwic is simply taking advantage use of off-peak costs.

The key is as always to reduce demand. thats the best thing you can possibly do, but the government doesn't even have a policy to to promote this, other than giving away a few low energy bulbs and insulation mats.

Absolutely correct. The real answer is to cut demand. But, that just isn't going to happen any more than people are willing to give up their own vehicles or pay higher taxes. Any government which realistically attempts to curtail demand to any significant degree knows that they won't be in government once the next election comes along.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

The problem with the nuclear thing is that it doesn't fail to safe. It does fail to safe if you can actively maintain it in the safe state i.e. by actively keeping reaction products under control and by pumping vast amounts of coolant and neutron absorbers around. But, it doesn't fail to safe in a safe, static manner should your control systems fail.

Robin

 

[Slug]

The problem with the nuclear thing is that it doesn't fail to safe. It does fail to safe if you can actively maintain it in the safe state i.e. by actively keeping reaction products under control and by pumping vast amounts of coolant and neutron absorbers around. But, it doesn't fail to safe in a safe, static manner should your control systems fail.

Robin

Isn't a Safe Fail state the big selling point of Fusion Reactors ?, or so the comments from scientists working on their development seem to suggest.

Yes, I know they are a long way away at the moment, maybe another 20 years or so, and that they do produce some radioactivity from the coversion of Hydrogen into Helium ( I think it is), but nothing like the amounts from spent fuel, and according to the physicist's from Harwell on the telly, If anything goes wrong, it simply stops, in effect, the flame goes out.
A simplification maybe, but then again he was dumbing it down to a level that the average person could understand

Can't wait for the invention of Dylithium Crystals. 

 

[And]

The amount of land made uninhabitable, and lives lost, by the occasional nuclear power station going bang will be tiny in comparison to that caused by rising sea levels. The anti-nuclear lobby probably aren't good at chess...  However, siting a nuclear powerplant by a subduction zone didn't seem like the brightest idea.

 

[AndyF]

Absolutely correct. The real answer is to cut demand. But, that just isn't going to happen any more than people are willing to give up their own vehicles or pay higher taxes. Any government which realistically attempts to curtail demand to any significant degree knows that they won't be in government once the next election comes along.

You don't think demand can be cut..?

Well I've not got figures but I'm going to guess that Uk petrol/diesel consumption was lower last year then the previous year, and will be lowere again this year. Why? Price! Who hasn't cut their mileage? Maybe not gone on some cheapo flights. Cost changes behavior, no question.

The same can apply to electricity, make cutting consumption an economic necessity and it will happen, and the scope is enormous to make those cuts.

As for electric cars, its not going to happen as long as it takes four days to drive to Glasgow, and there is no viable battery technology waiting in the wings to change that. All it does anyway is move carbon emmission from your engine to a power station so its a waste of time anyway.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

The problem with the nuclear thing is that it doesn't fail to safe. It does fail to safe if you can actively maintain it in the safe state i.e. by actively keeping reaction products under control and by pumping vast amounts of coolant and neutron absorbers around. But, it doesn't fail to safe in a safe, static manner should your control systems fail.

+ replying to myself, once it goes out of control, by virtue of the radiation, you can't send in people to maintain a failing situation. To some extent you can with protective clothing, breathing apparatus etc., but it looks like it's shortly to be an abandon ship situation in Japan. Workers have already had a lifetime dose in a day.

 

[owd git]

As for electric cars, its not going to happen as long as it takes four days to drive to Glasgow, and there is no viable battery technology waiting in the wings to change that. All it does anyway is move carbon emission from your engine to a power station so its a waste of time anyway.
[/quote]

correct Andy.
Add to that the carbon footprint of refining materials, and manufacturing said vehicles ;and charging equipment. the footprint of the energy for assembly, the workers tea machine. and all other peripherals. it doesn't seem so damned cool to drive a carbon-reduced car. 
O. G.

 

[whitelackington]

Doesn't sound like the Japanese public believe what they have been told.
The truth has been obfuscated. People are fleeing the North.
France has told its nationals to get away from Tokyo.

Even if there turns out not to have been a meltdown, and nuclear power stations become the best thing since sliced bread, all the extra 1000 year precautions that will have to be incorporated into brand new designs will probably render the start up costs prohibitive, let alone the monstrous costs of decommissioning.

 

[Littlemig]

The average person in the uk (excluding cavers and cyclists of course) is 19lbs overweight - mostly lard. At 3600 calries per lb thats roughly 3 million kilowatts!! So shiver, walk, cycle a bit more, hang out the washing, grow your own, and don't throw it away until its really knackered (thats if you really needed it in the first place).
'Watt' energy crisis?  :ang:

 

[AndyF]

Its probably become obvious to terrorists now that taking out the physical pumps at a reactor and you have a ready made disaster that makes a large built up area uninhabitable.

So, crash the next plane into a reactor ......???