nuclear

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 1:34am

SeanW wrote: »

My favoured disposal option is some class of very deep (several miles deep) disposal. In fact, my choice would be subduction zone burial.

Your fear is somewhat unwarranted therefore, if the waste were buried deep enough that noone would ever find it unless they knew what they were looking for, chances are that "low tech exploration" of waste dumps miles underground, or better still, halfway down an oceanic subduction fault, is pretty unlikely.

I could be wrong on this but from what I understand, if you reprocess spent fuel, the trans-uranic elements left over from each cycle have short enough half lives, e.g. 200 years or so. Hence, a good burial solution would be more than adequate for much of it.

LOL

To use subduction zones you have to put the waste in the zone, not on the seabed floor. Drilling into a active seismic zone in deep water is not cheap. Also people get kinda upset if there is any suggestion that to do so could lubricate a fault line.

Yes there subduction zones under the alps one of the few on land. But you have to get the waste there in the first place. The real problem is that the waste is only sinking by a few cm a year , in an area with a lot of energy. A few cm a year is a few meters a century. The stuff would have decayed to ore levels before it move down 1Km assuming the canisters hadn't been ripped open and dissolved away in hot water on it's way to the surface.

Finland with the similar population (and way better insulated homes) is spending €3 billion (not including cost overruns) on a waste repository.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 1:36am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

The pit Asse II is a former salt mine in the mountain range of Asse in Lower Saxony/Germany, that was allegedly used as a research mine since 1965. Between 1967 and 1978 radioactive waste was placed in storage. Research indicated that brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium was leaking from the mine since 1988 but was not reported until June 2008[17]

The repository for radioactive waste Morsleben is a deep geological repository for radioactive waste in the rock salt mine Bartensleben in Morsleben, in Lower Saxony/Germany that was used from 1972–1998. Since 2003 480,000 m3 (630,000 cu yd) of salt-concrete has been pumped into the pit to temporarily stabilize the upper levels. The salt dome is in the state of collapse.
...

On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing the Yucca Mountain site is no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.[24]

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 1:40am

Jester252 wrote: »

why wont they work together?

wave power is a form of wind power

renewables like hydro in large reservoirs and stored biomass work well with wind

Macha · 08-05-2012 8:02am

Jester252 wrote: »

why wont they work together?

Basically, nuclear has very slow ramp up and ramp down rates, meaning the plants are slow to start up and slow to turn off relative to other generation technologies. Because of this nuclear works well as baseline load, ie you keep the plants running as long as possible without shutting the plants down.

Wind, and a lot of other renewables, on the other hand have very fast ramp up and ramp down rates, which means they can be turned on and off very quickly (sometimes when you don't necessarily want them to..).

If you have nuclear plants running all the time, it's inefficient because demand curves vary throughout the day (peak is normally 5-7pm and bottom is 3-5am). At the same time, wind generation can fluctuate wildly during the day, regardless of the demand.

Put the two together and you easily get a situation where wind generators are forced to stop generating (curtailment), which makes wind uneconomical. At the same time, if nuclear were asked to be as flexible as wind, it simply wouldn't be technologically possible.

They work together on a limited scale at the moment across Europe but you're starting to have situations where, for example, Germany is exporting power into Europe at times of high winds/strong sunshine and this is messing with France's steady-state power system based on nuclear.

Chloe Pink · 08-05-2012 8:41am

Macha wrote: »

They work together on a limited scale

Fine - so what would work well with nuclear?

Macha · 08-05-2012 8:48am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Fine - so what would work well with nuclear?

Only other fossil fuels at any scale. If you look at France, which has a relatively high % of nuclear in its electricity mix, the three next largest fuels it relies on are hydro, coal/peat and gas.

Hydro potential has been maximized throughout Europe which means it is effectively irrelevant in terms of new capacity.

Chloe Pink · 08-05-2012 9:00am

Macha wrote: »

Only other fossil fuels at any scale. If you look at France, which has a relatively high % of nuclear in its electricity mix, the three next largest fuels it relies on are hydro, coal/peat and gas.

In terms of reducing CO2 emissions, isn't a baseload of nuclear with fossil fuel for demand side management better than all fossil fuel?

the_syco · 08-05-2012 9:29am

GarIT wrote: »

then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.

I wonder how much of Dublin will be powered by Sellafield...? Of the irony... :P

Oldtree wrote: »

something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe

You mean the earthquake and tsunami? When was the last time we got an earthquake near "6" on the JMA scale?

Macha · 08-05-2012 9:53am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

In terms of reducing CO2 emissions, isn't a baseload of nuclear with fossil fuel for demand side management better than all fossil fuel?

Well, demand side management is something else but I know what you mean.

In theory, the answer is yes but:
a) sufficient nuclear capacity won't get built in time to help our emissions peak before 2020;
b) we have other options.

djpbarry · 08-05-2012 10:06am

Jester252 wrote: »

Hence why it needs development :rolleyes:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-71533.html

The point is people are forever coming on these threads promoting nuclear for all, but when it is pointed out to them that there may not be enough (easily extractable) uranium to go 'round, they all shout "Hey, look! Thorium!". Which is all well and good, except that, as I said, it's not actually in use anywhere.

Jester252 · 08-05-2012 10:34am

Macha wrote: »

Basically, nuclear has very slow ramp up and ramp down rates, meaning the plants are slow to start up and slow to turn off relative to other generation technologies. Because of this nuclear works well as baseline load, ie you keep the plants running as long as possible without shutting the plants down.

Wind, and a lot of other renewables, on the other hand have very fast ramp up and ramp down rates, which means they can be turned on and off very quickly (sometimes when you don't necessarily want them to..).

If you have nuclear plants running all the time, it's inefficient because demand curves vary throughout the day (peak is normally 5-7pm and bottom is 3-5am). At the same time, wind generation can fluctuate wildly during the day, regardless of the demand.

Put the two together and you easily get a situation where wind generators are forced to stop generating (curtailment), which makes wind uneconomical. At the same time, if nuclear were asked to be as flexible as wind, it simply wouldn't be technologically possible.

They work together on a limited scale at the moment across Europe but you're starting to have situations where, for example, Germany is exporting power into Europe at times of high winds/strong sunshine and this is messing with France's steady-state power system based on nuclear.

But that is the major problem with having renewable as the major power source. Its okay as a minor source. Power grids are based off a stable base load which a lot of controls will be needed to achieve this. As you said with wind peak during the night and drops during the day the opposite to our power usage. If renewable are the major power source we will have to import power from the UK (Nuclear power) during the day and sell it at night when we don't need it which is when they don't need it so more or less it will go to waste.

This problem has be tried to be fixed with a water pump storage. As it pump water up to a man made lake at night with the excess power and run it down through a hydro power plant during the day. This has its own problem from a development point of view.

Jester252 · 08-05-2012 10:39am

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is people are forever coming on these threads promoting nuclear for all, but when it is pointed out to them that there may not be enough (easily extractable) uranium to go 'round, they all shout "Hey, look! Thorium!". Which is all well and good, except that, as I said, it's not actually in use anywhere.

This thread was set up by the op to explore the nuclear option. As in see what can be done. You are will to throw thorium out as there is not a reactor open for commercial use.

Macha · 08-05-2012 10:55am

Jester252 wrote: »

But that is the major problem with having renewable as the major power source. Its okay as a minor source. Power grids are based off a stable base load which a lot of controls will be needed to achieve this. As you said with wind peak during the night and drops during the day the opposite to our power usage. If renewable are the major power source we will have to import power from the UK (Nuclear power) during the day and sell it at night when we don't need it which is when they don't need it so more or less it will go to waste.

This problem has be tried to be fixed with a water pump storage. As it pump water up to a man made lake at night with the excess power and run it down through a hydro power plant during the day. This has its own problem from a development point of view.

Or you could flip it and say the major problem is having all these inflexible base-load hogging technologies as our major power source. Nuclear is very inflexible and can't ramp up or down to match demand.

Yes our existing power grids have been designed to accommodate baseload plants but our grids are old and need to be replaced and renewed. We can either do it in a way that apes the old way, or we can build dynamic grids that can facilitate flexible sources like renewables and build out on storage.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Europe's hydro potential has been largely exhausted but linking in existing hydro with RES is a different story altogether.

Chloe Pink · 08-05-2012 11:10am

Macha wrote: »

Well, demand side management is something else but I know what you mean.

In theory, the answer is yes but:
a) sufficient nuclear capacity won't get built in time to help our emissions peak before 2020;
b) we have other options.

Like lots of fossil fuels, a little substituted with tidal and biomass; and some additional capacity from wind and solar?

Or like lots of (nuclear and fossil fuels), a little substituted with tidal and biomass; and some additional capacity from wind and solar?

Are there other options?

Macha · 08-05-2012 11:21am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Like lots of fossil fuels, a little substituted with tidal and biomass; and some additional capacity from wind and solar?

Or like lots of (nuclear and fossil fuels), a little substituted with tidal and biomass; and some additional capacity from wind and solar?

Are there other options?

This is why I don't want to debate this issue with you.

You fail to acknowledge the potential of renewables energy sources, ignore the massive subsidies (existing and historical) and imbalances in the current power grid and market design in favour of large incumbents like FF & nuclear and don't see any of the issue with nuclear technology, such as ever-increasing project costs and delays, an upward-spiralling technology cost-curve (I've never seen a nuclear learning curve that goes down), the need for massive state investment in what is effectively a mature technology and the fact that it just won't be built without state aid. Plus the fact that only the state can insure against the risks of nuclear. You tell me who is bailing out Tepco to the tune of €13 billion. Hint: not a private insurance company.

And then came the bats. So I'm done.

Jester252 · 08-05-2012 11:27am

Macha wrote: »

Or you could flip it and say the major problem is having all these inflexible base-load hogging technologies as our major power source. Nuclear is very inflexible and can't ramp up or down to match demand.

Yes our existing power grids have been designed to accommodate baseload plants but our grids are old and need to be replaced and renewed. We can either do it in a way that apes the old way, or we can build dynamic grids that can facilitate flexible sources like renewables and build out on storage.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Europe's hydro potential has been largely exhausted but linking in existing hydro with RES is a different story altogether.

What you are saying is been done and is currently in place but a base load is needed.
one of the biggest threats to the gird is half-time in the all-Ireland. Why because the kettle goes on in every house and the base load needs to be increased so the grid doesn't crash.
As for Watts/M2 Wind or renewable is currently too low.
Also even of we had a flexible grid the problem that more wind during less demand is still there. Not to mention that if the wind is too fast or too slow the wind turbines are turned off to protect them or not turn into a motor.
The HVDC line from Dublin to the UK will be used for Ireland to import energy from the UK.
Granted that is the first step on the ladder for a smart grid where the north of Europe supply's most of the wind and the south supply's most of the solar.
Solar energy during the day. Wind at night.
But renewable are very unstable in terms of power supply. We will need a stable source of energy one that can give power 24/7 without fail

CajunPenguin · 08-05-2012 11:46am

GarIT wrote: »

After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it. I'm all for advancements but not something that can cause as much damage as nuclear fission. If someday fusion became a workable idea I would consider it as I've read its not as dangerous.

That's the typical response from people who don't understand it. Thorium is basically as risky as coal or oil, well maybe not coal but the benefits of thorium definitely outweigh the risks
1. Thorium is cheap and readily available even here in Ireland
2. It isn't very explosive (The reason Chernobyl and Fukushima were dangerous was because they use Uranium, which is used because the leftovers can be used to make plutonium and weaponize the materials, and the habit stuck)
The only disadvantages are the waste (which in my opinion isn't worth it) which is minimal and the smoke and everything that already comes with fossil fuels

Gbear · 08-05-2012 12:03pm

CajunPenguin wrote: »

That's the typical response from people who don't understand it. Thorium is basically as risky as coal or oil, well maybe not coal but the benefits of thorium definitely outweigh the risks
1. Thorium is cheap and readily available even here in Ireland
2. It isn't very explosive (The reason Chernobyl and Fukushima were dangerous was because they use Uranium, which is used because the leftovers can be used to make plutonium and weaponize the materials, and the habit stuck)
The only disadvantages are the waste (which in my opinion isn't worth it) which is minimal and the smoke and everything that already comes with fossil fuels

I'm pretty sure that the explosiveness of uranium has nothing to do with it.
Chernobyl "exploded" due to, I think, superheated steam expanding very rapidly.
The uranium in nuclear reactors is not the same stuff as in bombs - less U235. Otherwise a runaway reaction would result in an explosion wheras at a reactor it involves the uranium getting really really hot.

And no smoke is released from nuclear power plants. They release steam.

I think I saw a TED talk mentioning that Bill Gates' futuristic technology investment company was working on thorium reactors. I shall have a look after my Spanish exam.

Macha · 08-05-2012 12:27pm

Jester252 wrote: »

What you are saying is been done and is currently in place but a base load is needed.
one of the biggest threats to the gird is half-time in the all-Ireland. Why because the kettle goes on in every house and the base load needs to be increased so the grid doesn't crash.
As for Watts/M2 Wind or renewable is currently too low.
Also even of we had a flexible grid the problem that more wind during less demand is still there. Not to mention that if the wind is too fast or too slow the wind turbines are turned off to protect them or not turn into a motor.
The HVDC line from Dublin to the UK will be used for Ireland to import energy from the UK.
Granted that is the first step on the ladder for a smart grid where the north of Europe supply's most of the wind and the south supply's most of the solar.
Solar energy during the day. Wind at night.
But renewable are very unstable in terms of power supply. We will need a stable source of energy one that can give power 24/7 without fail

Not hardly. Europe has barely scratched the surface of its renewables potential. I appreciate the issues with demand vs generation but as I've mentioned, these also exist with baseload as it is not flexible enough to follow demand curves, and definitely not to deal with the half-time issue you seem very worried about.

The flexible grid would not only factilitate the connection of more renewables but more interconnection and storage, plus demand-side management. Interconnectors are rarely only used one-way. The British government is very interested in supporting Ireland's renewables industry with a few to importing.

Renewables are not unstable, or no more so than any other source. There is no energy source that can't fail.

djpbarry · 08-05-2012 12:36pm

Jester252 wrote: »

This thread was set up by the op to explore the nuclear option. As in see what can be done. You are will to throw thorium out as there is not a reactor open for commercial use.

I’m not dismissing thorium-based reactors, I’m just pointing out that it’s still a highly experimental technology. People often fail to acknowledge this while simultaneously dismissing wind power (look at the OP) on the basis of, for example, variable output – but there are a whole bunch of experimental energy storage technologies that could potentially alleviate this. Take this remarkably simple approach, for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/04/green-machine-undersea-air-bag.html

All I’m looking for here is a little consistency.

Chloe Pink · 08-05-2012 12:50pm

Macha wrote: »

You fail to acknowledge the potential of renewables energy sources, ignore the massive subsidies (existing and historical) and imbalances in the current power grid and market design in favour of large incumbents like FF & nuclear and don't see any of the issue with nuclear technology, such as ever-increasing project costs and delays, an upward-spiralling technology cost-curve (I've never seen a nuclear learning curve that goes down), the need for massive state investment in what is effectively a mature technology and the fact that it just won't be built without state aid. Plus the fact that only the state can insure against the risks of nuclear. You tell me who is bailing out Tepco to the tune of €13 billion. Hint: not a private insurance company.

I asked a straight forward question paving the way for you to explain how renewables could be used - it's up to you as to whether or not you respond but please don't claim knowledge of me that I haven't expressed; it is not only presumptious but you attribute me with views I do not hold.

Macha · 08-05-2012 12:55pm

[mod]This thread isn't about renewables. Please get back on topic.[/mod]

Jester252 · 08-05-2012 1:09pm

Macha wrote: »

Not hardly. Europe has barely scratched the surface of its renewables potential. I appreciate the issues with demand vs generation but as I've mentioned, these also exist with baseload as it is not flexible enough to follow demand curves, and definitely not to deal with the half-time issue you seem very worried about.

The flexible grid would not only factilitate the connection of more renewables but more interconnection and storage, plus demand-side management. Interconnectors are rarely only used one-way. The British government is very interested in supporting Ireland's renewables industry with a few to importing.

Renewables are not unstable, or no more so than any other source. There is no energy source that can't fail.

The grid is very flexible at the moment. Turbines can be added and removed from the grid with little effort. But the base load is a constant supply of energy to use. It is needed. I have no problems with renewable the tech is there and anybody can build and understand it. But it is very low 1 wind turbine = 1MW = 650homes a year. As I said before wind is very intermittent so for a grid like this to be built would require other sources like hydro, wave, tidal,solar and biomass. Biomass and hydro are the only ones that are stable currently and Ireland has kinda taped into its only source of hydro the Shannon. So it this grid will need a lot of little power station ran by private people and different companies all over the country. Doing this will involve a lot of planing permission and red tape. Most will be stopped due to NIMBY syndrome (lot of BS when to a hydro and a wind farm on a college trip no noise at all). So plant will be pushed out into rural areas increasing the cost.
I would love to see Ireland and the rest of the world to be 100% renewable but that not going to happen so I will like a look into nuclear power. I only posted in this thread due to the straight NO response of some posters when the op was looking for a debate and some of the answer contained end of the world stuff. Nuclear and renewable should be an option but not the answer or any improve in power generation will stop

Jester252 · 08-05-2012 1:15pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not dismissing thorium-based reactors, I’m just pointing out that it’s still a highly experimental technology. People often fail to acknowledge this while simultaneously dismissing wind power (look at the OP) on the basis of, for example, variable output – but there are a whole bunch of experimental energy storage technologies that could potentially alleviate this. Take this remarkably simple approach, for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/04/green-machine-undersea-air-bag.html

All I’m looking for here is a little consistency.

I like it its a bit like how wave power works

http://www.sustainability.ie/pumpedstoragemyth.html
Have you heard about this

Markcheese · 08-05-2012 1:29pm

Macha wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

why wont they work together?

Basically, nuclear has very slow ramp up and ramp down rates, meaning the plants are slow to start up and slow to turn off relative to other generation technologies. Because of this nuclear works well as baseline load, ie you keep the plants running as long as possible without shutting the plants down.

Wind, and a lot of other renewables, on the other hand have very fast ramp up and ramp down rates, which means they can be turned on and off very quickly (sometimes when you don't necessarily want them to..).

If you have nuclear plants running all the time, it's inefficient because demand curves vary throughout the day (peak is normally 5-7pm and bottom is 3-5am). At the same time, wind generation can fluctuate wildly during the day, regardless of the demand.

Put the two together and you easily get a situation where wind generators are forced to stop generating (curtailment), which makes wind uneconomical. At the same time, if nuclear were asked to be as flexible as wind, it simply wouldn't be technologically possible.

They work together on a limited scale at the moment across Europe but you're starting to have situations where, for example, Germany is exporting power into Europe at times of high winds/strong sunshine and this is messing with France's steady-state power system based on nuclear.

Which goes to show that nuclear would work brilliantly with pumped hydro storage( spirit of Ireland scale) . Letting nuclear work more efficiently by absorbing peaks in supply and providing power for demand spikes....
I know this would mean Ireland would be part of a nuclear industry, if we went down this route, but without any reactors .... And providing industry in the west....

Macha · 08-05-2012 1:40pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Which goes to show that nuclear would work brilliantly with pumped hydro storage( spirit of Ireland scale) . Letting nuclear work more efficiently by absorbing peaks in supply and providing power for demand spikes....
I know this would mean Ireland would be part of a nuclear industry, if we went down this route, but without any reactors .... And providing industry in the west....

Eirgrid has already said that SoI is not a runner. We have no more hydro potential and have exploited what little we have.

Statistician · 08-05-2012 1:49pm

djpbarry wrote: »

But nothing really happened in Japan? The reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it still remained relatively intact – how is that anything other than an advert for the safety of nuclear power?
So it’s ok to import non-“green” energy, but not to produce it in Ireland?

'Nothing really happened in Japan'?

Um, yes it did! - and it's on going. They are unable to locate the corium in three reactors and spent pool fuel four is looking pretty precarious. If that collapses then it's bye bye Japan.

(all this as well as contaminating land and sea)

Markcheese · 08-05-2012 2:03pm

Eirgrid have said spirit of Ireland (PHES powered by wind) is a non runner. I'm talking about similar scale powered by nuclears excess capacity(mainly at night) and not just in ireland, more likely in scotland and wales...... Also we've more or less used up conventional large scale hydro sites. But haven't really investigated pumped hydro storage sites fresh or salt water. we might use one in Ireland to balance another moneypoint scale coal plant (clean tech ??)

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 2:20pm

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder how much of Dublin will be powered by Sellafield...? Of the irony... :P

You mean the earthquake and tsunami?

We got hit by Tsunami's in 1755 (Lisbon Earthquake) and 1761

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/65636-1755-1761-tsunamis-ireland.html

We are also at risk from Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
And La Palma in the Canaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja#Future_threats

No 6's but a couple of 5.8's next door in the past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles

Thing to remember about UK nuclear power is that it is being subsidised by a levy on other electricity so no real advantage in exporting it , even if they had some to spare. The interconnectors to Ireland mean the UK needs one less reactor, it's that simple.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 2:46pm

http://www.sciencespin.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/threatening-western-waves-/

FACTFILE

Historical records indicate that major storm waves or tsunamis have hit Ireland in 1640, 1755, 1839, 1852, 1854, 1941 and 1953.
The evidence suggests that the events of 1755 and 1854 were tsunamis, and the 1852 event might have been a tsunami.
Eyewitnesses reported of the 1839 event that "cod and conger were left squirming on the tops of sand dunes".
During the 1852 storm/tsunami, 15 fishermen were swept off a cliff on Inishmore.
The 1953 event killed 1,800 people in Holland, and 120 people died in the Irish Sea when a ferry sank.
The Atlantic is prone to 'freak waves' which can reach up to 30 metres. These are more frequent than previously thought and are due to merging of waves during storms.

Markcheese · 08-05-2012 3:15pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder how much of Dublin will be powered by Sellafield...? Of the irony... :P

You mean the earthquake and tsunami?

We got hit by Tsunami's in 1755 (Lisbon Earthquake) and 1761

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/65636-1755-1761-tsunamis-ireland.html

We are also at risk from Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
And La Palma in the Canaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja#Future_threats

No 6's but a couple of 5.8's next door in the past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_British_Isles

Thing to remember about UK nuclear power is that it is being subsidised by a levy on other electricity so no real advantage in exporting it , even if they had some to spare. The interconnectors to Ireland mean the UK needs one less reactor, it's that simple.

I agree with u about seismic activity,and I suppose if even a bad earthquake hit a rural, lightly populated not montainey area, then not much would happen..fatallaty wise.so not much would be recorded...

On the uk nuclear power point. I suppose their reactors are providing their baseline power.so very little excess nuclear generated power, but in a situation where the uk has a net power shortage at peak times they'd happily export" off peak" power regardless of it's source, to provide a peak time boost.... Probably semantics anyway....

djpbarry · 08-05-2012 3:27pm

Statistician wrote: »

'Nothing really happened in Japan'?

Once again, I meant relative to Chernobyl.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 3:52pm

Gbear wrote: »

Spotted the thread.

On the amount of Uranium left:
from Scientific American article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

So at current rates that's 200+ years without taking into account technological advances and the use of thorium reactors. I'm not sure do those numbers include nuclear weapons stockpiles - they're another source that could be pushed for.
Plenty of time to develop fusion.

I think India are using thorium because they have large thorium deposits - probably the largest in the world.

Nail, Head.

You are saying Nuclear power is a temporary stop gap at best.

at present rate of consumption nuclear power provides 13.5% or whatever of global electricity ,so to provide 100% of global electricity would be to burn it all up in 27 years.

which is barely breakeven time to cover capital costs of the new reactors

and in 27 years time you've a huge problem

oh yeah that doesn't include increased demand from China , India , Brazil, Africa , or price increases, or changes in laws, costs of waste disposal not being spread over future generations of plant

Weapons are usually counted , though the energy in reprocessing them may outweigh the benefits (not 100% sure on this , to do with making the plutonium so dilute that it's can't be weaponised )

At present it's impossible to recover uranium from seawater, the petrochemicals / energy costs don't break even , you could use wind power but that's kinda missing the point

Gbear · 08-05-2012 4:09pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nail, Head.

You are saying Nuclear power is a temporary stop gap at best.

Until we achieve commercial fusion reactors (or some as of yet unknown technology) everything is a stop gap at best in my view.

I think nuclear fusion is the closest thing ever discovered to magic. Getting massive quantities of cheap electricity using water and producing nothing harmful would blow everything else out of the water. I'm eagerly awaiting the end of the decade when ITER hopefully comes online.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

at present rate of consumption nuclear power provides 13.5% or whatever of global electricity ,so to provide 100% of global electricity would be to burn it all up in 27 years.

That's taking some rather large leaps of logic.
If we could instantaneously build the thousands of necessary reactors and their average efficiency was the same as that of all the current reactors then yes - it would burn up in 27 years.

That fails to take into account the incremental improvements that happens with all technologies - 40 year old designs are not as good as new designs.

It ignores the use of fast breeder reactors.

It also ignores the possibility of the Thorium reactors - I think a huge reason the US didn't follow that path was due to them wanting nuclear proliferation. They can use the waste generated from traditional reactors.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present it's impossible to recover uranium from seawater, the petrochemicals / energy costs don't break even , you could use wind power but that's kinda missing the point

I don't think it's impossible but it's certainly currently uneconomical.

Much the same as the tar sands in Alberta over time, so too will seawater uranium extraction become more viable.

Tomk1 · 08-05-2012 5:42pm

Statistician wrote: »

'Nothing really happened in Japan'?

Um, yes it did! - and it's on going. They are unable to locate the corium in three reactors and spent pool fuel four is looking pretty precarious. If that collapses then it's bye bye Japan.

(all this as well as contaminating land and sea)

Actually it proves how safe N-reactors are, that aren't even up to the same safety specifications as the earthquake prone LA N-reactors.

The Earthquake did no damage, The tsunami did no structual damage. What did do damage was the ineffective safety standards with an emergancy shutdown, like hitting the brakes on a 1000 m/hr train. I will be the 1st to admit that I might be going out on a limb, but if the reactors were not shut down nothing at all would have of happened and they would be working away aok today.

What happened was, the Earthquake hit, out of safety the reactors were wound down, so no longer producing enough power to keep the cooling pumps running, the diesel generators to keep the pumps running got flooded after the huge wave breached the protection wall and then the backup batteries only had enough power to keep the pumps running for I think 8 hrs, after that the cooling of the reactors stopped. Like any power station if you turn off the cooling pumps it will blow the heat exchange side.

With Fukushima, the reactors stayed intact after an earthquake, a tsunami stike, over heating and a fire. The real danger was spent fuel being stored on site.

If you ask me it just shows what a battering a not the best built reactor can take. A real success story apart from the idiots running it. What annoys me is many thousands of people died due to the diasater and instead some people focus on a nuclear plant in which no one died as a case to turn people against Nuclear Energy, if only beds were built as safe as N-plants more people would be alive today. (statistically dieing from falling out of bed makes dieing due to nuclear energy a joke)-source Bang goes the Theory

Solair · 08-05-2012 7:00pm

Tomk1 wrote: »

A Like any power station if you turn off the cooling pumps it will blow the heat exchange side.

That is not really a very accurate statement.

(I apologise for the length of this post, but I think some facts need to be set straight when it comes to what happened at Fukushima.)

In other types of thermal power station i.e. heated with burning fuel (fossil fuel / biomass) once the flames are extinguished / burners switched off, there would be almost zero risk of anything other than damage to the boilers should the heat exchangers fail. There is no risk of environmental damage.

The explosions at Fukushima Daiitchi were caused by STORED FUEL, not the reactors, they merely melted down and slowly burnt through the bottom of the reactor vessel. The contamination coming from cooling them by flushing sea-water through them and venting gasses up the stack.

Even in other safer design of nuclear power station, e.g. the UK's Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGR) and Magnox, there would be no problems in the event of a coolant loss as the core can cool passively.

The major explosions at Fukushima were caused by a very fundamental design flaw.
The particular type of fuel used in those reactors is clad in tubes of "zircaloy", an alloy that contains zirconium.

The problem is that when heated beyond normal operating temperatures (and not by much) zircaloy oxydises in the presence of water or air! It's an exothermic reaction i.e. produces even more heat, so it can literally burn.

To make it even worse, the when hot, it oxidizes in the presence of water, stripping oxygen from water molecules and producing explosive hydrogen

So, basically if the fuel pools are allowed to warm up, they can catch fire and not only that but produce highly explosive hydrogen. This is what caused the serious damage to the plant and put the reactors into even worse situation than they had been in.

Incidentally, the British AGR plants use stainless steel cladding which has none of these problems.

The hydrogen explosions at Fukushima did immense damage to the control systems, the electrical systems, the pipework / ductwork and the structure of the building which made controlling the reactors even more difficult. They also possibly scattered fuel and radioactive debris all over the place.

What is proves is that this is an absolutely lousy design of reactor, yet it is commonly used all over the US and elsewhere in Japan.

I have a huge issue with the fact that it looks to me like these designs were kept top-secret back in the day so were never subjected to proper peer review or scrutiny. This was because at the time of construction, they were probably classified for cold-war reasons and because they did not want a situation where likes of North Korea (or Russia / China etc) could copy them and potentially use them to produce plutonium.

So, because of all of that, some pretty awful designs seem to have been put into service!

If that plant had been designed differently, even without the earthquake proofing, it would not have been a massive environmental disaster.

Sadly, due to arrogant engineering and a total lack of transparency, the design was declared absolutely safe a bit like the way the Titanic was absolutely unsinkable.

ALL existing reactors need to be examined for these kinds of fundamental design flaw.

This is why, I don't like the whole concept of nuclear power, certainly with the existing designs of reactors anyway - if they go wrong, they go HORRIBLY wrong.

Also, with other technologies, you have the possibility of having a learning curve i.e. you can have the odd disaster in the early days. People get killed / injured but the long-term consequences don't exist.

Things improve bit by bit.

This has been the case in industries like aviation where aircraft design errors have resulted in crashes, but the industry learns from those and irons out the bugs and planes have become incrementally safer and safer to the point that air travel is probably safer than walking down a street!

With nuclear power, you have a situation where there are very few of these plants (hundreds), they are incredibly expensive, have long life spans and you have to build them from the point of view that mistakes cannot happen and every conceivable thing that could possibly go wrong has been thought of.

Sadly, that's now how reality functions. We can't predict everything, even with the best computer modelling and best forecasting, things will go wrong.

The consequences of an error are just too big, certainly with existing technology anyway, for me to see nuclear power as a reasonable option.

Yet, according to some people posting on this forum, somehow that is an irrational or religious/dogmatic point of view?!
Personally, I think I'm basing it on a lot of hard science and engineering.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-05-2012 8:32pm

Gbear wrote: »

Until we achieve commercial fusion reactors (or some as of yet unknown technology) everything is a stop gap at best in my view.

Solar power in the Deserts / Oceans
Cost of panels is €1/watt and dropping in a Moore's law way

That's taking some rather large leaps of logic.
If we could instantaneously build the thousands of necessary reactors and their average efficiency was the same as that of all the current reactors then yes - it would burn up in 27 years.

That fails to take into account the incremental improvements that happens with all technologies - 40 year old designs are not as good as new designs.

It ignores the use of fast breeder reactors.

It also ignores the possibility of the Thorium reactors - I think a huge reason the US didn't follow that path was due to them wanting nuclear proliferation. They can use the waste generated from traditional reactors.

You are ignoring that if there isn't a massive increase in the usage of nuclear it will become a niche power source.

The improvements in nuclear aren't all that great. It's a Carnot engine and efficiency is related to the temperature of the steam. Meanwhile CCGT is hitting 59% in Aghada, which is a pipe dream with nuclear.

Thorium / Fast breeder, come back when they are economic. Fast breeder is basically a means to produce plutonium for the military, French , US, USSR can't get them working economically so ...

Thorium may be possible. And it's three times as abundant as uranium, still stop gap in the long run.

Uranium extraction from seawater would have to become orders of magnitude more efficient, sponges and ion exchange and stuff. For the same sort of investment you could probably build tidal / wave powered stations extracting the same energy.

SeanW · 10-05-2012 1:12am

Macha wrote: »

Or you could flip it and say the major problem is having all these inflexible base-load hogging technologies as our major power source. Nuclear is very inflexible and can't ramp up or down to match demand.

Some of the 'small nuclear' designs on the drawing board can ramp up and down. And no doubt with large amounts of unstable weather dependent renewables to "depend" on, this will be necessary. It would also make power cheaper (reduced transmission losses) if you had local "nuclear battery" type installations as opposed to large central fossil fuel fired power stations.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Europe's hydro potential has been largely exhausted but linking in existing hydro with RES is a different story altogether.

RES? I've not heard of that before, care to explain?

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet you're convinced by the economic case for nuclear? That's a double-standard.

Yes, because nuclear provides certain benefits, no CO2 from the plants, fuel trivially easy to store, large scale baseload and highly reliable. In some senses the opposite of fossil fuels (filthy, and with fuel (e.g. gas) that has to be imported day-by-day) and in every other sense the opposite of renewables (unreliable and uncontrollable).

So if (and if is the key word) the government has to pay for the deep burial of waste or whatever, it's money well spent as far as I am concerned.

Solair wrote: »

What is proves is that this is an absolutely lousy design of reactor, yet it is commonly used all over the US and elsewhere in Japan.

I have a huge issue with the fact that it looks to me like these designs were kept top-secret back in the day so were never subjected to proper peer review or scrutiny. This was because at the time of construction, they were probably classified for cold-war reasons and because they did not want a situation where likes of North Korea (or Russia / China etc) could copy them and potentially use them to produce plutonium.

So, because of all of that, some pretty awful designs seem to have been put into service!

If that plant had been designed differently, even without the earthquake proofing, it would not have been a massive environmental disaster.

Sadly, due to arrogant engineering and a total lack of transparency, the design was declared absolutely safe a bit like the way the Titanic was absolutely unsinkable.

ALL existing reactors need to be examined for these kinds of fundamental design flaw.

I agree, almost totally! Ever since I became a pro-nuke, I've been railing against bad reactor design, the biggest example being the RBMK that lead (along with Communist (mal)practice) to the Chernobyl disaster.

Also, with other technologies, you have the possibility of having a learning curve i.e. you can have the odd disaster in the early days. People get killed / injured but the long-term consequences don't exist.

Things improve bit by bit.

And yes, despite being a young technology, nuclear energy has already improved massively in the ~60 odd years its been in large use - there were foul ups with bad early technology (pollution of beaches in the U.K. the Windscale fire) but that tends to happen less now.

This has been the case in industries like aviation where aircraft design errors have resulted in crashes, but the industry learns from those and irons out the bugs and planes have become incrementally safer and safer to the point that air travel is probably safer than walking down a street!

Yet we still have plane crashes.

The consequences of an error are just too big, certainly with existing technology anyway, for me to see nuclear power as a reasonable option.

Yet, according to some people posting on this forum, somehow that is an irrational or religious/dogmatic point of view?!
Personally, I think I'm basing it on a lot of hard science and engineering.

How so? Fossil fuel power does more harm in one year than nuclear power has done in its entire time in use on Earth - and I include the Chernobyl disaster in that.

There are a large array of facts (Carbon Dioxide emissions, human deaths per TW/h) to show that a nuclear programme can be run safely, far safer for the environment and the general public's health than fossil fuels. We could be assured of our energy security by (easily) building a stockpile of nuclear fuel.

You even admitted that Fukushima was caused by specific, known plant flaws and practices inherited from the Cold War (which ended 20 years ago).

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2012 1:49am

SeanW wrote: »

Some of the 'small nuclear' designs on the drawing board can ramp up and down.

6 hours ? 18 hours ?
what about the Xenon poisoning ?

And lets not forget that snafu with the pebbles getting stuck in the German test.

There is a reason they are still on the drawing board.

Yes, because nuclear provides certain benefits, no CO2 from the plants, fuel trivially easy to store, large scale baseload and highly reliable. In some senses the opposite of fossil fuels (filthy, and with fuel (e.g. gas) that has to be imported day-by-day) and in every other sense the opposite of renewables (unreliable and uncontrollable).

you've never heard of gas storage ? :eek:

So if (and if is the key word) the government has to pay for the deep burial of waste or whatever, it's money well spent as far as I am concerned.

It's €3 Bn
If we get half our power from nuclear that's €1 per installed Watt.
That's the sort of price the UK are paying for offshore wind.

I agree, almost totally! Ever since I became a pro-nuke, I've been railing against bad reactor design, the biggest example being the RBMK that lead (along with Communist (mal)practice) to the Chernobyl disaster.

What about the Japanese reactors ?
Or the Californian one with the earthquake shield build backwards ?
Or the Indian one with the radioactive control room ?
Or the UK ones ?
Or the German pebble bed one ?
Or the cost overruns and cheapo labour on the Finnish one ?
Can't remember if it was French but there was a reactor where the construction lads used to take a leak in the rebar sockets 'cos it was a long way down. Can't be good for corrosion in years to come.

Point is most countries have had major issues with reactors, and multiple safeguards only go so far because we are building better idiots all the time. Sellafield Fire ?

And yes, despite being a young technology, nuclear energy has already improved massively in the ~60 odd years its been in large use - there were foul ups with bad early technology (pollution of beaches in the U.K. the Windscale fire) but that tends to happen less now.

How has it improved relative to what could have been done in the 1950's if they had to follow today's emission standards. (apart of course from having hotter steam because of better steel)

How so? Fossil fuel power does more harm in one year than nuclear power has done in its entire time in use on Earth - and I include the Chernobyl disaster in that.

Citation needed for that
also citation needed to show that nuclear power has produced more than 1/60th of the amount of power than the amount of fossil fuel used to day.

Few if any of the failings of nuclear plants were unknown in the 1950's.

Do you have any stats on early deaths of mine workers in Africa ?

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2012 2:03am

http://www.psr.org/news-events/news-archive/psr-cost-of-wind-power-far-lower-than-coal.html

Dr. Thomasson in her testimony compared the costs to the public’s health from coal combustion against the generation costs of offshore wind. Health costs from coal contaminants far outweigh the additional costs of wind.
...
Even looking at only those three pollutants, analysis shows that the generation of 310 megawatts from offshore wind – the amount being proposed for the Maryland wind farm – would save $100 million in public health, thanks to the avoidance of premature deaths attributed to coal combustion.

djpbarry · 10-05-2012 9:48am

SeanW wrote: »

Some of the 'small nuclear' designs on the drawing board can ramp up and down. And no doubt with large amounts of unstable weather dependent renewables to "depend" on, this will be necessary.

Yet another double standard – you’re comparing potential future nuclear designs with today’s renewable generators.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, because nuclear provides certain benefits...

But other forms of generation don’t?

SeanW wrote: »

...no CO2 from the plants...

Eh, CO2 is produced in the construction/decommissioning of the plants and the refining of the fuel? For lower-grade uranium ores, CO2 emitted per kWh approaches levels associated with CCGT plants.

SeanW wrote: »

...fuel trivially easy to store, large scale baseload and highly reliable. In some senses the opposite of fossil fuels (filthy, and with fuel (e.g. gas) that has to be imported day-by-day)...

In what way is gas “filthy”?

SeanW wrote: »

...and in every other sense the opposite of renewables (unreliable and uncontrollable).

I really wish people would learn the difference between “reliable” and “intermittent”.

How often does a wind turbine need to be shut down for maintenance and how does that compare to a nuclear reactor?

SeanW wrote: »

So if (and if is the key word) the government has to pay for the deep burial of waste or whatever, it's money well spent as far as I am concerned.

Surely that should depend on how much is being spent?

SeanW wrote: »

And yes, despite being a young technology, nuclear energy has already improved massively in the ~60 odd years its been in large use...

It really hasn’t – reactor design is virtually unchanged. Safety standards have been improved, definitely, but the technology is more-or-less the same.

SeanW wrote: »

We could be assured of our energy security by (easily) building a stockpile of nuclear fuel.

Wouldn’t that depend on the cost and availability of that fuel?

Oldtree · 10-05-2012 12:06pm

Interesting view here on cost of nuclear power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2012 1:04pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Yet another double standard – you’re comparing potential future nuclear designs with today’s renewable generators.

Since some of that stuff like molten salt reactors and thorium/U233, have been tested 50 years ago it's not like we're expecting a breakthrough anytime soon.

And at the end of the day a nuclear reactor is just a fancy boiler. As it's baseload the electricity it generates would be worth a little over 3c per unit.

If you want to talk about breeder reactors then you have to accept that plutonium production started in 1944. How many breeder reactors are in use today, excluding those required to produce plutonium for the military ?

djpbarry · 10-05-2012 1:53pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since some of that stuff like molten salt reactors and thorium/U233, have been tested 50 years ago it's not like we're expecting a breakthrough anytime soon.

And at the end of the day a nuclear reactor is just a fancy boiler. As it's baseload the electricity it generates would be worth a little over 3c per unit.

If you want to talk about breeder reactors then you have to accept that plutonium production started in 1944. How many breeder reactors are in use today, excluding those required to produce plutonium for the military ?

Yeah, I'm inclined to lump Thorium and Breeder reactors in with fusion in the pipe dream category, for the foreseeable future at least.

Oldtree · 10-05-2012 2:57pm

found this today:

Nuclear generation costs

DECC commissions regular updates by independent consultants on estimated electricity generation costs for nuclear and other technologies. Cost data is broken down into detailed expenditure per MW or MWh for the lifetime of a plant, from planning costs right through construction and operating costs to eventual decommissioning costs. The latest independent report for non-renewable technologies was published in July 2011.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/nuclear.aspx#

and it seems to point to nuclear being the cheapest form of production including decomissioning costs

Solair · 10-05-2012 3:30pm

The argument will be settled by economics, and nothing else.

The reality of the situation is that governments, certainly in western countries, are not prepared to throw vast amounts of money into a technology without massive returns.

Nuclear is extremely capital-intensive and deeply politically unpopular. So, I can't really see those kinds of programmes that we saw in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s being enthusiastically pursued now.

Also, we have to consider that most of the major nuclear technology developments occurred during absolutely massive, unprecedented, Cold War era pushes to develop military uses of the technology both for weapons and power supplies for submarines, remote bases etc.

The majority of civilian nuclear technology in the UK, US, France, and former USSR etc all comes from those developments.

Other countries i.e. in Europe and Asia got their nuclear power technology via NATO / EurAtom / Atoms for Peace programmes etc as they were 'friendly nations', or because they were part of the Eastern Bloc and got Russian tech.

That kind of research is simply no longer happening as the whole Cold War paradigm ended and military forces are more concerned with combating terrorism threats these days than fighting superpowers with high tech weaponry. It's moved towards a much messier type of warfare, and one in which nuclear technology has very little place anymore.

So, all in all, I don't really see how Governments would be all that interested in the technology.

The only place you will see interest is China etc, where there's a command economy and a major energy crisis / smog problem due to their dependence on coal-burning power plants.

We need to focus on stable, renewable, safe power. Nuclear is probably going to remain in the mix for the medium term anyway, but it is definitely not the long-term solution to human energy needs.

We need to a) reduce consumption (without reducing lifestyle) and this is possible with better technology and better use of technology in buildings / transport etc.

b) Find ways of using more renewable and load balancing.

All of these experimental nuclear technologies are just that : experimental!

So, we are stuck with basically modified, modernised light-water reactor technology that is basically unchanged since the 1950s.

SeanW · 10-05-2012 6:17pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, I'm inclined to lump Thorium and Breeder reactors in with fusion in the pipe dream category, for the foreseeable future at least.

The Indians are working hard on it because they have 1bn+ people expecting a 1st world lifestyle. Pretty sure they'll get it too.

Oldtree wrote: »

Interesting view here on cost of nuclear power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition

But the cost of an irrational "no to nuclear" is even higher, as they're finding out in Japan. (Emphasis mine)

The closure of the last of Japan's 54 reactors marks a dramatic shift in energy policy, but while campaigners prepare to celebrate, the nationwide nuclear blackout comes with significant economic and environmental risks attached.

Japan braces itself for a long, humid summer that will have tens of millions of people reaching for the controls of their air conditioners, raising the risk of power cuts and yet more disruption for the country's ailing manufacturers.In a report released this week, the government's national policy unit projected a 5% power shortage for Tokyo, while power companies predict a 16% power shortfall in western Japan, which includes the major industrial city of Osaka.

Uh oh ...

the extra cost of importing fuel for use in thermal power stations could be passed on to individual consumers though higher electricity bills.

So ... the Japanese people are going to have to subsidise the higher cost of imported fossil fuel? Who could have seen that coming?

while utilities have turned to coal, oil and gas-fired power plants to keep industry and households supplied with electricity – imports that contribute to Japan's first trade deficit for more than 30 years last year.

OUCH!!!!

djpbarry wrote: »

Yet another double standard – you’re comparing potential future nuclear designs with today’s renewable generators.

Tomorrows nuclear power plants will be better than todays, but renewables will still be dependent on the weather.

The best we can hope for is that the next generation wind turbines don't need neodymium, or that solar panels will likewise not need filthy rare earth metals.

But other forms of generation don’t?

Not to the same extent no - as Germany has and Japan is about to show.

In what way is gas “filthy”?

For one thing, it produces about 1/3 the CO2 output of brown coal, and is also a source of radon.

It's also concentrated in few areas, and in Europe's case is going to make us dependent on a long pipeline from Russia. Not a good idea for a nations economy and national security to be spending huge amounts of money on imported fossil fuel that cannot be strategically 'reserved' as easily as Uranium. See Germany and the sweetheart deals they've made with Gazprom, with the full approval of that country's environmental-left.

I really wish people would learn the difference between “reliable” and “intermittent”.

Intermittent. Unrelaible.

I don't know if you drive, but when there's a light rain, and you only want the wipers on a little bit, you set them to "Intermittent." That means they work on a specific alternating basis - wipe, wait ~3-5 seconds, wipe again.

Renewables don't work like that as they are literally as reliable as the weather. That's closer to "unreliable" in my book.

In fact there is now empirical evidence to suggest that there is a strong NEGATIVE correlation between energy demand and supply from renewable sources.

In Ireland we had a very cold winter during Christmas 2010, power demand surged to near record highs as temperatures plummetted to well below -10C in parts. I went back to the family homeplace in Longford that time, and the heating system failed because it depended on circulating water, which had frozen. We had to put coal in the fireplace, and throw on EVERYTHING electric, heaters, immersion even the oven, to stay alive.

But the arctic front also came with a dead calm wind speed and of course record low solar radiation. Ergo, that baseline power that is so maligned in some circles could quite literally have been the difference between life and death for some at that time.

Last winter Germany had phased out large portions of its nuclear power plants and as a result they almost had a major blackout when temperatures there plummetted and all that solar power they'd spent a fortune on (importing solar panels from China) failed as for some inexplicable reason :rolleyes: they don't, work very well covered in snow drifts.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8925115a-6eb7-11e1-afb8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uUDtCP7K

It really hasn’t – reactor design is virtually unchanged. Safety standards have been improved, definitely, but the technology is more-or-less the same.

So you've just conceded the main point!

Wouldn’t that depend on the cost and availability of that fuel?

For a little country like Ireland, no not really. Especially if we planned on having fuel reprocessed.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2012 7:23pm

SeanW wrote: »

The Indians are working hard on it because they have 1bn+ people expecting a 1st world lifestyle. Pretty sure they'll get it too.

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Chronology_of_thorium_to_U-233_FOIA_Docs.pdf
the US did a lot of research into this from 1951-1979

The best we can hope for is that the next generation wind turbines don't need neodymium, or that solar panels will likewise not need filthy rare earth metals.

I posted a link a while back about Toshiba? having made efficient motors without rare earths. Also you can use electromagnets if you don't mind loosing a little efficiency. Some panels need rare minerals. Silicon ones don't and we aren't going to run out of it any time soon.

In Ireland we had a very cold winter during Christmas 2010, power demand surged to near record highs as temperatures plummetted to well below -10C in parts. I went back to the family homeplace in Longford that time, and the heating system failed because it depended on circulating water, which had frozen. We had to put coal in the fireplace, and throw on EVERYTHING electric, heaters, immersion even the oven, to stay alive.

so what you are saying is that instead of investing billions in building nukes we could have reduced peak demand by insulating homes.
Scandaniva has much lower temperatures and they can get by with passive heating. Nukes won't help as they are base load.

But lets look at that again. Circulating water had frozen. Such things would have crippled a nuclear reactor :pac:

Seriously having a pump means you weren't using electricity so what's the point ??

Solair · 10-05-2012 7:36pm

To counter the argument about the -10C winter (a freak one off).

If you look at a country like France, where nuclear power is abundant, it had one of the most dramatic humanitarian disasters in recent history due to an unusually warm summer.

There were 14,000+ heat-releated deaths in 2003 in France ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave#France

The very freakishly cold snap in Ireland is as unlikely to be prepared for with/without nuclear power. The fact was that our houses are not designed for those extremes of temperature.

You'd seriously suggest that we install nuclear power, rip out millions of central heating systems and install electric radiators?!

The power system actually held up very well. The problem was that people did not have any preparations for those kinds of temperatures.

Even in countries like France, with lashings of nuclear, natural gas central heating and water-filled rads still remain extremely popular.

Also, millions of Irish heating systems held up perfectly well, and did not freeze during that cold snap.

The major issue was where incoming water mains froze and people had combo-boilers that instantaneously heat water from the mains. Those cannot be run without running water, it had nothing to do with electricity supply! Rather, just that the infrastructure in Ireland cannot cope with temperatures that cold.

In countries that regularly experience those kinds of temperatures, they normally have anti-freeze / "radiator fluid" in the radiators.
It's slightly easier than ripping out a perfectly effective heating system and replacing it with electrical heating (which even with nuclear power, would be dramatically more expensive to run than fuel-burning alternatives!)

Jester252 · 10-05-2012 9:37pm

Just to point out the research done was very little compaired to uranium as its by-products it produces can be used in nuclear weapons

nuclear

Comments