Are you concerned with the UK government's plan to build a new generation of nuclear

Milkey Bar Kid

I got this from the paper today and wondered what all your thoughts are.

Insect Overlord

Nuclear what?

Milkey Bar Kid

Nuclear power plants all over the UK

m@cc@

Nu-cleear. It's pronounced nu-cleear.

Noopti

An File wrote: »

Nuclear what?

Nuclear-asil - it is clearasil, only much much more powerful.

Milkey Bar Kid

It gives you a Glowing complexion

JIZZLORD

nuclear power is generally safe. nothing to fear

I think it's a good move.. cleanest form of power that we know off. Don't let the scare-mongering make you think it's the devil.

super_furry

Not really, indeed I'm disappointed that our goverment aren't looking into similar measures here.

Milkey Bar Kid

It will out the ESB out of Business if we get cheap energy from england

Insect Overlord

Milkey Bar Kid wrote: »

It will out the ESB out of Business if we get cheap energy from england

The country just signed a deal to sell some of our energy to Britain

astrofool

Not concerned in the slightest, clean cheap energy that reduces the UK's carbon footprint, along with cheaper electricity for us when we buy it. Great result for everyone.

I would ask anyone who is still afraid of nuclear to get a nuclear physics book, and study the reactor designs that will be built, if you don't understand the physics behind it, you cannot give a proper opinion on it.

astrofool

An File wrote: »

The country just signed a deal to sell some of our energy to Britain

Energy can be both imported and exported depending on demand, and in particular weather (how much wind power we have available).

For example, if us and Spain covered the west coast in windmills, we would have enough energy to supply Europe, to the extent that the excess energy could be used to load hydroelectric plants in scandinavia. If the wind ever drops, scandinavia has enough capacity to supply Europe for 7 weeks (and that's without going into the potential for offshore wind farms). The problem is getting a DC interconnector for Europe to allow all this electricity to be transmitted from country to country.

Terry

astrofool wrote: »

Energy can be both imported and exported depending on demand, and in particular weather (how much wind power we have available).

For example, if us and Spain covered the west coast in windmills, we would have enough energy to supply Europe, to the extent that the excess energy could be used to load hydroelectric plants in scandinavia. If the wind ever drops, scandinavia has enough capacity to supply Europe for 7 weeks (and that's without going into the potential for offshore wind farms). The problem is getting a DC interconnector for Europe to allow all this electricity to be transmitted from country to country.

No, the problem is that people won't want wind farms anywhere near their homes.

Just think about any time anyone tries to undertake a large project in this country and then picture the hippies in the trees.

The project ends up taking twice as long and costing three times as much because a bunch of wasters wont get out of the way of progress.

Shell to sea and the M3 are just two things which come to mind.
There are plenty more local ones I can think of.

Donny5

astrofool wrote: »

For example, if us and Spain covered the west coast in windmills, we would have enough energy to supply Europe, to the extent that the excess energy could be used to load hydroelectric plants in scandinavia.

Would we? That sounds pretty suspect, to be honest. Got a source? Also, I know it's After Hours, and no-one has to back up anything, et cetera.

Noopti

Donny5 wrote: »

Would we? That sounds pretty suspect, to be honest. Got a source? Also, I know it's After Hours, and no-one has to back up anything, et cetera.

Also, because this is After Hours the source will probably be "Yore Ma"......

partyatmygaff

Mmmm Nuclear waste in the Irish sea anyone? Nuclear explosion 2012


Risky having a nuclear reactor so close to home, in the event something happens which i know probably isnt likely but still anything can happen we wouldnt have a hope in hell.

Donny5

Noopti wrote: »

Also, because this is After Hours the source will probably be "Yore Ma"......

Ah, a reliable source.

Mark200

astrofool wrote: »

I would ask anyone who is still afraid of nuclear to get a nuclear physics book, and study the reactor designs that will be built, if you don't understand the physics behind it, you cannot give a proper opinion on it.

And presumably ignore the fact that nuclear power generates radioactive waste that takes 1000's of years to become safe?


I'm not really concerned with the UK's plans, but nuclear power isn't perfect... and it isn't sustainable forever unless someone figures out how to make this nuclear waste safe.

Terry

Mark200 wrote: »

And presumably ignore the fact that nuclear power generates radioactive waste that takes 1000's of years to become safe?


I'm not really concerned with the UK's plans, but nuclear power isn't perfect... and it isn't sustainable forever unless someone figures out how to make this nuclear waste safe.

Rocket into space.

Nuclear power is the way forward. It is safe, clean and very efficient. Wind power, solar power etc are a waste of time and money as a long term means of meeting energy requirements. 87% of power generated in France is nuclear and they have no problems. Fair play to th UK it is a step forward and leaves the fossil fuels for me to burn in my car!:D

Mycroft H

We were going to have a nuclear power plant, near carnsore point.

But then the hippies kicked up a stink and the idea was dropped.

Which was a pity i think. We could have benefited from the lower energy prices.....

Robbo

landyman wrote: »

We were going to have a nuclear power plant, near carnsore point.

But then the hippies kicked up a stink and the idea was dropped.

Which was a pity i think. We could have benefited from the lower energy prices.....

It was all Christy Moore's fault, like so many other things.

It's near impossible to have a rational discussion about nuclear power in this country without someone dragging up Chernobyl and this poor little irradiated children Adi Roche ships in for 3 weeks a year.

Galvasean

Robbo wrote: »

It's near impossible to have a rational discussion about nuclear power in this country without someone dragging up Chernobyl and this poor little irradiated children Adi Roche ships in for 3 weeks a year.

A knew a man who electricuted himself with a toaster.
ZOMG electric power isn't safe, ban it!!!!

JimiTime

Terry wrote: »

Rocket into space.

Yeah, get rid of our nuclear waste, but release Zod and his cronies from the Phanthom Zone:eek: Don't you watch the news?!?!?!?........Or was that a movie......

Capt'n Midnight

landyman wrote: »

We were going to have a nuclear power plant, near carnsore point.

We used to have the 3rd cheapest electricity in Europe, despite having no interconnectors and no economy of scale as we only equilivant to Birmingham. Price increases since then have been due to fuel costs and government intervention :mad:

Capt'n Midnight

Terry wrote: »

No, the problem is that people won't want wind farms anywhere near their homes.

Given the choice I'd reckon that apart from those who get direct financial gain more people would prefer the wind farm to the reactor.

Capt'n Midnight

astrofool wrote: »

Not concerned in the slightest, clean cheap energy that reduces the UK's carbon footprint, along with cheaper electricity for us when we buy it. Great result for everyone.

By the time you figure in all the inputs like CO2 from the concrete and waste managment and mining Nuclear isn't as carbon friendly as you would like to think. Depending on the rate of construction you may even generate more carbon dioxide for many years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

I would ask anyone who is still afraid of nuclear to get a nuclear physics book, and study the reactor designs that will be built, if you don't understand the physics behind it, you cannot give a proper opinion on it.

Lets pretend that there will never be any incidents with reactors.
You still have the whole reprocessing / waste disposal / increased background radiation level. There is also the problems with mining including some places lower safety standards than here , and the shipping of waste. Not to mention that the price of the fuel will depend on the limited supply.

Capt'n Midnight

Terry wrote: »

Rocket into space.

Liquid salt based thorium reactors can burn most of the fuel.

Current nuclear technology only uses a fraction of a percent of the fuel, all of the rest is waste. I doubt the energy required would balance out. Also failure rates of a few percent are common with rockets which isn't all that desirable.

Tazzle

Maddux Chilly Snowman wrote: »

Nuclear power is the way forward. It is safe, clean and very efficient. Wind power, solar power etc are a waste of time and money as a long term means of meeting energy requirements. 87% of power generated in France is nuclear and they have no problems. Fair play to th UK it is a step forward and leaves the fossil fuels for me to burn in my car!:D

+1 for nuclear energy. Am I concerned? I'm only concerned that we're not pursuing nuclear options.

Terry

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Given the choice I'd reckon that apart from those who get direct financial gain more people would prefer the wind farm to the reactor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7999616.stm

A proposed wind farm at Drumsurn in County Londonderry has split the community, Limavady's mayor has said.

Gaeletric want to erect seven turbines at Smulgedon due to the wind speeds.

The farms would power about 10,000 homes, but some residents have said there are already too many wind farms in the Sperrins.

The town's Mayor, Brenda Chivers of Sinn Fein, said: "We're hoping to get all the parties around a table and solve this."

Gaelectric invited the public to view its plans in Dungiven on Tuesday night.

Around 30 supporters of the wind farm were at the meeting but members of the Roe Valley Anti-Wind Farm Group decided not to attend the meeting.

Group secretary, Deborah Mullan, said the group have sent a letter to Gaelectric, outlining their opposition, and their intention to fight the project "all the way".

"We are yet to be convinced the farms need to be built in Drumsurn," she said.

"We do have to move forward and renewable energy may be that way but do we need to have so much in one small area.

"We're not convinced by the arguments made by the company, this a beautiful area and we want to promote that."

Gaelectric operations director, Mike Denny, said three wind farms in one area is not particularly high.

"There are other areas of Northern Ireland where there are a higher concentration of wind farms.

"This is just a case of everyone having to do their part - In NI we import 94 per cent of fossil fuels which is not sustainable," he said.

Gaelectric said they contacted 34 households within a 1km radius.

The company said of the 28 that responded, 18 expressed support for the wind farm.

The planning service will decide the future of the wind farm but a decision could take up to two years.

That's just 7 turbines.

Calibos

What ever about the Nimby's who protest the land based windfarms, "Oh Noes, it ruined my view". TBH I think it would enhance the view, Synergy between 0 emmision electricity generation and the land. Blah Blah. More attractive than a bloody peat burning powerstation built on the bog at any rate.

But someone explain to me the mentaility of the eejits protesting about the offshore windfarms miles out to sea. WTF is the problam they have with them. "Oh Noes, The perfectly straight horizon is interupted by teeny tiny little hair thin protuberances"

As for the DC interconnectors. Great for effiecient distribution and shunting around of power. Remembered reading an article in New Scientist about it a few weeks ago about how great it would be if we in Europe built a few of these for the reasons posted earlier.

ie use the different generation technologies where they will be most efficient. No point in Paddy building solar farms or Pedro building Hydro generation in the Spanish Catalonian deserts. Have the Portugese, French, Ireland, UK, Low Countries and Denmark concentrate on Wind and Wave generation. Have the Italians concentrate on Hydro with the alps and Solar. Have the Spanish concentrate on solar and Solar reactors, Have the Scandanavians concentrate on Hydro.

The Ironic thing was after only the week before extolling the virtues of High capacity DC interconnectors, New Scientist ran an article the follwing week explaining how $@#!ed we'd be when the next big Solar Flare hit us and blew out all the interconnectors. The European economy would come to a standstill and millions would die. No power in hospital, No power to pump fuel from the tanks to the fuel lorry to deliver to the hospital, no fuel for the combine harvestor, no power for the supermarket firdges, no fuel for the supermarket delivery trucks, no power for the aircon or heating killing oldies, etc etc etc.

Peteee

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Lets pretend that there will never be any incidents with reactors.

Modern reactor designs aren't your vintage chernobyl designs (Of which 3 are still in operation!). They are physically, mathematically, impossible to melt down (The hotter the core gets the slower the nuclear reaction takes place, its self regulating) and about 50 things need to be right to make the reactors work, and if any one of these isn't right, they shut off.

Back with Chernobyl they needed about 50 things to go right to stop the thing blowing up. Along with the poor reactor design, the people running it were chimps, had all the safety controls turned off, did the wrong thing to stop a core meltdown and were too inexperienced to see what was happening.

By the time you figure in all the inputs like CO2 from the concrete and waste managment and mining Nuclear isn't as carbon friendly as you would like to think

See attached image. Also burning coal etc spews out far more radiation then a nuclear power plant.

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Capt'n Midnight

Terry wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7999616.stm
That's just 7 turbines.

Out of 10,000 households that will benefit only 10 responded that they didn't support the windfarm.

Terry

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Out of 10,000 households that will benefit only 10 responded that they didn't support the windfarm.

That's all it takes.
10 will become 100 in no time and they will do the usual crap like lying down in front of bulldozers.
Then they'll draft in the rent-a-hippy crowd from Kerry via England and you're looking at a 2 year delay.

Capt'n Midnight

Peteee wrote: »

Modern reactor designs aren't your vintage chernobyl designs

modern airliners aren't your vintage 1950's Boeing 707's
But there are still losses from bad design and human error. Not as many as in the past but they still happen.

[drags up terrorist attack argument, reminds about how the Israelies bombed an Iraqi power station, the whole proliferation thing]

Please address my concerns about what happens away from the reactor itself or concede that reactor safety is just one small and highly regulated aspect of Nuclear power.

See attached image.

*Yawn*
It doesn't show inputs during manufacture, processing, mining, transport, storage, security or R&D. Ignoring those inputs even Bio-Ethanol looks like magic instead of break even.

Also burning coal etc spews out far more radiation then a nuclear power plant.

IIRC most of the stuff spewed out by coal can be removed in scrubbers and doesn't contain the really nasty stuff with half lives in the rage of 50-500 years that current nuclear plants produce in vast amounts. (Thorium cycle would generate only a fraction of a percentage of this, but less money for big business since less to reprocesses and no fuel elements needed)

And besides we should move to renewables, here we have oceans of wave power, very high tides , lots of wind AND lots of steep mountains in high rainfall areas. The country is built for pumped storage.

Peteee

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

*Yawn*
It doesn't show inputs during manufacture, processing, mining, transport, storage, security or R&D. Ignoring those inputs even Bio-Ethanol looks like magic instead of break even.

The image specifically addresses the life-cycle. The bits in white are life-cycle, the bits in red are when its in production.

Bio-Ethanol is rubbish, I agree.

IIRC most of the stuff spewed out by coal can be removed in scrubbers and doesn't contain the really nasty stuff with half lives in the rage of 50-500 years that current nuclear plants produce in vast amounts. (Thorium cycle would generate only a fraction of a percentage of this, but less money for big business since less to reprocesses and no fuel elements needed)

And besides we should move to renewables, here we have oceans of wave power, very high tides , lots of wind AND lots of steep mountains in high rainfall areas. The country is built for pumped storage.

Indeed we should move to renewables, but I believe they are only part of the solution. Fusion power is also an avenue to look forward to (Less nasty stuff to deal with).

To be honest whatever way we move away from a carbon based energy cycle is good. Just the concerns over nuclear power (Apart from the actual valid ones that you raise, which are of course very important and relevant to the nuclear debate) is always 'Oh no, not another Chernobyl. My children will grow up deformed from the radioactivities in their blood!!!' and people just ignore the hundreds of times more radiation gotten from coal power plants and accidents from badly run, outdated nuke sites.

As for pumped storage, aren't they net users of energy?

ScumLord

Maddux Chilly Snowman wrote: »

Nuclear power is the way forward. It is safe, clean and very efficient. Wind power, solar power etc are a waste of time and money as a long term means of meeting energy requirements. 87% of power generated in France is nuclear and they have no problems. Fair play to th UK it is a step forward and leaves the fossil fuels for me to burn in my car!:D

That's not exactly true. It's not safe if something goes wrong, certain aspects of nuclear power production are safer but it can still be very dangerous. It's not clean in the sense it produces very dangerous waste. It may not produce nearly as much but what it does produce is pretty dirty. I'd agree about wind power, I don't really think that a type of power source that could seriously meet the needs of a modern world.

I don't see how nuclear power will do anything to improve the worlds reliance on fossil fuels to power there cars.

I think methane power is the best solution for any size of community. We produce so much biological waste it seems daft to ignore such a simple and renewable source of energy.

astrofool

Donny5 wrote: »

Would we? That sounds pretty suspect, to be honest. Got a source? Also, I know it's After Hours, and no-one has to back up anything, et cetera.

I would never post anything without backup (even though this is after hours).

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JVPJSGV

The figure is 4 weeks rather than 7 weeks of power, but I remembered a 2 year old article pretty well

As capt'n midnight said, most of the waste can now be used as fuel in a specialised reactor, the amount of waste and even radiation produced is below that of a coal power plant.

Cosmo K

Interesting report about Chernobyl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/06/socialsciences.highereducation

Lu Tze

Peteee wrote: »

My children will grow up deformed from the radioactivities in their blood!!!

Or with some sort of superhuman power... Hulk Smash!

Capt'n Midnight

Terry wrote: »

That's all it takes.
10 will become 100 in no time and they will do the usual crap like lying down in front of bulldozers.
Then they'll draft in the rent-a-hippy crowd from Kerry via England and you're looking at a 2 year delay.

Wind farms can be built in months
Yet somehow it will be easier to build a nuclear plant through successive elections :rolleyes:

Overheal

Terry wrote: »

Rocket into space.

Perhaps you don't remember the Cassini probe launched in 1998. It carried 72 pounds of Plutonium Dioxide as fuel for its electronics. If it had burned up during liftoff it could have spread radioactive particles over thousands of square miles. Similarly during its return pass to slingshot past Earth's gravity well a couple years later on its way to Saturn, if NASA had miscalculated in any way, it might have burned up in our atmosphere then.

That was just one itty bitty little probe. Sparked months of hippie controversy in Florida, sparked hysteria in the days before its middle-of-the-night launch. Frankly I don't consider it a good idea to be hauling thousands of tons of spent nuclear waste into space on a regular basis. Not to mention the cost of doing so.

I'm all for nuclear power, mind you, but that idea is silly.

Capt'n Midnight

Peteee wrote:

As for pumped storage, aren't they net users of energy?

Yes, as are all storage systems.

But they allow you to generate power when there is no wind or wave power and are very handy for when everyone plugs the kettle in after Corranation street. Airtricity also had a plan to interconnect wind farms from Portual to the Baltic on the basis that it's normally windy somewhere.

[old chestnut]we also have the best climate for growing trees, so biomass is another power source, willow coppice or bamboo or whatever will grow best, even better if you can get another income while growing. We could use this in existing fossil fueled stations to balance

Lu Tze

In fairness, for renewable energies wind is not what we should be focusing on. There is research going on down in UCC for wave technology which seems to make it a feasable alternative http://www.marine.ie/home/aboutus/newsroom/news/WaveEnergyBreakthrough.htm

Although it doesn't mention in this article what the breakthrough they made is (from talking to a post grad who worked on it, the buoy is design so that its natural frequency matches that of the predominent waves in the locality, thus resonance gives greater displacement than traditional wave power technology) but it does highlight the biggest advantage over wind, they continue to produce electricity regardless of weather conditions, where as windfarms shutdown when the wind reaches a certain speed.

ScumLord

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes, as are all storage systems.

But they allow you to generate power when there is no wind or wave power and are very handy for when everyone plugs the kettle in after Corranation street. Airtricity also had a plan to interconnect wind farms from Portual to the Baltic on the basis that it's normally windy somewhere.

[old chestnut]we also have the best climate for growing trees, so biomass is another power source, willow coppice or bamboo or whatever will grow best, even better if you can get another income while growing. We could use this in existing fossil fueled stations to balance

Why don't they just hook the sewage system into a biomass thingie, make methane and use that for electricity and heating.

Dublin_Gunner

It doesn't show inputs during manufacture, processing, mining, transport, storage, security or R&D

Which are common to all reactors - fossil fuel types included, which you seem to forget when posting your argument.

Knew-cue-lar (In Americano) is the way forward, and has been for years. People read the odd horror story and assume that everything nuclear is bad and we're all gonna die or something.

Then the tree-huggers come along and do the things already outline in this thread.

Hmm, nuclear or, eh no power? Because thats what will happen. WHile solar, wave, wind etc are all very nice idea's in principal, they just aren't efficient enough at this stage to start supplying the majority of the energy required.

Sure, if everyone put solar panels on their roofs etc we would reduce the load on the power grid considerably, but I dont see that happening either unless something is passed into law stating that for every square meter of floor space in your home, you must have x square meter solar panels.

I cannot understand why we are so far behind other western countries with regard to modern power production. A few wind farms up north aren't going to change that either.

On the point of wind farms actually - and the stupid 'it'll ruin my view' arguments against. I can think of no more suitable form of architecture showing the human race's reliance and synergy with nature.

Capt'n Midnight

Peteee wrote:

The image specifically addresses the life-cycle. The bits in white are life-cycle, the bits in red are when its in production.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877

We have found the information about the EROI of nuclear power to be mostly as disparate, widespread, idiosyncratic, prejudiced and poorly documented as information about the nuclear power industry itself. Much, perhaps most, of the information that is available seems to have been prepared by someone who has made up his or her mind one-way or another (i.e. a large or trivial supplier of net energy) before the analysis is given. As is usually the case, the largest issue is often what the appropriate boundaries of analysis should be.

Diagram not to scale
E1 is what we are told the output will be.
E3 is the actual nett energy gain
the bar above E2 will get bigger as lower grade ores are used and we can expect final disposal inputs to become greater because of historically reducing limits on acceptable levels of waste release

It could take 20 years to offset the construction debt at which point you have only broken even and then longer again before you break even on the final disposal

At current use rates, the known resources are enough to last for 70 years, although changes in price and technology can affect the economically recoverable resources available (Hore-Lacy 2006). As with other mineral resources the average grade of uranium has declined substantially over time as the best reserves have been depleted. The average grade mined also is very sensitive to the mining rate, and the mean grade declines substantially when the rate of extraction increases for society (Hall et al. 1986). Not much research, with the exception of Leeuwen (2005), has been done on the effect of net energy with regards to these decreasing quality deposits, which will be used when uranium increases in price.

Just to give a feel for how little uranium is out there at economically justifiable prices.
$130 per Kg so lets call that €100 per Kg the 3,296,689 tonnes of Uranium accessible at that cost are worth just €330 Billion.
To put that in to perspective we've bailed out the banks to €90 Billion, and the USA paid €312 billion in interest on the national debt last year. ( $412bn)


Uranium supply info, to show that the price will probably go up
15 year price trend http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html

price adjusted for inflation note the oil spike from '73 and remember what you've heard about peak oil http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html

Production vs. requirements - the short fall is currently made up from stockpiles and recycled weapons - what will happen the price when they are used up ??
http://www.uxc.com/fuelcycle/uranium/uxc_g_prod-vs-reqt.html

production graph - note decline in France, Eastern Europe and South Africa
http://www.uxc.com/fuelcycle/uranium/uxc_g_prod-by-region.html

Mrmoe

Most of these ideas are from the middle of the last century. We should really be looking at new technologies to generate electricity.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/090414-space-solar.html

Alun

Mrmoe wrote: »

Most of these ideas are from the middle of the last century.

In other words they actually work, and are tried and trusted.

We should really be looking at new technologies to generate electricity.

In other words, pie-in-the-sky stuff that might work in another 10-20 years, if we're lucky. Then roll forward another 10 years and there'll be yet another 'promising technology' on the horizon, so we won't bother implementing that anyway because there's always something better just outside of our grasp.

Mrmoe

Alun wrote: »

In other words they actually work, and are tried and trusted.

If they are as successful that you claim then we would not even be discussing this topic now. Again if they are trusted then why is there no nuclear powered plants in this country.

Alun wrote: »

In other words, pie-in-the-sky stuff that might work in another 10-20 years, if we're lucky. Then roll forward another 10 years and there'll be yet another 'promising technology' on the horizon, so we won't bother implementing that anyway because there's always something better just outside of our grasp.

The advantage of doing this is that you stimulate other areas of the economy not associated with energy generation. I am probably incorrect in stating that solar energy collection from space is a new technology as the basis for it has existed since the 1960's but has never been implemented. You will still have problems with nuclear energy production in 100 years time.