Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Toto deVeer

Is The Future Nuclear?

Recommended Posts

Remember that when it comes to nuclear waste a very large proportion of it is pretty harmless really. Most low-level waste is stuff like anything that's been near an X-ray machine for a couple of hours. Not too likely to be a risk to anyone.

Dumping it in the sea is a bloody daft idea. It will spread around then. Dumping it down a deep hole in the ground is the way to go. It isn't going to go anywhere and you can keep an eye on it if needs be. Run a few pipes down there and you may be able to get a bit of useful extra heat from it.

Anyway, it isn't really an issue, it's just blown up to be one by the anti-nuclear crowd.

We've even got away with blasting lumps of plutonium into space (for power sources), but that's a tad expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that when it comes to nuclear waste a very large proportion of it is pretty harmless really. Most low-level waste is stuff like anything that's been near an X-ray machine for a couple of hours. Not too likely to be a risk to anyone.

Dumping it in the sea is a bloody daft idea. It will spread around then. Dumping it down a deep hole in the ground is the way to go. It isn't going to go anywhere and you can keep an eye on it if needs be. Run a few pipes down there and you may be able to get a bit of useful extra heat from it.

Anyway, it isn't really an issue, it's just blown up to be one by the anti-nuclear crowd.

We've even got away with blasting lumps of plutonium into space (for power sources), but that's a tad expensive.

I once read that the U.S used to dump their nuclear waste at sea in barrels. Of course the barrels would float if you just threw them in so blasted a couple of bullet holes in them just to make sure.

I think it was a Bill Bryson book, he is a known environmentalist but I doubt he'd actively mislead over something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to consider the energy cost of extraction and processing. Currently alot of costs bandied about for tar sands and other hard to get at resources are for the extraction, what they don't mention as often is the amount of energy need to do the processing.

Already many of the hard to get resources are becoming energy neutral, and as as result alot of our energy production is used to produce more stored energy.

The same applies to Uranium or any other mass to energy system, there is a huge amount of energy needed to refine any atomic fuel. Even the best hope for Fusion is Helium3 and that is most abundant on the moon and fairly dilute.

In all, much of our energy production is being used more like a battery in the short term (Ie I don't mean like the concept that oil is a sunlight battery). We need renewables to add energy to the system as we use more energy to process fossils.

Add in CO2 limits to the equation and easy fossils become close to energy neutral.

sorry, but you got your numbers wrong ... the key here is that you need only 1 or 2 tons of the lightly enriched Uranium to provide 2GWs for a year .... this is the reason why the nuclear electricity is the cheapest one produced ...

renewable are most expensive and unreliable ...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nLHRC8dC8wI/S8tjxUq6cxI/AAAAAAAAAD4/3XfGDWTE-nI/s1600/How+Electricity+is+used+in+a+day.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always surprised to see pro-nuclear advocates on this board.

The way I see it, the nuclear power industry could be a twin brother of the banking industry: make lots of dosh, then leave the clean-up costs to the taxpayer.

And I thought we all hated bankers? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once read that the U.S used to dump their nuclear waste at sea in barrels. Of course the barrels would float if you just threw them in so blasted a couple of bullet holes in them just to make sure.

I think it was a Bill Bryson book, he is a known environmentalist but I doubt he'd actively mislead over something like that.

I am not an expert but if you dump heavy radioactive metals 11km under the sea level there is no way it is going anywhere ... it will just stay there ... perhaps it will kill some local life, but who cares? 11km under ???? ....

But we do not need it anyway ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always surprised to see pro-nuclear advocates on this board.

The way I see it, the nuclear power industry could be a twin brother of the banking industry: make lots of dosh, then leave the clean-up costs to the taxpayer.

And I thought we all hated bankers? :)

seriously, the biggest energy scam on the tax payer are renewables ... no doubt about it .... more expensive and unreliable ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, the biggest energy scam on the tax payer are renewables ... no doubt about it .... more expensive and unreliable ...

Yes, and the best technology to use is tried and tested coal. The CO2 helps our environment, we have hundreds of years of supply which will supply many jobs to UK workers, and it is the cheapest.

The more you look at it, the more you realise that the whole thing is a fiddle.

Edited by leicestersq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, the biggest energy scam on the tax payer are renewables ... no doubt about it .... more expensive and unreliable ...

So you don't deny that nuclear power is a scam similar to the banking industry? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't deny that nuclear power is a scam similar to the banking industry? ;)

The only thing is,

1 ) It allows us to make nuclear weapons.

2 ) It is never wise to rely on one energy source, even if you have to pay a lot for alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that there are nuclear-powered submarines sailing around the world in such numbers that they have trouble avoiding each other, and yet to build a reactor on land is anathema to many.

Both India and China are regularly launching nuclear submarines and building new bases. Surely the technology has moved on since the Chernoble design.

I had the impression that the Chernoble design was primarily to produce fuel for weapons, the energy output was a by product. In any case Chernoble was operated by a bankrupt third world country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with coal?

I understand it is the cheapest way of generating steam, and the bonus is that it puts out a lot of CO2 which helps our plants grow. It is the green gas.

No, CO2 is not a green gas. It is colourless :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't deny that nuclear power is a scam similar to the banking industry? ;)

why is the nuclear a scam? cheap and reliable energy source ... what else do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing is,

1 ) It allows us to make nuclear weapons.

2 ) It is never wise to rely on one energy source, even if you have to pay a lot for alternatives.

so surely French with 75% of the electricity from nuclear power stations got it wrong .... but they have the cheapest electricity in Europe ... hmm ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" ring any bells?

can you please reference any major losses caused by the nuclear energy industry (in relation to the other industries and also in relation to the price of the electricity) ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear will inevitably provide 50%+ of our electricity demands. Other than vacuum cleaners most of our appliances have become and will continue to become more efficient. I expect that the world population will continue to climb for a generation or so and we will see 'peak people' at circa 9-10billion before we see a decline to less people on the earth as we have today. Our energy rrquirements will drop as we deplete the remainder of our fossil fuels.

As for the coal thing. We should build smaller coal fired powered stations that wholey supply the communities they rest in. If the NIMBYs are unhappy about this then they will have to be less arsey when they suffer blackouts. We would save in transmission losses too.

As for heating homes using geo-thermal pumps is very effective as the ground beneath the permafrost is consistent throughout the year. IMO it is a crime that this has been overlooked as you can't get much greener than this and lowering demand from the grid although energy companies won't be happy about selling you less kwhs or btus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you please reference any major losses caused by the nuclear energy industry (in relation to the other industries and also in relation to the price of the electricity) ???

Well they're all subsidised for starters, I think that counts as a loss:

Mr Hutton conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money - but he insisted there would be no subsidies from the UK government.

My link

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they're all subsidised for starters, I think that counts as a loss:

My link

on the other side for the renewables you pay for every spent kW ......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff

well done ...

http://greenworldinvestor.com/2010/08/27/new-czech-renewable-energy-policy-to-bust-the-solar-boom-with-a-50-subsidy-cut/

Czech Republic came out with a Renewable Energy Framework which will finish off the Solar Sector in the country if passed in the current form.Czech despite its small size has become the 3rd largest market for Solar Energy in Europe driven by high Feed in Tariffs.These guaranteed electricity rates have led to a Boom in the country due to IRRs in excess of 30%.The Parliament had already overwhelmingly voted to overhaul the country’s Solar FITs in March.In the new plan submitted by the Czech government to the EU,there are limits imposed on each type of renewables biomass,solar,wind etc with emphasis given to Biomass Energy.Czech Republic has a EU set target of 13% Energy generated from Renewables.Wind and Solar Industry Groups have already started crying blue murder as the proposed FIT in 2011 for Solar will be cut by almost 50%.This will make it almost uneconomical for a solar installer to put solar panels in the country and don’t be surprised if you see a 90-95% drop in 2011 Czech Demand compared to 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumping it in the sea is a bloody daft idea.

An oceanography lecturer told me it was illegal to take sea water from the sea and tip it back in due to the levels of radioactivity in it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you please reference any major losses caused by the nuclear energy industry (in relation to the other industries and also in relation to the price of the electricity) ???

Maybe if I had said "costs" rather than "losses" it would have been a bit clearer :)

In answer to your question: the nuclear industry is very happy to run plants and sends bills to the customers.

They're also very enthusiastic to dump the clean-up costs on Mr Taxpayer, for example in the form of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Can't say that I blame them - it's standard business practice nowadays to get Mr Taxpayer to pay any costs, Sir Goodwin knows a thing or two about that.

PS No, I'm not advocating windmills or solar power, so please don't paint me as a tree hugger :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if I had said "costs" rather than "losses" it would have been a bit clearer :)

In answer to your question: the nuclear industry is very happy to run plants and sends bills to the customers.

They're also very enthusiastic to dump the clean-up costs on Mr Taxpayer, for example in the form of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Can't say that I blame them - it's standard business practice nowadays to get Mr Taxpayer to pay any costs, Sir Goodwin knows a thing or two about that.

PS No, I'm not advocating windmills or solar power, so please don't paint me as a tree hugger :)

depends on the country. for example in the Czech republic you pay a small fee for the decommissioning in every spent kW ...

it is still the cheapest energy ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once read that the U.S used to dump their nuclear waste at sea in barrels. Of course the barrels would float if you just threw them in so blasted a couple of bullet holes in them just to make sure.

I think it was a Bill Bryson book, he is a known environmentalist but I doubt he'd actively mislead over something like that.

I doubt it would float as uranium, most metals in fact but not all, are more dense than water.

BTW the idea of it dispersing being bad is wrong. Dispersing evenly all of humanities nuclear waste to date in an ocean would be the safest way of disposing of it. Remember there are many natural sources of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. They don’t pose much of a problem because they are dispersed and not concentrated.

However it would indeed be best to bury it somewhere as it may be a useful resource in the future.

I am always surprised to see pro-nuclear advocates on this board.

The way I see it, the nuclear power industry could be a twin brother of the banking industry: make lots of dosh, then leave the clean-up costs to the taxpayer.

And I thought we all hated bankers? :)

Few people are pro nuclear. I am not and don’t think we will have or need major nuclear for a very very long time yet although I can see the benefit of having a nuclear industry to keep skills and knowledge alive and that will of course keep R&D going too. To that end I would be happy to see the world add 5GW of nuclear pa and the UK perhaps 10GW over the next 20 years.

why is the nuclear a scam? cheap and reliable energy source ... what else do you want?

Yes it is very reliable. Nukes in the USA (quite old now) run on average 92% of capacity some are higher than 97%!!

However they are not cheap but that probably hasn’t much to do with anything technical but the fact that not many have been built for so long. If a country builds 1 reactor it will be dam expensive. Build 10 and the 11th one will probably be cheaper than coal.

Plus they don’t even need to get cheaper, instead of building them in 6-8 years they need to be built in 3-4 years. That can happen with practice. Those extra 3-5 years producing power at a very high marginal profit will make the reactors effectively much cheaper. In fact if say the UK went all out and decided to build 60GW of nuclear like France (about 40-60 reactors) I would suggest the whole fleet average price could be less than coal.

TBH I think new nukes in developed countries wont work however it would probably make very good sense in the long term for china/India to aim for 50% of their grid as nuclear. For china that would likely mean some 200GW or 200 reactors.

so surely French with 75% of the electricity from nuclear power stations got it wrong .... but they have the cheapest electricity in Europe ... hmm ....

Back then as far as I am aware quite a large portion of electricity generation in France and Europe was oil fired and coal fired. Not gas. To get away from oil fired due to oil shocks and the simple fact that oil is a lot more expensive per joule than gas/coal/nuclear they decided to go nuclear the only other realistic choice at the time was to rely almost wholly on coal.

Now there is a big difference between building a new nuke to replace a redundant oil fired plant and destroying a perfectly working gas/coal/nuke plant to build a new nuke in its place as in the UK.

The UK is well served by gas fired plants. In many ways new GGCT is technically more advanced than nuclear.

Mr Hutton conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money - but he insisted there would be no subsidies from the UK government.

Electricity markets in practically all countries have been deregulated just this decade or the 90s not sooner. Most plants before that be it coal, gas, nuclear, pumped hydro whatever were built with public money. There was no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it would float as uranium, most metals in fact but not all, are more dense than water.

BTW the idea of it dispersing being bad is wrong. Dispersing evenly all of humanities nuclear waste to date in an ocean would be the safest way of disposing of it. Remember there are many natural sources of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. They don't pose much of a problem because they are dispersed and not concentrated.

However it would indeed be best to bury it somewhere as it may be a useful resource in the future.

Few people are pro nuclear. I am not and don't think we will have or need major nuclear for a very very long time yet although I can see the benefit of having a nuclear industry to keep skills and knowledge alive and that will of course keep R&D going too. To that end I would be happy to see the world add 5GW of nuclear pa and the UK perhaps 10GW over the next 20 years.

Yes it is very reliable. Nukes in the USA (quite old now) run on average 92% of capacity some are higher than 97%!!

However they are not cheap but that probably hasn't much to do with anything technical but the fact that not many have been built for so long. If a country builds 1 reactor it will be dam expensive. Build 10 and the 11th one will probably be cheaper than coal.

Plus they don't even need to get cheaper, instead of building them in 6-8 years they need to be built in 3-4 years. That can happen with practice. Those extra 3-5 years producing power at a very high marginal profit will make the reactors effectively much cheaper. In fact if say the UK went all out and decided to build 60GW of nuclear like France (about 40-60 reactors) I would suggest the whole fleet average price could be less than coal.

TBH I think new nukes in developed countries wont work however it would probably make very good sense in the long term for china/India to aim for 50% of their grid as nuclear. For china that would likely mean some 200GW or 200 reactors.

Back then as far as I am aware quite a large portion of electricity generation in France and Europe was oil fired and coal fired. Not gas. To get away from oil fired due to oil shocks and the simple fact that oil is a lot more expensive per joule than gas/coal/nuclear they decided to go nuclear the only other realistic choice at the time was to rely almost wholly on coal.

Now there is a big difference between building a new nuke to replace a redundant oil fired plant and destroying a perfectly working gas/coal/nuke plant to build a new nuke in its place as in the UK.

The UK is well served by gas fired plants. In many ways new GGCT is technically more advanced than nuclear.

Electricity markets in practically all countries have been deregulated just this decade or the 90s not sooner. Most plants before that be it coal, gas, nuclear, pumped hydro whatever were built with public money. There was no choice.

IMO burning coal, gas or oil to generate electricity is a waste as these natural products can be used far batter in chemical or pharma industries ...

currently the only acceptable renewables for me on the industry scale are water and passive solar heating ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However they are not cheap but that probably hasn't much to do with anything technical but the fact that not many have been built for so long. If a country builds 1 reactor it will be dam expensive. Build 10 and the 11th one will probably be cheaper than coal.

Plus they don't even need to get cheaper, instead of building them in 6-8 years they need to be built in 3-4 years. That can happen with practice. Those extra 3-5 years producing power at a very high marginal profit will make the reactors effectively much cheaper. In fact if say the UK went all out and decided to build 60GW of nuclear like France (about 40-60 reactors) I would suggest the whole fleet average price could be less than coal.

it seems that the nuclear industry is turning to build smaller plants (e.g. 300MWs) and commodities them -> serial manufacturing, standardised design, inherently safe, quick build, close to the consumer ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.