Nuclear power
 

I thought I'd start this thread as in another thread I went somewhat off topic.

As stated in the above quote many scientists are now coming around to the idea that nuclear power is the only way forward to reduce carbon emmisions, I wondered what the CF concensus would be.

Place your vote now. :D

Re: Nuclear power
 

:tu: in favour of nuclear power

Re: Nuclear power
 

How to change people to nuclear power.


Let coal and fossil stations turn off due to lack of fuel.

Make the people be cold without power.

Then go to each house, and state.

"we have stations but they are nuclear, but they would make your warm and able to enjoy the internet and cook again.

I sincerly doubt anyone would object.

Also with Nuclear Fusion ( not fission we have that already ) is not too far off, and is being tested in Russia and France with great sucesses in getting the reaction process stable.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Get rid of nuclear power is what I say.

Re: Nuclear power
 

i have no problems with nuclear power.

i'm just a little uncomfortable about nuclear waste travelling by my house on the train, from dungeness. i sure hope it don't crash! :shocked:

as long as the waste affects no-one, then there shouldn't be an issue. nuclear power stations, which are maintained properly, are not dangerous (hopefully :disturbd: )

:)

Re: Nuclear power
 

oh i don't know, one of my lecturers at uni was on the design team of a nuclear power plant (i forget which one). anyway, they had no way of testing whether anything worked or not, apparently the only way they would find out for sure would be when they turned the on/off switch to "on" :eek: glad i werent on that team and borked up... :D

im for nuke power, but i think that just in case, they should be built really far underground or in the middle of nowhere (finally, a use for scotland/norfolk anyone? ;))

[edit] as long as anyone like homer simpson doesn't ever get employed :erm::td:

Re: Nuclear power
 

nuclear is very cheap to produce. much cheaper than coal etc

but very expensive when you take into account the long term costs - ie. the decomissioning of the power station and disposal of the waste.

I'm all for destroying the countryside beauty by bunging up wind turbines etc - much safer than giving terrorists something they can fly a plane into or blow up with a lorry.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Surely a cheap method of firing the depleted rods could be found and this would prevent used rods being a radioactive hazard, as for transporting them, Would it not be hard to make containers which are built to withstand a mega massive impact?.

Re: Nuclear power
 

It's been "not that far off" for 40 years, we haven't got another 40 left!

Oh and it may be stable (for a few seconds) but consumes alot more energy so run than it produces I'm afraid. Also you still have the same problem with decommissioning of stations. :(

Re: Nuclear power
 

So you'd rather NOT have electricity when the Fossil fuels run out or... :dozey:

Re: Nuclear power
 

We have no choice.

Fossil fuels will.....eventually.....run out.

Green solutions such as wind/wave power do not produce enough (however we should still keep building them)

If we are to be a self sufficient power producing nation, then nuclear is the only way to go.

Nuclear power is the only answer

Re: Nuclear power
 

Already being done. just a 'few' links here

Re: Nuclear power
 

Get rid of the Nuclear Stations. I lost my job due to these power stations.

Re: Nuclear power
 

If fusion had the same massive international funding that fission had in the 40s and 50s, it wouldn't be far off.

It's true that fusion reactors take a hell of a lot of energy to start up. But once you get them hot enough, they can be self-sustaining. It's still not spectularly efficient -- the majority of the energy generated by the reactions goes to continuing the reactions. But this is exactly the same as what happens in current conventional and nuclear power stations...

And the problem of decommissioning power stations is nowhere near as acute. The radioactive material would have a half-life of about 100 years, compared with thousands of years for uranium and plutonium. And that's before scientists have started looking at the problem of designing radiation-resistant materials for use in fusion reactors...

Re: Nuclear power
 

You do know the rods they use are also running out?

Re: Nuclear power
 

Just as long as I switch the plug on, and I have power I dont care.....

Re: Nuclear power
 

I do care a bit, I am concerend over the post of.

Scott care to explain, I was under the assumption that rods was man made, :dozey:.

Sadly I never got involved with Fission, and mainly went in and still am learning Fusion and other magentic forms of energy.

As well as forms of astronomy which I learn as a hobby.

Re: Nuclear power
 

I am suprised by the support of nuclear power. I'd thought more people would be against it.

Wind and solar power are nowhere efficient enough to be commercially viable. At their current rate of development (not really through lack of funding) they never will be.

Nuclear power is safe as long as you have people who know what they are doing, and enough funding to safely maintain the plant. The trouble starts when you have 2nd world countries running plants (Chernobyl), and God forbid, 3rd world countries, who have to skimp on safety measures and technicians. I should add that 3 Mile Island was a long time ago, and didn't result in any deaths or injuries. Things have changed.

Unless some miracle appears (cold fusion?), then traditional nuclear is the only real way forward.

Re: Nuclear power
 

It is perverse that we are switchin off our Nuclear capability and buying more power from France that is nuclear generated.

For it, just needs those running the plant to have sufficient autonomy and sufficient budget to run the plant.

Re: Nuclear power
 

The rods are made out of Uranium, something with have to dig up.

Re: Nuclear power
 

There is alot of talk about Fusion within my friends, apparantly France has decided they may go it alone and test the reactors if the EU people keep mucking about, and as Japan who is eager to test the reactors and help get it stable.

The debate was on BBC a short while ago, while we don't hear much about it in todays press, I do follow a group e-mail from a private group I am involved with on MSN, who are saying things are moving on, and we are not that far off perhaps 20 years or just a bit more, but we are so close its not worth stopping now.

If just IF some country perhaps gets it right before then, aint all this works worth it? Even if we are researching it in 2045, we will still be getting somewhere, rather then giving up and backing down because " it will never work".

Re: Nuclear power
 

I think nuclear has its place in the mix of different electricity producing methods at our disposal. That means I should vote 'no never' in the poll, because the question is should we move entirely to nuclear, but I haven't voted because to vote for 'no, never' would give a misleading impression of what I think.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Err control rods are mostly Boron these days, that and cadmium. No real shortage in either of those i dont think, nor the raw Uranium or Plutoniam reactents

Re: Nuclear power
 

:tu:
____________


The plot thickens.

I have not studied Fision Nuclear side as I stated in another thread, but what is the difference here, I assume one is natural and the other is man made.

Re: Nuclear power
 

what about hydro electricty ?

Re: Nuclear power
 

its a thought but again its the amount of demand on the system, I think hydro was tested in Wales in places and failed due to it not being consistent enough.

However some boffin once asked why we dont place a turbine in the ocean, and draw electric from the Ocean's currents.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Not enough highspeed rivers in the UK.

Re: Nuclear power
 

plenty of sea though eh ? :tu:

Re: Nuclear power
 

Both are refined from there raw elements into rods, basically the control rod's job is to absorb and dissipate neutrons.
Neutrons are basically what make the reaction continue, to many and it'll run out of control, eventually overheat and cause a big mess. To little and the reaction will stall.
Nearly all nuclear incidents have resulted from control rod issues. Either mechanical failure, or operational error. (Usually in the case of managers demanding the imposible and things being pushed beyond there safe limits by people not fully versed in the technology)

Re: Nuclear power
 

The old cooperate bug of profit over thought.

Re: Nuclear power
 

There has been several designs attempting to extract kinetic energy from waves, I cant remember how well they work probably not to good since we havent seen them around much!

Re: Nuclear power
 

Why not use the underwater currents? ;)

Re: Nuclear power
 

As mentioned not enough fast rivers or Dams with with a large enough bank of water.

There are several "fast response" hydro power station like the one in Dinorwic in Snowdonia. These instantly respond to large sudden demand such as everybody putting the kettle on during the ad-break in a Coronation St special, but they can only maintain the power for a few hours at most.

Hydro stations such as the Hoover dam in the USA have massive lakes behind them (Lake Eerie) so they can maintain constant flows even in times of low rainfall.

The best eco-friendly power available to us is wind power. We should be building hundreds of massive offshore wind farms.

But you always get the NIMBY crowd objecting.

Re: Nuclear power
 

You also get the problem that more power / materials and stuff that goes into wind turbines is needid than the power output over its entire lifetime

Re: Nuclear power
 

I have actually seen a couple of windfarms in Wales. One on land quite near Tenbeigh (hope I spelled that correctly) and one just off the coast a few miles from Prestatyn.. I think they actually look quite hypnotic, but they make and extremely loud and wierd noise..

Re: Nuclear power
 

I personally believe that we should switch to nuclear power as our main source of electricity, but I think that these plants should be government run and not privatised. With privatisation, the plant would be running to make profit so corners are more likely to be cut and when you are dealing with nuclear power this can only be a bad thing. Governments must own it and run it, with plenty of funding.

If possible, the plant(s) should be underground or even better on one of the small British offshore islands which are uninhabited, with good military patrolling.

It would take an effort to do it safely, but it is possible.

Re: Nuclear power
 

I think that as we develop windfarms, the efficiency will go up.
____________

I have actually voted Yes. I think it will be good as long as corners aren't cut..

Under normal circumstance, Nuclear Energy is far more efficient (and cleaner) than fossil fuels for electricity production. The only slight hitch is when you get a major accident. As the people of Chernobyl will probably agree, you end up with a large uninhabitable chunk of land..

Re: Nuclear power
 

Unfortunately its not just low carbon emissions from power stations that need to be addressed. We also burn fossil fuels in our favourite form of transport, so there is IMHO a need to invest in research into Fuel Cells. Or at the very least, a much more efficient electric motor for transport. In Toronto the TTC use streetcars (trams), and if memory serves, electric buses with an overhead power pickup. Why dont more cities invest in this sort of technology? By improving the public transport infrastructure, and at the same time using motors that dont poison both the people and the environment we start getting a win/ win mindset going. Offcourse, by the time politicians start thinking this way, london might be under several feet of water.

Edit : forgot to say, I'm in favour of switching to Nuclear Power, But only in the hands of government. Private industry IMHO cant be trusted to run nuclear plant without the profit margin as the be-all and end-all for their thinking.

Re: Nuclear power
 

There is only so much kinetic energy in wind, yes the amount extracted could go up some, total kinetic is in the age old form of 1/2.m.v^2
Unfortunutly wind turbines because of operating ranges imposed on them they have quite a low max spin speed. so in high winds they have to lock down. All in all, we're talking KW tops here, whilst nuke plants and such are in the MW and even GW. You'll need a heck of alot of wind generators to produce the power we need.
Somthing i did think off was putting mass solar generators in deserts and stuff and piping the power back, only problem is the pesky sand

Re: Nuclear power
 

Well in that case you could employ the locals to maintain, and clean the solar pannels. In doing so you create jobs in the third world, and spread a bit of goodwill to the natives.

Re: Nuclear power
 

The main advantage of the internal combustion engine is the fact you dont carry the majourity of the working fluid with you. Idealy an IC engine uses 14.7x more air than fuel. Fuel cell's are pretty much a waste of space, they're worse than steam in terms of power per kg carried! They do have range though. somthing everything else pretty much lacks.
There is developments coming but dont hold your breath for them

Re: Nuclear power
 

The is a car from Toyota which I am seriously interested in buying.

http://www.toyota.com/prius/

Both me and my gf are due to move soon so put holds on that, but thankfully I have a old dear grand mother who wants me to have a " clean and modern and safe car for that lovely gf of yours" so ahem one Prius please :D.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Sorry the second option was suppose to be along the lines of "no - I'm happy to keep replacing the ones we have."

Re: Nuclear power
 

Well I've heard that our last nuclear plant is being shut down soon.

Re: Nuclear power
 

this is the way forward:-

http://www.npower.com/At_home/Juice-...out_Juice.html

http://www.npower.com/At_home/Juice-...Wind_Farm.html


http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/content...20041005181339

Re: Nuclear power
 

My mom likes the sounds of that :)

Re: Nuclear power
 

I do believe that everyone is a bit too sensitive about nuclear power. I'm sure that images of Chernobyl come to mind when we all think about the disadvantages, but since that one nuclear accident it has had a stigma of being far too dangerous to consider. I suppose it's in our nature to be more affected by one relatively minor accident that has already happened in the past than a larger catastrophe that will happen in the future (the extreme effects of global warming).

Re: Nuclear power
 

Well once fossil run out if we aint got something else it may be all we have, or we go into either space and live there, or just stay here and die.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Well, the Nuclear Industry Assocation says that their last reactor will close in 2035, although the page is two years old (http://www.niauk.org/article_33.shtml)

BNFL say their last nuclear power station will close in 2016 or 2021 (http://www.metafaq.com/templates/bnf...0FJOJ4U19EGQLG)

Re: Nuclear power
 

Does that mean that no new nuclear plants will be constructed before that though?

Re: Nuclear power
 

In that case I've edited option 2 and voted for it. :)

Re: Nuclear power
 

all said and done I wonder if we will have beer in 50years time...

okay back on topic, it is quite likely if the goverment is thinking nuclear fission plants for future energy providing, that they will just make new reactor plants, due to the ones we have now, being in disrepair and unsafe, we have new metals new technology, and so long as the new stations aint running on Windows we shall be safe.

:D :D

Re: Nuclear power
 

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island represent the most serious potential problems with nuclear power - an accident of the most serious kind.

Windscale (now called Sellafield... just change the name and hope people forget) represents the another of the more worrying prospects - nuclear waste, a problem that is still just "swept under the carpet", as the containers slowly rust away.

Thirdly, the issue of inevitable background radiation increase around installations, minor leaks and spills etc.

And the fuel for nuclear is not unlimited - by many estimates, it wouldn't even last as long as coal, unless "breeder" reactors were used to prove additional enrichment (though that is Plutonium enrichment of the Uranium, and not the fuel-grade uranium enrichment of an increased U235/U238 ratio).

The entire "cradle to grave" lifecycle of any energy system needs to be considered, from the cost of construction, to the cost of decommissioning, the fuel used, the waste created, and the environmental impact of all the processes involved.

Eg. Growing and then burning "fuel crops" has ZERO CO2 impact, as the C02 released is what was taken in when they were grown - until solar cells reach greater efficiency, that may be the most effective way to use solar energy, and it provides an inherent method of storage as well.

Re: Nuclear power
 

absolutely - provided other emissions can be controlled, this is entirely feasible, afaik feasibility trials have been done using straw & coppiced willow, but unfortunately, the project has never been taken to a commercial level.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Microsoft realise this as well and have had this in there EULA fir any nt based OS:

7. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN

SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS

NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR

INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN

HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH

AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION

OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE

SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF

JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY,

OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Re: Nuclear power
 

:rofl:


That true?? if so pmsl...well least they are covered, so when explorer.exe buggers up they are not covered then :angel:

Re: Nuclear power
 

Yes thats true, it's been a m$ clause for a long time and thats for a final product. the beta testing agreement has similar terms to that effect, basically saying dont use the programs ever for anything more serious than pure and simple fun. we're not responsible for any losses that may occur due to use of our software ... yadda yadda yadda

Re: Nuclear power
 

Why not build a nuclear power plant under the sea, with a sort of oil rig style platform for controlling it. That way, if the thing goes bang, the water shields the worse of the radiation. Ok, so you might have a few funny shaped fish, but better that than funny shaped babies :erm:

Profits always come before safety - we've had one too many rail disasters to prove that. For me to be in favour of nuclear power, it would have to remain nationalised, under government control. I would also want the safety records and audits to be public.

Re: Nuclear power
 

No more nuclear.

Would you like to live near to a nuclear station I know I wouldn't !

Re: Nuclear power
 

Wouldn't bother me living next to a power station

I would want to live next to Sellafield though.

Re: Nuclear power
 

A friend of mine lives within a few mile of one, and it does not bother me being there.

Without Nuclear we could face many a dark night without power in the cold freezing temperatures?

Re: Nuclear power
 

What, fish like this one?

:p:

Re: Nuclear power
 

three eyes...can you imagine trying to fish for the thing :rofl:

Re: Nuclear power
 

Nuclear power unfortunately is here to stay. Our natural resources are going to run out at some point and we would need something to sustain the countrys needs.
More research I think is needed before the likes of me can trust it 100%.
We are only a small nation and any sort of a problem (or meltdown) would probably mean that most of the country would be affected in one way or another.
Security and the dangers of nuclear power really need to be of paramount importance.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Nuclear Reactors could be built to be automated, as in with Cherobyl, someone turned off a safety cut out switch ( source : documentary ) and this allowed it to happen.

A fail safe system would be one which does not include the moronic element...i.e: human.

Re: Nuclear power
 

Removing human error / incompetent managers would be a good thing.
As chernobyl wasn't completly an accident, more an experiment gone wrong. They were attempting to run the reactor faster which was beyond its design specification by quite some margin. They went to far, and the reaction went out of control. Since control rods only have a finite ability to slow down a reaction.
Sadly when the reactor goes beyond a critical point thats it your doomed. The control rods could not stop the reaction from cascading out of control.
Designers incorporate hughe overheads in design so that the reactions can be slowed down even if the users get sloppy and let it run off.
Unfortunutly this was abused and they just went too far.

For new reactors there should be as quite right a fail safe which will over ride humans and lock down the core

Re: Nuclear power
 

We would require a non microsoft based software system, which gave only minimal control to the average joe at the nuclear core control system.

A administrator would not have such control. As boss's could and would demand the impossible once money/greed takes over.

The system would have to be smart enough to not go over limits set by a watchdog commitee who would have to do daily checks on this system. Reports of the safety checks would also be publically viewable online, or at many record stores and libarys and newspapers.

This would give the public the idea and knowledge of how serious and safe the system is. And at even 1000 to 1 chanes of a meltdown the reactor would shut down, and require totally resetting, sadly the element of human nature and greed over profit is something we just could not have with something this deadly.