Cable Forum - UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power risk

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power risk (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33686283)

geminian68

13-03-2012 04:39

UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power risk

Quote:

Government plans for nuclear power risk handing control of the UK's climate and energy policies to France, according to four senior environmentalists.

Quote:

Energy giant EDF and reactor builder Areva, big players in the UK's plans, are largely French government-owned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17344263

beeman

13-03-2012 08:51

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Well that's no suprise and quite unavoidable. We need a new generation nuclear industry and in the UK we just don't have the talent needed because we as a nation got scared of the nuclear boggy man. The French on the other hand embraced nuclear and carried on building/refining the technology after Chernobyl. So when it comes to looking for a knowledgeable partner to help bring new reactors online who better to look at then one of very few world leaders in the tech who just happen to bee only 30 miles across the channel.

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 10:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398343)

Environmentalists just searching around for another stick to try and beat everybody else with. We need nuclear power if the lights are to stay on and the French have solid experiance with nearly 80% of their electrical power being nuclear.

As for it being French how is that a risk? Any reasonably competent engineer will be able to understand how it works and needs to be maintained. If we ever had a fall out with the French do you really think that the UK government would let a French company shut down UK power plants? Utterly preposterous.

When you include the decomissioning costs, nuclear power is very expensive. It is also the most dangerous form of power production when things go wrong.

Germany are actually getting rid of their nuclear power stations.

I bet the French will hand them back to the UK when they need decomissioning, so the French make the profits, and then we have to pay out.

martyh

13-03-2012 10:30

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398343)

Environmentalists just searching around for another stick to try and beat everybody else with. We need nuclear power if the lights are to stay on and the French have solid experiance with nearly 80% of their electrical power being nuclear.

As for it being French how is that a risk? Any reasonably competent engineer will be able to understand how it works and needs to be maintained. If we ever had a fall out with the French do you really think that the UK government would let a French company shut down UK power plants? Utterly preposterous.

Have to agree .The enviromentalists told us for years that we need to stop using coal,gas and nuclear power plants and start using wind and solar power generation ,so we did we started building wind farms and sticking solar panels on every roof ,now they are telling us that wind farms are a blight on the landscape ,and homes with solar panels could be unsellable in the future .Honestly you can't win

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 11:00

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398353)

I know I'd rather live next door to a wind farm, than a nuclear power station. :erm:

Osem	13-03-2012 11:06

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Thanks to decades of short termism and political dithering we're now in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to energy supplies. I dislike the thought of our nuclear power generating capacity being provided by a foreign power but it seems we have no choice. Developing our own industry to the required levels now would take many years, by which time it'd probably be too late. The way energy prices are rising, it may even already be too late for us to avoid significant problems as a result of shortages and a lack of generating capacity. One thing seems certain, if we don't do something very significant about this problem soon the lights are going to start going out in the not too distant future and recent price rises will seem trivial.

---------- Post added at 10:06 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398370)

I know I'd rather live next door to a wind farm, than a nuclear power station. :erm:

You'd need a blooming big wind farm to produce what one nuclear power station would and that's forgeting about the need to turn it off during periods of the 'wrong sort of wind'.

martyh

13-03-2012 11:14

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398376)

Indeed ,as far as i know nuclear is the most efficient way to realistically generate our power requirements and kidding ourselves that we can substitute that with wind,solar or tidal power is just going leave us at the mercy of other countries to supply us

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 11:15

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398376)

You'd need a blooming big wind farm to produce what one nuclear power station would and that's forgeting about the need to turn it off during periods of the 'wrong sort of wind'.

It may have to be big, but it would only be a fraction of the size of the areas contaminated by radiation from our nuclear power stations over the years.

It's actually quite funny that people believed the government when they said the radiation from Chernobyl had contaminated sheep and cattle in Cumbria...news to everyone, that leak came from Sellafield (which used to be called Windscale, until it got such a bad name due to leaks). It was just very convenient for the government that a nuclear power station had just blown up in Russia, so they could blame it instead.

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 11:58

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398412)

Think again:

Linky

Similar concentrations of radioactive waste are around smelting plants.

I think I'd rather have a reactor that is under constant surveilance to the n'th degree than the wholesale pollution accumulated over decades of uncontrolled combustion by products.

Sorry but that is complete rubbish. Radioactive waste is extremely highly radioactive, and has to be sealed in indestructable glass flasks that will last 1000's of years, so that the radiation doesn't leak out.

Carbon may be slightly radioactive, but doesn't even come close.

So the facts are that waste from a nuclear power station that is 100% sealed gives off less radiation than the carbon from a coal fired power station...well it doesn't take a scientist to work that out, because the carbon isn't sealed.

The many leaks of radiation that have taken place over the years in the UK, have not been from radioactive waste, then have been from the plants themselves.

Dai	13-03-2012 12:02

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398376)

You'd need a blooming big wind farm to produce what one nuclear power station would and that's forgeting about the need to turn it off during periods of the 'wrong sort of wind'.

And that's before you start looking at the massive pollution involved in wind farms. The magnets for these wind turbines rely on rare-earth elements which are produced at huge cost to the local environment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ous-scale.html

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 12:08

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaiNasty (Post 35398442)

Don't take any notice of anything you read in the Daily Mail
It doesn't do half as much damage to the environment as a radiation leak, or a nuclear accident.

martyh

13-03-2012 12:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398451)

Don't take any notice of anything you read in the Daily Mail
It doesn't do half as much damage to the environment as a radiation leak, or a nuclear accident.

Problem is though because wind isn't consistent ,wind farms need backup from gas/coal even nuclear powered stations negating any saving in CO2 emissions and increasing the cost of power generation

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 13:04

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398471)

Problem is though because wind isn't consistent ,wind farms need backup from gas/coal even nuclear powered stations negating any saving in CO2 emissions and increasing the cost of power generation

I agree. However nuclear power stations just aren't safe enough. Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

There are is also wave power, and hydroelectric.

watzizname

13-03-2012 13:05

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

The problem with a nuclear fix is that it's a short term solution, as i do remember reading that there's only so much of the right plutonium available on the planet.

The amounts available were such that there was probably only enough to last about 30 years, and given how many countries are also seeing it as viable alternative to fossil fuels right now, that number could be getting shorter.

martyh

13-03-2012 13:18

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398500)

I agree. However nuclear power stations just aren't safe enough. Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

There are is also wave power, and hydroelectric.

Well knowledge of the industry has come on a long way since those occurrences and so has technology.Chernobyl was undoubtedly caused by poor maintenance and poor design .Three mile island was caused by human error and mechanical faults .In a modern reactor these sort of issues ,although not impossible to happen ,would be a lot less likely to happen .I think safety has come on in leaps and bounds since those accidents

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 13:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398506)

Well knowledge of the industry has come on a long way since those occurrences and so has technology.Chernobyl was undoubtedly caused by poor maintenance and poor design .Three mile island was caused by human error and mechanical faults .In a modern reactor these sort of issues ,although not impossible to happen ,would be a lot less likely to happen .I think safety has come on in leaps and bounds since those accidents

And it's the fact that there is still a possibility that makes it unacceptable.

Remember they said Buncefield would never happen.

Also as watzizname says, plutonium is also going to run out. So money needs to be invested in clean alternatives.

GazzaB

13-03-2012 14:49

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Government policy is a total joke on nuclear.
Still after over 40 years we have no permanent storage solution to the waste that has already been created, its just being left on site!

Building more stations = more waste.

No one wants the waste buried near them. For years now government has been consulting and seeking advice on a permanent burial site with not much progress:-

http://corwm.decc.gov.uk/en/crwm/cms..._overview.aspx

Decommissioning costs for making safe the existing plants is now going to be upwards of Â£70 Billion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm

The numbers just don't stack up for nuclear and probably never will without subsidy or goverment support AKA subsidy!

Cuttting energy usage and waste and using renewables makes the most sense for the economy, job creation, energy security and for the environment.

Osem	13-03-2012 16:16

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398509)

And it's the fact that there is still a possibility that makes it unacceptable.

Remember they said Buncefield would never happen.

Also as watzizname says, plutonium is also going to run out. So money needs to be invested in clean alternatives.

I was under the impression that plutonium is largely a by product of nuclear fission so how can it be running out? In fact I thought one of the main issues with fission is what to do with the plutonium the reaction produces... :confused:

Sirius

13-03-2012 16:26

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398370)

I know I'd rather live next door to a wind farm, than a nuclear power station. :erm:

Have done and i have no issues :Sun:

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 16:29

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398626)

You are getting into serious boffin territory now :erm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35398631)

Have done and i have no issues :Sun:

Are you sure?? :p:

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 16:42

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398637)

Breeder reactor

That's just using up the Uranium we already have, let alone the Plutonium that's stockpiled. Supply of the fissile stuff isn't the problem.

It still doesn't make nuclear power any safer.

Taf	13-03-2012 16:49

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398626)

....what to do with the plutonium the reaction produces... :confused:

Drop it on Iran :dunce:

Dai	13-03-2012 16:57

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398451)

Don't take any notice of anything you read in the Daily Mail

If you don't like the DM perhaps you'd like to argue with the Wikipedia entry instead? I'd recommend the section headed "Environmental Considerations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 16:59

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaiNasty (Post 35398678)

If you don't like the DM perhaps you'd like to argue with the Wikipedia entry instead? I'd recommend the section headed "Environmental Considerations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

It still doesn't get around point number '2'

Osem	13-03-2012 17:30

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35398666)

Drop it on Iran :dunce:

God forbid. lol

martyh

13-03-2012 17:36

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398651)

It still doesn't make nuclear power any safer.

you are using old and relatively primative designs of reactor as a bench mark though modern reactors will be a lot safer than those built 30 yrs ago .

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 17:39

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398713)

you are using old and relatively primative designs of reactor as a bench mark though modern reactors will be a lot safer than those built 30 yrs ago .

Obviously they should be. But that still doesn't make a nuclear disaster impossible. The UK isn't big enough to evacuate several counties until the radiation subsides in 50 years or so.:shocked:

martyh

13-03-2012 17:58

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398716)

Obviously they should be. But that still doesn't make a nuclear disaster impossible. The UK isn't big enough to evacuate several counties until the radiation subsides in 50 years or so.:shocked:

The big question is do the inherent risks outweigh the benefits

martyh

13-03-2012 18:20

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398747)

Or have the countryside and sea shores covered in turbines that are useless until the wind blows so the lights go out regularly.

I know which i prefer ,save the sea life and bring on nuclear power

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 18:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35398747)

Or have the countryside and sea shores covered in turbines that are useless until the wind blows so the lights go out regularly.

Have you ever lived on the top of a hill in the middle of the Pennines? It's not very often that there is no wind. And the same goes for off shore.

Wind power isn't the only alternative.

In my town there used to be a remote controlled gas turbine generator, that was only used when it was really needed.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398749)

I know which i prefer ,save the sea life and bring on nuclear power

And then kill the sea life with radiation.

The Irish sea is the most radioactive sea in the world thanks to Sellafield.

Alan Fry

13-03-2012 18:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

To be honest nuclear power is expensive and is a huge liability

We need to have more renewable energy

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 18:26

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35398752)

To be honest nuclear power is expensive and is a huge liability

I'm not being funny Alan, but you have just lost all my credibility in this debate by agreeing with me. Nobody will believe me now.

Please start arguing with me so that I can get my credibility back :D

Alan Fry

13-03-2012 18:40

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398754)

I don't normally say this, but I agree with you, Nuclear power, while a eco-friendly source, is expensive, dangerous and you have to reposibvle for it for 1,000 years.

Hence why I do not see why why is worth the risk

The government could be the money to build more wind farms etc

martyh

13-03-2012 18:48

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35398765)

Not sure i've ever heard nuclear power being described as "eco friendly" Alan

Alan Fry

13-03-2012 18:49

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398769)

Not sure i've ever heard nuclear power being described as "eco friendly" Alan

They do not give out much Co2

martyh

13-03-2012 18:58

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35398771)

They do not give out much Co2

Over to you Tim ,i'll let you handle that one ,after all he's agreeing with you :D

Osem	13-03-2012 19:08

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398750)

IIRC too much wind is also a problem for these turbines - they only work in a certain range of conditions.

As for the Irish sea, you are talking about very old technology there and things have moved on a tad since Windscale was built. Of course there are risks associated with the nuclear option but there are benefits too. Sadly, for the reasons I mentioned before, I don't think we're in much of a position to choose now.

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 20:33

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35398765)

I don't normally say this, but I agree with you, Nuclear power, while a eco-friendly source, is expensive, dangerous and you have to reposibvle for it for 1,000 years.

Hence why I do not see why why is worth the risk

The government could be the money to build more wind farms etc

Radiation is not eco friendly:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35398779)

Over to you Tim ,i'll let you handle that one ,after all he's agreeing with you :D

:eeek::eeek::eeek: I don't know if I can handle him agreeing with me

Osem	13-03-2012 20:36

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398829)

Radiation is not eco friendly:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

:eeek::eeek::eeek: I don't know if I can handle him agreeing with me

Well you know what he suggests for those who disagree with his 'master plan' don't you.... :D

Tim Deegan

13-03-2012 20:37

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35398836)

Well you know what he suggests for those who disagree with his 'master plan' don't you.... :D

You mean most of the world's population?

RizzyKing

13-03-2012 23:35

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

We would all love it if all our energy needs could come from renewable energy sources but the truth is that technology is nowhere near effective or mature enough yet. It's a sad fact that for too long in the UK we have neglected longterm planning for our energy needs and now find ourselves near the edge.

I would prefer an alternative to nuclear but right now we don't have one. My way of looking at it is in the shortterm we need nuclear but must use the breathing space that will give us to further develop and refine the alternatives to the point we're the world leaders in it and can base a portion of our economy on high tech well paid manufacturing in the future.

Sometimes we have to make do in order to progress thats where i see us at the minute.

Tim Deegan

14-03-2012 00:01

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35398930)

Unfortunately nuclear power is never short term, as the waste is still highly radioactive for 1000 years. Now that is very long term :erm:

nomadking

14-03-2012 00:04

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

It doesn't matter one little bit, what marvellous advances are made in wind and solar technology. The unreliable and intermittent nature of the source energy means that you will ALWAYS have to have enough conventional generating capacity as if the wind and solar systems were not there in the first place.

The only possible ways they could contribute is if the energy could be stored(unlikely), or if there was a 2nd national grid system feeding back into the power stations, and using it to pre-heat the water that is turned into steam to drive turbines. That would allow the smoothing out of the intermittent nature of the renewable energy.

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 10:54

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35398829)

Radiation is not eco friendly:rolleyes:[COLOR="Silver"]

I meant that Nulclear emits no carbon, but that still not enough for the risks involved

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35398930)

We have a huge amount of renewable rsources that are not exploited in the UK, Nuclear is expensive and is a huge liablity for a very long time

---------- Post added at 09:54 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35398937)

Or we could build more biomass power stations?

Tim Deegan

14-03-2012 14:04

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Geothermal power is being used in some countries. And it is said to be viable in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 14:30

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35399134)

Geothermal power is being used in some countries. And it is said to be viable in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Iceland is a big user

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 15:02

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35399155)

Iceland also happens to have the advantage of sitting above the Mid Atlantic Ridge:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2012/03/21.gif

With hot lava welling up to shallow depths it is easy to get high pressure steam directly from boreholes.

The UK on the otherhand is geologically quiet. Such hot springs that we have like those in Bath are of low grade and while these can be utilised for district heating schemes cannot be use for large scale power generation.

Yes I do know about Icelands geology and I know that Geothermal power is the solution, but we should look at a way of gerenating power in the local area

nomadking

14-03-2012 15:09

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35399040)

Or we could build more biomass power stations?

Not everybody agrees.

Quote:

A Green Party MEP has described a Â£300m biomass power station planned for Southampton as a "nightmare".
...
Most of the wood to be burnt in the power station would be shipped from Europe, the Americas or Scotland.

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 15:11

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35399177)

Not everybody agrees.

Something has go to give and we have no choice but to look at biomass and renewable energy, unless you are keen on polluting or dangerous forms of generating energy

RizzyKing

14-03-2012 15:26

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

I am well aware of the waste issue involved with nuclear but we are on a tight timeline and the other options will not generate enough electric to keep the country going in the next ten years. Being honest it is exactly the debate we are having on here that has stagnated our energy policy for so many years and what we need is true leadership to decide an option and just go with it. Interesting to bear in mind that if we don't get this sorted out soon we won't be having these debates on forums because there will not be the power to use computers.

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 15:30

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35399195)

Yes, they need to get a move on with biomass and renewable energy

Tim Deegan

14-03-2012 15:59

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35399148)

Iceland is a big user

Well they would be silly not to, as it is a volcanic island

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35399173)

Yes I do know about Icelands geology and I know that Geothermal power is the solution, but we should look at a way of gerenating power in the local area

No Alan, as usual you know what you have just read.

If you knew about Geothermal power then you would know that it is possible to harness it in the UK. It just means drilling deeper, and the technology has now been developed to drill deep enough.

Alan Fry

14-03-2012 16:30

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35399219)

You are right, we should look into it, cetainly more than we are into Nulclear power

AdamD

15-03-2012 15:24

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Just did a quick estimate regarding nuclear power and wind turbines

The highest rated nuclear power plants tend to churn out about 1000 megawatts of power

The largest turbine that Vestas make right now, is 7 megawatts (which is actually more powerful than the first nuclear power station ever built (USSR's Obninsk plant, 1954 :D)

But you'd need 150 large turbines (7mw X 150 = 1050mw), to replace one advanced gas-cooled reactor.

EDF Energy has 8 reactors in the UK with a total output of 7000mw

You would need 1000 of the largest wind turbines with ideal conditions, to meet that level of power. Yikes :(

I'm all for renewables, but until the technology has a major breakthrough, it isn't really feasible to depend on it right now.

Given how densely populated this country is, perhaps another idea might be to tell people to stop having kids for a few years. ;)

But naw, I think they should open new nuclear stations, but the fast breeder variety, so we can use the waste we have stored, as fuel.

The future however, will probably be fusion power, IF they can make it work.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Quote:

Fusion

Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium and boron. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[74] Although this process has yet to be realized, many experts believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output.

Alan Fry

15-03-2012 15:46

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamD (Post 35400080)

Even if it takes 1000s of wind turbines, then we should still pursue renewable energy (rather than nuclear) until they get to fusion power

Would you rather live next to a wind turbine or a nuclear power station?

nomadking

15-03-2012 15:51

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

You can build 100s of millions of wind turbines and if the wind is to low or TOO HIGH, then they are completely useless. Even if the wind is at the right level, it has to be consistently at the right level, 100% of the time, otherwise again they are completely useless.

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 16:05

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamD (Post 35400080)

Just did a quick estimate regarding nuclear power and wind turbines

The highest rated nuclear power plants tend to churn out about 1000 megawatts of power

The largest turbine that Vestas make right now, is 7 megawatts (which is actually more powerful than the first nuclear power station ever built (USSR's Obninsk plant, 1954 :D)

But you'd need 150 large turbines (7mw X 150 = 1050mw), to replace one advanced gas-cooled reactor.

EDF Energy has 8 reactors in the UK with a total output of 7000mw

You would need 1000 of the largest wind turbines with ideal conditions, to meet that level of power. Yikes :(

I'm all for renewables, but until the technology has a major breakthrough, it isn't really feasible to depend on it right now.

Given how densely populated this country is, perhaps another idea might be to tell people to stop having kids for a few years. ;)

But naw, I think they should open new nuclear stations, but the fast breeder variety, so we can use the waste we have stored, as fuel.

The future however, will probably be fusion power, IF they can make it work.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

There must be well over 1000 wind turbines already. They seem to be off every coast, and on the top of many hills.

The risk is still far too high to build more nuclear power stations, so I still think the best clean option is Geothermal.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35400107)

They have variable pitch blades, so there is a very wide wind speed range.

Alan Fry

15-03-2012 16:13

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35400107)

Thats where biomass comes in

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35400112)

Those turbine numbers soon mount up, and you've only talked about substituting the nuclear requirement, then replace all those fossil fuel sourced stations that contribute several times the load of the nuclear plants and that's just the beginning: What about all these electric cars that will need juicing up, so replace all the diesel and petrol energy as well, diesel trains, air transport (hydrogen fuelled but you need electricity first to split the hydrogen)

Fusion power is touted as a replacement and if it can work it's likely to be much safer but the reactors suggested work on rare forms of hydrogen isotopes, not the readily available hydrogen from water so again the dirth of raw feedstock could rear it's ugly head, but at least the Arabs wouldn't have a monopoly on it.

Britain has huge renewable energy resources for starters, also a drive to renewable energy would generate jobs.

nomadking

15-03-2012 16:47

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

If you're having to ship in biomass material from the other side of the Atlantic for a mere 100MW power station, how much energy is actually being saved.

From Renewable Energy Foundation:-

Quote:

Wind power output is significantly variable and difficult to predict over several timescales, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.
Variability over short time scales has been much discussed, and it is now well known that low wind conditions can prevail at times of peak load over very large areas. For example, at 17.30 on the 7th of December 2010, when the 4th highest United Kingdom load of 60,050 MW was recorded, the UK wind fleet of approximately 5,200 MW was producing about 300 MW (i.e. it had a Load Factor of 5.8%). One of the largest wind farms in the United Kingdom, the 322 MW Whitelee Wind Farm was producing approximately 5 MW (i.e. Load Factor 1.6%).

Where is the missing 98.4% supposed to come from?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Starting in 2005, the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) commissioned a series of reports which have played a key role in this debate. These include the 2005 Telford Gold Medal winning papers by Hugh Sharman on the Danish wind experience2; the work published between 2006 and 2008 by James Oswald and his co-authors, which models the output of a 25 GW wind fleet distributed across the UK3; and the work of Paul-Frederik Bach on the impact of wind power intermittency on electricity spot prices, which was published in 2009 and 2010.
Oswald showed that, contrary to previous statistical work by the Environmental Change Institute (Oxford), smoothing of wind-generated electricity output would be modest at best, with the entire wind fleet functioning effectively as one power station, with frequent power ramps of significant scale and rapidity, and extended periods of near zero output, indicating that even a 25 GW wind power fleet produced little or no firm, or reliable, capacity. The PÃ¶yry study is consistent with these results.

If the wind drops even for a few seconds or minutes, you cannot suddenly start up generating capacity elsewhere, even if it was available.

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

Alan Fry

15-03-2012 17:21

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35400172)

If you're having to ship in biomass material from the other side of the Atlantic for a mere 100MW power station, how much energy is actually being saved.

From Renewable Energy Foundation:-
Where is the missing 98.4% supposed to come from?:rolleyes:
If the wind drops even for a few seconds or minutes, you cannot suddenly start up generating capacity elsewhere, even if it was available.

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

It not just win turbines, but also wave power (like the one that has been suggested on the river Seven), it we had a lot more Wind and Wave turbines, combine that with biomass and it would be enough to reduce our dependency towards fossil fuels

Also note, there is also carbon capture and clean coal

martyh

15-03-2012 17:29

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35400197)

what's happened to your idea of opening all the pits back up :rolleyes:

Alan Fry

15-03-2012 17:31

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400201)

what's happened to your idea of opening all the pits back up :rolleyes:

We could do that as well, as long as it involved carbon capture and clean coal

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 18:00

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35400172)

Wind Turbines should not be the new Moai(statues on Easter Island), using up rare earth elements and creating jobs for NO ACTUAL PURPOSE.

With the locations used for wind turbines, it is very rare that there is no wind. Also they usually generate more than is needed to allow for any drops at one site.

martyh

15-03-2012 19:09

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400225)

With the locations used for wind turbines, it is very rare that there is no wind. Also they usually generate more than is needed to allow for any drops at one site.

Ironicaly they will always be suceptible to wind though ,they work between speeds of 10-30 mph when th ewind gets upto 40-50 mph they have to shut down requiring back up stations to generate for them

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 19:43

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400274)

Ironicaly they will always be suceptible to wind though ,they work between speeds of 10-30 mph when th ewind gets upto 40-50 mph they have to shut down requiring back up stations to generate for them

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

martyh

15-03-2012 20:05

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400294)

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

It is the case ,that's why in medium to high winds you will never see a wind turbine turning .It's logical realy because if you think about the speed that the gears and generator inside the nacelle will be turning with a max speed of 30mph wind speed they would just burn out ,and then think about the g force at the tips of the blades they would tear apart

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow

Quote:

How strong does the wind have to blow for the wind turbines to work?

Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down. For more information, see the BWEA factsheet on wind energy technology.

There's a interesting report here about accidents involving wind turbines one of the biggest problems is blade failure.

Chris

15-03-2012 20:12

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400294)

If that was the case, then I doubt that there would be so many on the top of the hills in the middle of the pennines, or off the coast, as both areas often experience far higher wind speeds.

Cut-out speed is typically 55mph, apparently ...

http://www.wind-power-program.com/tu...cteristics.htm

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35399177)

Not everybody agrees.

The thing to understand about Green policy is that it is essentially anti-development. They moan about renewables as much as they moan about fossils because renewables still allow the possibility of a continuing increase in energy consumption and economic output. I wouldn't pay an excessive amount of attention to them. Society has always had luddites and always will.

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 20:23

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400303)

To tell you the truth I don't know. Maybe that report is talking about early models, because I've seen some turning in very high winds.:confused:

Chris

15-03-2012 20:27

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35400172)

You know, about 3,000 years ago the elites of the ancient societies of the Middle East were engaged in a strikingly similar discussion about the relative merits of bronze and iron.

Bronze was seen as a superior material; it was harder to come by than iron, which was to be found just about everywhere, but nobody had quite mastered the efficient use of iron in making anything you might actually want to own (such as a really good sword, or a nice sharp-tipped spear).

Unfortunately, tin, a key component of bronze, is not to be found everywhere. It had to be brought great distances by hazardous sea routes. Its supply was vulnerable to disruption. Such disruption is most likely what led to the switch to iron - much as people wanted to go on using bronze, the raw materials became too rare and expensive.

Three millennia on, and necessity has once again been proved the mother of invention. We are extremely good at using iron as an ingredient in all sorts of stuff you wouldn't want to try to use bronze to make. In fact, try to tell anyone that there was a time when iron was considered too troublesome to bother using at all, and you might get a quizzical or disbelieving look in response. But now it's oil and gas, the key raw materials of our energy-hungry economy, whose supplies are limited and vulnerable.

The point ... our current renewable technologies are in their infancy. wind turbines are big and not very efficient. But if we don't build them and learn from them, that's all the technology will ever be. We need to be brave and, I believe, take as given that if the human race is still here in another 3,000 years, they will find it bizarre and ever-so-primitive of us that we would ever have wanted to hang on to fossil fuel power generation instead of exploring the alternatives.

martyh

15-03-2012 20:33

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400319)

To tell you the truth I don't know. Maybe that report is talking about early models, because I've seen some turning in very high winds.:confused:

No it is a fact ,there are serious limitations with wind turbines in high winds simply because of the enormous stresses generated even at operational speeds .That is not to say they don't serve a purpose though ,they can supplement a small percentage of the national grid but will never replace traditional power stations as nuclear generation can do and it is very short sighted of any government to think so

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 20:39

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400324)

Which is why we need to explore alternatives, like wave pawer, tidal power, geothermal, etc...

Do you know how much of the UK could be made uninhabitable by a disaster at one of our nuclear power stations? Where would the population from that area go??

martyh

15-03-2012 20:56

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400326)

Indeed we do need to explore alternatives i agree ,but we need new sources of power generation now not in 20-30 yrs or more .Actually we needed it 20 yrs ago but the governments of the time didn't see the urgency .Serious research should have been done on tidal ,wind ,solar, etc long before now and maybe then we wouldn't be stuck with a half developed technology that cannot generate our power requirements and we wouldn't be faced with the risk vs reward choice we now face with nuclear power.I agree that a accident on the scale of chernobyl would be catastrophic for the UK but ,because of our shortsightedness we have have i feel left ourselves with no other choice .

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 21:16

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400337)

Apart from the fact that we still have plenty of coal

martyh

15-03-2012 21:27

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400348)

Apart from the fact that we still have plenty of coal

which is getting harder to get as this proves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 21:46

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400356)

which is getting harder to get as this proves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

There were loads of pits that were closed down by Maggie, that still had loads of coal left.

She destroyed the British coal industry because she wanted to destroy the NUM.

martyh

15-03-2012 21:54

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400367)

There were loads of pits that were closed down by Maggie, that still had loads of coal left.

She destroyed the British coal industry because she wanted to destroy the NUM.

I'm not going to get into a argument about the rights and wrongs of pit closures suffice it say in the hear and now re opening pits isn't an option that can be seriously considered for a multitude of reasons

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 22:10

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400370)

I've got no intention of getting into an argument about it. I'm just saying that there is plenty of coal still there.

martyh

15-03-2012 22:27

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35400377)

I've got no intention of getting into an argument about it. I'm just saying that there is plenty of coal still there.

which is effectively un useable so therefore not an option worth considering

Tim Deegan

15-03-2012 23:03

Re: UK nuclear plans 'put energy in French hands'Government plans for nuclear power r

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35400388)

which is effectively un useable so therefore not an option worth considering

Well that's another discussion entirely

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:36.