Government and Nuclear Power...

BaJi_2

tr3mor wrote:

Have I? Most of the time here in Manchester it's dull and calm!

Seriously though, what do people actually intend we do to cope with the unpredictability of renewable sources of energy?

Well, I used to make solar cells. When I tested mine I still got power on cloudy days. Less of course but it was still useful power nevertheless. There are many ways of generating power from the Sun for each of the Earth's latitudes.

I suggest if you are serious and really interested in this that you do some research on alternative power and methods of reducing power consumption.

However, let's take a quick example of wind turbines. You need a lot of them. And they need to be distributed around the coastline and other windy areas. It is very unlikely that one part of the UK (or Europe) will have no wind without other parts having some wind.

You also cannot rely on one source i.e. wind. You need several other sources including convential means and hopefully more from home power generation. Hopefully, nuclear fission will be a minimal part of this. But if we can balance our CO2 output to levels say 30 years ago (and this is quite possible) then we can still use oil and coal. Technology has moved on in these areas too and not just in nuclear fission.

kittiwoz

tr3mor wrote:

Seriously though, what do people actually intend we do to cope with the unpredictability of renewable sources of energy?

We would need to use the national grid to balance the power supply and use around the country. So if it is still and grey in Manchester we would get our electricity suppy from somewhere else in the country where the wind is blowing. That should be possible but would be more difficult than it is currently so would require investment in strengthening the national grid. Possibly some storage would also be required but this is not beyonds the bounds of our technical capabilities. I am speaking here regarding a situation in which there was an increased use of renewable energy, even up to 30% of our requirements, with the rest supplied from either fossil fuel burning power plants or nuclear fission since I do not consider the production of our power needs from renewables alone to be a realistic prospect for the foreseeable future. I imagine though that if such a thing were ever to be achieved it would require either significant amounts of storage or a Europe wide grid.

talksalot81

Cardew wrote:

There obviously is some element of risk with nuclear fusion. Equally clearly the proponents/opponents will never agree on the scale of that risk.

The most fundamental risks with fission are waste and an out of control reaction (even though this is impossible with safety protocols obeyed). With fusion, the waste issue goes out the door and the out of control reaction is this time a physical impossibility. Unlike fission, if something goes wrong, fusion simply stops. It is not and cannot be self sustaining. The risks with fusion are no more serious than those with any other large industrial operation. Anyone supporting a view significantly different from this probably doesnt understand the physics of fusion power.

BaJi wrote:

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is, what happens to the reactor core at the end of its lifetime? Well I'll tell you, the plant is dismantled around it and the core is encapsulated with concrete and it's left there for years, many, many years. How save will it be sat there all alone? Will someone blow it up? Will they find a way in and remove material for a dirty bomb (suicide mission of course)?

You'll see lots of information stating that currently new nuclear plants are safe, melt-down proof, not likely to be attacked (as long as terrorists don't find there way again onto the flight decks on commercial airliners) and they will cure your fungal infections.

On the first paragraph: First response to you is that there has been nothing of significance reported on any decommissioned reactor thus far, including chernobyl. Blow it up? An enormous lump of reinforced concrete deep within the ground would be difficult to destroy with anything short of a nuclear weapon. It is a totally unrealistic risk. As for removing the material inside... if it was that easy that would be one of the decommissioning steps. It would be a job of enormous magnitude and enormous risk. If we were to let a reactor out of our sight for several years in order that terrorists with enormous budgets could work, then we probably deserve the outcome. I dont think any country in the world would be so careless and I dont think any terrorist group in the world comes close to the capability.

Point 2: You start reasonably because newer designs are safER and are almost meltdown proof. However you lose credibility with the comment on airliners. Even if terrorists got into this situation, they would be needing to fly into the middle of a large area to a target which they could not see, they would need to penetrate the structures overhead, they would be aiming at a target BELOW the ground thus would need an enormously steep attack and they would need to do this in the biggest airliner they could get their hands on. I have my suspicions that even this is impossible... I doubt that there is any man or machine in this world which could be that accurate with such a large and difficult to control projectile. Imagining some miracle happened and this impossible event occurred. What do you think is going to happen next? There would be insufficient energy to cause an enormous explosion and (contrary to some belief) the nuclear target is not inherently explosive. The almost 100% certainty is that the worst case scenario would result irrepairable damage to the power station with almost no chance of significant losses beyond this. The potential damage is absolutely inconsequential in comparison to that caused on 9/11 and to that which could be caused on other similar attacks. So maybe we should ban skyscrapers?

tr3mor

BaJi wrote:

With regards to matey who keeps going on about Kamikaze birds flying into wind turbines. I know people who live near wind farms and they have never, ever seen it or any evidence of it. If you are worried about it then campaign for airfield bird scaring equipment in and around the farms. Don't waste your time moaning about wind farms. More birds are killed by moving automobiles and aircraft......so shall we ban them?

I'm not complaining about the windfarms killing bloody pigeons. I'm not even complaining about them building new windfarms.

It's just to build one of the biggest windfarms in the UK on top of one of our biggest populations of Golden Eagles is taking the Michael.

Also your point about knowing some people who live near some windfarms and have never seen any evidence of there being dead birds is awfully similar to Boris Johnson's argument about kids not needing seatbelts because it never did him any harm!!

tr3mor

kittiwoz wrote:

We would need to use the national grid to balance the power supply and use around the country. So if it is still and grey in Manchester we would get our electricity suppy from somewhere else in the country where the wind is blowing. That should be possible but would be more difficult than it is currently so would require investment in strengthening the national grid. Possibly some storage would also be required but this is not beyonds the bounds of our technical capabilities. I am speaking here regarding a situation in which there was an increased use of renewable energy, even up to 30% of our requirements, with the rest supplied from either fossil fuel burning power plants or nuclear fission since I do not consider the production of our power needs from renewables alone to be a realistic prospect for the foreseeable future. I imagine though that if such a thing were ever to be achieved it would require either significant amounts of storage or a Europe wide grid.

Well, I don't see what the argument is then. The other 70% of power has to come from somewhere. In 30 years time there will be no cheap sources of fossil fuels. Therefore our only alternative is nuclear power.

Also, I can't see fusion being a viable source of power for at least 50 years, at the moment doesn't it use more energy to start the reaction than it results in?

talksalot81

tr3mor wrote:

Well, I don't see what the argument is then. The other 70% of power has to come from somewhere. In 30 years time there will be no cheap sources of fossil fuels. Therefore our only alternative is nuclear power.

Also, I can't see fusion being a viable source of power for at least 50 years, at the moment doesn't it use more energy to start the reaction than it results in?

There is also a significant propability that we will be using MORE energy. Our population will keep rising and our reliance on technology will increase. So it is highly unlikely that energy saving will be able to offset the increase. So while it is difficult to imagine how we could provide all our power by renewables now, it is even harder in the future. And that is ignoring the possibility of something unknown requiring even more power (if you look at ground breaking technology, it almost uniquely uses more power than the last breakthrough).

kittiwoz

tr3mor wrote:

Well, I don't see what the argument is then. The other 70% of power has to come from somewhere. In 30 years time there will be no cheap sources of fossil fuels. Therefore our only alternative is nuclear power.

Also, I can't see fusion being a viable source of power for at least 50 years, at the moment doesn't it use more energy to start the reaction than it results in?

Yeah. If you look back at my other posts you will see that is why I am in favour of nuclear fission as a short term solution to keep the lights on and the economy going so that scientists and engineers can work on an alternative long term solution in a stable environment.

jmarko

tr3mor wrote:

I'm sorry, are you intending we get all of our energy from renewables?

What happens when it is neither windy nor sunny?

If that happens, we can all go out for a Pimms and not risk getting burnt! :beer:

Hurrah!

jmarko

jmarko

tr3mor wrote:

I'm not complaining about the windfarms killing bloody pigeons. I'm not even complaining about them building new windfarms.

It's just to build one of the biggest windfarms in the UK on top of one of our biggest populations of Golden Eagles is taking the Michael.

Careful what you're saying - it's only a matter of time before someone asks how we can harness the power of the Golden Eagles!

jmarko

tr3mor

jmarko wrote:

If that happens, we can all go out for a Pimms and not risk getting burnt! :beer:

Hurrah!

jmarko

Marvellous. Can't stand Pimms though. Only southerners drink Pimms