Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
New UK nuclear plant sites named 
Author Message
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 1057
Reply with quote
I take it this Bradwell is not the one by Milton Keynes then?

Pity. :lol:

_________________
Image


Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:20 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
maybe building this type of reactor is not as short sighted as some may think ...

Quote:
The waste production of nuclear power plants is a function both of the frequency of removing waste products and of refueling. Many reactors currently in use and with many years of operation remaining could be retrofitted to utilize thorium in place of much of or all of their uranium. This would eliminate ultimately the production of weapons grade material at those retrofitted plants. Thus the US, and the world, would be a safer place. In addition the fuel refurbishing and replacement cycle for thorium reactors is much less frequent than for pure uranium reactors, so less waste is generated.


http://www.glgroup.com/News/Converting- ... 21835.html

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:31 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Nuclear all the way! Clean and cheaper than renewables.

By all means invest in renewables - but they're not a serious source of power generation yet.

PS. I'm all for solar, tidal etc, but wind seems almost pointless except in the windiest of locations - which also tend to be quite remote.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:39 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
My point - waste billions on the current nuclear crop that are economically unviable on a global scale to make any practical difference to the environment or % of energy produced, or invest it in cleaner, cheaper alternative options that would help reduce the time until their implementation.

Not an option. The UK faces an energy crisis and even if these new nuclear power plants, based on existing designs and technology, are rushed through at maximum speed, with no planning delays and so on, they still won't arrive in time to plug the gap, so old coal or nuclear plants are going to stay online past their sell-by dates. We should have been arguing in this thread five years ago, but the govt we had then didn't fancy making an unpopular energy policy, so they kicked the can down the road. If you want to wait until thorium works, reactors have been designed, and then built, you will have turn your fridge off for a couple of decades.

There isn't an economically viable energy source to be had at present. All major power generation hardware requires billions of pounds of investment and is only economically viable based on assumptions about their fuel that may amount to nothing.
Coal fired stations built today come with nebulous promises about clean coal - nobody knows if that is ever going to be feasible, but if it isn't then there is a strong likelihood of increasingly high taxes on carbon emissions leading to greatly reduced lifespan and therefore returns. If anyone does work out how to extract and store carbon from power stations, that [LIFTED]'s likely to be expensive.
Gas fired stations are reliant on a fuel that, while abundant, is directly linked to oil prices. That will probably change, but no guarantee is available. The potential for supply disruption is huge given the locations of known gas fields, and the possibility that shale reserves may not be tapped for environmental reasons. On top of that we have a lot of gas fired generation capability already, so it's hardly desirable to make ourselves more dependent upon it.
Oil is clearly an even riskier bet.
Solar power sucks and will continue to do so for an unspecified period of time.
Wind power is widely deployed only because it is the least awful of the available renewables right now, any country that bases its energy policy on such an unreliable source is in the hands of idiots.
Hydro electric power is fine as long as you have untapped viable sources, we have few if any.
Tidal power is at least predictable, giving it a big advantage over wind, but on any large scale it disrupts even larger ecosystems. Large resources are rare and controversial.
Wave power requires machines with moving parts to be immersed in highly corrosive fluid for long periods without seizing up or getting covered in limpets, viability has not so far been demonstrated.

Nuclear power is within the same kind of cost range as most of those options.
Over the life of a power station - half a century or so - things that make gas and oil cheap today seem likely to lose their effect. The volume of fuel required for these operations is huge, and that means that supply has to be managed on a just in time basis - you really can't stock pile 10 years worth of oil and gas - so no matter what price oil reaches today, you have to buy some. The only way to hedge against fluctuating prices is to take out some form of insurance contract via commodities brokerages. Demand is growing faster than supply, and that seems unlikely to change.

Against that, nuclear requires high capital investment, massive decommissioning costs, and the long term storage for radioactive materials could cost enormous amounts. Refining the fuel is also very expensive. But the cost of the actual fuel is relatively low, and the volumes required are low enough that you can easily stockpile it. Some of those costs can be reduced or shifted around with current technology; waste can be reduced with better fuel reprocessing and so on, although this would itself require investment in new plant. It isn't unreasonable to predict that decommissioning and storage costs can be reduced with new technology - I don't want to overplay that for the same reasons that I don't rate the chances of clean coal very highly.

The upshot is though, that all the alternatives to oil and gas become relatively cheaper as prices of those commodities rise. Nuclear power of the currently available varieties becomes viable if a barrel of oil reaches a certain level. Estimates vary and it's easy to pick the one that suits your argument. I've seen claims ranging from < $100/b to over $300 depending on the assumptions that factor in and the technology required. Oil is at the low end of that range already, where are you betting it will be in 30 years time?


Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:33 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Not an option. The UK faces an energy crisis and even if these new nuclear power plants, based on existing designs and technology, are rushed through at maximum speed, with no planning delays and so on, they still won't arrive in time to plug the gap, so old coal or nuclear plants are going to stay online past their sell-by dates.


Fossil fuel stations operating past their sell by date doesn't concern me too much, nuclear does.

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:57 am
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
I take it this Bradwell is not the one by Milton Keynes then?

Pity. :lol:


I doubt the Grand Union Canal would provide sufficient cooling water. :lol:

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:47 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
The UK faces an energy crisis * snip *

Really? Telegraph clicky

Quote:
Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply – and rising fast.

"There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources," he said.

This is almost unknown to the public, despite the efforts of Nick Grealy at "No Hot Air" who has been arguing for some time that Britain's shale reserves could replace declining North Sea output.


I'd rather take an environmental hit now and benefit greater in the long run with a cheaper, cleaner and safer nuclear option. Focus our investment there and we can cut the time until its implementation.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:30 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
The UK faces an energy crisis * snip *

Really? Telegraph clicky

Quote:
Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply – and rising fast.

"There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources," he said.

This is almost unknown to the public, despite the efforts of Nick Grealy at "No Hot Air" who has been arguing for some time that Britain's shale reserves could replace declining North Sea output.


I'd rather take an environmental hit now and benefit greater in the long run with a cheaper, cleaner and safer nuclear option. Focus our investment there and we can cut the time until its implementation.

The US has got its gas from fracking and the downsides are water that ignites and the water table poisoned. So yes I would also prefer to find alternatives. Efficiency savings pay off every year so it is dumb not to push this. If necessary increase energy costs so that it becomes more cost effective.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:20 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
I like the windmills. :)


Personally I think wind farms aee a blot on the landscape

Also the Nuclear Power station are around the 3 GW size. Allowing that an average commercial (wind farm) turbine produces (e.g. Enercon E-126) only up to 7 MW, you then need over 400 turbines. running at peak power.

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
The UK faces an energy crisis * snip *

Really? Telegraph clicky

Quote:
**Nothing remotely relevant**


I'd rather take an environmental hit now and benefit greater in the long run with a cheaper, cleaner and safer nuclear option. Focus our investment there and we can cut the time until its implementation.

Wrong type of energy crisis. We won't have enough power stations to make the electricity with and they take absolutely ages to build. If you run them decades beyond their natural life, they have to be refitted at ruinous expense and are in the process taken offline for years.

Thorium isn't the first wonder energy product we've been sold. It would be insane to put our entire energy policy on hold for another decade when it has already been left on the back burner beyond the limits of reason. If thorium is ready in 10 years time, we'll have more power stations to order.


Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:40 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
WTF are they doing, copy China and go Thorium.
+1 to that.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:54 pm
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
adidan wrote:
WTF are they doing, copy China and go Thorium.
+1 to that.

+1 But vested interests might stop that.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:35 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:35 pm
Posts: 1657
Location: Ipswich
Reply with quote
I like tidal turbines btw if anybodies interested...

_________________
www.youtube.com/hyperviper34


Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:47 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
Geiseric wrote:
I like tidal turbines btw if anybodies interested...

* waves *

;)

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:48 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
Geiseric wrote:
I like tidal turbines btw if anybodies interested...

* waves *

;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:33 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.