Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-15-2011, 12:57 AM   #21
Golden Master
 
sniperviper21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,438
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Look at the Japaneses Nuke Plants.
__________________

__________________
You got to have a Fiddle in the band!
sniperviper21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 06:57 AM   #22
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,999
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

As I said before, the japanese plants are in a lot of ways testament to just how safe the energy is,
the earth quake was massive, (reactors survived), the tsunami was massive (reactors survived). so far there has been 3 explosions, in 1 explosion 11 people were injured and there was a slight leak of radioactive materials.

Compare that to the deep water oil platform where no natural disaster meant 1 explosion meant 11 dead and massive oil leak.

The point that I was trying to make is that when you talk about nuclear power in the UK we don't really have large uninhabited areas that we'd be able to put massive exclusion zones around in case of disaster.

And it still comes back to the point that you can build in as many safety features as you like, but it still doesn't change that things can go wrong. and we don't have the land space to displace en-mass lots of people.

Quote:
I agree, Dungeness is closing in 2018, that will result in a loss of 1.1Gw of capacity, The uk has to go ahead with the proposed 10 new sites, if not we will have a large energy gap! ther will be one anyone, due tot he fact that new plants cant open as quick as old ones! With out nuclear we will all be sitting in the dark very soon!
wow, misrepresenting the facts as if "only nuclear will save us".

loosing 1.1GW of generating capacity... oh no!! whatever will we do :'(

again. go look at the national grid website and look at the demand data.
we currently exporting half that to France to make up for their shortfall, (same to Ireland).

if you look at the historic data, on Jan 3rd we exported more than this whole stations output (to France) all day on most days in January...
Other days we imported much more than this.

so firstly, that shortfall of 1,000MW is a pitifully small amount (when you consider that the nations consumptions runs at 40 - 50GW that makes that station about 2% of energy demand).

secondly, if you look at the time scales, nuclear won't save us at all!

lets look at Dugness B
it's construction was started in 1965, yet wasn't finished for 18 year (1983), and didn't start producing power until 1985.
where it produces 1.1Gw

lets compare that to my local coal station (Didcot)

Didcot A, work started 1964, finished 1968, and it's got 4 500Mw generators
it burns, coal, gas or biomas (which is considered a totally green/CO2 less fuel).

so if you were to power didcot A on biomass only, it is cleaner than nuclear fuel (no polution rather than lots of radiative waste). quicker to build, cheaper to build, with a higher power output.

Didcot B might be a better comparison construction started 1994, finished 1997(generating in 97 too). produces 1.4Gw (so again, quicker, cheaper with more generating capacity).

there you have the answer...
if there genuinely is an energy crisis looming, we're going to have to stick with traditional burning stations, we can construct burning stations that have greater generating output with less time and less budget than it takes to build a nuclear station.

No nuclear station has eve been completed in less than 6 years, from the start of construction, -and they are still trying to find sites!
There are no nuke stations generating more than 1.2Gw
There is still the problem of waste.

compare that to a coal station, where we have a station that can generate 2Gw of power from biomass (Didcot A), or a station (Didcot B) that can produce 1.4Gw (200MW more than any current nuke station), constructed in less than 3 years.

Couple that with the fact that if we use biomass fuels the stations are arguably completely Co2 neutral.

and there is less risk of accident, radiation leak with nuclear power.
look at the absolute worst case scenario...
you have to build stations on sites where there already are stations because you have to have an entry point to the grid.

so lets assume that a Didcot C is built, and lets assume it's a nuclear station.
it'll produce 1GW (same as other nuclear stations).
that'll put the total power generating ability of the three stations at ~4.5GW (10% of national demand).

now consider an accident at the plant.
firstly this immediately shuts down the nuke reactor there needs to be a massive exclusion zone, this immediately shuts down the other stations.
10% of power generating ability immediately lost.

exclusion zone means that thousands of people are displaced from homes, from Didcot, north as far as Oxford, west as far as Swindon, East as far as Reading, South as far as Newbury...

so that's lots of people removed from local towns (evacuated to where exactly?)
lots of students and academic researchers moved from Oxford (massive stop to research). car production stopping in Swindon (Honda factory), car production stopping in Oxford (Mini factory). Vodafone are based in Newbury, so that shuts down the nations biggest cellular network (or at least stops it's ability to maintain it's network properly), Vodaphone also maintains the tetra network used by police/fire/ambulance so you're possibly going to affect that networks ability.
moving east to reading you're looking at shutting down Microsoft UK, Oracle UK, Sage UK, plus tens of data centres...

a lot of the space is fields a well, so you're also looking at loosing harvests as the land can't be worked and who knows how many thousand cows/sheeps/pigs etc need to be moved...

when you consider the risk to all those industries and people (in the monetary terms of moving people/cattle/shutting down businesses). then nuclear becomes less and less attractive.
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 08:37 AM   #23
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

I agree Root, you make good points.

"so far there has been 3 explosions, in 1 explosion 11 people were injured and there was a slight leak of radioactive materials."

A slight leak is a pretty damn big leak in radioactive terms...
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 09:14 AM   #24
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
Yeah, after the problems with the 2 reactors in Japan, do I need another reason as to why we don't want them? They are too uncontrollable.
I know we don't get earthquakes like that here (they hardly rate anything when we do), but one thing I don't want is for the chance for something like that to happen.
Us as humans just aren't capable of controlling them at the moment.
Humans get more radiation damage from coal plants let alone the greenhouse gases. A hydroelectric damn once broke and killed 26,000 people in China. Chernobyl was not up to any sort of code and no one was really surprised it melted down. In Japan, the plant is still fine. Still just hydrogen explosions. There is less radiation walking near the plant than there is flying from London to New York.

Nuclear power is best source of energy but too many people are blindly against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
I agree Root, you make good points.

"so far there has been 3 explosions, in 1 explosion 11 people were injured and there was a slight leak of radioactive materials."

A slight leak is a pretty damn big leak in radioactive terms...
Like I said, it's not a big leak at all.
Quote:
Tokyo Electric Power Co. said radiation levels at Unit 3 were 10.65 microsieverts, significantly under the 500 microsieverts at which a nuclear operator must file a report to the government.
Update from NEI on reactor status.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear NEI Member:

Please note the following update from Tokyo Electric Power Company.

Fukushima-Daini (2F) unit 4 recovered reactor cooling.
Now 4 units in 2F site have cooling function.

Update of Fukushima-Daini NPS (as of March 14 17:00am) :

Unit 2:
- Restoration work in reactor cooling function that was conducted to achieve reactor cold shutdown has been completed and cooling of the reactor has been commenced at 7:13 am, Mar 14th.
- Afterwards it was confirmed that the average water temperature of suppression chamber was constantly below 100 degrees at 3:52 am.

Unit 4:
- Restoration work in reactor cooling function that was conducted to achieve reactor cold shutdown has been completed and cooling of the reactor has been commenced at 3:42pm, Mar 14th.


Radiation monitoring after 1F-3 hydrogen explosion:
At approximately 11:01am, an explosive sound followed by white smoke occurred at the reactor building of the Unit 3. It was believed to be a hydrogen explosion.
As of 4:00 pm, the measured value of radiation dose at the monitoring post in Fukushima Daini Power Station remains at the ordinary level. No radiation impact to the external environment has been confirmed.

Now this third reactor may be a problem... Don't know yet. I'll wait for the NEI update before I trust any other media though.
__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 12:27 PM   #25
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,999
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
A slight leak is a pretty damn big leak in radioactive terms...
not really.

I've just read an article suggesting that the "radioactive gasses" that were released in that explosion were mostly made up of the shorter lived radioactive particles. basically most of then would be decayed to a no-so-radioactive state before the gas cloud even reached the perimeter fence of the plant.

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now! • The Register
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 01:21 PM   #26
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

I've got to admit, they are a technical marvel.
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 02:10 PM   #27
Guru
 
JogaBonito1502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S.
Posts: 7,841
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

People look at the energy issue one dimensionally. It's not all about innovating the way to convert energy into some useful. There is a lot of stuff we use that do not use energy efficiently. Making these things more energy efficient would go a long way in reducing CO2 emissions. With energy, you have to think outside the box.
JogaBonito1502 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 02:23 PM   #28
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Quote:
Originally Posted by JogaBonito1502 View Post
People look at the energy issue one dimensionally. It's not all about innovating the way to convert energy into some useful. There is a lot of stuff we use that do not use energy efficiently. Making these things more energy efficient would go a long way in reducing CO2 emissions. With energy, you have to think outside the box.
Well, that's the one thing we can control now, but if we had better ways of obtaining the energy in the first place, it would be better yet. Gas engines are about 20% efficient. Raise the compression, you raise the efficiency but it's harder to start, more expensive to build, harder to maintain, and more expensive fuel is needed. In the case of hybrids, it's harder to start so gas may be saved, but electricity is used turning the engine on every time the electric motor is out of it's range.
Diesels are much more efficient, around 40% since they ignite on compression. In the summer, you don't even need glow plugs, a lot of drag diesels don't use them at all. But the engines are heavier and more expensive and diesel can turn to a gel in the cold. So it's fairly hard to get engines more efficient, but that's what the automakers do. While other people and automakers research alternate forms of fuel. Nuclear is really a good option. If Nuclear subs/aircraft carriers for example run 25 years before refueling, and they could go much longer but it's just set up that way so it is refueled before it's close to running out. If nuclear plants used military grade uranium, they would be making a ton more power as well.
__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 02:50 PM   #29
In Runtime
 
alex_boothby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 310
Send a message via MSN to alex_boothby
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Please dont accuse me 'wow, misrepresenting the facts as if "only nuclear will save us" Its extremly rude and arrogent, you have no idea of my background. The fact is i have spent the last few weeks studying energy in the UK and have experimented with reams of data, and read many peer reviewed papers and government white papers NOT just getting my info from websites/newspapers.TV. THe fact is ther will be a significant energy gap occuring around 2015, with out nuclear WE will experience a 9GW energy loss by 2023, and that is not a "boo hoo" dont be soo naive.

I agree nuclear is not ideal, but atm we have no alternative, nuclear is the only clean resource we have that will help us meet are legally binding 2050 C-emissions. Renewables currently are simply not good eneough...YET

Right well that is my last post as this is getting ridiculous, certain people are being extremly obnoxious, rude and narrow minded, refusing to accept science and sound economic facts.

No disrespect to anyone of course.

More importantly,

My thoughts go out to all in japan.

I know this is probably not allowed due to some sort of restrictions, but i ask, if anyone has the ability to donate to help the poor fellas, please do. Duncan Oldham is fundraising for ShelterBox heres a great way to do it, especially if you are a liverpool fan

Id like to think if someone in the same position as me in Japan had the abaility to help the UK is a event happened they would also.
Cheers All

by the way im no way affliated with the link, just thought its a good thing to do
alex_boothby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 04:12 PM   #30
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Nuclear Power; energy scenario

Yep, we will have some major energy problems especially when plug in hybrids become more common. If a lot of people had them, they would get home from work around 5-6 plug them in... Massive brown outs daily. The US grid cannot support such things.
__________________

__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0