Looks like the UK is serious about nuclear

[forfismum]

This is yet another of the non-stories which turn up.You will note that of the 2 problems mentioned, cooling water has been dealt with which just leaves "packaging ".I will get right on it after evensong .

PS Is Panic-Merchant a recognised profession?


Next-generation nuclear fuel may be too hot to handle - report

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You won't get rid of gas or coal for a long time.

Especially if we don't go nuclear.

Those who are addicted to Nuclear Energy may decide to keep handing their citizens hard earned tax dollars over to the industry instead of working out how to store the thermal energy siphoned from the sun.

Maybe if we say it enough it will sink in:
Solar and wind provide a different type of supply to nuclear. It is not an either/or argument. Most people who are in favour of nuclear are not against these technologies.

Of more importance is the reason as to why would it need considerable back up in the short term? Perhaps, because we can't stop producing endless shite 24 hours a day?

Because we rather like being alive. But seriously, you really need to consider that our demand for energy on tap is not just some greedy evil habit, but a means to live a quality life. A means to look after the vulnerable, to support an economy that, on the whole, is successful and has brought health and prosperity to millions. To ignore nuclear will be to put all that in jeapody for no good reason. It is an irrational fear that is holding society back.
However, your self loathing is showing. Well done for your honesty.

This planet has got to get a grip...it is about energy efficiency, mostly. The costs of energy production are not taken into account at present and we are only just waking up from the dreaming.

The costs of "rape and pillage of the global village" are thus: stress!

Whenever this discussion raises its head, energy efficiency gets mentioned as if its a forgotten cousin in the back room. The irony is that it always gets mentioned.

But while energy efficiency is relevant in the big picture, it is not relevant to this discussion. Cutting demand by a few percent (even tens of persent) will not negate the need for more nuclear plants.

There is no reason why we shouldn't build more to cut emissions and provide a reliable afforable supply. In the UK we need to use less coal, far less gas (f*** Russia), and increase some wind and tidal. But none of that will prevent the building of a single nuclear plant. If you think it will, you don't undertsand about grid stability, or economics.

The waste issue isn't a problem, as we have the geology to deal with it (in 500 years time it will be less radionactive than when it was first extracted). The safety issue has been proven through a lack of incidents on existing plants with the designs planned, and the risk is so infintesimally small, we would be mad not to invest in more nuclear.

You emotional rant unfortunately betrays you.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Because we rather like being alive. But seriously, you really need to consider that our demand for energy on tap is not just some greedy evil habit, but a means to live a quality life. A means to look after the vulnerable, to support an economy that, on the whole, is successful and has brought health and prosperity to millions. To ignore nuclear will be to put all that in jeapody for no good reason..

Good post, Wobs.
I don't disagree with any of it. I think the above points are a pretty good summary.
I'd go further. Successive UK governments did not give the green light for nuclear power until recently.
Old nuclear is being de-commissioned.
The gestation period for new nuclear may be too long to avert the "power crunch" UK is facing.
Projects like the new gas turbine plant at West Burton, a stop-gap attempt, is like p1ss1ng in the wind.

We, UK, just need to get on with it. Not soon. Now.

[Deathridesahorse]

Maybe if we say it enough it will sink in:
Solar and wind provide a different type of supply to nuclear. It is not an either/or argument. Most people who are in favour of nuclear are not against these technologies.


<<

You are wrong as Solar can supply Baseload energy!

[Deathridesahorse]

Of more importance is the reason as to why would it need considerable back up in the short term? Perhaps, because we can't stop producing endless shite 24 hours a day?

Because we rather like being alive. But seriously, you really need to consider that our demand for energy on tap is not just some greedy evil habit, but a means to live a quality life. A means to look after the vulnerable, to support an economy that, on the whole, is successful and has brought health and prosperity to millions. To ignore nuclear will be to put all that in jeapody for no good reason. It is an irrational fear that is holding society back.
However, your self loathing is showing. Well done for your honesty.

<<

"Now that humans means transcend all human measure and pile up wealth to impoverish the heart...."(The Merchants Wheel, Les Murray)

The gap between rich and poor is forever increasing, the sky is about to fall on our heads because of it and you say I am irrational.

As you must respect women, dope and cigarettes so you must also respect the environment in which you live: it's as simple and unscary as that: DON'T GO NUCLEAR just so you can walk around town and say NUCLEAR every so often because it's pointless.

You are chasing a blind wave of treasure, sir!

[Deathridesahorse]

You emotional rant unfortunately betrays you.

<<

What a load!

Grid stability just requires a consistent source and as Solar is now Baseload it is not a problem.

As for efficiency not being relevant to the conversation I would have to say that's false.

Energy efficiency is for the very purpose of those countries addicted to Nuclear Energy to become less addicted...

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Especially if we don't go nuclear.


Maybe if we say it enough it will sink in:
Solar and wind provide a different type of supply to nuclear. It is not an either/or argument. Most people who are in favour of nuclear are not against these technologies.


Because we rather like being alive. But seriously, you really need to consider that our demand for energy on tap is not just some greedy evil habit, but a means to live a quality life. A means to look after the vulnerable, to support an economy that, on the whole, is successful and has brought health and prosperity to millions. To ignore nuclear will be to put all that in jeapody for no good reason. It is an irrational fear that is holding society back.
However, your self loathing is showing. Well done for your honesty.



Whenever this discussion raises its head, energy efficiency gets mentioned as if its a forgotten cousin in the back room. The irony is that it always gets mentioned.

But while energy efficiency is relevant in the big picture, it is not relevant to this discussion. Cutting demand by a few percent (even tens of persent) will not negate the need for more nuclear plants.

There is no reason why we shouldn't build more to cut emissions and provide a reliable afforable supply. In the UK we need to use less coal, far less gas (f*** Russia), and increase some wind and tidal. But none of that will prevent the building of a single nuclear plant. If you think it will, you don't undertsand about grid stability, or economics.

The waste issue isn't a problem, as we have the geology to deal with it (in 500 years time it will be less radionactive than when it was first extracted). The safety issue has been proven through a lack of incidents on existing plants with the designs planned, and the risk is so infintesimally small, we would be mad not to invest in more nuclear.

You emotional rant unfortunately betrays you.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Good post, Wobs.
I don't disagree with any of it. I think the above points are a pretty good summary.
I'd go further. Successive UK governments did not give the green light for nuclear power until recently.
Old nuclear is being de-commissioned.
The gestation period for new nuclear may be too long to avert the "power crunch" UK is facing.
Projects like the new gas turbine plant at West Burton, a stop-gap attempt, is like p1ss1ng in the wind.

We, UK, just need to get on with it. Not soon. Now.

He thinks if we don't go Nuclear we are all going to die: How can you call that a good post?

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Because you need an electrically stiff grid to make the naturally-commutated SCR inverter operate correctly. It is not a stand-alone system.

Does this wiki page describe the SCR device you were talking about correctly? Silicon-controlled rectifier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You are wrong as Solar can supply Baseload energy!

I notice Deathridesahorse that you live in Australia so you will have different solar conditions to the UK. I would be very interested to see any studies you know of that display the potential of solar electricity to provide baseload solar electricity in Australia. It certainly appears to be one of the most promising forms of renewable energy generation for the country.

In the UK we are not as fortunate with our solar resources. Technologies such as solar collectors have not exhibited the same potential as in countries such as Australia. From what little I know this appears to be the combination of a different average lattitude, a lower surface area and an increase in cloud cover. The cloud cover issue is rather important in the UK because it means that a significant proportion of the sunlight reaching solar pannels (thermal or photovoltaic) is diffuse radiation and thus can be from any direction. As solar collectors concentrate the solar energy comming from a limited range of directions they would be excluding a significant ammount of the solar resource in the UK.

So in this country we currently appear to be limited to solar electricity generation as and when the sun is shining. The magnintude of the generation will also be affected by cloud cover. The range of potential cloud cover in an area appears to be predictable, so a range of the potential ammounts of electriciy/heat energy that can be obtained should be reliable. However the exact cloud cover at any single time is not as predictable. This limits the ability of solar technologies to deliver a secure base load electricity supply in the UK.

[spadlet]

I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies of the uranium (and any other fuels they are considering to power the nuclear power plants) resources in the world? I had heard that if a lot of countries decided to invest in nuclear power, fuel could become a bone of contention. I have no idea how accurate that statement is though.