Nuclear Powerplants

[[GSV]Trig]

We need to start building nuclear power plants.
We are going to run out of fossil fuels at some point, be it oil coal or whatever, the bottom line is theres nothing wrong with nuclear power as long as resonable safety measures are in place.
The problem is the government wants to get everything as cheap as possible and therefor shortcuts will be taken...

Discuss.

[herulach]

Itd' actually be pretty hard to take short cuts with nuclear plants with all the regulation in place. And also, the government dont build powerplants, priviate business does.

The main problem being how to get planning permission, theres far too much scaremongering gone on to get people to accept having one near them

[Nick F]

I can't see nothing wrong with using nature to provide power. Lets start building massive wind and solar farms.

[Skii]

Problem is, Nuclear energy is the most expensive. Also, what do you do with the waste ? Don't get me wrong, sort those two out and by all means, split as many atoms as you like.

[Skii]

Nuclears alot better, its cleaner than people think, it just has a bad reputation due to accidents like Chernobyl, but that was hardly a good example of a reactor and not typical.

Yer not wrong. Russian manuals didn't used to come with a safety section, (if there was a manual at all)

[iranu]

yes your'e absolutely right. However, there needs to be a coherent plan in place not just for building new stations but also the whole chain in the nuclear process. From ore extraction, processing, use, recycling, waste disposal.

New technologies are currently in development that will allow us to deal with the waste (reduce it's half life and hazard) and produce power without having a critical chain reaction. Without a critical mass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a meltdown. The laws of physics just won't allow it.

Look into "Accelerator driven sub-critical systems" for nuclear power generaton.

Currently a university in Italy is building such a system, albiet on a small scale to investigate the feasablity of a full scale plant. The Russians, Japanese, French and Americans are also looking into this technology as it is very versatile in the type of fuel it can use. It can use waste from current plants but also material from nuclear weapons stockpiles.

It works by using an accelerator to fires protons into a target, the resulting spallation produces neutrons which bombard the nuclear fuel setting off a reaction. The fuel is not at critical mass so there is no need to absorb excess neutrons from the fission process - i.e. there is not runaway reaction that has to be controlled. All that must be controlled is the accelerator. As long as you don't have the "James Bond dial" (where you have underuse, normal, overuse and death) then it's impossible to produce too many neutrons.

Anyone who has done GCSE physics will know that protonss travel in a vacuum easiest, so the way to shut off an accelerator is to remove the vacuum or physically put a piece of lead in front of the source.

This technology is so win-win it's not true. Power from waste, no chance of melt down, removal of nuclear stockpiles, reduction in half life of waste ( rather than lives of 100,000 years it can reduce them to 1000 years*), reduction in high level waste, reduction in heat out put of waste.

*yes I know that is still alot but it can be planned for. Numerous buildings have lasted more than a 1000 years so we can buid those too.

[herulach]

http://www.jet.efda.org/
Way of the future, screw fission
Nuff said

[Rick]

I believe nuclear is the only way forward. If you are worried about waste, then you should search Google for something called a breeder reactor. It can drastically reduce waste output, maybe even get rid of waste altogether. The problem is that because of all the scaremongering, we are still building outdated power production facilities such as gas, and on renewable but very low power solar and wind power.

[Saracen]

The argument for nuclear doesn't seem to me to be as clear as a superficial look might suggest.

Firstly, cost. Nuclear power is a very cheap form of power in terms of generating costs, but very expensive in capital terms. You have extremely high up-front costs, and vast end-of-life costs. In order to actually compare costs, you have to factor in the up-front costs, the decommissioning costs AND the operating costs, over the entire life span of the station. Then, it becomes nowhere near as cheap as just looking at operating costs would suggest.

The other argument is the environmental one, and I don't mean dealing with waste. One of the arguments for nuclear is that nuclear stations produce very little carbon emissions in operation, and compared to fossil fuel stations, that makes them environmentally friendly (if you ignore the disposal of waste issue), and they will certainly help us meet Kyoto targets, and whatever follows. The problem is that they are very high in carbon emissions during the construction, and to some extent, decommissioning, phase, and as with cost, you have to look at the entire lifespan to get the full carbon picture.


But I think new nuclear stations are in the future of this country's power generation. Why? A significant factor will be the strategic implications. The current scare over the Ukrainian pipeline and Russian gas has made it clear that being as close to self-reliant in power generation as we can get is a major strategic objective. Also, nothing I've seen has suggested that renewables can get anywhere near close to supplying our demands, and fossil fuels are likely to get more and more expensive. And if you factor that increasing cost trend into the cost comparison, nuclear starts to look more and more tempting.

All we have to do is work out where to put them.

[herulach]

The argument for nuclear doesn't seem to me to be as clear as a superficial look might suggest.

Firstly, cost. Nuclear power is a very cheap form of power in terms of generating costs, but very expensive in capital terms. You have extremely high up-front costs, and vast end-of-life costs. In order to actually compare costs, you have to factor in the up-front costs, the decommissioning costs AND the operating costs, over the entire life span of the station. Then, it becomes nowhere near as cheap as just looking at operating costs would suggest.

The other argument is the environmental one, and I don't mean dealing with waste. One of the arguments for nuclear is that nuclear stations produce very little carbon emissions in operation, and compared to fossil fuel stations, that makes them environmentally friendly (if you ignore the disposal of waste issue), and they will certainly help us meet Kyoto targets, and whatever follows. The problem is that they are very high in carbon emissions during the construction, and to some extent, decommissioning, phase, and as with cost, you have to look at the entire lifespan to get the full carbon picture.


But I think new nuclear stations are in the future of this country's power generation. Why? A significant factor will be the strategic implications. The current scare over the Ukrainian pipeline and Russian gas has made it clear that being as close to self-reliant in power generation as we can get is a major strategic objective. Also, nothing I've seen has suggested that renewables can get anywhere near close to supplying our demands, and fossil fuels are likely to get more and more expensive. And if you factor that increasing cost trend into the cost comparison, nuclear starts to look more and more tempting.

All we have to do is work out where to put them.

I dont see how it would be anymore carbon intensive during production than an ordinary plant, theyre essentially made of the same things.

If someone gave the people at JET, or one of the other fusion labs, the amount of money it would cost to decommision a couple of fission reactors and i bet theyd come up with a working fusion reactor in the next 5-10 years.

[Konan555]

Also, what do you do with the waste ?

Stick it in the ground near a fault and let it sink.

[iranu]

Nuclear fusion is certainly some way off. Yes it will ultimately become feasible but know one knows whether it will be 10 years or 50 or 100. With that uncertainty you have to look at existing technology to overcome the problems.

Saracen cetainly puts forward some vailid points. The cost of the entire plant, it's operation and decommisioning would need to be factored against the projected costs of fossil fuels, Britains emissions commitments and security of supply.

The location of "conventional" nuclear power stations would have to be close to or on the sites of existing stations - sea water is a cheap form of cooling.

Unfortunately the uneducated, fearful public don't understand nuclear reactions/power, all they see is the mushroom cloud, Chernobyl and three mile island. Infact if you look at those 2 disasters you will see that they were so avoidable it's not true. Modern conventional stations produce more power with less waste more cheaply and more safely than ever. It is simply a question of cost/economy/secure energy supply. If oil prices continue to rise,instability continues in the middle east and Russia uses oil as a political weapon then the case for conventional nuclear power is much stronger.

Closing off the nuclear loop with an accelerater driven sub-critical power plant offers the best way forward for sustainable, affordable, reliant and safe power production. Whats more it will be with us in less than 20 years.

Those who advocate wind, solar, wave solutions are dreamers who do not understand the requirements for energy use in the UK.

Solar is extremely expensive, inefficient and would take up large areas if used as a main producer of power. It is much more suited to individual buildings/lighting etc and should be made a legal requirment on new office develpment.

Wind - the biggest non-starter ever. Expensive (even more so if sited at sea), unreliable, inefficient. It is completely unsuited for a modern economy that requires power 24/7. Many European govenments are now seeing the light after "investing" in it. The efficiencies are so poor (33% on average of predicted power output) that you would need 3 times as many turbines to generate the power that the wind industry said the turbines would generate. Factor in material, infrastructure, maintainance and the cost (let alone destruction of environment) in ££ and CO2 and you'll see it's more expensive than nuclear.

For small out of the way develpments it can be a good way to generate power but as far as a part of teh national grid, it's pointless. Government should hang it's head in shame for making certain companies rich for no return.

Tidal - Good idea, the tide will always come in and go out. Unfortunately the technology is not there. If it ain't there then you can't rely on it. Hydro-electric is a super invention however wave generation is going to take along time to come to fruition because the power generated is tiny.

As an aside I would prefer it if we didn't waste so much electricity. We could cut our consumption fairly easily but it seems no government is willing to take the inititive. Why do we have lights on motorways blazing away at 4 in the morning, why do we not have less power hungry devices.

[Russ]

solar power and wind farms should be exploited

the local BP has solar panels in the roof, and this powers the whole Petrol station 24/7 and charges the batterys with the left over, why cant every new house have this technology? would save people a fortune.

[Russ]

solar powered street lamps would also be cool charge in the day, shine at night

[[GSV]Trig]

Also, what do you do with the waste?

Pump it into the athmosphere, oh hang on thats what we do with fossil fuels, my mistake

We take it into space and shoot it into the sun.

[autopilot]

We need to start building nuclear power plants.

So would you mind if they started building one down your street?

We take it into space and shoot it into the sun.

What happens when that something goes wrong with the rocket and it explodes in the atmosphere?

I'm just playing devils advocate here a bit. I truth is that i don't know enough about it to have a definitive answer and i doubt anyone here has. I know we cant go on as we are and nuclear may be the lesser of two evils. But while it's clean in the short term, it's not in the long term and even the pro-nuclear camp agree on that. The finest scientific minds have been trying for years to come up with a good solution to the waste issue and have so far failed. And a disaster could cause as much damage to the earth and us humans in a day as years of burning fossil fuels. Also bare in mind that many of the people who say nuclear energy in the future have a vested interest in it

Basically we are up s**t creek with a paddle either way