Swedish nuclear reactor failure

[nick_rowe]

I'm still trying to see the benefits of nuclear power (as several people on this site feel it offers the answers we need for energy security and climate change) but then I read this, in october's Ecologist:

"Four of the 10 nuclear reactors in Sweden have been shut down.... "It was pure luck that there wasn't a meltdown" swedish media reported a former director of the reactor saying.."

It was caused by the reactor becoming out of control when backup generators failed to fire during a power cut, meaning the operator lost instrumentation and control over the reactor. The operator then disobeyed orders and managed to divert power from elsewhere in the facility in order regain control and avoid critical temperatures, with 8 minutes to spare. I hope they've given him a few days off and a bonus

At the same time, we hear that Australia is set to start selling uranium to china next year to fuel their planned nuclear expansion with 28 new reactors by 2020. Who's advising them and installing reliable backup systems?

[lewisa]

Originally Posted by nick_rowe

I'm still trying to see the benefits of nuclear power

I shall try to convert you, having waited a suitable amount of time to make the argument more apparant.

Since this thread was posted (approx 35 days ago)...

- the world has consumed 2,940,000,000 barrels of oil (would approx fill Lake Windermere twice).
- the world has burned 600,000,000 tonnes of coal.
- there has been 1000 coal mining deaths
- there has been between 10,000 and 100,000 premature deaths due to coal usage (estimates vary a lot on that one)



Picture a few hundred football field sized nuclear waste dumps, and the very occasional nasty accident or explotion.

Then picture 3 billion barrels of oil, 600 million tonnes of coal and tens of thousands of dead bodies piling up... every 35 days.



Thats my argument for nuclear, Im all ears to argument against or a serious alternative, Ive just not found one as of yet.

[peppermint]

Originally Posted by nick_rowe

I'm still trying to see the benefits of nuclear power (as several people on this site feel it offers the answers we need for energy security and climate change) but then I read this, in october's Ecologist:

I dont think nuclear power is the way forward. I see you read the Ecologist Magazine, what a great mag! They did a massive article on nuclear power i think it was May 06 issue (if not that one , then June 06) They covered every aspect of nuclear power from the mining of uranium to worker safety, emmissions etc. If you can get hold of it, it is a very enlightening read, and i'm sure that not so many people will be for nuclear if they knew the ins and outs of each step of the process.

[onionade]

I agree with peppermint, i dont think nuclear is the answer there are much better options.
The hazard of mining coal was mentioned i dont think the process is any different from mining uranium either plus its already a nightmare situation with regards to how much oil we use but do we really want to be replacing those oil barrel with barrels of toxic waste which we cannot at present dispose of properly (and probably end up in the deep sea somewhere !?).

the alternative options in my eyes are a combination of wind, solar and small scale hydro power coupled with the advent of tidal and wave power generators we should be able to fill the energy gap for the near future, sounds like a bit of a cliche response but i dont know why we are even considering other options like nuclear when we have all of the above (also fuel cells i think will play an important role in the not to distant future).

i think the western world in general has too much money, infrastructure and experience in the oil industry and also with nuclear power and is reluctant to fully implement the above "clean" suggestions at this stage becuase of that, when in fact the renewable technologies are efficient and mature enough to begin seriously adopting now.

do we really want to increase the risk of a nuclear disaster in the uk ? as small and over populated as it is?

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by onionade

i think the western world in general has too much money,

Ultimately this is the answer we need not go further, until we have faced up to the simple question of how much energy we really need to enjoy a comfortable life then we are not even part of the way to meeting our real needs, a real concern with nuclear is that to many people it seems to offer something for nothing or something with acceptable risks and of course with this perception we will still be stuck in the rut of ever increasing energy use. Truthfully though we need to first face up to whether we should be continuing on this never ending spiral of increasing energy use and look at what we really need. In truth we could manage quite happily and comfortably with far less energy than we now use.

[peppermint]

yes i fully agree speckled wood. We have way to many appliences and creature comforts that need electricity/power of some sort, that we could easily do without. I lived in a flat in Bristol with Onionade for a few years, then lived in a caravan for a year (the type you tow on the back of the car), and we realised how much water (hot and cold) we used before was so much. In the caravan we had to go collect it from the tap in the aqua roll so you really notice. Also we didn't have a lot of our possesions with us as space was limited, so we only had what we felt we needed and left so many energy consuming products behind. It just goes to show that we dont need as much as we think.

I think that all new homes built should have their own mini wind turbine to provide some of the energy needed for that particular home.

[onionade]

well said speckled wood

[Paul mabbott]

Or solar panel ...
Yes, most people don't appreciate how much water they use.... nor the energy taken in cleaning and distributing it.
My sister had an eye-opener a few years back when she went to Kenya on one of those swish holidays. She saw the local workers at the hotels and whatever carrying buckets of water (their whole days usage for drinking, cleaning and cooking) in the heat over several miles while the tourists had unlimited water supply in their hotels .... She refused to shower for a fortnight. I don't know what her husband thought of it but I thought that was very conscientous. And I don't think she'll be going on that sort of destructive holiday again.

Originally Posted by peppermint

yes i fully agree speckled wood. We have way to many appliences and creature comforts that need electricity/power of some sort, that we could easily do without. I lived in a flat in Bristol with Onionade for a few years, then lived in a caravan for a year (the type you tow on the back of the car), and we realised how much water (hot and cold) we used before was so much. In the caravan we had to go collect it from the tap in the aqua roll so you really notice. Also we didn't have a lot of our possesions with us as space was limited, so we only had what we felt we needed and left so many energy consuming products behind. It just goes to show that we dont need as much as we think.

I think that all new homes built should have their own mini wind turbine to provide some of the energy needed for that particular home.

[onionade]

in north america i was shocked as to how much water people use here, pretty much everyone have their hose pipes on 24/7 with sprinklers on their gardens in an attempt to keep their gardens a lush green, every farmer was doing the same on a huge scale to entire fields and the toilets are much larger than that in the uk so everytime they are flushed thats about 3-4 times much more water used.

despite warnings of fresh water lakes depleting rapidly and almost all (clean) sources of water are running dry they still dont care and worse still everyone's home is unmetered so they just carry on using to their hearts content.

[speckled wood]

When I moved into my present house 20 years ago it lacked hot water and for a few weeks I managed to shower daily using an adapted 2 litre "killer" spray filled with hot water from the kettle mixed with cold water from the tap. I actually managed quite well and got no comments concerning personal hygene in that time, and every bit as important I also felt clean, truthfully it was perfectly adequate and of course many caravaners and boaters use them.

[lewisa]

I imagine that most momebers of WAB will agree with these two statements, myself included...

Originally Posted by speckled wood

In truth we could manage quite happily and comfortably with far less energy than we now use.

Originally Posted by peppermint

I think that all new homes built should have their own mini wind turbine to provide some of the energy needed for that particular home.

In addition to homes, every streetlight and other metal poles that stick out of our infrastructure everywhere.

I think we differ on whether or not we believe the world thinks the same(enough to change) and whther can sort itselfs out in time. I think it wont happen, and without nuclear the world will just end up burning more black stuff.

Small population rich countires may get close to achieving the necessary, western heavily industrialized nations have the chance but probably wont take it as they seek to retain their global dominance, the developing industrial nations will continue to do whatever they can to industrialize 3 billion people.

If that industrialisation is fueled by nuclear, the world as a whole has a chance, if its continued to be fueled by fossil fuels, we are all screwed. I dont see the world as a whole taking the alternative approach until it is too late.

[Duke of York]

Originally Posted by peppermint

I think that all new homes built should have their own mini wind turbine to provide some of the energy needed for that particular home.

This may sound like a good idea but unfortuately you are forgetting two things.

1. House builders are only interested in one thing - making money. The only way they would do this was if they were forced by law and then the price of the house would have to go up.

2. Will the majority of people want to live in an area where windmills are sticking up out of peoples roofs, which isn't very likely as there are protests every time a new set of wind turbines are proposed.

This changing of energy production from gas/oil etc to more green methods sounds good in practice but I don't think they will ever produce enough. And it is all right going on about excessive energy and water consumption which is used in this country and how it can be reduced but does anybody actually think that most people will want to get rid of all their creature comforts and replace showers with sink washes. I know I don't and I'm sure I'm not alone.

But what the answer is I wish I knew but nuclear seems the best option at this moment.

[onionade]

i wouldnt have any problem living with wind turbines sticking out of every home, i would certainly rather that than some dirty coal fire powered station gushing out tonnes of co2, i actually think wind turbines are attractive to the eye, i dont understand people who use the excuse that they are an eye sore to not use them.

as with anything, the more people begin to use wind turbines the cheaper and better they will get.

unfortunately bush has rolled back about 30 years of environmental protection law in the usa and has given large coal corps (king coal) the full go ahead to fullfill a large part of their energy demand, i think europe in general is leading the way on the green renewable front but is still lagging on proper uptake so one of the biggest problems right now is trying to convince developing nations. i understand your perspective lewisa on nuclear in this respect, how do you approach this ? its difficult, and perhaps nuclear is the answer but europeans definitely have a chance to here to lead the way and be role model for the rest of the world.

[peppermint]

Originally Posted by Duke of York

This may sound like a good idea but unfortuately you are forgetting two things.

1. House builders are only interested in one thing - making money. The only way they would do this was if they were forced by law and then the price of the house would have to go up.

2. Will the majority of people want to live in an area where windmills are sticking up out of peoples roofs, which isn't very likely as there are protests every time a new set of wind turbines are proposed.

.

and / or solar panels as rightly said by Paul Mabbott

[peppermint]

Originally Posted by Duke of York

This may sound like a good idea but unfortuately you are forgetting two things.

1. House builders are only interested in one thing - making money. The only way they would do this was if they were forced by law and then the price of the house would have to go up.

2. Will the majority of people want to live in an area where windmills are sticking up out of peoples roofs, which isn't very likely as there are protests every time a new set of wind turbines are proposed.

Originally Posted by peppermint

and / or solar panels as rightly said by Paul Mabbott

haha quoting myself......i forgot to say that if needs be a law should be put in place so home builders incorporate solar panels or mini wind turbines into new housing. Solar panels/wind turbines will definatly come down in price if they are much more widely used and more companies will manufacture and compete within the market therefore lowering prices.

Housing prices may well go up, but you will save some money on your electricity bills and also be using a 'green' fuel, therefore reducing carbon emissions.

I think that the more technologies like these are used, the more research and development that will go into them and the more efficient they will become.

[Duke of York]

Unfortunately lower fuel bills once you have moved in doesn't help you to afford the house in the first place and a lot of people cannot afford house prices as they are.

And I would think solar panels would be far more acceptable than wind turbines as I'm still not convinced most people are going to like the thought of windmill sticking out the top of their house.

To me necessity is the mother of invention and it is only when fossil fuels are almost exhausted that any time and effort will be put into finding replacement energy sources and until then we will happily use gas/oil etc.

[onionade]

Originally Posted by Duke of York

Unfortunately lower fuel bills once you have moved in doesn't help you to afford the house in the first place and a lot of people cannot afford house prices as they are.

in the long term and if you reduce your fuel consumption (by producing a large percentage of your energy needs yourself) then it is possible at least to recupourate some of the costs no !?

Originally Posted by Duke of York

And I would think solar panels would be far more acceptable than wind turbines as I'm still not convinced most people are going to like the thought of windmill sticking out the top of their house.

i think your missing the point, solar power by itself is not the answer, it has to be both, working together, and im not certain but people probably said the same thing about tv aerials and sattelite dishes, whats the difference, people already have lots of things sticking out of their holmes, and it still amazes me that some people are that concerned with how their house looks that they wont adopt a wind turbine (but will almost definitely have 1 or the 2 of the afforementioned signal receivers hanging from their house!!!) eye sore! they are elegant examples of how innovative humans can be.

the old argument also that they kill birds is complete tosh as cats kill 100,000's more birds each year than anything else known (as any cat owner knows)

[Duke of York]

Originally Posted by onionade

in the long term and if you reduce your fuel consumption (by producing a large percentage of your energy needs yourself) then it is possible at least to recupourate some of the costs no !?)

I quite agree and think it is a good idea and would definately consider solar panels but you need to raise the money in the first place before you can recupourate it which if you need a mortgage is based on salary not fuel bills.

Originally Posted by onionade

i think your missing the point, solar power by itself is not the answer, it has to be both, working together, and im not certain but people probably said the same thing about tv aerials and sattelite dishes, whats the difference, people already have lots of things sticking out of their holmes, and it still amazes me that some people are that concerned with how their house looks that they wont adopt a wind turbine (but will almost definitely have 1 or the 2 of the afforementioned signal receivers hanging from their house!!!) eye sore! they are elegant examples of how innovative humans can be.
the old argument also that they kill birds is complete tosh as cats kill 100,000's more birds each year than anything else known (as any cat owner knows)

I don't remember saying that solar power by itself was the answer (I know that these roof panels cannot run an entire house) all I said was I prefer solar panels to wind turbines. And I quite agree that a satellite dish/aerials etc sticking out of a roof is as much an eyesore as a windmill, but you have to admit that wind turbines do not seem to be a popular addition to our landscape and every time a new set are announced there are complaints that they will be a blott on the landscape like those proposed for the lake district. But until you can change the majorities views on these matters then they are never going to be viable.

[onionade]

no, in my experience the numbers of people who oppose wind farms and small scale turbines in general are the minority, pretty much everyone i know (in my age group and younger) thoroughly agrees that wind power should and will play an important role in the not to distant future, there does seem to be a significant opposition to it but like i say i fail to understand their reasoning so i just put it down to a complete lack (and refusal) of understanding and general biggotry.

i havnt been in the uk for about 3 months but from what i remember its consistently very cloudy, despite photovoltaics getting more efficient they still require sunlight (the more the better). If you couple your solar panels with wind turbines you increase the likelyhood of generating electricity all the time rather than intermittently as the weather changes (which it innevitably does) hence a requirement for the two, working side by side. localised energy production is very much the way forward.

[Garden Carpet]

I live within two miles of a windfarm, and I really can not understand why anyone would think they are anything but elegant and graceful. I love watching them and finding the various places about the area where I can see them. I have stopped at the edge of the road beside this wind farm on more than one occasion specificaly to see if there is noise... and I dont think there is enough to worry anyone. I watched them go up and there was only one place where alterations had to be made to accommodate them.. and that was at a road junction, which was widened for the duration of the work and reinstated on completion. I live in an area which is home to a great many birds both permanent and transitory. I have watched these wind turbines through binoculars and have yet to see a bird strike one.. though no doubt they do.

The arguement that they dont/wont/cant produce sufficient energy to power our current lifestyle dosnt mean they never will. We have to start now and improve. If it was a choice between the local power station 6 miles away or the wind farm 2 miles away I know which one I would go for. And had I the funds to do so I would have a turbine for my house, solar and photovoltic panels on the roof and heat exchangers under the lawn. All of these would mean less power from the national power supplies and less fuel consumed to create that power. If every member of this board did the same for instance, what a difference it would make. Neither cheap nor efficient now perhaps.. but technology has a habit of improving and reducing in cost... and size. Remember the first home computers... look at them now!
jaki

[peppermint]

well said jaki. I am in total agreement with everything you have just mentioned. I think wind turbines look elegant and beautiful and when people use the arguement of bird being knocked out of the sky and killed by them i wonder to myself...do they own a cat though, i bet a lot of them do.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by peppermint

well said jaki. I am in total agreement with everything you have just mentioned. I think wind turbines look elegant and beautiful and when people use the arguement of bird being knocked out of the sky and killed by them i wonder to myself...do they own a cat though, i bet a lot of them do.

And I wonder how many them realise how many insects, birds and other animals are chewed up by their often oversized cars.