Nuclear Power Station questions

[RedFish]

I quite agree. Was not offering panacaea, merely one solution. Although in my many years fishing, the number of birds I've seen perfectly able to negotiate wires and even fishing line compared to the number of collisions has been evidence enough for me to say that deaths would be a rarity, In my opinion.

[Spectric]

Hi free feet

Unfortunately power generation is Ac and you cannot store Ac. You would need to convert to Dc and use batterys, and they would have to be enormous to have enough capacity to supply even one house for any length of time.

Super capacitors may be a solution one day but at the moment they would also be huge & not feasable although now good enough for stop start systems in vehicles.

I agree pylons are unsightly, in fact just as much an eyesore as the turbines but in a different way, but due to cheapness they are prefered to underground options & the poor Caingorms look like they are going to be blighted with these.

If that pile of scrap metal is meant to be an angel then it says little about the great achievements of the North east in the past !!

Roy

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by Spectric

Hi free feet

Unfortunately power generation is Ac and you cannot store Ac. You would need to convert to Dc and use batterys, and they would have to be enormous to have enough capacity to supply even one house for any length of time.



Roy

There are proposals, and existing technology, to send DC power from offshore wind turbines to the shore.
There are great advantages in less power lost in the cables due to AC dielectric effects, and also that the cables do not have to withstand the higher voltage peaks inherent in AC generation and so can be smaller and cheaper. The turbines also don't have to care about precise blade speed to sync with the National Grid, so again cheaper and easier.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by eeyore

umm - no it isnt , its a very complex technology which is as yet undeveloped for this purpose - also its a multiple transformation with energy turned from physical momentum to electricity, to compressed gass, and then back to physical momentum, then to electricity with inefficiencies at every stage.

It's very simple technology actually, all of it already exists.

And the most inefficient use of energy we have at the moment is the internal combustion engine, i don't see anyone crying that no one can ever have a car because it's technology is so inefficient.

With wind and tidal we can have as much energy as we want for free, inefficiency doesn't matter half as much as an internal combustion engine where we have to import all our petrol and diesel.

And so what if it is inefficient, what else are you going to use? Where are you going to buy uranium, gas, oil, and coal from for the next 100 years? Can you guarantee a continuous supply of those? No you can't, no one can. Can you state for any supplies you will be able to get at what price those will be? No you can't, no one can.

It's absolute madness to keep banging on about gas oil nuke and coal generation when we don't have any fuel. It's absolute madness to keep banging on about nuke when my parents generation hasn't even sorted out what they're going to do with all the waste that they created and how much that's going to cost yet. And here you are thinking it's a needed thing to create more of this toxic filth to give to my grandchildren do deal with.

Originally Posted by eeyore

how did i know you were going toi mention dinorwig - you seem to be in love with the place - yes this works but there are finite available sites not enough to store enough energy to power a whole grid when the wind isnt blowing (plus the point about transformations as above)

Above you said the technology was totally inefficient. Why i keep mentioning Dinorwig is that it proves that stored pressure technology is not inefficient as you keep stating it is.

Dinorwig buys the electric off the national grid to pump the water up the mountain, they then release it back into the national grid when the grid needs a boost.

If pressure storage technology was so inefficient and unproven as you keep claiming how is it that Dinorwig can still make a profit, how is it still running?

Dinorwig proves pressure storage technology. The technology has been available for decades. It's very simple and certainly efficient enough to turn a profit.

And there's plenty of sites to use this technology on. Every dam in the UK can have this technology installed.

Originally Posted by eeyore

eco 7 was developed to use energy for domesrtic heating etc during regular periods of low demand (ie during the night) - it is not suitable for iregular periods of over and under generation such as those you get when the wind is or isant blowing.

Actually the idea is suitable with a few tweaks. Call the new version Economy 8 so you don't get muddled up.

Once all the storage facilties are full then the grid can switch on the Economy 8 system in everyone's homes via a signal down the AC line. That then auto charges all storage systems in peoples homes, like their hot water tank, DC batteries for lighting systems and such like, and any storage heaters etc.

Obviously, it's not in use at the moment and as i said, it will take a little rethink in how we use energy. But this system is simple and will take out lots of slack from the grid during excess generation times saving it for other times.

Originally Posted by eeyore

not easily they cant - for one thing if you heat oil to very high temperatures it tends to catch fire, secondly over a period of days or weeks with no input (as in when the wind isnt blowing) the tanks would cool down due to radiant loss to the environment , and thirdly recovering the heat would not be simple and would be very inefficient

This technology is already being used. And being developed to make it more efficient. Oil in this technology does not tend to catch fire. It isn't inefficient in its current guise let alone it's future ones with molten salts instead of oil and multiple cascades instead of single ones.

And i'm not proclaiming that it would store all our needs for weeks on end. Thermal energy storage systems are only part of the equation, as is undersea air pressure storage and up mountain water pressure storage systems.


At the end of the day, if people want to be totally and utterly pessimistic about this then they will be. The technology is available and efficient enough now.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by freefeet

.....It's absolute madness to keep banging on about gas oil nuke and coal generation when we don't have any fuel....

You do your argument no good whatsoever when you keep posting erroneous personal opinion, instead of actual fact.

There is ample availability for nuclear fuel for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come. As previously demonstrated in this post: -

Wind turbines

Note that these are facts, provided by one of the world's leading authorities in atomic energy, and not personal opinion.

Similarly, your other opinions can be easily countered by reference to factual information. You make several sweeping statements, but I see none of them being reinforced by reference to leading bodies in the field, or to authoritative documentation.

Your given examples may work in the small scale, but as has been demonstrated here on WAB, and in many other places, currently available "renewable energy" technology simply cannot provide anywhere near the amounts of electrical energy needed to satisfy the world's demands.

No one is saying that renewable energy doesn't work, or that it is too inefficient to ever be worth pursuing, but the fact remains, at this point in time, renewable, in all its forms, can only play a small (but nevertheless important) part in the overall energy scheme.

Within a hundred years or so, renewable energy technology may well advance to such a level that it might compete favourably with nuclear energy, in which case all well and good.

In the meantime, unless the world wants to live without enough electricity to meet demand, then people need to wake up to the fact that nuclear is the only proven technology, (as a major player in a cohesive energy strategy), that can supply that demand.

Regards,
Mike.

EDIT: I don't intend to become embroiled within another long winded saga of posting in this thread, going over the same old arguments yet again. My side of the argument has already been aired on the very extensive "Wind Turbines" thread, to which anyone with sufficient interest is referred.

[John D]

[QUOTE.

EDIT: I don't intend to become embroiled within another long winded saga of posting in this thread, going over the same old arguments yet again. My side of the argument has already been aired on the very extensive "Wind Turbines" thread, to which anyone with sufficient interest is referred.[/quote]

Mike I agree exactly with what you have said in the above and throughout this thread. I like you don't want to become involved yet again. After all what do we know????????? We are only 'humble Electrical Engineers' who spent all of our working life in the 'energy supply industry'.

However I must add some details from an recent article that I have just read regarding the 'offshore windgeneration' proposals which were recently announced. This might let everyone have a better idea of what is intended.

By 2020 it is planned to have 29GW of 'offshore generation' installed and running (eventually around 32GW will be installed). The total cost of manufacturing and installation will be in the order of £75bn which equates to something like building EIGHT Channel Tunnels.
Some of the turbines will be up to 18/25km with others being 60/70km offshore and even as much as 200km, they will be installed in the North Sea,Irish Sea,Bristol Channel and English Channel.
It has been estimated that a total of more than 3000 turbines in total will eventually be installed. Some of these turbines will be installed where the water depth is up 50/60m which in itself creates installation problems. It is also a fact that most of the furthest offshore sighted turbines will be around 250m heigh which is around three times the height of the Statue of Liberty.
It is also recognised that carrying out the installation work and then routine and emergency maintenance in the waters around the UK will be fairly hazardous.
Finally this is 'new ground', offshore windgenerator installations such as this have never been carried out before. There is still a lot of planning to be done especially that associated with the foundations etc.

This is a very complex and hazardous project. It isn't just about 'sticking a up a device' that will turn when the wind blows. It is certainly I'm sure much more than some of the participants in the thread thought it to be.

Hope you find this to be of interest!

John D

[RedFish]

Nuclear technology is only 'proven' by public acceptance. (Blind to the dangers, bought off by 'cheap power' promises) You make no reference to the waste products, which persist for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.
Leds for lighting is perfectly sensible, although a little bright in some circumstances. Small solar panels, available now, could provide energy to power these. Today.
We talk about our own personal opinions too much. No-one has answered the very valid point made about the infernal combustion engine. ''Poison my greatgreatgreat great grandchildren. That's ok. Just don't ask me to give up my car.''

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by John D

....Hope you find this to be of interest! John D

I do indeed John. This is the sort of factual information that enables people to consider the subject more objectively.

Originally Posted by RedFish

....You make no reference to the waste products, which persist for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years....

No, because, (and as I did say ), my argument (including deep mine storage, future accessibility to that stored waste, the various levels high/medium/low of radioactive waste, and potential future use of the stored waste), has already been stated in the Wind Turbines thread.

Originally Posted by RedFish

....Leds for lighting is perfectly sensible, although a little bright in some circumstances....

I don't disagree. LED technology has come on in leaps and bounds over the last decade, and many major commercial/industrial lighting manufacturers are already actively promoting LED luminaire usage. This is one area of energy efficiency that isn't in question, and LED's will certainly play an increasing part in lighting for the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by RedFish

....Small solar panels, available now, could provide energy to power these. Today.....

The problem with small solar panels is that they simply don't save anything. The cost to manufacture them (carbon footprint etc.), along with installation costs, expected lifesapan, maintenance (particularly cleaning) etc. versus payback period and actual energy savings, gives, in real terms, nothing more than a feelgood factor. Solar panels only prove worthwhile if they are installed in large arrays, and during the construction of the buildings to which they are affixed. Economy of scale is the only way to go with solar panels.

Originally Posted by RedFish

....No-one has answered the very valid point made about the infernal combustion engine. ''Poison my greatgreatgreat great grandchildren. That's ok. Just don't ask me to give up my car.''....

Another sweeping statement! - I notice that you don't put forward any useful suggestion as to exactly what we are going to replace the internal combustion engine with. (Before saying electric vehicles, please take a moment to consider the currently non too advanced state of electric vehicle technology, and also to consider that the electricity to power these vehicles has to come from somewhere before it can be used to charge their batteries).

Regards,
Mike.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

.

There is ample availability for nuclear fuel for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come.

to be fair to freefeet i think he was saying that we, in the uk, dont have any natural uranium , and therefore would be at the mercy of suppliers turning off the supply for political reasons (like the russians did with the ukraine gas supply a few years back)

while this is true it overlooks the technology to reuse the fuel we already have, and also overlooks the relative ease of stockpiling uranium when compared to oil or gas.

Imo the real problem with nuclear isnt so much the fuel as the toxic waste

The bottom line is that there isnt just one type of energy generation that is a total solution, freefeet is right that renewables have a part to play, and also right that we need to be looking at options now rather than wating for crisis point. However the overlooked point is that we need to consider all options rather than rellying on the (in my opinion overated) pancea of wind power

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by eeyore

....Imo the real problem with nuclear isnt so much the fuel as the toxic waste....

I'm convinced that there is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the actual amount of nuclear waste that is generated. Most people seem to think that astronomic quantities of highly radioactive materials are involved, whereas in reality, and compared to the toxic waste produced by other industries, the amounts are fairly negligible.

Most people don't have the inclination to research the subject thoroughly, and the myth is perpetuated. This website includes a laymans description to the reality of what's involved: -
Nuclear Waste Management : Education: World Nuclear Association : world-nuclear.org

I can't find it at the moment, but I am fairly certain that I have read that the total amount of high level nuclear waste produced in the world to date, amounts to something like the space contained within 30 olympic sized swimming pools.

Now, I wouldn't for one minute suggest that this would be a good idea, but to demonstrate my point, all of that waste, including the storage casks to contain it, would fit quite comfortably in one small corner of the many miles of the salt mines under Cheshire.

In stable and accessible underground environments, high level nuclear waste can easily be monitored, and routine maintenance of the casks can be carried out ad-infinitum. (And, as mentioned in the above linked article, the costs for long term storage of such waste, are already built into the price/unit paid for nuclear generated electricity).

Yes, I accept that storage of such waste is a very long term scenario, but for the volumes of waste involved, it is a very easily managed scenario as well.

Regards,
Mike.