Topic: Nuclear Energy

[Sangria]

1. I know, I said that all our nuclear plants are along the coast.  You replied saying that all our other power plants are near water, that may well be, but they aren't all near the coast, repeating what I already said.  Coastal locations are at greater risk from a tsunami, that's the point I was trying to make.

2. Tell that to the people of Fukushima. 

In regards to a UK tsunami, the risk/threat isn't as great, but it is still there and is worth mentioning in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists.

Numerical modeling of tsunami waves generated by the flank collapse of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano (La Palma, Canary Islands): Tsunami source and near field effects

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007646/full

Landslides in the sea

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/landslides/sea.html

Storegga Slide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27224243

How often do these tsunamis occur that affect Britain? Eg. the Storegga Slide last took place in prehistoric times, when Britain was still attached by land to the mainland. The last I've heard of was one in the 17th century that touched the coast of Cornwall. Geologically and meteorologically, Britain is very, very stable.

[Red-Soldier]

How often do these tsunamis occur that affect Britain? Eg. the Storegga Slide last took place in prehistoric times, when Britain was still attached by land to the mainland. The last I've heard of was one in the 17th century that touched the coast of Cornwall. Geologically and meteorologically, Britain is very, very stable.

It happened about 8,200 years ago, Britain wasn't still attached to the mainland, that ended around 10,000 - 9,000 years ago I think.


Will climate change in the Arctic increase thelandslide-tsunami risk to the UK?

http://projects.noc.ac.uk/landslide-tsunami/project-information


Landslides in the Arctic

'Submarine mega-landslides near to the UK have been very rare and it is thought that only six have occurred beneath the Norwegian and Greenland Seas during the last 20,000 years. It is not yet clear whether all of these mega-landslides generated large tsunamis, and not all landslide-tsunami source locations pose a threat to the UK. For example a tsunami with a source off north-west Svalbard travels towards northwards and would not be noticed along UK coast lines (see figure to the right from Vanneste et al. 2011).

It has been proposed that mega-landslides could become more frequent due to present and future climate change, to which the Arctic is sensitive to. Ocean warming causes melting of gas hydrate (crystalline solids resembling ice that contain methane), which weakens sea floor sediment. Melting of ice sheets will cause an increase in the frequency of large earthquakes, as the Earth’s crust adjusts to the removal of the ice sheet’s weight. These factors, or a combination of both, could cause large submarine landslides that may be tsunamigenic'.

[Gnurglan]

Still had just the one.

[Trada]

Cant we just plug an extension cable into the nuclear subs?

[bigbonedrawky]

Cant we just plug an extension cable into the nuclear subs?

Sounds like a damn good idea...so No
Speaking of Dams West Yorks has 60 reservoirs and none of them produce electrickery. 

[Red-Soldier]

Cant we just plug an extension cable into the nuclear subs?

I've got a 50m one in the garage but I'm not sure it'll be long enough

[Trada]

Hinkley C is already going to be 15 months late and cost an extra £1.5 Billion.

I think this will only get worse seeing two other plants they are building are already 5 and 10 years late and over runs of Billions.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Hinkley C is already going to be 15 months late and cost an extra £1.5 Billion.

No nuclear power station has ever been built on time and on budget anywhere by anyone.

[stewil007]

No nuclear power station has ever been built on time and on budget anywhere by anyone.

'Lessons learned' high on nobody's list

[classycarra]

To be fair these are the sorts of project you'd rather they get right the first time, so I can forgive the overrunning on time

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

To be fair these are the sorts of project you'd rather they get right the first time, so I can forgive the overrunning on time

I'd rather they didn't bother. Imagine how many retrofit insulation programs could be implemented, along with other energy efficiency schemes. Imagine how much could be spent on renewable energy, imagine how many associated jobs could be created, imagine the boast to the economy.

[Trada]

So that means the price of it is going up by around £25 Million a week.

[classycarra]

I'd rather they didn't bother. Imagine how many retrofit insulation programs could be implemented, along with other energy efficiency schemes. Imagine how much could be spent on renewable energy, imagine how many associated jobs could be created, imagine the boast to the economy.

You know insulation doesn't create power though, right?

Nuclear energy creates jobs and skills, and boosts the economy too by the way.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

You know insulation doesn't create power though, right?

Nuclear energy creates jobs and skills, and boosts the economy too by the way.

Of course not, but it saves a huge amount thus requiring less production.

[PaulF]

Nuclear energy creates jobs and skills, and boosts the economy too by the way.

I totally appreciate the difficulties in harnessing offshore wind and supplying power when we need it, rather than when the wind blows. But with the billions being given to the French for this, you'd think we could be a world leader in offshore power and storage tech. Maybe too much of a gamble, but it does seem very blinkered.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I totally appreciate the difficulties in harnessing offshore wind and supplying power when we need it, rather than when the wind blows. But with the billions being given to the French for this, you'd think we could be a world leader in offshore power and storage tech. Maybe too much of a gamble, but it does seem very blinkered.

We need to store the excess power generated at "off-peak" times. One idea is to charge electric vehicles overnight when it tends to be more windy.

[SP]

We need to store the excess power generated at "off-peak" times. One idea is to charge electric vehicles overnight when it tends to be more windy.

It is windier during the day. The heating action of the sun causes more pressure differentials during daylight. It is far more noticeable at night, as there is less ambient noise. Also overnight storage is a sound concept as the demand is so much lower overnight - hence the push for Economy 7 heating and similar.

Systems such as Dinorwig play an important role in smoothing demand curves.

[Trada]

So thats at least another £1.5 Billion the Tory magic money tree found with no problem.

[SP]

So thats at least another £1.5 Billion the Tory magic money tree found with no problem.

From the Beeb article:

The French state-controlled energy firm [EDF] is funding two-thirds of the plant, which is expected to create more than 25,000 jobs, with China investing the rest.

It is privately funded. Of course the costs are eventually going to be recouped from the guaranteed minimum price and ultimately from the consumer, but it is not Government up front money.  So, no money trees involved, unless you plan to renationalise Electricity Generation.

[cdav]

Can't believe the Brexit effect on FX rates hasn't been mentioned as a factor in the increased cost- most of the materials will be bought in USD (although a significant amount should have been hedged) and with the fall in GBP this will have fed through to the total cost.

The more worrying thing is that it is already 15 months behind schedule, we are (and have for decades) seriously under-investing in our energy production leading to a potential energy gap. Even things like the Rough Gas Storage facility shutting last month with no replacement lined up- but apparently its ok as we can import LNG from Qatar (not like that could stop soon)!

[west_london_red]

Can't believe the Brexit effect on FX rates hasn't been mentioned as a factor in the increased cost- most of the materials will be bought in USD (although a significant amount should have been hedged) and with the fall in GBP this will have fed through to the total cost.

The more worrying thing is that it is already 15 months behind schedule, we are (and have for decades) seriously under-investing in our energy production leading to a potential energy gap. Even things like the Rough Gas Storage facility shutting last month with no replacement lined up- but apparently its ok as we can import LNG from Qatar (not like that could stop soon)!

This is the problem with privatisation, rake in the profits, under invest and then go to the government for support when it gets critical.

[Red-Soldier]

The French ennergy system is much better than ours I think.

Renewable are nice, but aren't very practical in this country at the moment. 

Building regs need to be tightened up in regards to newbuilds being more energy efficient, tripple glazing being the minimum standard etc....

Solar panels are good, wind turbines aren't so efficient.

Nuclear fission is currently the best, most efficient and enviornmentally friendly way of meeting our energy requirements.

We need to be doing more with our bio waste, here's a good example of what can be done:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-30125792/eco-friendly-bristol-poo-bus-powered-by-human-waste

Eco-friendly Bristol 'poo bus' powered by human waste

Britain's first bus to be powered by human and food waste has taken to the roads.

The 40-seat Bio-Bus, nicknamed "the number two," will transport people between Bath and Bristol Airport.

The biomethane gas it runs on is produced at a sewage treatment works at Avonmouth.

The eco-friendly vehicle can travel up to 300km (186 miles) on one tank of gas, which takes the annual waste of about five people to produce.

[PaulF]

In what way inefficient ? As in cost pretty MWh, or in terms of harnessing available energy? Wind turbines aren't too bad on the former, and installing s few billion pounds worth would drive down the price.

[gqP6w]

There needs to be further investment in renewable energy. Without research and development of reliance on non renewable becomes a self sustaining circle.

Nuclear is at best a stop gap measure to get us away from oil and coal but it is not environmentally friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

[RedRabbit]

There needs to be further investment in renewable energy. Without research and development of reliance on non renewable becomes a self sustaining circle.

Nuclear is at best a stop gap measure to get us away from oil and coal but it is not environmentally friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

Its considered one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy.

Its not without its dangers obviously, but no viable source is.

[gqP6w]

Its considered one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy.

Its not without its dangers obviously, but no viable source is.

Well in terms of green house gasses yes it is environmentally friendly. Personally I wouldn't call something that is dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after use as environmentally friendly.

Roughly 2 years active life, 10 years to cool down, 10s thousands of years emitting very high levels of radioactivity, lets face it calling it environmentally friendly is a bit misleading.

[RedRabbit]

Well in terms of green house gasses yes it is environmentally friendly. Personally I wouldn't call something that is dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after use as environmentally friendly.

Roughly 2 years active life, 10 years to cool down, 10s thousands of years emitting very high levels of radioactivity, lets face it calling it environmentally friendly is a bit misleading.

True, but if we don't drastically reduce those gases the half life of nuclear waste is going to be a moot point.

I agree with your reservations but we have to invest in nuclear now while other sources come up to speed. Gw trumps any concerns I'd have about it.

[Alan_X]

Well in terms of green house gasses yes it is environmentally friendly. Personally I wouldn't call something that is dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after use as environmentally friendly.

Roughly 2 years active life, 10 years to cool down, 10s thousands of years emitting very high levels of radioactivity, lets face it calling it environmentally friendly is a bit misleading.

Isoptopes with very long half-lives tend to emit less radioactivity than those with short half-lives. At the extreme end, Bismuth 209 undergoes alpha decay with a half-life of approximately 1.9×10¹⁹ years, over a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe.

[PaulF]

Isoptopes with very long half-lives tend to emit less radioactivity than those with short half-lives. At the extreme end, Bismuth 209 undergoes alpha decay with a half-life of approximately 1.9×10¹⁹ years, roughly the time you have to wait between Jamie Carragher goals.

[PaulF]

If I were to believe today's news, it sounds like the government may be following my wish for us to be world leaders in storage tech!

[farawayred]

It seems that Japan is moving toward restarting the nuclear power plant near Niigata. I welcome this with cautious optimism. Sooner or later nuclear energy will be considered "clean" and I think it will play a role in phasing out fossil fuels. But as Chernobyl and Fukushima thought us, it has to be handled with great caution and respect, especially respect for the safety rules that must not be overruled. The government had a lot of time to investigate TEPCO's shortcomings, correct their bad practices, and implement sufficient measures of safety. Who knows if everything has been resolved, but here is to hope.

Japan allows world's biggest nuclear plant to restart
https://www.dw.com/en/japan-allows-worlds-biggest-nuclear-plant-to-restart/a-67829687

[Gnurglan]

Some interesting stuff about nuclear in here. The case for and against, plus some extra stuff.
https://www.energytransitioncrisis.org/

Appears to be a way to make it safe. It has been known for decades. Politics came in the way.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Some interesting stuff about nuclear in here. The case for and against, plus some extra stuff.
https://www.energytransitioncrisis.org/

Appears to be a way to make it safe. It has been known for decades. Politics came in the way.

Without looking at the specifics detailed at that website, I know there are reactor designs (molten salt, I think) which when they fail, they inevitably stop producing energy. Whereas, in the usual design (PWR), when they fail, the process can and will easily lead to runaway (a meltdown). The first one design is where is everything must be just so for fission to continue; whereas, in the second, everything must be just so to prevent meltdown.

[Gnurglan]

Without looking at the specifics detailed at that website, I know there are reactor designs (molten salt, I think) which when they fail, they inevitably stop producing energy. Whereas, in the usual design (PWR), when they fail, the process can and will easily lead to runaway (a meltdown). The first one design is where is everything must be just so for fission to continue; whereas, in the second, everything must be just so to prevent meltdown.

The story around the molten salt reactors was interesting. Had no idea there were so many new companies working on it. Well worth a watch.

[The Last Known Survivor]

Any sign of these SMR's I've been hearing so much about?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Any sign of these SMR's I've been hearing so much about?

Built in Russia and China at the moment.

The US will likely have working ones by the 2030s (ish) from a programme I watched.

[Nobby Reserve]

Built in Russia and China at the moment.

The US will likely have working ones by the 2030s (ish) from a programme I watched.

The Rolls Royce SMR is already 2 years into the "European regulatory approval process" (which they claim is further along than any other European competitor)

[Jiminy Cricket]

Built in Russia and China at the moment.

The US will likely have working ones by the 2030s (ish) from a programme I watched.

It seems crazy that the US had one working in the 1960s, and by all accounts, worked very well.* It seems that petty state and national politics and self-interest got in the way.

* Having said that, not by all accounts. There are voices against molten salt reactors:

https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/

[Nobby Reserve]

It seems crazy that the US had one working in the 1960s, and by all accounts, worked very well.* It seems that petty state and national politics and self-interest got in the way.

* Having said that, not by all accounts. There are voices against molten salt reactors:

https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/

Think Andy was talking about SMR's (Small Modular Reactors), not molten-salt reactors.

The question he was replying to asked about SMR's

[Jiminy Cricket]

Think Andy was talking about SMR's (Small Modular Reactors), not molten-salt reactors.

The question he was replying to asked about SMR's

Ah. Maybe. But the comment could apply to both:

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Operating-permit-issued-for-Chinese-molten-salt-re

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Draft-design-for-molten-salt-research-reactor-plan