Bye Bye wind energy.

Combat squirrel · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:06

Tefal said:
err i think its because the turbines would make the radar useless even if it was on top of them, and even if you put down a dish on the other side you have a nice big blind spot.

Yeah but you'd still be covering all access areas to the wind farm, so it doesnt matter, unless of course your flying in from outer space.

It doesnt matter if there is a blind spot in the middle of your territory for planes, as long as you can see all around it and beyond it

Naffa · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:07

Nuclear does seem like the only viable option at the moment. But I still feel that if we can have wind farms, then why not. It's stupid having all of that wind there and it not being harnessed. If this does turn out to be the end of wind farms, then so be it. I can just never get over the fact that nuclear power stations run with 2% efficiency.

carlazai · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:08

The expense of nuclear is not such a problem as the money goes back into the economy, plus it gives all those brainy physicists/engineers something to do.

Waste- off to some third world country were it isnt my problem

WotDa · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:12

stevenazari1 said:
If I was a suicide bomber living in the UK - that's the first place I would go.

That mission would end in fail.

Even a US bunker buster can't get through the concrete to penetrate the reactor, how do you plan to do it?

robbiemc · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:14

naffa said:
I can just never get over the fact that nuclear power stations run with 2% efficiency.

Just 2%?! Crikey.
I suppose they're just fancy water boilers after all.

Tefal · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:15

robbiemc said:
Just 2%?! Crikey.
I suppose they're just fancy water boilers after all.

they do a lot more ie production of isotopes for medical and research needs.

scorza · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:17

carlazai said:
Waste- off to some third world country were it isnt my problem

LOL that's the last thing you want to do. Ever hear of a dirty bomb? It has to be kept secure. Was reading about a pretty neat cave the Finns have dug out to store their nuclear waste - I think we'll end up doing the same, but where?

Found link on the Finn's final solution: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4948378.stm

robbiemc · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:21

naffa said:
Nuclear does seem like the only viable option at the moment. But I still feel that if we can have wind farms, then why not. It's stupid having all of that wind there and it not being harnessed. If this does turn out to be the end of wind farms, then so be it. I can just never get over the fact that nuclear power stations run with 2% efficiency.

Actually, can you elaborate on that a bit more? Curiosity led me to search around, and although this site is hideously complex, it does say:

A nuclear or coal plant running at 32% efficiency will need to dump about 5% more heat than one at 35-36% efficiency. NPPs currently being built have about 34-36% thermal efficiency, depending on site (especially water temperature). The relatively new Stanwell coal-fired plant in Queensland runs at 36%.

Azagoth · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:23

What we need is a safe orbital transfer system to get the waste up there. Then from that position it can be fitted with small ion thrusters and flown into the Sun. Problem solved.

robbiemc · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:25

Tefal said:
they do a lot more ie production of isotopes for medical and research needs.

What do you mean? As far as I can tell, a nuclear power plant consumes all it's fuel producing power (which it does by heating water to produce steam, which turns turbines)..the resulting waste is just that, waste.
Or am I missing something?

Energize · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:26

naffa said:
Nuclear does seem like the only viable option at the moment. But I still feel that if we can have wind farms, then why not. It's stupid having all of that wind there and it not being harnessed. If this does turn out to be the end of wind farms, then so be it. I can just never get over the fact that nuclear power stations run with 2% efficiency.

Personally I wouldn't want them plastered over the countryside when one nuclear plant could provide more power than all of them combined. And would be reliable.

Darkwave · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:29

Azagoth said:
What we need is a safe orbital transfer system to get the waste up there. Then from that position it can be fitted with small ion thrusters and flown into the Sun. Problem solved.

I hear you. Magnetically lifted space elevator to get the waste up there, but forget ion boosters, just use a good old mass driver to push them at the sun. Inertia will do the rest.

Energize said:
Personally I wouldn't want them plastered over the countryside when one nuclear plant could provide more power than all of them combined. And would be reliable.

We should really be harnessing all the energy we can as oil and natural gas reach peak production.

Tefal · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:31

robbiemc said:
What do you mean? As far as I can tell, a nuclear power plant consumes all it's fuel producing power (which it does by heating water to produce steam, which turns turbines)..the resulting waste is just that, waste.
Or am I missing something?

they don't jut produce "waste" the waste is made up of all sorts of elements, some of which are radioactive for varying times etc, some of which go to universities/companies that are wishing to do research on them, and some are ones required for hospital treatments etc.

robbiemc · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:35

Tefal said:
they don't jut produce "waste" the waste is made up of all sorts of elements, some of which are radioactive for varying times etc, some of which go to universities/companies that are wishing to do research on them, and some are ones required for hospital treatments etc.

I didn't know that.
Although this doesn't mention medical applications, it does mention reuse:

wiki said:
Another option is to find applications of the isotopes in nuclear waste so as to reuse them. [9] . Already, caesium-137, strontium-90 and a few other isotopes are extracted for certain industrial applications such as food irradiation and radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

Spleenus · 5 Feb 2008 at 18:21

Energize said:
Pros:

Produces far more power than renewable sources.
Billions of years fuel supply.
Total amount of co2 produced is 2/3 less than fossil fuels.

Cons:

Expensive
Waste

I think 'billions' of years is slightly exagerrated

. I think there is only a couple of hundred years supply of Uranium left. However there is thousands of years supply of Thorium left which is also much safer and has less hazardous by products. The only reason it isn't in use yet is because it requires a constant neutron beam to decay and they haven't yet come across a reliable way of producting a neutron beam. (Yes this in theory means there cannot be a chain reaction too)

(I think I have my facts right too

)

Energize · 5 Feb 2008 at 18:33

Spleenus said:
I think 'billions' of years is slightly exagerrated .

"As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.

Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.

Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium. "

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html