Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,071
- Location
- Shepley
Schrodinger's "Greens" - simultaneously unelectable and determining government policy. What a load of ****.
Great British Nuclear - UK's Push To Include Nuclear Energy
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
I'm very much in favour of nuclear it's sensible solution, the problem with renewables is that they are limited in how often they can run (daytime, how much wind etc)
There's very few forms of renewables that you can rely on for a continuous generation of electricity other than damns I can't really think of another.
Safety concerns are often over blown and people look at Japan but that was a freak accident caused by 2 events of which they were prepared individually for both just not simultaneously.
In do think energy storage solutions are a good option but they are extremely expensive.
Personally I'd rather we become more self sufficient as a household rather than a country, I'm really in favour of solar on houses and with good batteries it helps people manage their own resources rather than rely on other supplies and the current energy rates.
Nuclear is very clean and depleted uranium does not cause a long term impact I know people cry about the radiation but when it's buried under hundreds of tonnes of solid rock where there is no life it causes 0 harm to the environment.
What would be good though is more research into how we could use depleted uranium, I know NASA uses small amounts for low power batteries etc.
There's very few forms of renewables that you can rely on for a continuous generation of electricity other than damns I can't really think of another.
Safety concerns are often over blown and people look at Japan but that was a freak accident caused by 2 events of which they were prepared individually for both just not simultaneously.
In do think energy storage solutions are a good option but they are extremely expensive.
Personally I'd rather we become more self sufficient as a household rather than a country, I'm really in favour of solar on houses and with good batteries it helps people manage their own resources rather than rely on other supplies and the current energy rates.
Nuclear is very clean and depleted uranium does not cause a long term impact I know people cry about the radiation but when it's buried under hundreds of tonnes of solid rock where there is no life it causes 0 harm to the environment.
What would be good though is more research into how we could use depleted uranium, I know NASA uses small amounts for low power batteries etc.
Yeah whilst I welcome new plants coming online we should defenitly be ramping up investment in wind and tidal. Its as if we have a vested internet in fossil fuel companies. *cough*
You're an outright fool if you don't think the Greens and related groups' scaremongering since the 70s hasn't altered public opinion.
Last edited:
Is there more than one kid who has done this? Because the one I heard about died of cancer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,893
more or less of an effect that the oil sponsored experts who denied man made climate change as well as discounted anything not fossil fuel based?.
at least those who have a problem with nuclear do have a reason for it... even if those reasons can be ultimately mostly be solved.
Last edited:
It is kind of comical that the only reason we still use fossil fuels to generate energy in this country is due to the greenies raging against nuclear after Chernobyl xD
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,071
- Location
- Shepley
Yes, because governments around the world have failed to make the case for nuclear energy from a far more powerful position. I say this as a supporter of nuclear.
This boy? He was 17 at the time, bah, amateur! Although I think it was the drugs that got to him.
Still watching but that image looks familiar. Probably the one I was thinking of.
Not sure why Nuclear reactors are so expensive, two kids managed to make them at home. Can't be that hard.
Wrong and ignorant. Reliable, clean energy from nuclear power is certainly not a waste of money.
Last edited:
IIRC it's been suggested/shown that the Fukushima plant could potentially have remained "safe" if only they'd managed to get even just one or two of the big portable generators the military/power networks use onto the site as right up until the UPS batteries lost power (actually later than their design called for) the cooling was still running at a sufficiently high capacity to maintain safety.
It's a testament to how well built the actual reactors are that they survived until what was meant to be a very short term power system failed with no replacement. Meanwhile IIRC other power stations and chemical plants went down with immediate loss of life from the initial quake.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,328
- Location
- UK
Fusion is still many decades away. It will not arrive in time to save the planet.
Except that it doesn't, which is why your list only contains 4 entries.
Nuclear fission is one of the safest ways to generate electricity, tied at the top with wind and solar. That's if you include Chernobyl. If you don't include Chernobyl, nuclear fission is the safest way to generate electricity by a significant margin. Since something like Chernobyl is impossible with a modern nuclear fission power station, that means that nuclear fission is currently the safest way to generate electricity.
Also, why are you referring to 2 as "numerous"? "numerous" means "a very large number" and 2 is not a very large number. You could get to 3 if you include nuclear weapons production facilities (Kyshtym), but those aren't power stations. And 3 still isn't anywhere near "numerous".
With existing technology, we have three choices:
1) Burning carbon-based fuel.
2) Nuclear fission.
3) Collapse of civilisation.
The collapse of civilisation could be argued to be "greener" than the other two, although it would be less "green" in the short term. But you're probably not advocating the collapse of civilisation and the death of almost all humans, maybe the extinction of humans. Nuclear fission is certainly "greener" than burning carbon-based fuels.
Anything else is based on ignorance, empty promises, grift or potential future technology that doesn't exist but might exist at some unknown point in the future. Renewables includes all four of those. Especially the claim that a 100% renewables supply is possible with existing technology. It isn't, simple as that. We can't control generation and we can't store anywhere near sufficient scale and we can't operate sufficiently large transnational grids. Not even for current electricity use. If we're to stop burning carbon-based fuels entirely, our electricity requirements will be ~6 times higher than they are now. We're nowhere near being able to meet current electricity requirements with 100% renewables, let alone 6 times as much. It's not a matter of building more windmills and solar panels. It's far more fundamental than that - it's that we can't control the weather.
Many people even believe the stated nameplate generating capacity figures for renewables because that's what they're told and they never do any checking. This wind farm generates 10GW! No, it doesn't. It generates a wildly fluctuating amount between zero and maybe as high as 7GW, averaging about 3GW. The nameplate capacity is for theoretical perfect weather conditions, which rarely if ever exist. But the fundamental problem is the lack of control. You can't power a civilisation from that. 100% renewables is only possible in extremely rare conditions, with abundant land, the right geography and a very low population density. Norway is probably the only country that could do it due to hardly anyone living in most of it and an abundance of hydro and geothermal.
Nobody is advocating a 100% fission grid. What's being advocated is a mix of renewables and fission, a mix that makes it possible to keep the power on without burning carbon-based fuels. It's the only way to keep the power on without burning carbon-based fuels. Fission is also being advocated as a temporary measure, not a permanent one. We're hoping for that potential future technology (large enough storage, fusion, anything else that might exist at some point in the future). We're just not pretending it already exists. Because it doesn't.
Almost every power station has that problem. It's not a significant problem unless the entire grid fails. Even then, there should be the capability to restart it in any grid designed even somewhat sensibly. In the UK, for example, there are multiple black start facilities. Dinorwig is the most famous one and it's capable of restarting the entire UK grid by itself. It's what it was built for.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
I don't actually know if Dinorwig is capable of black start, certainly it can be started itself without a grid connection so it would probably have some role.
The old dark fuel stations (oil and coal) all had one open cycle gas turbine per operating unit for black start operation. In the event of a black start you would reconfigure the station isolating it from the national grid. You would start the OCGT on gas oil (deisel) and attempt to start the largest motor on the station, typically the cooling water pump. This was the trickiest bit as it's like jump starting a large engine. Once you have a large motor runnning you have substantial inertia on the electrical system and can begin to restart other pumps and fans to get the station running. Once you have fired up the unit abd have it running at synchronous speed (50Hz) and the generator rotor is energised (ready to generate) but only making enough electricity to run it's own systems. You tell the grid, who would have isolated the local electrical grid from the national grid. They throw the switch and the station would have be subjected to an instantaneous 30-50MW "block" load. The old stations were sized so that they had enough intertia in the main turbine and pumps and motors plus the OCGT that when the instantanous load was applied it didn't trip off. Then once stable they would slowly add further bits of the grid, link stations together once their voltage and phase were in sync and bring bits back. It was a very robust stratgey that was never really used but tested on a regular basis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Interesting to see that Rolls Royce has been given £2.9M to develop an SMR that could be used on the moon.
Last edited:
Rolls-Royce also have £200m of public (+£200m of private) funds to develop the commercial SMR solution
An adaption of Nuclear submarine technology that is proven and safe. Allows for economies of scale, manufacturing at dedicated sites (likely South Wales I assume) and export to foreign customers. All big wins for the UK Economy, jobs etc
Glad politics is finally getting out of its own way on Nuclear. Shame we didn't get to this point 20 years ago, but lets crack on! The facts are clear on Nuclear, but public emotion is the muddy part
Rolls-Royce have already signed agreements with
An adaption of Nuclear submarine technology that is proven and safe. Allows for economies of scale, manufacturing at dedicated sites (likely South Wales I assume) and export to foreign customers. All big wins for the UK Economy, jobs etc
Glad politics is finally getting out of its own way on Nuclear. Shame we didn't get to this point 20 years ago, but lets crack on! The facts are clear on Nuclear, but public emotion is the muddy part
Rolls-Royce have already signed agreements with
- Poland
- Czech Republic
- Qatar
- Turkey
- Jordan
- Japan?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,328
- Location
- UK
Well, that's true, it's not green, but it is probably the greenest option we have. We are investing in solar and wind, but it doesn't meet all out needs. We need some form of power generation that we can just switch on. Despite the bad reputation nuclear power has, it's significantly greener than coal or gas. Yes, there are difficulties managing it, and it would be better not to have it at all, but the reality is that we don't have much in the way of an alternative.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,328
- Location
- UK
Rolls-Royce also have £200m of public (+£200m of private) funds to develop the commercial SMR solution
An adaption of Nuclear submarine technology that is proven and safe. Allows for economies of scale, manufacturing at dedicated sites (likely South Wales I assume) and export to foreign customers. All big wins for the UK Economy, jobs etc
Glad politics is finally getting out of its own way on Nuclear. Shame we didn't get to this point 20 years ago, but lets crack on! The facts are clear on Nuclear, but public emotion is the muddy part
Rolls-Royce have already signed agreements with
The folks working over there are all very smart. I'm confident they'll develop a sound product in a reasonable time frame. The key question is what it will cost vs the SMR Competition (e.g. America), and how UK Nuclear regulation will adapt to this new model of deploying atomic power. Lets not replicate Germanys mistakes!!
- Poland
- Czech Republic
- Qatar
- Turkey
- Jordan
- Japan?
Very nice to see RR doing this.