New Nuclear Power Plants in UK

[RadicalModerate]

If windmills were festooned with ribbons, balloons and sequins maybe they wouldn't look so unattractive.
Perhaps we could look to The Dutch for some guidance here.
Maybe something involving tulips could be considered . . ?

If one was able to install some sort of "seed dispenser" on the windmill, one might even be able to do something about the excess bird and squirrel populations. Of course, this could negatively impact the aerodynamics of the blades, but this is a small price to pay.
(Not counting the opinion of the birds and squirrels, of course.)

[onthestrip]

Nuclear is the most reliable and cheapest over the long term of any other power source. All you have to do is build it right to withstand certain events and store a little bit of waste underground somewhere. Japan quickly realized they had to go back to nuclear because they were having a huge trade deficit importing fuel for other power plants. New power sources for the US should be mixes of nuclear and other renewables.

[RadicalModerate]

Well . . . I have to agree that nuclear is preferable to geo-thermal.
If the geo-thermal well bore accidentally went too deep, imagine what all that uncontrollably excaping (yes, excaping) heat would do for Global Warming! (not to mention the lead vapor and asbestos particles that would almost certainly follow!)

So, tell me again what "THEY" are going to do with all of that nuclear plant waste material (?).
And what were the original cost estimates?

All you have to do is build it right to withstand certain events . . .

Good point. But what about uncertain events?
Wouldn't it be helpful to be able estimate those in the design process?
Or is that next to impossible?
Maybe those crack BP engineers could be consulted?

Just call me a Nuculer Luddite* . . . (it won't hurt my feelings)

(*yes, "Noo-Q-Ler" =)

[Plutonic Panda]

Source? Not according to all the data I've seen. In fact, it's becoming one of the most expensive from what I'm reading.

As far as maintaining, I'm sure about the most expensive, but I'm sure it's not the cheapest. I believe it somewhere close to a billion dollars to build a new reactor facility.

[ThomPaine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/us...wind-farm.html

Maybe he'd prefer a nuclear power plant nearby...

[onthestrip]

Source? Not according to all the data I've seen. In fact, it's becoming one of the most expensive from what I'm reading.

I remember reading this, no specific source. When you look at the lifetime of the facility Id imagine it is cheaper since there is no fossil fuels having to be purchased. I know nuclear is expensive up front but once running is much cheaper than gas or coal.

[ThomPaine]

Fukushima: 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation? | UKIAH BLOG

Yikes!

[CaptDave]

Regarding Fukushima - remember a few basic concepts and fears should subside. Time, distance, shielding, and the old standby - "dilution is the solution". We will likely see elevated radiation levels in the Pacific but I seriously doubt the amount of material being released from Fukushima is near the level in the blogpost. In fact the release of airborne contamination would be more of a concern and that would be relatively localized. While the area surrounding Fukushima will be affected for the next couple of decades, we have much less to fear than some are trying to suggest.

One reason the cost of "conventional" nuclear plants using uranium for fuel is increasing is there is less demand for plutonium (I'll let you take it from there.) Also, the lead time for nuclear fuel and power plant components is huge and the industry has been dormant for a long time. There are other nuclear fuels that are more stable and could be very effective for commercial operations and less expensive. The Hyperion concept is very interesting.

With the oversight involved and stringent controls at every level in the nuclear industry, I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than the Keystone XL or any O&G pipeline - especially one carrying tar sands slurry. That is nasty stuff.

[venture]

I personally don't have a problem with nuclear...as long as it is properly regulated. I grew up with two plants with in 30 miles of me, so they don't bother. They both had issues at times, including a leak at one, but that comes down to proper maintenance and regulations.

[RadicalModerate]

I personally don't have a problem with nuclear...as long as it is properly regulated. I grew up with two plants with in 30 miles of me, so they don't bother. They both had issues at times, including a leak at one, but that comes down to proper maintenance and regulations.

Fair enough . . . yet, what if there is a government shutdown combined with an economic collapse and no oil is available to refine into gasoline so that even The Volunteer Maintenance Crew (willing to serve the public, unpaid) can't get to work in order to maintain the facility? (and then there is an earthquake right before the small asteroid hits) . . .

Who is going to clean up The Mess That Lasts 250,000 years?

[CaptDave]

If you look at energy sources through that prism Sid, I think nuclear becomes more appealing. While there have been a grand total of three significant events at commercial nuclear power plants (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima), the societal and human costs of fossil fuel extraction and conversion to usable energy is far greater. TMI was far worse than it should have been had safety systems not been overridden. Chernobyl was an obsolete design that used liquid sodium for a coolant - not to mention "experimenting" with power output in a reckless manner. Fukushima is one of those events where every conceivable thing that could go wrong did - and more.

Also compare the BTu potential of each form on energy production and nuclear is off the charts. I think it would be extremely beneficial to explore complete redesigns of nuclear power plants for power generation. Use fuels other than uranium and engineer something other than pressurized water reactors. There haven't been any dramatic advances in nuclear technology in decades yet the potential is huge. We are still heating water to heat other water to make steam to turn turbines. Been doing that since the 1950's. I honestly believe there are advances possible that will address your concerns Sid and provide enormous amounts of relatively inexpensive energy. But that will also take some of that evil gummint spending on basic scientific research and development....and there are a few organizations that really do not want there to be viable alternatives to fossil fuels.....sigh.

[Jersey Boss]

In addition to the costs to mankind as articulated by Sid and the fossil fuel costs articulated by Dave, there is one cost that I see not being addressed. When comparing the costs of construction, startup, and ongoing what are the liability insurance costs of nuclear as compared to the others? Will a private carrier even underwrite a policy for a nuclear plant?

[CaptDave]

Wow - never even considered how much that would cost. But given the stringent nature of construction, maintenance, and operations at nuclear sites it may not be as much as we might think. When I was involved in nuclear power the guiding principle of 'the minimum standard is perfect, don't muck it up' drove everything we did.
The system redundacies, inherent stability of the process, and the level of training required to be a certified operator really does minimize the risks and offers many rewards.

[RadicalModerate]

(Historical note from The Future):

In order to remove even a trace of the slightest possiblility of human error negatively impacting the smooth, efficient and flawless operation of the next generation of nuclear power plants, total computer control was built into all of the systems. Naturally, these systems included the Fail-Safe, Idiot-Proof Automatic Shut-Down Protocols (FSIPASDPs).

Unfortunately, not long after this, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) knocked out all of the computer systems in the country and made them useless.
Had the Highest Order Magical Environmental Reactors (H.O.M.E.R.s) been only slightly damaged, rather than being rendered completely inoperative, the following conversation might have taken place somewhere:

Dave the Nuclear Power Plant Tech: "Open the cooling water bay doors, H.O.M.E.R. and lower the control rod array."

H.O.M.E.R.: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that . . . No. Seriously. I can't."

[Plutonic Panda]

(Historical note from The Future):

In order to remove even a trace of the slightest possiblility of human error negatively impacting the smooth, efficient and flawless operation of the next generation of nuclear power plants, total computer control was built into all of the systems. Naturally, these systems included the Fail-Safe, Idiot-Proof Automatic Shut-Down Protocols (FSIPASDPs).

Unfortunately, not long after this, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) knocked out all of the computer systems in the country and made them useless.
Had the Highest Order Magical Environmental Reactors (H.O.M.E.R.s) been only slightly damaged, rather than being rendered completely inoperative, the following conversation might have taken place somewhere:

Dave the Nuclear Power Plant Tech: "Open the cooling water bay doors, H.O.M.E.R. and lower the control rod array."

H.O.M.E.R.: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that . . . No. Seriously. I can't."

You mean "for"?

[ThomPaine]

Please excuse me for a brief show of appreciation...

This discussion is a good example of why I joined/started posting on OKCTalk. I appreciate the opinions and views, and much of what is posted spurs me on to further reading and research.

Well done folks, thanks.

[RadicalModerate]

You mean "for"?

No. It is "from" (the future).
(and carved on a stone, by the light of one flickering candle and the eerie radioactive glow in the background, for presterity.)

Apparently you aren't familiar with H.G. Welles or Nostradamus' brother Nosetadamnus.
(or Slaughterhouse Five . . . or The Sirens of Titan . . . or Jeanne Dixon . . . or The Terminator . . .
or Edgar Cayce . . . or The Amazing Kreskin . . . Not yet. but you will be . . . =)

[Plutonic Panda]

Now you speak of The Terminator! I know what you mean now

ps. i'm a huge super mega ultra giant massive all time fan of the Terminator trilogy!

[rlewis]

Before everyone jumps on the clean energy bandwagon, I would suggest reading the book Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner. The book gives a very good explanation as to why solar and wind energy will not be the solutions to our energy problems. I'm a clean energy fan, but the book really put things into perspective for me. I would also like to point out that the book is by no means a pro-Oil & Gas publication.

[CaptDave]

Dave, I hear you. I really do. But I'd rather invest in Solar. Most agree that solar will become the cheapest. And if it breaks, there is no risk. No damage.

Moore's Law will make solar uber cheap and yes, Nuclear needs some serious research attention.

The problem I have is how bad one of these events can become. Fukashima was a perfect storm of events. So what is the cycle of these types of accidents? One every 50 years? It's too often for my blood.

Agree 100% on the solar. I'd have a roof covered with panels if it were affordable - maybe some day. The manufacturing processes for solar panels needs some refinement but that isn't anything we shouldn't be able to do. These are the things we (the United States - the government) once invested in - research of new technologies. We understood there was value in basic research that had little chance of providing financial gain. Once we figured out the basics on our collective dime, then let the private interests come in and build on that base. We should be investing in research and development of Thorium reactors or other fuels if Thorium doesn't pan out. I say kill the F35 and put that money to better use.

Fukushima is about as bad as it gets - every single redundancy failed. I admit I was very surprised the back up diesel generators were located in a position where they were easily inundated by the tsunami. Had the back up generators not been destroyed, cooling would have been maintained in the cores, the fuel would have remained intact, and the hydrogen explosions would have never happened.

[CaptDave]

Before everyone jumps on the clean energy bandwagon, I would suggest reading the book Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner. The book gives a very good explanation as to why solar and wind energy will not be the solutions to our energy problems. I'm a clean energy fan, but the book really put things into perspective for me. I would also like to point out that the book is by no means a pro-Oil & Gas publication.

There is not enough BTU potential in solar and wind to provide all the energy we need, but it should be part of an array of sources. But considering the immense power of old Sol, I think we may underestimate what is possible. We might be pleasantly surprised if we ever put our scientific community to work on something of consequence and supported them as we once did.

[Plutonic Panda]

All I'm going to say regarding rooftops, they should either have solar panels on them or grass, it's that simple for me.

Again, I still think nuclear energy is the future, but solar energy will be good for small scale usage. I also think hydroelectric is good along with algae, hydrogen, and geothermal, but nuclear will still lead the pack.

[CaptDave]

Sure about that? Germany is on its way, right?

With current technology I am sure - but I qualified that with we might be surprised what is actually possible if we made a commitment to maximize it. I agree solar has much more potential than is currently assumed - that bright thing is the sky is a pretty powerful reactor after all.

I know there are wind turbines all over Germany, have they made an advance in solar I haven't heard about? Never know what Siemens might come up with....

[CaptDave]

All I'm going to say regarding rooftops, they should either have solar panels on them or grass, it's that simple for me.

Again, I still think nuclear energy is the future, but solar energy will be good for small scale usage. I also think hydroelectric is good along with algae, hydrogen, and geothermal, but nuclear will still lead the pack.

Some company was working on shingles that were photovoltaic cells. There was some sort of track attached to the roof and electrical system, then the individual shingle were attached/connected. I am not sure how far it went into development, but it was a very interesting idea.

Found a couple answers - darn it, it's too late for this, but I love these discussions.

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/arti...205726,00.html

http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/

[Plutonic Panda]

Some company was working on shingles that were photovoltaic cells. There was some sort of track attached to the roof and electrical system, then the individual shingle were attached/connected. I am not sure how far it went into development, but it was a very interesting idea.

Solar Shingles | Home Technology | Plumbing, HVAC & Electrical | This Old House

Nice! Now I'm not really into interfering with people's freedom and what not, but I really wish there were rooftop ordinances in place. I think rooftops are some of mankind's most wasted space and all rooftops were either green(as in grass or otherwise) and/or solar, I think that would do wonders for the planet, more so than most think.

Now obviously there would be exclusions for this, such as historic building, rooftop patios, and so on. I would also think having grass on the roof would act as a natural cooler and keep the building cooler. As for mowing it, is it unrealistic to think we could genetically modify a string of grass to be super slow growing(only having to mow a few times a year), drought resistant, and maybe even different colors?

As for solar, I think we have a really long ways to go with that. I've often thought if having too many solar panels would have a warming effect on the atmosphere; however I've never done any research to back it up or anything, it was just a thought. Also, in turns of having a solar panel that could maximize the energy collection, I still think we almost have as far to go as we do with nuclear energy until it really becomes practical.