Nuclear Power Can Be Green – But At A Price

 

... and green has a price!

"All sources of electricity face the same trilemma in the 21st century: carbon emissions, continuity of supply and cost. The UK government has placed a big bet on nuclear power, but reactors meet only two of the three challenges. Nuclear power is low carbon and a secure source of electricity – but it is hugely expensive. In the era of climate change, generating power without belching out carbon emissions is vital. While building nuclear plants and fuelling them requires concrete, transport and so on, the overall emissions are similar to wind and solar power. All produce far less carbon than coal or gas-powered stations.Nuclear power also largely passes the security of supply test. The giant plants provide steady electricity, 24 hours a day. But there can be blips. The plants are incredibly complex and technical problems can cause long shutdowns. They also need vast amounts of cooling water, which causes problems when drought strikes. The ability to provide “baseload power” is not always an advantage either. Modern electricity grids with growing amounts of renewable energy need flexibility and nuclear power is anything but. Nuclear’s reputation for stability is also being challenged by the crashing cost of energy storage, through new technologies such as banks of batteries and compressed air. These can keep electricity from solar and wind power for times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. More interconnectors between nations would also allow greater security – the wind is usually blowing somewhere...."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/17/nuclear-power-can-be-green-but-at-a-price-hitachi-toshiba-wylfa?CMP=twt_gu
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many people who think that nuclear power has little to do with renewable or non-renewable power. If anything, it's non-renewable: once the fuel is spent or used,  except that it takes a long time to fully die, it needs storing where it can't irradiate anything....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThunderBlade said:

There are so many people who think that nuclear power has little to do with renewable or non-renewable power. If anything, it's non-renewable: once the fuel is spent or used,  except that it takes a long time to fully die, it needs storing where it can't irradiate anything....

Yep. When just the waste product will still be causing tumors 100,000 years from now it's not green...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EIA Short Term Enery Outlook 
U.S. Electricity in 2020:
-coal drops to 23.7% (less than a quarter!) 
-NaturalGas rises to 37%
-wind (8.7%) overtakes #hydropower as largest -renewable
-solar  rises to 2.1% excluding small-scale (nearly 3% with)
-nuclear dips slightly

 

image.png.eaaeffae93bfc43c7ce77dd8aacfa831.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear is low carbon, it's part of the solution.. It’s time to make compromise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many wrong examples and definition ... Not in this case, but I saw It's called "investing" when it's nuclear, but in the same time it's "wasteful" subsidies when it's renewable such as solar, wind!?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, rainman said:

They also need vast amounts of cooling water, which causes problems when drought strikes.

Typical Guardian investigative journalism at its finest all nukes in the UK are beside the sea, or just perhaps the usual bias being applied for the benefit of the left wing fanatics that read it and like their news biased to their taste.

Edited by jaycee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

Typical Guardian investigative journalism at its finest all nukes in the UK are beside the sea, or just perhaps the usual bias being applied for the benefit of the left wing fanatics that read it and like their news biased to their taste.

True - The Guardian is always biased to the left side of the spectrum... I sometimes find interesting facts and stuff, but the articles themselves are most of the time politically charged

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TomTom said:

True - The Guardian is always biased to the left side of the spectrum... I sometimes find interesting facts and stuff, but the articles themselves are most of the time politically charged

I actually get angry reading their articles same as the Daily Mail I really hate small minded people.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pavel said:

Nuclear is low carbon, it's part of the solution.. It’s time to make compromise.

No compromise from me. No way to safely store the waste, close the plant economically, existing plants are losing money and the people are being forced to pay for expensive nuclear plants that are too old and beyond their expiration date. Natural gas and renewables are less expensive and safer. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jaycee said:

Typical Guardian investigative journalism at its finest all nukes in the UK are beside the sea, or just perhaps the usual bias being applied for the benefit of the left wing fanatics that read it and like their news biased to their taste.

Not exactly.

Nuclear Power plants use TWO TYPES OF WATER........  

(1)  water for cooling

(2)  water for boiling to make steam to turn the turbines.

Water for COOLING can come from the ocean, or rivers,   BECAUSE COOLING WATER CAN BE DIRTY...    which ocean and river water often are.

HOWEVER.

Water for BOILING is a totally different matter.   BOILING water MUST BE CLEAN....  AND IS USUALLY BROUGHT DIRECTLY FROM DEEP UNDERGROUND AQUIFER WELLS...

Power Plants,  whether Nuclear,  or conventional,  USE TENS OF MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF CLEAN BOILING AQUIFER WATER PER DAY,   AND USUALLY 3 TIMES THAT MUCH OCEAN OR RIVER WATER FOR COOLING PURPOSES....

.................

So anything that affects the availability of that water is a problem...

So a DROUGHT could very well affect the ability of a POWER PLANT,  Nuclear,  or otherwise,  if the level of the aquifer drops,  AS THE CLEAN BOILING WATER IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE COOLING WATER.

You can have all the cooling water you want,  but if you do not have enough CLEAN BOILING water,  your power plant cannot operate,  or generate steam.

..................

ps:   my Father used to be a design engineer for a nuclear power plant manufacturer.   

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

No compromise from me. No way to safely store the waste, close the plant economically, existing plants are losing money and the people are being forced to pay for expensive nuclear plants that are too old and beyond their expiration date. Natural gas and renewables are less expensive and safer. 

In the late 1960's,   the United States government decided that Nuclear Power plants on land were a danger to the public,  and bids were put out,  to design "FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" that could be anchored at sea,  off the coast of American cities,  and the power would be transfered to shore by cable.

The idea was that if a plant scrammed and melted down,  if the radiation was released,  only the OCEAN would be hurt,  and not populated areas.

In the end,  only one company group took the government up on the challenge,  and was eventually duly licensed to build such "offshore floating nuclear power plants."

That company was called "OPS - OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS",  and they were based here in Jacksonville Florida.

My Father was a designer for the plants.

The Government donated BLOUNT ISLAND in the St Johns river to build the plants.

The facilities built on the island to construct, and move the completed reactors onto barges required the construction of THE LARGEST CRANE IN THE WORLD at the time.

That was long ago.

By the mid-1970's , with construction barely started on the first reactor,  the US Government,  alarmed at the IMMENSE NUMBER OF TERRORISM SCENARIOS THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM BY THE PENTAGON,  changed it mind,  AND CANCELED THE LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT SUCH REACTORS.

The scenarios envisioned terrorists taking over large ships,  and ramming those ships into the floating nuclear power plants,  destroying and sinking the plants,  and releasing the radiation.

(that same scenario,  using planes instead of ships,   was used by the 9/11 hijackers 25 years later to destroy the Twin Towers in New York)

There were other factors too.

SO THE ONLY SUCH REACTOR FACILITY IN THE WORLD WAS DISMANTLED,  AND THE PROJECT CANCELED,  AND "OPS" CEASED TO EXIST.

The Government retook control of Blount Island,  and all was forgotten.

The LARGEST CRANE IN THE WORLD was sold to the Germans for one of their shipyards...

All of that was long ago...

 

Two years ago,  the Chinese,  using plans based on the OPS designs,   began the construction of their first FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT...

Big mistake...

Given how many enemies the Chinese have made recently,   stealing their neighbor countries lands and islands to build military bases,   no doubt someone will eventually sink their plant,  and irradiate the area.

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

No compromise from me. No way to safely store the waste, close the plant economically, existing plants are losing money and the people are being forced to pay for expensive nuclear plants that are too old and beyond their expiration date. Natural gas and renewables are less expensive and safer. 

I have recently come to the conclusion,  that given the recent great advancements in rocketry,  with SPACEX,  etc,   that there will come a time,  when we will have the technology to "ELIMINATE ALL OF OUR NUCLEAR WASTE BY SENDING IT INTO THE SUN VIA ROCKETS."

Such  rockets would need to be remote controlled, or automated,  and it would take several years to reach the SUN,  but the SUN should be able to easily absorb the material.

It would be more expensive than storing it underground,   BUT IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM,  RATHER THAN KICKING THE CAN INTO THE FUTURE...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

I have recently come to the conclusion,  that given the recent great advancements in rocketry,  with SPACEX,  etc,   that there will come a time,  when we will have the technology to "ELIMINATE ALL OF OUR NUCLEAR WASTE BY SENDING IT INTO THE SUN VIA ROCKETS."

Such  rockets would need to be remote controlled, or automated,  and it would take several years to reach the SUN,  but the SUN should be able to easily absorb the material.

It would be more expensive than storing it underground,   BUT IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM,  RATHER THAN KICKING THE CAN INTO THE FUTURE...

The weight and bulk of our radioactive waste is massive. If it were possible there would still be the risk of it falling into the sea or on land where it would spread nuclear waste or possibly explode. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rainman said:

 

... and green has a price!

"All sources of electricity face the same trilemma in the 21st century: carbon emissions, continuity of supply and cost. The UK government has placed a big bet on nuclear power, but reactors meet only two of the three challenges. Nuclear power is low carbon and a secure source of electricity – but it is hugely expensive. In the era of climate change, generating power without belching out carbon emissions is vital. While building nuclear plants and fuelling them requires concrete, transport and so on, the overall emissions are similar to wind and solar power. All produce far less carbon than coal or gas-powered stations.Nuclear power also largely passes the security of supply test. The giant plants provide steady electricity, 24 hours a day. But there can be blips. The plants are incredibly complex and technical problems can cause long shutdowns. They also need vast amounts of cooling water, which causes problems when drought strikes. The ability to provide “baseload power” is not always an advantage either. Modern electricity grids with growing amounts of renewable energy need flexibility and nuclear power is anything but. Nuclear’s reputation for stability is also being challenged by the crashing cost of energy storage, through new technologies such as banks of batteries and compressed air. These can keep electricity from solar and wind power for times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. More interconnectors between nations would also allow greater security – the wind is usually blowing somewhere...."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/17/nuclear-power-can-be-green-but-at-a-price-hitachi-toshiba-wylfa?CMP=twt_gu
 

Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Nuclear Waste https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

The weight and bulk of our radioactive waste is massive. If it were possible there would still be the risk of it falling into the sea or on land where it would spread nuclear waste or possibly explode. 

True,

We are not there yet.

But eventually our technology will become reliable enough to handle the task.

It will take a long time and many rockets,  but it is a better alternative to what we are doing now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Illurion said:

Not exactly.

Nuclear Power plants use TWO TYPES OF WATER........  

(1)  water for cooling

(2)  water for boiling to make steam to turn the turbines.

Water for COOLING can come from the ocean, or rivers,   BECAUSE COOLING WATER CAN BE DIRTY...    which ocean and river water often are.

HOWEVER.

Water for BOILING is a totally different matter.   BOILING water MUST BE CLEAN....  AND IS USUALLY BROUGHT DIRECTLY FROM DEEP UNDERGROUND AQUIFER WELLS...

Power Plants,  whether Nuclear,  or conventional,  USE TENS OF MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF CLEAN BOILING AQUIFER WATER PER DAY,   AND USUALLY 3 TIMES THAT MUCH OCEAN OR RIVER WATER FOR COOLING PURPOSES....

.................

So anything that affects the availability of that water is a problem...

So a DROUGHT could very well affect the ability of a POWER PLANT,  Nuclear,  or otherwise,  if the level of the aquifer drops,  AS THE CLEAN BOILING WATER IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE COOLING WATER.

You can have all the cooling water you want,  but if you do not have enough CLEAN BOILING water,  your power plant cannot operate,  or generate steam.

..................

ps:   my Father used to be a design engineer for a nuclear power plant manufacturer.   

can you provide links to that for the power stations in the UK? Here the is Wikipedia link for the type used in the UK the lack of boiling water in the design description is a clue as is the name Gas Cooled Reactor. I suggest your father did not work on UK reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor

Edited by jaycee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Illurion said:

I have recently come to the conclusion,  that given the recent great advancements in rocketry,  with SPACEX,  etc,   that there will come a time,  when we will have the technology to "ELIMINATE ALL OF OUR NUCLEAR WASTE BY SENDING IT INTO THE SUN VIA ROCKETS."

Such  rockets would need to be remote controlled, or automated,  and it would take several years to reach the SUN,  but the SUN should be able to easily absorb the material.

It would be more expensive than storing it underground,   BUT IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM,  RATHER THAN KICKING THE CAN INTO THE FUTURE...

Considering the huge amount of safety consideration used in the design of anything to do with nuclear plant or facilities I suggest putting in a rocket is never going to pass the HAZOP. Rockets have a tendency to explode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Considering the huge amount of safety consideration used in the design of anything to do with nuclear plant or facilities I suggest putting in a rocket is never going to pass the HAZOP. Rockets have a tendency to explode.

Nuclear power has already been used in satellites.

For this nuclear waste task,  the ships will need to be more reliable than what we have now,  which is why i said  "THERE WILL COME A TIME, WHEN WE WILL HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

59 minutes ago, jaycee said:

can you provide links to that for the power stations in the UK? Here the is Wikipedia link for the type used in the UK the lack of boiling water in the design description is a clue as is the name Gas Cooled Reactor. I suggest your father did not work on UK reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor

?

A power plant is a power plant.

They all make steam.

A nice reactor design though.

But,

You missed the point...  and are wrong...

You wrote there is a  "LACK OF BOILING WATER IN THE DESIGN DESCRIPTION"...

It doesn't matter what is used to COOL the plant,   it is the availability of "CLEAN WATER TO BOIL IN THE PLANT" that counts,  and is what you were replying to from the first post from rainman. (who said "cooling" but i believe he meant to say "boiling")

You also missed the point of your wikipedia example,   as the diagram on the link clearly shows "WATER" BEING INSERTED INTO THE REACTOR AS #7.

You also missed the line in your wikipedia example where it states "This necessitates the use of ultra pure water to minimise the buildup of salts in the evaporator and subsequent corrosion problems."

Edited by Illurion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 minutes ago, Illurion said:

 

 

Edited by Illurion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

57 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I suggest your father did not work on UK reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor

My father spent several years in the UK.

I SUGGEST that you actually READ the examples that you present,  given that the example you posted supported what i said,  and not what you said.

Edited by Illurion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ThunderBlade said:

There are so many people who think that nuclear power has little to do with renewable or non-renewable power. If anything, it's non-renewable: once the fuel is spent or used,  except that it takes a long time to fully die, it needs storing where it can't irradiate anything....

Nuclear can make its own fuel: Called a breeder reactor. It is not just renewable, it is increasing.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked at the fast flux test facility over at Hanford; designed to turn bomb plutonium into usable fissionable fuel for nuclear power plants: it worked great. It was sidelined into making medical isotopes, and several Japanese firms made lots of money for American big Pharma. nice, eh? Now we buy them from other places.   The ignorance in re nuclear plants and waste products, not to mention the carbon cult, does not bode well for keeping our future technological civilization going. As we roll into the coming solar minimum, I hope ya'll aren't depending on the greenscam to keep warm. EROEI is real.  Forrest Gump's mom had it right, and stupid is really going to do it to a nation once on track to great technological achievements.  - Meanwhile stay on track burning that oil while it lasts- keeps my options in play.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2019 at 8:29 AM, ThunderBlade said:

There are so many people who think that nuclear power has little to do with renewable or non-renewable power. If anything, it's non-renewable: once the fuel is spent or used,  except that it takes a long time to fully die, it needs storing where it can't irradiate anything....

Uranium is absolutely a non-renewable resource.

Some radioactive "waste" could be used again as fuel but then you get into increasingly dangerous elements/isotopes that can be more readily weaponized.

Launching of radioactive waste into space is a stupid idea and I'm almost 100% sure it was banned years ago.  One exploding rocket and a huge area gets fallout.  It's not a bomb, of course, but just waste spread all over.

Fusion could be clean... but lets admit it the only good fusion reactor we have is the sun... use solar power in some form.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites