The Student Room Group

Nuclear power: 1/3 of planned plants bite dust.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by marcusfox
Except for the majority of the time when it isn't windy. That's why every windfarm has a load bearing fossil fuel plant on standby to keep pumping in the juice the moment the wind drops.


I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the turbines, I'm saying they are capable of taking the stress of the weather of the uk.
Reply 21
Original post by Sir Digby Chicken
Although I agreee with your sentiment on nuclear power, your part about wind turbines is rubbish. Wind turbines in the uk are more than capable of taking the stresses of the weather in the uk. Just because a few have broke doesn't mean they are all flawed. Do you actually think the engineers that designed these turbines are incompetent enough to not take into account all extreme weather conditions. With the health and safety rules in the uk they wouldn't even have been considered for commission without exstensive stress testing. The majority of the turbines used in the uk are rated at 3 MW and now they are introducing the new siemens SWT-6.0-120 wind turbines rated at 6.1 MW. The turbines in the uk are absolutely fine for use in the uk.


I think the engineers cut corners.

On initial construction they are capable of taking the stresses of tough weather conditions, but this is not the issue. The materials engineering in them is flawed.

The problem is insufficient creep resistance. Creep is when a metal deforms at stresses bellow their yield stress. This means that even on a relatively calm summers' day with only a brisk wind, the base of each blade is very slowly deforming.

As they do so they lengthen and narrow and defects accumulate, meaning they suffer a greater stress for the same force, accelerating the process. The process of creep is also an exponential one, it occurs much more rapidly under higher loads.

The effect of this is the blade base deforms slowly until in high winds (high rotation speeds) the stress will exceed the macroscopic yield stress. At this point the base of the blade will neck rapidly, getting thinner, experiencing greater stress and undergo catastrophic failure (that's the technical term for breaking)

Wind turbines are surprisingly cheap for a turbine, and the reason for this is that the materials selection has placed cheapness in front of sufficient working lifetime. The blades should be made from the same creep-resistant materials that are used in gas and jet engine turbines, with the same manufacturing processes that lead to an increased resistance to deformation at low stresses. However this is expensive, so they've been made from conventionally cast Steels or Aluminium alloys instead. Neither are suitable for the task.

They'll pass a tensile strength test because that's short term loading, and the bird collision tests, but they're not suitable for operational use. Also the health and safety regulations are rather thin on the ground with regards to turbine blades, mostly because the industry has been until recent entirely self-regulating (Rolls Royce for example carry out very stringent tests on all their engines irrespective of the standards needed to meet health and safety regulations)


Also it's not a few breaking, it's not widely publicised but they break in their hundreds.
Original post by The Mr Z
I think the engineers cut corners.

On initial construction they are capable of taking the stresses of tough weather conditions, but this is not the issue. The materials engineering in them is flawed.

The problem is insufficient creep resistance. Creep is when a metal deforms at stresses bellow their yield stress. This means that even on a relatively calm summers' day with only a brisk wind, the base of each blade is very slowly deforming.

As they do so they lengthen and narrow and defects accumulate, meaning they suffer a greater stress for the same force, accelerating the process. The process of creep is also an exponential one, it occurs much more rapidly under higher loads.

The effect of this is the blade base deforms slowly until in high winds (high rotation speeds) the stress will exceed the macroscopic yield stress. At this point the base of the blade will neck rapidly, getting thinner, experiencing greater stress and undergo catastrophic failure (that's the technical term for breaking)

Wind turbines are surprisingly cheap for a turbine, and the reason for this is that the materials selection has placed cheapness in front of sufficient working lifetime. The blades should be made from the same creep-resistant materials that are used in gas and jet engine turbines, with the same manufacturing processes that lead to an increased resistance to deformation at low stresses. However this is expensive, so they've been made from conventionally cast Steels or Aluminium alloys instead. Neither are suitable for the task.

They'll pass a tensile strength test because that's short term loading, and the bird collision tests, but they're not suitable for operational use. Also the health and safety regulations are rather thin on the ground with regards to turbine blades, mostly because the industry has been until recent entirely self-regulating (Rolls Royce for example carry out very stringent tests on all their engines irrespective of the standards needed to meet health and safety regulations)


Also it's not a few breaking, it's not widely publicised but they break in their hundreds.


Pretty sure most large scale turbine blades are made of fiber glass reinforced-epoxy or carbon fibre which have high stress tolerance and are far less likely to deform. The towers are made of aluminium or steel, not the blades.

Also how do you know they are breaking in there hundreds, because I've never seen such stats. :dontknow:
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 23
They make jet turbines out of exotic metals cos they run red hot... Wouldn't make sense for windmill blades.
Also the consequences of aero engines failing are worse than wind farms...
Original post by That Bearded Man
True, then again you could argue this applies for any new energy development such as tidal or geothermal .
What's your point?

With respect to windfarms that's certainly not true and I'm curious as to why you think nuclear power will be replaced by geothermal and tidal. It will be replaced by coal, gas or oil, which is something you really need to keep in mind when you argue against it.
Reply 25
There is far too much ignorance about nuclear power.

Whilst waste and potential meltdowns are issues with Uranium based reactors, it is physically impossible for these factors to be a problem in a Thorium nuclear power station utilizing a particle accelerator to start the reaction and Thorium Flouride as the fuel.
Original post by Rakas21
There is far too much ignorance about nuclear power.

Whilst waste and potential meltdowns are issues with Uranium based reactors, it is physically impossible for these factors to be a problem in a Thorium nuclear power station utilizing a particle accelerator to start the reaction and Thorium Flouride as the fuel.


Potential meltdowns? You mean like in the public imagination where anything is possible?
Reply 27
Yup, hysteria from the hippies.
Original post by That Bearded Man
Considering the risks of nuclear reactors I can appreciate that there would be a lot of fear/anger towards say, building a reactor right beside my house


I honestly can't quite remember the exact figure but, when you work it out, you're never more than about 70miles away from a nuclear reactor in the UK. Given the right wind conditions nuclear contaminants would spread to you even if you weren't living right next to the reactor and you might find higher radiation levels further away from the plant vs. near to the plant on the other side (for example). I think that, as the general population seem to have the same opinion that you stated in the post I quoted, it's important that people are actually educated about nuclear power properly because, whilst it's not risk free, the risks associated with it are actually incredibly small. The amount of planning and health and safety that goes into nuclear sites is unbelievable (seriously, I've seen 1 part of a planning document which is over 1000 pages long and there are countless other documents to go with that on too).
What about the fact all the operating profits of potential new energy builds from any of these big energy firms are siphoned away to other countries?
Stop profiting from people trying to keep warm!

Political agenda aside: Vote Nuclear.
Original post by The Mr Z
There are many different types of nuclear reactor, several of them produce no waste, and all of them are very safe. New technologies using different fuels and wave-oscillatory systems do not produce any waste that needs disposal of. Also, why the talk of disposing it? Radioactive isotopes are useful, many industries make extensive use of them.

Also the radioactivity of an isotope is inversely proportional to its half-life; i.e. long lasting isotopes are less dangerous. The ones that last millennia are practically harmless. Short lasting isotopes are dangerous, but equally are not a problem for very long and so not a danger to the public. Medium length isotopes find frequent use in industry.

You're thinking of noteworthy nuclear incidents from the media which are sensationalist with lots of false information. For example, the UK does not experience earthquakes above 5 Richter, and Chernobyl was caused by a chemical explosion.

Many types of nuclear power plant are actually incapable of going into meltdown. Reactors which use graphite moderators will shut down safely even if all safety features are intentionally deactivated and efforts are made to actively cause a meltdown.

We can't use geothermal energy because the UK doesn't have any active volcanoes. Not enough energy available from geothermal to power more than a town.



I'd be happy to live next to a nuclear power station because I understand how they work. I'd suggest you go research the topic in depth before believing what lobbyists tell you to.

I would NOT be happy living next to a wind turbine, or indeed within about half a mile of one. They are dangerous, not structurally sound and not rated for wind speeds that are common in the UK.
(The flaw is the turbine blades are made of materials that are not sufficiently resistant to the stresses at the base of the blade - the BBC ran a story a few months back about people blaming a missing turbine blade on possible UFOs. The truth is it just snapped off. They have an abysmally high failure rate)


Good response, I wasn't aware about the high occurrence of wind farm breakdown, never mind it's unreliability. Interesting about the alternative sources for the radioactive waste, like what, medical dyes? Don't know about the complexities of their operations but I find it unusual about meltdown prevention, if that's true then it's amazing.

And of course there's so much fear from news events. Then again when you look at how much damage they CAN cause, it's understandable
Original post by hothedgehog
I honestly can't quite remember the exact figure but, when you work it out, you're never more than about 70miles away from a nuclear reactor in the UK. Given the right wind conditions nuclear contaminants would spread to you even if you weren't living right next to the reactor and you might find higher radiation levels further away from the plant vs. near to the plant on the other side (for example). I think that, as the general population seem to have the same opinion that you stated in the post I quoted, it's important that people are actually educated about nuclear power properly because, whilst it's not risk free, the risks associated with it are actually incredibly small. The amount of planning and health and safety that goes into nuclear sites is unbelievable (seriously, I've seen 1 part of a planning document which is over 1000 pages long and there are countless other documents to go with that on too).


It is strange that when articles refer to the building of nuclear reactors - its written in a style that paints them very negatively. I suppose quite like airplanes, where there was a big deal made about plane crashes, yet they are safer than road, trains, boats perhaps
Original post by Llamageddon
What's your point?

With respect to windfarms that's certainly not true and I'm curious as to why you think nuclear power will be replaced by geothermal and tidal. It will be replaced by coal, gas or oil, which is something you really need to keep in mind when you argue against it.


Local populations would benefit from any new development site, that's not specific to nuclear (was my point)

And are you really saying that energy output from these renewable resources is literally so low for the UK, there is no point in maintaining funding for them?
Original post by That Bearded Man
Local populations would benefit from any new development site, that's not specific to nuclear (was my point)

And are you really saying that energy output from these renewable resources is literally so low for the UK, there is no point in maintaining funding for them?


I already did this to death in a thread two weeks ago.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1927975&page=7&p=36618480

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1927975&page=8&p=36718917
Reply 34
Meltdowns can't really happen in UK nuclear reactors given that the cooling system is passive so even without power it will still work as its based around natural gravity
Original post by That Bearded Man
It is strange that when articles refer to the building of nuclear reactors - its written in a style that paints them very negatively. I suppose quite like airplanes, where there was a big deal made about plane crashes, yet they are safer than road, trains, boats perhaps


What's strange is that people are against nuclear reactors because of the possibility of meltdown, but are fine with travelling by plane, in spite of the possibility that it will crash.

More people are killed in plane crashes each year than have ever been killed by accidents involving nuclear power.
Reply 36
Original post by marshymarsh
What about the fact all the operating profits of potential new energy builds from any of these big energy firms are siphoned away to other countries?
Stop profiting from people trying to keep warm!

Political agenda aside: Vote Nuclear.


rather sad that we couldn't put together a british consortium isn't it... I'm assuming the german consortium has failed because it was being underwritted by the german government which has of course turned anti-nuclear. Perhaps if the uk governments (since thatcher) had taken a more enlightened view on supporting engineering in this country, as our european competitors have done, we'd be in a better situation today.
Original post by Joinedup
rather sad that we couldn't put together a british consortium isn't it... I'm assuming the german consortium has failed because it was being underwritted by the german government which has of course turned anti-nuclear. Perhaps if the uk governments (since thatcher) had taken a more enlightened view on supporting engineering in this country, as our european competitors have done, we'd be in a better situation today.


The reason they haven't is because the Government has signed up to meeting renewable targets and nuclear isn't renewable.

They also know that with the general level of scientific ignorance, there is a strong view against it, so there is the chance it will damage their electoral viability if they are associated with it.
Reply 38
Original post by marcusfox
The reason they haven't is because the Government has signed up to meeting renewable targets and nuclear isn't renewable.

They also know that with the general level of scientific ignorance, there is a strong view against it, so there is the chance it will damage their electoral viability if they are associated with it.


Don't think that has anything to do with it - if the government didn't want nuclear generation on our shores it could simply have not invited anyone to bid for new construction - this is afaict what the scots are doing.
as it happens the government (labour) has designated sites in E&W to have new nuclear stations built on them and the tories were happy to keep it going.

Nuclear is in fact pretty popular with the public http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/09/nuclear-power-popular-in-uk
even compared to a 5 or 10 years ago, people have realised that nothing else can realistically hope to be able to keep the lights on. It's not close to being an election losing issue IMO.
It's ok guys, don't worry, I will come up with cold fusion soon enough. Give me 6 years.

Quick Reply