Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hungryaardvark)
    Yes, nuclear is a stepping stone, but it's better to have a stepping stone that DOESN'T release carbon than to keep plowing through coal reserves until renewables become ecologically and logistically viable (which they are most certainly not).

    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Nuclear is most certainly not either.
    From what I've seen of power generation nuclear is no less viable than renewables.

    From a quick bit of research you need at least 100 offshore wind turbines to match a smaller nuclear plant (The biggest wind turbine is just under 8MW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_tu...rgest_capacity with nuclear plants being in the 800MW and greater region http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=210)

    An offshore turbine costs several million to put up and i wonder how much people have researched what the long term impact would be. If we're generating power from wind we're obviously removing some energy from it. Could that have longer term impact on our weather we don't know about yet?

    From a quick search it also seems that wind has had it's share of accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Accidents) whilst each accident is on a smaller scale the likelyhood of an accident is much higher and with off shore could become costly to repair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mfaxford)
    From what I've seen of power generation nuclear is no less viable than renewables.
    Neither are, but one has the potential to be while the other has the potential to cause hundreds of billions worth of damage.

    (Original post by mfaxford)
    From a quick search it also seems that wind has had it's share of accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Accidents) whilst each accident is on a smaller scale the likelyhood of an accident is much higher and with off shore could become costly to repair.
    Dwarfed by the cost of Fukushima.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Neither are, but one has the potential to be while the other has the potential to cause hundreds of billions worth of damage.



    Dwarfed by the cost of Fukushima.
    Fukushima was a piss poor 30 year old reactor that was going to be decommissioned soon. One thing about Nuclear is that it learns fast from its mistakes, and with tech like thorium reactors it is getting cleaner better and far more efficient
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    One thing about Nuclear is that it learns fast from its mistakes, and with tech like thorium reactors it is getting cleaner better and far more efficient
    But not cheaper.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    But not cheaper.
    Cheap does not matter. Right now its a choice between slowing carbon emissions and cost. Other forms of energy apart from oil gas and coal will always be more expensive. Nuclear is the only option right now. It's that or just carry on pumping crap into the atmosphere. We are also starting to recycle nuclear waste into fuel so it is becoming a better system constantly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    But not cheaper.
    Rubbish. It's people like you that are stopping Nuclear become cheaper. The technology is there. Companies like GE have been spending billions trying to get their cheap and ridiculously safe Generation III+ reactors approved by regulators who are pandering to public opinion. And despite the fact that not only are the designs drawing on decades of experience in how to build these reactors in a cost effective manner, build them to last much longer than their predecessors, use less fuel to generate more electricity, design them to be passively safe and design them to be dismantled in a cost effective way, they still have to jump through hoop after hoop to get their design approved.

    Utterly ludicrous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Cheap does not matter.
    Don't be ridiculous.

    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Rubbish. It's people like you that are stopping Nuclear become cheaper. The technology is there. Companies like GE have been spending billions trying to get their cheap and ridiculously safe Generation III+ reactors approved by regulators who are pandering to public opinion. And despite the fact that not only are the designs drawing on decades of experience in how to build these reactors in a cost effective manner, build them to last much longer than their predecessors, use less fuel to generate more electricity, design them to be passively safe and design them to be dismantled in a cost effective way, they still have to jump through hoop after hoop to get their design approved.

    Utterly ludicrous.
    Same could be said of you and renewables, no?

    The fact is the cost of renewables are falling while the cost of nuclear is rising.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Don't be ridiculous.



    Same could be said of you and renewables, no?

    The fact is the cost of renewables are falling while the cost of nuclear is rising.
    it is getting to the point when the chice if between cheap fuel today (oil and gas) and no planet tomorrow.

    The cost does not matter. Renewable's cannot be used alone. They require Fossil fuel plants to be on stand by for when they fail.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Same could be said of you and renewables, no?

    The fact is the cost of renewables are falling while the cost of nuclear is rising.
    Renewable energy isn't easily scalable. Nuclear is.

    And according to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Nuclear generation currently costs 2.3p/kWh - on-shore wind generation costs 3.7-5.4p/kWh (and it's worth remembering that there's very little scope for on-shore wind in the UK because nobody wants it in their back garden) so the only alternative is off-shore, which costs 5.5-7.2p/kWh.

    It's also worth noting that renewable energy in the UK is heavily subsidised by the Government - something which won't happen with next generation Nuclear energy - so the cost of wind energy is probably even higher than the figures the RAEng has quoted.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.
    The endurance limits for the plant were designed with the natural disasters Japan has to face in mind. As were the prevention measures established across the country and the emergency services primed for such natural disasters. The difference with Fukushima is that it was one of the largest natural disasters on record for Japan and even despite this, the Japanese still succeeded in mitigating its effects much more efficiently than I think any other country in the world could manage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    You are aware that the buildings that have been destroyed are little more than sheds? This is superficial damage. The actual reactors themselves are intact. They have not melted down. The Reactor Pressure Vessels appear to have not been breached. The reactors were coming to the end of their life anyway, so decommissioning was inevitable and the authorities may simply decide to de-fuel the reactors and mothball them, as in Three Mile Island unit 2.
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    What part of, the big metal box that holds all the nasty stuff hasn't got a hole in it, don't you understand? The reactors aren't recoverable, because of the measures TEPCO had to take to mitigate an unprecedented triple failure of redundant systems that had never been planned for. The release of radioactivity into the environment is, while regrettable, short-lived and small enough to not cause any real risks to human health.
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    They're not recoverable because seawater has been pumped into the primary coolant circuit, not because of core damage.
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    TEPCO has the financial means to pay for the damage...
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    they still have to jump through hoop after hoop to get their design approved.

    Utterly ludicrous.
    :rofl:

    So the answer to make it cheaper is to spend less on safety?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    It's also worth noting that renewable energy in the UK is heavily subsidised by the Government - something which won't happen with next generation Nuclear energy - so the cost of wind energy is probably even higher than the figures the RAEng has quoted.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...y-bill-nuclear
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    404
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Something that has confused me about Fukushima is the public’s reaction. When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.

    But this view point is missing the glaringly obvious conclusion we should be drawing from Fukushima. The nuclear industry has a big straw man it can attack. Health, they are more than happy for the media to concentrate on this as it’s not a real issue.

    What Fukushima shows us is the fact that nuclear isn't commercially viable without government funding and insurance. Fukushima will cost the Japanese government billions upon billions to clean up after they had already ploughed millions into it to get it up and running and eventually decommissioned. So why are we not as disgusted with the nuclear industry as we are with the banks?

    It’s not like we have another option with the banks, but with nuclear we do and what’s more nuclear is a dead end. It’s not the answer to our energy requirements, it will never be commercially viable, it’s becoming less and less so and it’s a finite resource.

    So why are we so happy to plough money into a failed industry?
    Do some research before making stupid comments.

    No modern reactor is built like the ones that have failed and are so safe that only an apocalypse could damage them.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    The Fukushima plants performed exceptionally well in the circumstances given that they were many decades old and not designed to withstand having their emergency generators for cooling being knocked out via a tsunami.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    The Fukushima plants performed exceptionally well in the circumstances
    Seriously? > $130 billon is exceptionally well? **** me i'd hate to see average or not quite that well.

    (Original post by Smack)
    given that they were many decades old and not designed to withstand having their emergency generators for cooling being knocked out via a tsunami.
    Bit of a **** up don't you think? Only having a 5 metre wall in an area well known to be prone to tsunamis?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    :rofl:

    So the answer to make it cheaper is to spend less on safety?
    When did I say that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    x
    You failed to address the point I made about this earlier.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think you'll find that is not a subsidy. That's called underwriting, which is something completely different. And frankly it's not even worth fretting about - the ESBWR that I was referring to in my previous post has a projected Core Damage Probability of 1 in 59 million years. That's pretty safe and I think you'd have insurers and governments lining up to underwrite that kind of risk for a nominal fee per year.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
    Seriously? > $130 billon is exceptionally well? **** me i'd hate to see average or not quite that well.
    In terms of safety, 4 decade old plant performed extremely well for an earthquake of such magnitude.

    Bit of a **** up don't you think? Only having a 5 metre wall in an area well known to be prone to tsunamis?
    What does that have to do with the safety of the plant itself?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.