Sea levels are set to rise by all calculations....and its not just sea level rise but also erosion that has to be considered...thats why the beach at sizewell B is worked on round the clock to ensure that the plant is kept safe. The east of england is prone to severs tidal flooding including London, similar to that of 1953, such an event is thought to become more frequent, so that would make nuclear power staions in the south east of the UK less cost efficent.(Original post by Jonatan)
As for the sea defences bit, you are clutching at straws now, if sea levels rise to that extent you are basically talking about entire cities ( or even countries ) being submerged, so heaven knows what economics will be like in that case. Preventing sea level rise by limiting emissions is the only way to go, and if sea level rise increases to that extent then the cost of electricity generation really is the least of our concerns. I'd be more worried about multi-million people cities suddenly becoming uninhabitable.
Turn on thread page Beta
Nuclear Power: Yay or Nay? watch
View Poll Results: Nuclear Power: Yay or Nay?Yay!4573.77%Okay...1016.39%Nay!58.20%Eh?11.64%Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll
- 13-08-2007 02:07
(Original post by ali567149)
- 13-08-2007 19:02
Sea levels are set to rise by all calculations....and its not just sea level rise but also erosion that has to be considered...thats why the beach at sizewell B is worked on round the clock to ensure that the plant is kept safe. The east of england is prone to severs tidal flooding including London, similar to that of 1953, such an event is thought to become more frequent, so that would make nuclear power staions in the south east of the UK less cost efficent.
Building a gigawatt power station, weather it is nuclear or wind, will come at a 9-10 figure cost, currently wind power is roughly 2-3 times as expensive as nuclear ( onshore being cheaper than offshore ) so for your argument to make sense you'd have to argue that defences against rising sea levels are to cost in the range of billions per power plant, and that this would be required for the majority of nuclear plants, but none of the wind ones, and there must be no mutual benefits to nearby industry to spread the costs.
(Original post by ali567149)
- 13-08-2007 19:26
Right....and do you not draw from that the concept that if we build houses to an appropiate standard thus in theory reducing demand for space heating, alternative technology is the solution.
I would not dream of introducing new alternative technology into a home unless the insulation is up to scratch it simply does not make sense. So its a combination of policies like that advocated by the government to reduce demand for space heating. Why pay for nuclear to generate power that is wasted at the point of use, when insulation can be factored into planning law?
You would think that people would start to develop photovoltaics that generate electricity from a broader range of light. Well news flash they are, so how light it is to the human eye would be irelevent as the larger infrared spectrum of light is not reflected by clouds.
a)Even if houses with better insulation would need less electricity, it still makes more sense to generate that electricity using nuclear than solar. The required performance of the nuclear plants would be reduced by just the same amount as the required performance for solar. I'm not opposed to insulating houses, in fact, that is a very good idea. I am saying that after you've insulated your house, you will still need some electricity, and here nuclear is better than solar.
b)Even if you decide nuclear is unacceptable, it is still stupid to use solar because wind power is a lot cheaper and have less disadvantages ( it works during the night as an example). Heck, of all the ways to generate electricity, solar is simply the most inefficient ( no matter weather you talk about physical, economical or environmental efficiency ).
c)No matter how much technology improves, a solar cell cannot extract more energy than is coming in in the first place. This DOES decrease when it is cloudy, and different types of solar cells don't change this. The sun's spectral top is in the visible region ( yellow unsurprisingly ) and thus that is where the majority of the energy is. Even if you can use other frequencies when it is cloudy, you still lose a huge chunk of the incoming energy since most of it is in the visible light.
d)If you are going to rely on unproven technological improvements to argue in favour of solar cells, then why don't we have a look at equally plausible improvements in nuclear technology? How about a a thorium based sub-critical set-up? Or D-T Fusion? Or helium cooled reactors with more than 60% conversion ratio, and 100 year lifetime ? Molten salt coolants with integrated reprocessing? Don't want to use those figures in your comparison? Then don't use fantastic extrapolation of unproven technology for solar cells either.