Power demand surges

[teslacoils]

TBH I don’t ever remember nuclear being popular

What's popular is not alway the right choice.

 

[yellow belly]

The whole nuclear industry is a ticking time bomb.

The clean up costs have yet to be calculated into the price of the energy!

The death rate per terrawatt produced for nuclear is under 1 for gas coal and all other source it is over 20
piper alpha and Abavan

Global deaths per energy source | Statista

The number of deaths per energy source is far greater for fossil fuels than renewables, with air pollution a key factor for this.

www.statista.com

 

[robs1]

The death rate per terrawatt produced for nuclear is under 1 for gas coal and all other source it is over 20
piper alpha and Abavan

Global deaths per energy source | Statista

The number of deaths per energy source is far greater for fossil fuels than renewables, with air pollution a key factor for this.

www.statista.com

Interesting stat, we dont think about all the miners etc killed

 

[czechmate]

Interesting stat, we dont think about all the miners etc killed

 

[Sid]

The death rate per terrawatt produced for nuclear is under 1 for gas coal and all other source it is over 20
piper alpha and Abavan

Global deaths per energy source | Statista

The number of deaths per energy source is far greater for fossil fuels than renewables, with air pollution a key factor for this.

www.statista.com

Fail to see how that is relevant to the clean up cost of nuclear as the cost in environmental terms for fossil fuels is huge as well.

 

[Danllan]

I think our local nuclear station is one of two in France that has got corrosion problems in some pipework. I noticed in the press somewhere.

My understanding is that the national regulator there ordered 21 reactors to close in 2016, after Arriva admitted to hundreds of faulty parts, is that wrong? That's about 35% of the reactors over there, a big hit on power production, and supply.

That written, people have already mentioned that France had to go nuclear due to lack of other alternatives, and that's true enough; but France has a different attitude to nuclear power anyway, probably because of Becquerel and Co. in its early days.

But... the real reason that French nuclear power took off was that the then French governments took a more realistic view of it than, say, the UK or the US. By that I mean that France didn't require it's nuclear power stations to be 'theoretically' 100% safe, 99.9% being reasonable enough - and it was that last 0.1% that cost almost as much as the previous 20%.

Fortunately, the next generation of reactors are inherently safer than earlier ones, and the coming SMRs from Rolls Royce are even better. Obviously fusion will be a better replacement, but it's 'always' twenty years away... no, it will work one day, but we can't wait and fusion makes current sense.

 

[ollie989898]

The whole nuclear industry is a ticking time bomb.

The clean up costs have yet to be calculated into the price of the energy!

The clean up and long term storage costs are pretty much a necessity even if nuclear power or weapons were ever developed or built in the UK. The use of industrial and medical isotopes means pretty much every developed country will need a nuclear materials repository (not a 'dump', a 'store') to be built no matter what they do.

The cost of keeping a fairly modest amount of material under lock and key for long periods of time need not be that onerous.


Nuclear fusion might not ever work and to me it seems a developmental dead end; the conditions required to make it work are monumental technical hurdles and no one has yet worked out how to get the energy it produces harnessed in any meaningful way either. It too, will create an amount of nuclear waste as well so it doesn't get us away from the need to store materials for a long time.

I'm not sure I see a way for small reactors to be acceptable in the marketplace. We already have small modular reactors built in factories- just as the Americans, French and Russians do- in submarines. But these are tiny units produced in small quantities which are watched minute by minute by highly trained personnel for a very specific application. I can't see nuclear power ever reaching the sort of market presence as say on-farm AD units or even one in every town: nuclear reactors, their fuel and spent fuel are regulated very tightly and require serious security as well. I'm not sure that the costs of these will ever change or that they are somehow reduced just because the reactor is much smaller and mass manufactured in a factory- a reactor is still a reactor whether it is producing 5 kilowatts or 500 megawatts.

 

[Sid]

The clean up and long term storage costs are pretty much a necessity even if nuclear power or weapons were ever developed or built in the UK. The use of industrial and medical isotopes means pretty much every developed country will need a nuclear materials repository (not a 'dump', a 'store') to be built no matter what they do.

The cost of keeping a fairly modest amount of material under lock and key for long periods of time need not be that onerous.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/136734/sorry-saga-of-disused-nuclear-sites-will-cost-generations-of-uk-taxpayer/

"The NDA acknowledges that it still does not have full understanding of the condition of the 17 sites across its estate, including the 10 former Magnox power stations. According to its most recent estimates it will cost current and future generations of UK taxpayers £132 billion to decommission the UK’s civil nuclear sites, and the work will not be completed for another 120 years - with significant impacts on the lives of those who live near the sites."

Bargain at £132 billion eh?

You can bet that cost will have probably doubled since 2020!

 

[ollie989898]

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/136734/sorry-saga-of-disused-nuclear-sites-will-cost-generations-of-uk-taxpayer/

"The NDA acknowledges that it still does not have full understanding of the condition of the 17 sites across its estate, including the 10 former Magnox power stations. According to its most recent estimates it will cost current and future generations of UK taxpayers £132 billion to decommission the UK’s civil nuclear sites, and the work will not be completed for another 120 years - with significant impacts on the lives of those who live near the sites."

Bargain at £132 billion eh?

You can bet that cost will have probably doubled since 2020!

The track record of anything nuclear in the UK is a bad example- many of the UKs nuclear activities were badly designed and operated from the outset. Much of the NDAs liabilities exist because of the rushed British bomb program. Many of the UK's reactors, both past and present are weird designs that were not built or designed in the same way as any other you will find in the USA or France, where their reactor fleets are cash cows, and- more importantly- utilities are obliged to leave a slush fund to pay for the eventual decommissioning of each plant.

The kind of reactor designs the British used, were emulated in one other country only- North Korea. Make what you will of that.

The entire Sellafield site is a joke that won't be cleaned up in 100 years and at great expense. Typical government fudge up and wrapped around the axle as any government sponsored jolly will inevitably be. Though I am not defending anything built or done in that place, many of the problems there stem from buildings that had zero thought put into their eventual cleaning or decommissioning because the emphasis was on Britain becoming a nuclear power.

The same can also be said of the nuclear research facilities like Dounreay and Winfrith- all put up with no thought about how they might ever be taken down or cleaned up.

It worth noting that the coal, oil and gas industries are all allowed to emit radioactive materials into the environment with no penalty- these all generate and emit a lot of NORM in their extraction and use.

 

[Sid]

The track record of anything nuclear in the UK is a bad example- many of the UKs nuclear activities were badly designed and operated from the outset. Much of the NDAs liabilities exist because of the rushed British bomb program. Many of the UK's reactors, both past and present are weird designs that were not built or designed in the same way as any other you will find in the USA or France, where their reactor fleets are cash cows, and- more importantly- utilities are obliged to leave a slush fund to pay for the eventual decommissioning of each plant.

The kind of reactor designs the British used, were emulated in one other country only- North Korea. Make what you will of that.

The entire Sellafield site is a joke that won't be cleaned up in 100 years and at great expense. Typical government fudge up and wrapped around the axle as any government sponsored jolly will inevitably be. Though I am not defending anything built or done in that place, many of the problems there stem from buildings that had zero thought put into their eventual cleaning or decommissioning because the emphasis was on Britain becoming a nuclear power.

The same can also be said of the nuclear research facilities like Dounreay and Winfrith- all put up with no thought about how they might ever be taken down or cleaned up.

It worth noting that the coal, oil and gas industries are all allowed to emit radioactive materials into the environment with no penalty- these all generate and emit a lot of NORM in their extraction and use.

Look at Japan and the massive clean up costs after the Tsunami. £140 billion

Governments only ever think of the here and now never further than their term I'm power.

Also look at the renewable fiasco in NI that cost £500 million pounds.

Government and cost efficiency can never be said in the same sentence

 

[ollie989898]

Look at Japan and the massive clean up costs after the Tsunami. £140 billion

Governments only ever think of the here and now never further than their term I'm power.

Also look at the renewable fiasco in NI that cost £500 million pounds.

Government and cost efficiency can never be said in the same sentence

The Americans warned the Japanese they had an inadequate sea wall and other agencies pointed out the vulnerabilities of having all their electrical switchgear and generators in the basement. The Japanese ignored these warnings.

The UK doesn't have that design either.

 

[Sid]

The Americans warned the Japanese they had an inadequate sea wall and other agencies pointed out the vulnerabilities of having all their electrical switchgear and generators in the basement. The Japanese ignored these warnings.

The UK doesn't have that design either.

We all listen to what the Americans say because they get everything right.

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The United States Government Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines

 

[ollie989898]

We all listen to what the Americans say because they get everything right.

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The United States Government Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines

They had 3 mile island which was inconsequential. Their other accidents have been minor.

 

[Sid]

They had 3 mile island which was inconsequential. Their other accidents have been minor.

So far.

The incident level to MW output is the key.

30 a year I would not call minor!

 

[ollie989898]

So far.

The incident level to MW output is the key.

30 a year I would not call minor!

You need only look at the sheer amount of electricity produced in the history of nuclear power in the USA to realise that if you want safe, abundant and cheap electricity without carbon emissions then nuclear power is pretty much the only game in town.

 

[Sid]

Actually according to Wikipedia two thirds of all incidents have occurred in the US.
And Nuclear only accounts for 20% of output

That is a shocking statistics

 

[Sid]

You need only look at the sheer amount of electricity produced in the history of nuclear power in the USA to realise that if you want safe, abundant and cheap electricity without carbon emissions then nuclear power is pretty much the only game in town.

They need to cut consumption, probably the least green country in the world.

Cheap energy drives their economic model.

Reliance on gas ,coal and oil is unprecedented

 

[ollie989898]

They need to cut consumption, probably the least green country in the world.

Cheap energy drives their economic model.

Reliance on gas ,coal and oil is unprecedented

I agree, America and Canada do need to reduce their energy consumption, though their consumption may be linked to the sheer size of their respective countries and also the extremes of climate they have.

 

[Sid]

I agree, America and Canada do need to reduce their energy consumption, though their consumption may be linked to the sheer size of their respective countries and also the extremes of climate they have.

World average consumption is 70 BTU per head
USA is 337 BTU.
The US is 1 and half times the UK

See the problem?

Hence the need to cut corners on nuclear safety

 

[ollie989898]

World average consumption is 70 BTU per head
USA is 337 BTU.
The US is 1 and half times the UK

See the problem?

Hence the need to cut corners on nuclear safety

I don't think their nuclear safety is being cut due to the sheer energy consumption in the USA. In fact, I would venture that much of their energy consumption is not related to electricity directly.