View Full Version : Nuclear power - expert opinions needed
Nick Noble
04-Feb-12, 12:39
Having just read the thread Wind turbines total waste of money (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?168879-Wind-Turbines-total-waste-of-money) in which the OP posits the idea that we should build "the new generation of safe nuclear power plants".
Do we have any knowledgeable people on here that can say how "safe" the new generation plants are? What the costs are? Would a new plant at Dounreay be feasible?
I know that there are huge hurdles, such as opposition from both the Scottish Government and the Highland Council, but I have always thought that nuclear needs to be part of an overall mix of generating options for the future.
secrets in symmetry
04-Feb-12, 14:11
I salute your ambition Nick! :cool:
You could start by asking Chris Huhne - who may have significant spare time in the future.
That's not a smartarse remark, he must have had a steep learning curve in the job he's just left.
Nick Noble
04-Feb-12, 14:18
Genuinely just interested and suspect that there must be a few folk on here that know a little more about the subject than the average man in the street. :)
secrets in symmetry
04-Feb-12, 15:15
Genuinely just interested and suspect that there must be a few folk on here that know a little more about the subject than the average man in the street. :)Indeed there must be, but there may not be any folk with actual experience of the new generation of nuclear reactors.
One of my best mates could be the man you want, but he's not on this forum as far as I know.
I mentioned Chris Huhne because he's a fellow Lib Dem who used to be publicly anti-nuclear, but who changed his mind (at least publicly) when he became energy minister. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Position_on_nuclear_energy).
tonkatojo
04-Feb-12, 15:57
Indeed there must be, but there may not be any folk with actual experience of the new generation of nuclear reactors.
One of my best mates could be the man you want, but he's not on this forum as far as I know.
I mentioned Chris Huhne because he's a fellow Lib Dem who used to be publicly anti-nuclear, but who changed his mind (at least publicly) when he became energy minister. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Position_on_nuclear_energy).
Your jesting of course a Lib Dem changing his mind once elected and fame and fortune as a minister in the offing, surely all of them sang from a different song sheet till elected.
whitechina
04-Feb-12, 18:34
Having just read the thread Wind turbines total waste of money (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?168879-Wind-Turbines-total-waste-of-money) in which the OP posits the idea that we should build "the new generation of safe nuclear power plants".
Do we have any knowledgeable people on here that can say how "safe" the new generation plants are? What the costs are? Would a new plant at Dounreay be feasible?
I know that there are huge hurdles, such as opposition from both the Scottish Government and the Highland Council, but I have always thought that nuclear needs to be part of an overall mix of generating options for the future.
Just a thought,but surely you'd be able to research all the information you'd need on the internet???
Are you trying to attract the Dounreay block vote in Thurso ahead of the election??? Seems to me that's what you're up to. No doubt you'll be all for nuclear power.But then politicians will say they support anything if they think it'll get them a few more votes.And the huge hurdles you refer to will not be overcome now or in the near future. You could stand on a podium and promise to fight to bring a new nuclear build to Caithness but it will be a waste of your breath.
If you're going to attract the Dounreay vote you've got a long hard road ahead.
Nice try Nick !!....[lol]
I think you will find that Caithness people are getting wise to politicians now, especially the LibDems who promise one thing and then do just the opposite.
I don't know why you just don't stand as a Conservative, after all....LibDems & Tories equals same thing these days!!! Oh, and there are some right liars and cheats in the party, but we expect that these days.
I wonder who I can get to take my penalty points for me?
Honestly, what a shower, and to think I was a member of this party and supported them for years, what a fool I was!!!!!!!!!
C3..................[disgust][disgust]
[Do we have any knowledgeable people on here that can say how "safe" the new generation plants are? What the costs are? Would a new plant at Dounreay be feasible?]
Naw Nick, there arnae any experts on here. You'd be safer trying Wiki for your info.
expert opinions needed
We're all experts on the .org! I'll get back to you once I've researched my bottle of wine, I'll be switched on then!
:Razz
Nick Noble
04-Feb-12, 20:12
Just a thought,but surely you'd be able to research all the information you'd need on the internet???
Are you trying to attract the Dounreay block vote in Thurso ahead of the election??? Seems to me that's what you're up to. No doubt you'll be all for nuclear power.But then politicians will say they support anything if they think it'll get them a few more votes.And the huge hurdles you refer to will not be overcome now or in the near future. You could stand on a podium and promise to fight to bring a new nuclear build to Caithness but it will be a waste of your breath.
If you're going to attract the Dounreay vote you've got a long hard road ahead.
Yes I can research on the internet, that's what I'm doing, that is why I've asked the question on a forum I participate in which is focused around an area of the UK where there are some people that have good knowledge of nuclear power.
I will NOT be campaigning on nuclear at all, I am simply trying to get information from people that might know a lot more than me about the subject.
Some people actually do give two hoots about the place in which they live, and will get off their backsides and try and do something about it, rather than simply sniping at those that try. Believe it or not I'm far more interested in knowing what people actually want than any party political slanging match, there are good politicians in all parties, and bad politicians that are members of none. I will be judged on what I say and what I do by most of the electorate. The ones that are closed minded will take no notice of what I say and therefore are not really of any interest to me.
I am however still very interested in any information anyone else cares to share with me regarding nuclear power, and many thanks to the people that have already PM'ed me with information. Much appreciated.
Dog-eared
04-Feb-12, 20:14
If a new generation nuclear power plant was to be built in Scotland, there is no reason to build it in Caithness. If it is safe.
Having just read the thread Wind turbines total waste of money (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?168879-Wind-Turbines-total-waste-of-money) in which the OP posits the idea that we should build "the new generation of safe nuclear power plants".
Do we have any knowledgeable people on here that can say how "safe" the new generation plants are? What the costs are? Would a new plant at Dounreay be feasible?
I know that there are huge hurdles, such as opposition from both the Scottish Government and the Highland Council, but I have always thought that nuclear needs to be part of an overall mix of generating options for the future.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've seen a partial or total meltdown of a nuclear reactor core on average every 8 years somewhere around the world. Despite that, I think the new designs will be a lot safer than previous designs so I'm not too hung up on the safety aspects. Perhaps we will see a meltdown every 16 years as an improvement?
As for cost it is hard to say, estimates seem to go from £2-5 billion per build, but the true cost over overruns is realised only after something is built and that is usually twice the original estimate on such big projects.
Could a new plant be feasible in Caithness? Yes of course it would, we have great expertise and we could import any expertise that we lack like in the past. But we need improvements in communications and infrastructure to support it.
weezer 316
04-Feb-12, 20:27
If a new generation nuclear power plant was to be built in Scotland, there is no reason to build it in Caithness. If it is safe.
Well........Does the small fact all the skills required are here already not make a difference? I would say, solely going on how nice and area Thurso and the surrounds places are to live in, Highly skilled and hihgly paid people like nuclear engineers are a good thing to have in caithness even though Im not one of them!
Not bringing up Independence as a subject, but though Salmond was dead against Nuclear in Scotland.
I can see SNP doing a u-turn on the nuclear policy, Scotland can't just rely on other sources of energy!
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've seen a partial or total meltdown of a nuclear reactor core on average every 8 years somewhere around the world.That surprises me, being such a low figure; aside from Chernobyl and Fukushima, I can't think of any others off-hand. Do the stats include the events at Fukushima and take into account that that was because of a natural event? I cant recall the exact age but I know Fukushima was a very old design, I'm wondering if a modern design would have stood up better under the same conditions? I'm sure I read somewhere about there being a fault line off the Norwegian coast, and should the tectonic plates shift in that area, it's very likely that N.E. Scotland would be hit by a tsunami; if, (and it's highly unlikely), there were to be a new nuclear plant built in Caithness, how would it be affected?
John Little
05-Feb-12, 10:01
There are no tectonic plate boundaries off Norway.
The nearest is the mid-Atlantic one which is divergent and unlikely to cause a tsunami.
That surprises me, being such a low figure; aside from Chernobyl and Fukushima, I can't think of any others off-hand.
Yes I thought that might be a surprising statistic but Chernobyl and Fukushima were the only meltdowns where the fission products breached the outer containment. Partial meltdowns that are kept within the containment are much more common and if Governments can get away with it, they aren't widely advertised.
EDIT Actually, when I look at the number of combined civillian, military and experimental reactor meltdowns, we have a meltdown every ~4 years on average around the world. (16 partial or total meltdowns in 70 years from 1942 to 2012.)
whitechina
05-Feb-12, 12:04
Yes I can research on the internet, that's what I'm doing, that is why I've asked the question on a forum I participate in which is focused around an area of the UK where there are some people that have good knowledge of nuclear power.
I will NOT be campaigning on nuclear at all, I am simply trying to get information from people that might know a lot more than me about the subject.
Some people actually do give two hoots about the place in which they live, and will get off their backsides and try and do something about it, rather than simply sniping at those that try. Believe it or not I'm far more interested in knowing what people actually want than any party political slanging match, there are good politicians in all parties, and bad politicians that are members of none. I will be judged on what I say and what I do by most of the electorate. The ones that are closed minded will take no notice of what I say and therefore are not really of any interest to me.
I am however still very interested in any information anyone else cares to share with me regarding nuclear power, and many thanks to the people that have already PM'ed me with information. Much appreciated.
It is curious that you have lived here for a number of years and suddenly you have an interest in the county's largest employer.An interest that appears only to have arisen since you announced you are to stand for election to the Highland Council.
As a lifelong resident I do actually give more then just two hoots about my town and the county as a whole.However unlike you I am a realist and not a political opportunist.I am employed at Dounreay and I can tell you for a fact the workforce have accepted that there will be no nuclear new build in Caithness.We are naturally anxious as to what,if anything comes after it.My own opinion is that there will be a sizeable exodus of people and skills to the south or abroad and Caithness will return to be being an economy predominantly based on farming,fishing,and some small scale manufacturing.
It would be far far better for our concillors and indeed those who wish to become councillors to accept the reality of this.Instead what we will get is a parade of false promises as we have always done.I prefer to hear the truth.Are you capable of telling the truth as regards our county's future Nick??
(P.s. I also have no doubt that should you fail to be elected your interest in the nuclear industry will suddenly disipate.)
captain chaos
05-Feb-12, 12:48
Have a look at this website as this is what Areva is proposing as an approved reactor to be built in the UK.
http://www.epr-reactor.co.uk/scripts/ssmod/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=57&L=EN
Does the 'true cost' of nuclear power include the decommissioning cost of the power station and the storage for thousands of years of the waste? When these are taken into account, how does this compare with the new 'green' sources of power
The NDA has an annual budget of £2.8 billion and nuclear has historically generated 20% of our electricity. The cost of decommissioning etc amounts to ~4p/kWh of nuclear energy. If you compare that to the Renewable Obligation of wind energy then that amounts to ~5p/kWh.
Build costs per kWh over the lifetime of both technologies are about the same ~2p/kWh. Nuclear refuelling, mining and refining is harder to quantify, but a 1GW reactor needs 163 tonnes of uranium per year.
The thing to realise is that as decommissioning costs are going up, wind costs go down as the industry matures and commands less financial incentive.
captain chaos
05-Feb-12, 13:58
Not quite true rheghead...the two largest nuclear sites to be decommisioned were not true power stations,they both did fuel manucature and recyling old fueland both had experimental reactors, both Dounreay and Sellafield which get the bulk of the NDA money, would never be rebuilt. where as a nuclear power station is miniscule in terms of cost to either of these two to decommission, so cost would go down once the two money pits have been decommissioned.
I take your point but I think it is fair that those extra decommissioning costs truly reflect the higher costs experienced during the immature phase of the nuclear industry. Likewise wind is still going through that immature phase so the costs of both have been treated equally without favour to one or the another.
If I was to ignore the decommissioning of experimental reactors then I have to ignore costs of earlier designs of wind turbines which are less efficient than modern types and the Renewable obligation.
Bobinovich
05-Feb-12, 14:33
...If you compare that to the Renewable Obligation of wind energy then that amounts to ~5p/kWh...
I take it that's the cost based on current wind installations? If so when the installed base increases (as seems inevitable based on grubbiement targets) will that increase at the same rate?
I take it that's the cost based on current wind installations? If so when the installed base increases (as seems inevitable based on grubbiement targets) will that increase at the same rate?
It is based upon the current market cost of the Renewable Obligation. The less installed base you have, the higher the price of each ROC. If you have more renewable sources, ie the renewable targets are being met then the RO costs will be lower. That is often what is often misunderstood, as time goes by, higher targets are set but if renewable schemes get blocked then the knock-on effect is to raise the cost of electricity.
In very crude terms, it could then be argued that groups who are opposing wind farms are raising the cost of electricity.
oldchemist
05-Feb-12, 17:58
There are risks associated with any form of power generation but nuclear is one of the safest. The real danger facing us is that we fail to control greenhouse gas emissions. We need a low carbon source of baseload electricity and windmills will simply not meet that requirement, regardless of how many are built. Nuclear seems to be the best option currently available and proven. The attitude of the Scottish government is appalling - on the one hand promoting wind and wave power as green energy sources but basing their economic arguments upon massively polluting oil and at the same time not allowing nuclear new build.
oldmarine
05-Feb-12, 18:09
Some interesting comments on this thread. We should all be familiar with what happened at Chernoble and the recent nuclear problems in Japan. We have had a few problems at nuclear plants in our USA. Some serious and others not as serious, but a real concern in spite of what people might say. My opinion: should we go nuclear, burn dirty coal, mar the landscapes with windmills, or what? We are running out of fuel oil and natural gas to the point where we will not have enough to go around for everyone in all places. So what do we do? I am near 87 years of age and won't be around too much longer, but I am concerned for my children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. I don't have the answers but someone will have to make important decisions somewhere out there in the future.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.