The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Energy prices, the climate and the nuclear bubble > Comments

Energy prices, the climate and the nuclear bubble : Comments

By Wade Allison, published 12/5/2014

You pay extra for what you insist on – and the more you insist, the more you pay. That is the law of the street and it applies to the safety of nuclear radiation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Pete continues to waffle on about rods and water, when the latest advances require neither.
There will be fewer choices that nonetheless, include nuclear power!
Pete, the latest advances, replace water with helium for cooling and heat transfer purposes!
So these newer technologies can be placed anywhere, even in my backyard!
To obtain a nuclear melt down one needs a critical reaction, or too much nuclear fuel pooling after melting through the bottom of a conventional reactor.
Pebble reactors, just don't face that possibly, given the fuel is retained permanently in very tough graphite balls.
The graphite remains a barrier, that simply keeps the available fuel separated!
Which then precludes the possibility of a nuclear melt down, given there is never enough adjacent fuel to create a self feeding critical reaction.
This assurance is not based on misplaced confidence but scientific fact!
If you've seen a lotto draw, then you may have and inkling how these things work; balls being held in place by a rising column of helium!
So Pete, you just need to stop endlessly repeating the lie that these things need water, so need to be located near the coast, to avail themselves of large bodies of water.
Although some water supplies would be great, given electrolysis can be employed and power sent to its intended destination as hydrogen gas, via a pipeline, then converted back to power via fuel cells.
This would reduce transmission losses down to around 20% or less, if catalysts and prohibitive costs are included in the initial process!
Better we should have many small reactors placed very adjacent to the main industrial consumers!
Think Pete, it is not nuclear fallout or a nuclear winter threatening the world with an extinction event, but carbon and fossil fuels.
The sooner we change to alternatives the better, and the very best alternatives will be those with the lowest costs, and virtually walk out the door.
And those options are likely to be cheaper than coal, and provide power 24/7, regardless of whether the sun shines, or the wind blows!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:17:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reaction to Fukushima by anti-nuclear zealots has been extraordinary. The UN released its report on 2/4/14:

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html

Page 17 of the report at 38 states:

"38. No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed
among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the
accident.
39. The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first
year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No
discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are
expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The
most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, related to
the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and
the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to ionizing
radiation. Effects such as depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms
have already been reported. Estimation of the occurrence and severity of
such health effects are outside the Committee’s remit."

No doubt much of the cause of those mental health issues has been due to the hysterical garbage of the usual anti-nuclear ratbags.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are Rhrosty mate

How many of your advanced pebble reactors are actually running on a practical industrial scale? I'm not talking your 10-20 MW test reactors but 1,000 MW.

Problems with pebble reactors, partly explaining why they've been stuck at the test stage since the 1960s include:

- encasing the fuel in combustible graphite poses a hazard. When the graphite burns, fuel material could potentially be carried away in smoke from the fire.

- Some designs for pebble-bed reactors lack a containment building, potentially making such reactors more vulnerable to outside attack and allowing radioactive material to spread in the case of an explosion.

- Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the volume of radioactive waste is much greater

- An accident occurred in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and probably was one reason for the shutdown of the research program by the West German government.

Shutdown.

I can't wait for that reactor at Batemans Bay, Byron Bay, Geelong and Newcastle :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 6:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet,

"I can't wait for that reactor at Batemans Bay, Byron Bay, Geelong and Newcastle"

Why would you be opposed to NPP' near those places. Or near Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth? Do you have an irrational fear of nuclear power?

Are you irrationally opposed to the safest way to generate electricity? Or just ignorant about it? It has to be one of those two choices

Are you opposed to saving lives?

Are you opposed to high tech jobs and great job security? Are you opposed having employment that is interesting and fullfilling for life?

I presume you are aware that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, right?

Deaths per 1000 TWh

Coal electricity – world avg 60,000 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (0.2% global electricity)
Wind 150 (1.6% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 12 May 2014 9:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graphite burning Pete?
Well they really will have to stop them using it in crucibles, that hold liquid metal, with much higher heat than anything generated in a pebble reactor, even where the coolant is shut down for any reason.
I've no problem with 10-20 megawatts, given a reactors of that size can be mass produced, trucked and sited anywhere you need them, particularly, where there are small communities, pretty much dependent on increasingly expensive diesel! Thorium reactors, where 50+ megawatts are needed!
Given mass production and modules able to be trucked virtually anywhere, the cost benefit analysis, still makes pebble reactor power generation outcome, significantly cheaper than coal.
And that could also include most military bases, and industrial estates.
This very local power generation option, will end forever the need for the great white elephant of the national grid, which as you've already pointed out Pete, comes with transmission line looses up to 50%, which the end user still has to pay for, along with the quite enormous maintainence costs!
Also, 10-20 megawatts, is just what we need to power shipping!
However, feel free to advocate carbon fibre oars and a whip equipped task master, beating out the stroke, as your post peak oil alternative?
On second thoughts, the carbon might burn, so I guess we can't make planes, trains, cars or boats out of the stuff, for that reason, particularly, given carbon fibre is more combustible than furnace quality graphite!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh by the way, the pebbles are the marble sized fuel pieces, that are wrapped in grapefruit sized furnace quality, graphite balls!
Why would anyone want to build a 1,000 megawatt generator, that then losses half that, as transmission line losses.
We also have the option of converting all our waste into methane, via digesters, and then using that to power our cities?
Every family or high rise or village or suburb, produces enough biological waste to power the homes,high rises etc. And in combination, power cities 24/7!
Substituting ceramic fuel cells for Co2 producing combustion engines, halves the fuel use for the same power output, creating a very worthwhile salable surplus.
The solid state super silent ceramic fuel cell also produces mostly water vapor, as the exhaust product; and virtually free power, once the infrastructure roll out costs have been returned.
The by products include, endlessly free hot water, carbon, phosphate, nitrate rich, thoroughly sanitized soil improving compost; and reusable water, eminently suitable for endlessly sustainable oil rich algae production; (diesel, jet fuel) with the ex-crush waste, being suitable for animal fodder, or ethanol production!
One industry expert, is on the public record, stating, even with a fuel excise imposed, these new and endlessly sustainable fuel types, could be retailed for around 44 cents a litre!
And as long as we exist, we humans will always produce endlessly sustainable biological waste!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy