Nuclear-powered Electricity generation

Forums › Off topic › Nuclear-powered Electricity generation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2763519 20-Aug-2021 10:11

MadEngineer:

If we have nuclear power we’d also need an equal source of power and capacity (generation and distribution) at the ready for when it had to go offline.

Right. But, it only has to have enough reserves until the nuke is up and running again. So in low rainfall times we could turn off some of the hydro and keep the lakes a bit above empty.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2763520 20-Aug-2021 10:13

Dingbatt:

Maybe people need to read beyond a Greenpeace pamphlet or watching a re-run of The China Syndrome (which incidentally probably should be renamed) when talking about current nuclear technology rather than knee jerk reactions to past accidents.

Strange as it may seem, Japanese engineers had thought about the likelihood of earthquakes at Fukushima. In fact after sensing the seismic activity the 3 (of 6) reactors operating at the time automatically shut down. What wasn’t considered adequately was the subsequent tsunami. And even that wouldn’t have had any effect if the backup generators had been placed on the roof rather than at ground level (just above sea level) or even if they and their fuel tanks had been secured rather than sitting on skids. In fact reactors 5 and 6 are located on a plateau above the rest of the power station and were unaffected. The backup generators had been operating and supplying power to the cooling pumps (the grid had been knocked offline by the earthquake) for an hour after reactor shutdown when the tsunami struck. In fact The Radiation Effects Research Foundation stated that radiation exposure levels were so low an ongoing population study was pointless. There are definitely lessons to be learned from Fukushima, but one is not that nuclear power is ‘bad’ (imo).

Chernobyl was a disaster by any measure, but consider this. The RBMK reactors used at that site (and others in the then Soviet Union) were fast breeder reactors used for producing weapons grade plutonium that had been converted for electricity production. They had an insufficient ‘void coefficient’ and safety systems (to save money). The operators carried out unsanctioned and incorrect safety ‘tests’ that led to an uncontrolled chain reaction (not a meltdown), in effect a small nuclear explosion after only 8 seconds. There are still RBMK reactors operating in the former Soviet Union today, in fact the other 3 reactors at Chernobyl still operate. All have had safety system upgrades and the last RBMK is due to run until 2050. Nuclear technology has come a long way in the half century since those reactors were designed.

Germany has scaled back on nuclear power generation, France has not. Germans face higher energy costs and the country is a net importer of electricity and must use natural gas to make up the shortfall. France doesn’t seem to be suffering from the same problems. Germans emit 9 tons of CO2 per person, France 5 tons.

Without drifting into politics which I really want to avoid but I would not hold France up as a responsible global citizen when it comes to their nuclear industry of which they have use state funded terrorism to pursue.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763522 20-Aug-2021 10:17

MikeB4:

networkn:

What opposed to the costs and requirements of extending our current system to cope with what is likely to be a massive increase in demand over the next 20 years as the ICE gets replaced by electric cars which all need to be charged.

There are many alternatives that do risk the viability of our nation and hand future citizens of Aotearoa another nightmare scenario, Yes there maybe electric cars but it does not follow that every household will/should have one. Again there are viable alternatives to the car being the personal transport of the future.

You seriously need to spend some time reading up on modern nuclear energy production. Your assumptions are based on technology 50 years older than what is currently available, and you should also look into the ecological impact of solar and wind on wildlife etc too.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2763523 20-Aug-2021 10:17

A nuclear accident is a generational disaster that impacts present and future generations. An accident with a wind generation tower is insignificant in comparison and similar to a tree falling in an unpopulated forest. If a Hydro dam fractured it would not devastate our way of life on both islands and yes it would be a terrible disaster for those down stream but would not be a multiple generation event.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2763524 20-Aug-2021 10:18

MikeB4:

Without drifting into politics which I really want to avoid but I would not hold France up as a responsible global citizen when it comes to their nuclear industry of which they have use state funded terrorism to pursue.

Completely irrelevant straw man argument.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2763528 20-Aug-2021 10:19

Dingbatt:

Completely irrelevant straw man argument.

Really it was you that mentioned France

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2763545 20-Aug-2021 10:36

MikeB4:

Without drifting into politics which I really want to avoid but I would not hold France up as a responsible global citizen when it comes to their nuclear industry of which they have use state funded terrorism to pursue.

Nuclear weapons, not nuclear power generation.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2763554 20-Aug-2021 10:47

OldGeek:

" The key innovation is the use of a proton accelerator to generate a high-intensity neutron source which induces fission reactions in the core. Yet as soon as the accelerator stops, the fission reaction also stops." That addresses safety - there can be no more catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.

Until you lose control of your proton accelerator somehow. Remember that Fukushima was a failure of the power supply to the cooling pumps, not the reactor itself.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2763556 20-Aug-2021 10:48

networkn:

You seriously need to spend some time reading up on modern nuclear energy production. Your assumptions are based on technology 50 years older than what is currently available, and you should also look into the ecological impact of solar and wind on wildlife etc too.

You assume I haven't, you know what they say about assumptions

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2763596 20-Aug-2021 11:19

Nuclear power is the way of the future once nuclear fusion is perfected. However it may still not be a viable option for New Zealand.

As for David Lange, he was a pompous ...... I have no problem with his anti nuclear policy but I do have a real issue with how he went about it. He unnecessarily cost this country a lot of money and burned bridges that needn't have been burned. I have no respect whatsoever for the guy. It probably deserve s thread all of its own.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763601 20-Aug-2021 11:26

Technofreak:

Nuclear power is the way of the future once nuclear fusion is perfected. However it may still not be a viable option for New Zealand.

Fusion would solve a LOT of things globally, but last time I watched doco on it, it was 50 years away. IIRC the fusion was just nanoseconds at the moment

duckDecoy

896 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2763619 20-Aug-2021 11:42

driller2000:

TL:DR - Too hard + Too expensive + We have better lower cost alternative options = It will never happen in NZ.

This.

Almost zero western countries have nuclear plant building projects underway and the countries that do have state involvement, so its not just ill suited to NZ. They are considered incredibly risky as the capital costs can be enormous.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2763648 20-Aug-2021 12:04

I have no strong opinions on nuclear either way, and indeed no real knowledge of it, but would probably slightly lean towards supporting. However surely it needs to be viewed in the context of:

decarbonising the grid (ie removing coal, gas etc which along with uptake of EVs is something we need to move much faster on IMO)
supporting increased demand as we electrify stuff that previously was not powered by electricity (eg EVs)
supporting increased demand of a growing population
a power source that is stable and not reliant on weather conditions
a power source that offers consistent, baseline generation which renewables do not necessarily achieve

That said I think the capital cost, need for regulatory structure and supporting services, and public opinion (rightly or wrongly) would likely make nuclear power not an option in New Zealand.

I would however absolutely support some work being done to assess feasibility of it.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2763672 20-Aug-2021 12:37

Mattnzl:
So instead of leaving our descendants 100's of years of climate issues, we leave them piles of nuclear waste that require careful attention & storage for 500+ years?

It would be interesting to see which option future humans would choose if they could.... 🙄

Presumably our forebears made the decisions that have left us where we are. It is the lot of each generation to work with the hand that they are dealt.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2763820 20-Aug-2021 13:49

tdgeek:

Fusion would solve a LOT of things globally, but last time I watched doco on it, it was 50 years away. IIRC the fusion was just nanoseconds at the moment

Wait...

I'm sure I read something 50 years ago suggesting that fusion power generation would be 50 years away.

Oh - and it's still going to generate some radioactive waste.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6