New Powerstations

[Kwackerz]

Why have they gone for Nuclear over wind power?

Surely wind powered would be the way forward over Nuclear?



I do find myself more and more worried about how we go about things in this Country. Apparently there is a shortage of skilled persons to operate these future plants.

Not to mention the security implications. It's not like the UK is getting a harder target for terrorism, is it?

[HowardQ]

Kwacks you seem to be seriously missing the point.
The Goverment never wanted anything but nuclear, because they knew the oil would not last, but leaks at Sellafield and Chernobyl, plus a lot of bad press from Greenpeace, put a temporary stop to things, so we had to stick with oil, coal and gas to generate the electric. Then you sell the lot off to the French and the Germans etc., who are even more likely to bring in gas and coal from abroad, more bad press.
Then you really get lucky when somebody discovers/invents global warming.
Hey presto you pull a final trump card out - Good Clean Nuclear Power !!!!
That won't cause global warming, well not until the final day!
Just tell me how you are going to stop Iran and every other nation on earth from wanting to go the same way, to help save the planet.
Many of these will then go further and develop nuclear weapons.
Hey presto the world is gone well before global warming would have killed it.

[Kwackerz]

Now again in English for the hard of seeing in Cambridgeshire?

I think I got the jist of that!?

Im suffering manflu at the mo. I did try to figure out what you just said, honest!!

[Samray]

You forgot the other French connection Howard .... that's where the new reactors will come from.

[HowardQ]

Think about it Kwacks, I'm not saying it was totally planned, but it all fell in place very conveniently, but you won't be able to tell the rest of the world that they can't all have nuclear power. Not joking, it scares me
Look on the bright side Sam, would you rather have the French build them or the Russians!
Brits have had leaks, Yanks have had leaks, Ruskies had a very slight problem, can't actually remember hearing about a major French problem, but they would probably have kept it quiet if they had.

[D-Rider]

Brits have had leaks, Yanks have had leaks,

... for the Welsh they're a national symbol ....

[Myrkk]

I agree the government always wanted nuclear.

Re. wind power. Erm, there are alternatives. But the government won't push those 'cause it wants nuclear.

[Samray]

Like wavepower you mean?
wavepower

[lazarus]

If you want to read about the folly of windmills try http://www.countryguardian.net/Case%202006.htm or alternatively http://www.incoteco.com/upload/cien.2005.158.4.161.pdf

The last link is particularly interesting because it compares the actual experience od the Danes who have similar weather to us and are way further down the wind road, with what our government is planning. We have assumed that the load factor from the wind farms (ie the percentage of their rated output they will deliver due to weather etc) is 35% whereas the real Danish experience is 20%. There are also some interesting graphs which show that the generation of leccy from windfarms during winter high pressure systems can fall way short of demand. The Danes make up for this with an interconnector to Sweden - but we are an island with only a small interconnector to France.

So in short, if you install 50Gw of wind farms you will get 10Gw of leccy. You cant control when you get that 10Gw because you cant contrrol the wind. So you have to build conventional power stations to take over when the wind stops blowing. Either that, or shut down industry hospitals etc instead.

And finally, leccy from wind is costed even by the govt as 4 times as expensive as conventional power even now. Are you happy to pay a 4 times bigger electric bill just to be PC?

[BikerGran]

Ruskies had a very slight problem

Chernobyl? slight problem?


Oh I guess that was irony..................

[lazarus]

Ruskies had a very slight problem

Chernobyl? slight problem?


Oh I guess that was irony..................

Or was it in proportion?

In China (and we know how honest they are about bad news) they are aiming to cut the present level of coal mine deaths from 7000 per year to 5000. And there is the rest of the world to add in. And this is every year. Year in year out. By comparison, Chernobyl was a one off , was the result of incompetent design withpout safety systems and a crew that decided to experiment. I think I'm right in saying there have been no nuclear power deaths in the UK - and how many coal miners oir north sea oil workers have we killed.

The reality is that nuclear is the only practical carbon dioxide free technology that we have. FoE etc have managed to raise a cloud of fear in the eyes of the general public just like a fear of the dark. And at the same time, people have been conned into thinking there is an easy environmental alternative that will mean the lights dont go out.

[Kwackerz]

Are you happy to pay a 4 times bigger electric bill just to be PC?

Of course not! But the medium that provides the Leccy is not just decided on green impact issues though. If they can subsidise Nuclear energy by having a supplemental bank of offshore wind farms (like Yarmouth, Etc) then the amount of Nuclear powerstations can be reduced, which will lessen the risk of an incident of a catastrpohic nature. Nothing to do with FoE raising fear. Look at the world today. Look where we're currently pissing people off and look where the families of those people live. UK is a complete security nightmare and it's only going to get worse.

I personally see the need for Nuclear.

The energy in one uranium fuel pellet—the size of the tip of your little finger—is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.

To produce one Watt of electricity, it takes 1.0 lbs. of coal/kWh from coal plants using steam turbines, 0.48 lbs. of natural gas from natural gas using steam turbines, 0.37 lbs. of natural gas/kWh using combined cycle technology, 0.58 lbs. of Heavy Oil/kWh using steam turbines, and .0000008 lbs. of Uranium enriched at 4% U235 and 96% U238 for use in a commercial nuclear reactor.

A 100 watt light bulb that ran continuously for an entire year would consume 876 kWh. Producing the necessary electricity would require 876 lbs. of coal, 377-324 lbs. of natural gas, 508 lbs. of oil, or 0.0007 lbs. of Uranium enriched to 4% for use in a commercial nuclear reactor.

There is no reason that this cannot encompass a nod in the direction of green issues by creating as much as we can from wind farms, THEN the remainder from Nuclear means.

[Myrkk]

Amongst others Samray.

The problem is money........ the green power issue could be resolved quite simply but it would hit the pockets of the big enery providers and so the government.

Personally I think the answer lies in our housebuilding. All new houses should be fitted with geothermal underfloor heating [although a bit of me wonders about the long-term impact of that on the planets core temperature]. Solar panels [of both types] and grey water collection.

Flats present more of a problem but I'm sure they could work out a solution.

Old homes can be retrospectively fitted with such technology and the increased use would bring the prices of the technology down too.

Wind farms are completely inneficient hence the government latching onto them.......... they knew it would create controversy and so they can go ahead with their nuclear plans.

They are building a new energy efficient plant here in Sth Wales, I think it burns wood pellets, and all the locals are being very nimby about it...... I think everyone seems to wantn something done about the enery issues we have but no-one wants to make the effort.

[Samray]

All of those 'solutions' involve their own manufacturing 'green' costs. sometimes outweighing the benefits.
I would prefer to see savings in power use.
I see no benefit whatsoever from rural road lights.
Commercial premises have no need of anything other than security lighting overnight.
I'd guess 75% of all packaging is unnecessary.
Of course that would all have a detrimental effect on the job market and tax harvest so no chance.
One good measure that has surprised me in it's common sense quota is the banning of 100 watt light bulbs, even if it just means people will use 2x60 watt instead.