|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| ThoughtContro... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
ThoughtContro...
World Chat Champion
Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy
Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy
Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Falco |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Falco
Traffic Copper
Joined: 27 Nov 2015
Karma :
|
 Posted: 03:18 - 18 Nov 2017  Post subject: |
 |
|
That claim is not substantiated in that link, what are your actual figures?
Based on that site's figures: 2g/ day per person = (0.002Kg * 60E6 people (CBA to adjust for demographics) = 120,000Kg per day. So 120,000kg / per person per day * 365 days in year = 43,800,000 Kg.
Well that can't be right, you must mean per person per year, right?
0.002kg per person per day * 365 days in year = 0.73kg 
Either you have a tiny living room or a huge one, but both of those answers are several orders of magnitude off from your claim.
That site also doesn't reference how those 16kg are consumed, for example, does that include ICE engines? Because we know they are less efficient that power plant production, so comparing the 2 wouldn't make much sense. Is it including fuel processing costs/externalities? Anything like that?
| Lord Percy wrote: | Any 'market' related problems are entirely due to red tape, lobbying and ulterior-motivated fearmongering. |
No. In aviation they say "The regulations are written in blood". Nuclear power is the inverse of this, barely anyone has died in Nuclear power generation. It's incredibly safe, because the regulations have been forward thinking and (mostly) sensible.
Would it be cheaper to deregulate? Sure it would. It would also be fucking moronic. Cars would be cheaper without safety features, air travel would be cheaper if pilots needed less training, houses would be cheaper without building regs. drugs would be cheaper if we didn't have to test them etc etc. That is not a persuasive argument.
Nuclear power is so prohibitively expensive that even with significant subsidies to cover its huge life time cost (preparation and decommissioning being large portions of the overall cost) , it simply can't compete with natural gas turbines (£93/MWh Vs £66/MWh) and that isn't taking into account the spiralling cost due to the fixed price of nuclear energy.
You appear to want even more subsidies and state support for a method of power generation that cannot stand on its own feet? If nuclear power cannot generate energy at a cost competitive level, with the safety regulations, even with government subsidy, I don't see a why it should get yet more help?
Solar cells prices have been dropping like a stone for years https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Price_history_of_silicon_PV_cells_since_1977.svg/729px-Price_history_of_silicon_PV_cells_since_1977.svg.png
Wind Price is already lower than nuclear (£88/MWh) and will drop further:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Danish_wind_power_LCOE_vs_wind_speed_in_2012.png
Now, as it happens I don't think renewables (or at least solar and wind) are the answers to the energy issues, but their costs keep dropping, compared to nuclear keeps going up. While we work out the answer (or destroy ourselves, whichever comes first), the change to natural gas turbines isn't all bad.
Now if we had some sort of social-minded government that was prepared to pay any amount to get nuclear power up and running for the future energy security and efficiency, then that would be great. In a world driven by markets? Not happening.
____________________
I tell you what, mathematically, I'm having it |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy
Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Jewlio Rides Again LLB |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Jewlio Rides Again LLB
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear
Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear
Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:32 - 18 Nov 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
| Falco wrote: |
Based on that site's figures: 2g/ day per person = (0.002Kg * 60E6 people (CBA to adjust for demographics) = 120,000Kg per day. So 120,000kg / per person per day * 365 days in year = 43,800,000 Kg.
Well that can't be right, you must mean per person per year, right?
0.002kg per person per day * 365 days in year = 0.73kg
Either you have a tiny living room or a huge one, but both of those answers are several orders of magnitude off from your claim.
|
My bad, I thought that book had the 'living room' statistic in, but I can't find it. No idea where I read that, and I guess it was wrong. In later pages I found this part (and the page after) which says nuclear waste would amount to "35 swimming pool's worth" per generation. Not really that much at all.
By the way I wouldn't spend too long trying to debunk that book. Just read it instead. Presented quite amateurishly on that website but it was written by this guy - David Mackary - I trust his sums. Interesting book too. I've posted it on here before. It bascially outlines possible energy options for the UK to try, if the long term aim is to shift away from fossil fuels. The elephant in the room is nuclear power. He doesn't give any personal opinions or conclusions in the book, but the stats speak pretty loudly.
| Quote: |
In a world driven by markets? Not happening. |
But you miss the fact that nuke power is still in its infancy, having been put on hold since the 60s because people thought oil was the answer to everything. There's been barely any active progress since then because of fearmongering and oil-power dominance. Perhaps the answer really is 'markets', but by the time the markets are screaming for nuke plants, research is in overdrive and cost per kWh is at a minimum, it'll probably be too late. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| doggone |
This post is not being displayed .
|
doggone
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 May 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Falco |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Falco
Traffic Copper
Joined: 27 Nov 2015
Karma :
|
Posted: 18:46 - 18 Nov 2017  Post subject: |
|
|
| Itchy wrote: | | Falco wrote: |
0.002kg per person per day * 365 days in year = 0.73kg
|
Uranium is almost as dense as gold
So you're talking what 22000 tons? That's two Toyota Hilux sized cubes of uranium. |
That is correct for the 22,000 tonnes figure, but where is that from?
It's also rather tangential since I don't believe fuel (or even waste to some extent) is really the problem nuclear is facing.
| Itchy wrote: | It's because nothing can provide enough energy on a large enough scale needed to keep the lights on other than nuclear or traditional coal so eventually price ceases to meaningful. This was seen when May tried to negotiate the strike price down from £99/mwh EDF said nope. May bent over. |
Except for natural gas, which provides more energy than coal or equal to nuclear + renewables
| Itchy wrote: | Renewables are nice and all but you need a backup supply for when it's not working. So when the UK puts in a wind turbine backup capacity in the form of gas turbines have to be built to match incase it is not windy enough.
Even the PRC installing 53GW renewables yearly has put in 50GW more coal and is putting in 50GW nuclear till 2021. |
Right, thank you repeating my own point back to me
| Falco wrote: | I don't think renewables (or at least solar and wind) are the answers to the energy issues |
For combination with renewables I think natural gas makes most sense since it can be spun and down pretty quickly as renewables would dictate. Nuclear is far less nimble so would be better suited to providing a baseload, with renewables filling in the gaps and providing more local generation where building out power infrastructure is impractical (eg remote places).
____________________
I tell you what, mathematically, I'm having it |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Falco |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Falco
Traffic Copper
Joined: 27 Nov 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 19:15 - 18 Nov 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
| Lord Percy wrote: | My bad, I thought that book had the 'living room' statistic in, but I can't find it. No idea where I read that, and I guess it was wrong. In later pages I found this part (and the page after) which says nuclear waste would amount to "35 swimming pool's worth" per generation. Not really that much at all.
By the way I wouldn't spend too long trying to debunk that book. Just read it instead. Presented quite amateurishly on that website but it was written by this guy - David Mackary - I trust his sums. Interesting book too. I've posted it on here before. It bascially outlines possible energy options for the UK to try, if the long term aim is to shift away from fossil fuels. The elephant in the room is nuclear power. He doesn't give any personal opinions or conclusions in the book, but the stats speak pretty loudly. |
Fair enough. I don't think the volume of waste has ever been a major issue with nuclear, its more a storage issue. Even that is hardly insurmountable (The Generation IV reactors have the potential to produce far less waste from reuse and to significantly decrease the half-life of the waste (and thus the headache involved with disposal).
Does the printed book have better references? As far as I can see, the notes only start for page 162. I don't particularly doubt him or the idea of nuclear offering a significant advantage as a power source.
| LordPercy wrote: | But you miss the fact that nuke power is still in its infancy, having been put on hold since the 60s because people thought oil was the answer to everything. There's been barely any active progress since then because of fearmongering and oil-power dominance. Perhaps the answer really is 'markets', but by the time the markets are screaming for nuke plants, research is in overdrive and cost per kWh is at a minimum, it'll probably be too late. |
On hold? It's been chugging away since the 60s. Research-wise at least. Building full scale reactors is awfully expensive and who are you proposing pay for this? The eye-wateringly huge sums of capital investment required have to come from somewhere.
The answer for critical infrastructure is never the markets. However that is the choice we have made, renewables have less of an initial outlay, which is why they are easier to sell to the voters, which, I suspect is why they are getting better traction and will continue to grow until the supply inconsistencies become too much of a problem to ignore.
____________________
I tell you what, mathematically, I'm having it |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| jjdugen |
This post is not being displayed .
|
jjdugen
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Jun 2011
Karma :
|
| Posted: 10:44 - 19 Nov 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
Not contributed, but followed with interest.
Nuclear. Can someone explain why it is so horrifically expensive? The only section that needs technology is the reactor itself, boiling water to power turbines was understood by the Victorians! If nuc subs are happily sailing (under) the worlds oceans, why the expense of a land based, size unconstricted reactor?
No one built reactors with de-commisioning in mind, they built them to make fissile matirials, as has been said, latest developments are far more efficient. Not sure of waste disposal, but I am led to believe that it is still hot enough to add to the general heat signature.
Battery power. Yes, there have been quite startling advances in storage capacity, but we are only in the first generation of development and early adopters. Lithium can be recovered at end of life, but that is an expensive process and, by the way, is a highly toxic substance, (with a finite supply), bit like oil actually.... As also mentioned, there has to be a sufficient supply of electricity to charge all these vehicles. (BTW charging batteries is a HIGHLY inefficient way of using your electrical supply).
Wind and solar. Can't really see why the objectors object, that is one area showing real advances and plummeting costs by all means carry on.
Hydrogen keeps getting a mention... and then being ignored. It is the ONLY energy source that ticks ALL the boxes. I know all the objections, but, just as developing the (bloody) nuclear bomb took a hefty slice of the US budget, surely that kind of effort would find an economical way of cracking the stuff?
____________________
The CBR900RR has been sold. Aprilia Falco worms its way into my heart.
Try Soi 23 on Amazon for a good read.... Self promotion? Moi? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy
Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma :
|
| Posted: 11:55 - 19 Nov 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
It's all health and safety.
Think about removal of asbestos, highly regulated loads of safety equipment. So it costs more.
OTOH ship breaking in India? They beach the ship and hack it apart with hand tools. Loads of people die in the process. The environment where it is done gets contaminated etc.
I think the costs could be reduced massively by simply building a containment arch like at Chernobyl in 2016. Just cover it up then pump in concrete to seal it off forever.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Sun Wukong |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Sun Wukong
World Chat Champion
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Lord Percy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Lord Percy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 6 years, 150 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating