AmyLGK Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 I'd rather have Sun and Wind but apparently the technology is nowhere near sufficient enough to come even close to generating the power we use now. I guess we need a war in order for the leading economies to get serious and invest real money in their development. However Nuclear fusion (as opposed to the Nuclear fission of our nuclear plants) is theoretically obtainable, unlimited and perfectly clean. we would need no other form of power. Countries are working on this and we're not far away again money is the problem. We've managed to show it's possible but the expense of an initial working model is large. Fusion still produces waste, just less than fission. The high energy neutrons produced during fusion actually change the material the reactor is made out of into something else, some of which is radioactive for numerous years (its called transmutation) - nowhere near for as long as the minor actinides produced during fission but will still need to be dealt with. We have the technology to do so though so not to worry We're still about 50 years off producing a working fusion power station. A group in the US just successfully managed to produce more energy from fusion than they put in to start the reaction (woo hoo ). The next generation of fission reactors (Gen IV) are designed to be safer and produce less waste. In the UK we have a closed fuel cycle so we recycle what we can. The major waste problem we have is actually legacy waste. I work in the nuclear industry by the way and am a physicist, so if anyone wants more info I'd be happy to share
Merging Cultures Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Fusion still produces waste, just less than fission. The high energy neutrons produced during fusion actually change the material the reactor is made out of into something else, some of which is radioactive for numerous years (its called transmutation) - nowhere near for as long as the minor actinides produced during fission but will still need to be dealt with. We have the technology to do so though so not to worry We're still about 50 years off producing a working fusion power station. A group in the US just successfully managed to produce more energy from fusion than they put in to start the reaction (woo hoo ). The next generation of fission reactors (Gen IV) are designed to be safer and produce less waste. In the UK we have a closed fuel cycle so we recycle what we can. The major waste problem we have is actually legacy waste. I work in the nuclear industry by the way and am a physicist, so if anyone wants more info I'd be happy to share Fantastic!! What is your take on fracking?
AmyLGK Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Fantastic!! What is your take on fracking? I actually don't know enough about it to comment! Cop-out answer I know, but us scientists form conclusions from the available data available...and I haven't looked into it
Merging Cultures Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 I actually don't know enough about it to comment! Cop-out answer I know, but us scientists form conclusions from the available data available...and I haven't looked into it I see the headlines now, 'scientist says there isn't enough data to approve fracking.'
AmyLGK Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 I see the headlines now, 'scientist says there isn't enough data to approve fracking.' Hahaha you know that is exactly the kind of thing the press would do! I've been on science and the media courses as I do a lot of public speaking and it is incredible how "journalists" can twist a story for their own agenda...and the press do not like nuclear! We were shown several examples of where work had been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and picked up by various press outlets and reported. The difference between each outlet reporting on the same piece of work was astounding! You would be forgiven for thinking the articles are on different things!!!! You have to be so careful - I'm actually really nervous talking about my research! I managed it on BBC Radio Leicester a few months ago...but it was a terrifying experience!
leicsmac Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Fusion still produces waste, just less than fission. The high energy neutrons produced during fusion actually change the material the reactor is made out of into something else, some of which is radioactive for numerous years (its called transmutation) - nowhere near for as long as the minor actinides produced during fission but will still need to be dealt with. We have the technology to do so though so not to worry We're still about 50 years off producing a working fusion power station. A group in the US just successfully managed to produce more energy from fusion than they put in to start the reaction (woo hoo ). The next generation of fission reactors (Gen IV) are designed to be safer and produce less waste. In the UK we have a closed fuel cycle so we recycle what we can. The major waste problem we have is actually legacy waste. I work in the nuclear industry by the way and am a physicist, so if anyone wants more info I'd be happy to share Excellent! My speciality is space/Astrophysics so though I know a fair bit about nuclear physics, it's good to talk to an expert. I was aware that fusion wasn't 100% clean, but I didn't know about the transmutation process - that's useful to know. What do you make of ITER? And do you reckon we could shave some time off that 50-year estimate if we poured more money and manpower into it? I think so.
Guest MattP Posted 13 February 2014 Posted 13 February 2014 Don't know enough ether way to comment on this, if the scientists etc can't give a conclusion one way or the either what chance does the average street guy have? Surprised at how one sided the poll is though.
Zingari Posted 16 February 2014 Posted 16 February 2014 Mountain Top Removal this method of energy provision is even worse imo
OzFox Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Mountain Top Removal this method of energy provision is even worse imo Clearly a controlled demolition
Zingari Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Clearly a controlled demolition Nah , it's definitely arab terrorists flying 757's into the mountains !! They're just flying too fast to be caught on camera and the planes are vapourising on impact .. They're practicing to hit the pentagon again .
OzFox Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Nah , it's definitely arab terrorists flying 757's into the mountains !! They're just flying too fast to be caught on camera and the planes are vapourising on impact .. They're practicing to hit the pentagon again . They must be getting through a lot of planes
Zingari Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 They must be getting through a lot of planes Aah planes pfft They're easy enough to hi-jack. you only need an old pen knife and a few lessons in a cessna , job done. The crew and the trillion dollar air defemce system doesn't bother you much. You can pretty much fly around USA all day an no-one will bother you.
OzFox Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Aah planes pfft They're easy enough to hi-jack. you only need an old pen knife and a few lessons in a cessna , job done. The crew and the trillion dollar air defemce system doesn't bother you much. You can pretty much fly around USA all day an no-one will bother you. I see where this is going, and I don't like it. I shouldn't have provoked you. Just forget I said anything ok?
Captain... Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 I see where this is going, and I don't like it. I shouldn't have provoked you. Just forget I said anything ok?
Zingari Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 I see where this is going, and I don't like it. I shouldn't have provoked you. Just forget I said anything ok? why, what did you say ? i was only joking
OzFox Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 why, what did you say ? i was only joking I know. So was I
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 We are looking at replacing a finite non renewable source of energy, with serious and damaging side effects, the magnitude of which are still being denied today, with a finite non renewable source of energy with serious and damaging side effects, the true consequence of which we still don't fully unferstand. My main opposition to nuclear power is that it will run out, just like coal, oil and gas, so we are not solving the problem just replacing it with another one. Perhaps in this age of plenty, and wasteful abundance, we should be looking at scaling back our outputs, looking at ways to save energy and reduce waste and excess, that should be the very minimum of our aims, and that is a whole other thread. We will always need energy, but what we should be looking at are sustainable ways of having the energy we need, and not risking destroying the planet to meet the energy requirements of a wasteful nation. What I would like to see is more research into things like wind-up radios and torches and expand it to bigger products, solar ovens, just stick it in the sunshine and cook your meat, every household should have a solar battery charger and rechargeable batteries (They even recharge on shitty days, just slower), like a bbq but zero energy, these things are no brainers to me and yet we still consume huge numbers of disposable 1 use batteries, which are not only expensive to us they are also very difficult to dispose of safely. Good post.
MooseBreath Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Good post if you've been asleep for the last decade and missed the massive drive towards sustainability that has already impacted upon pretty much everything
SMX11 Posted 18 February 2014 Posted 18 February 2014 Renewable energy is required but I don't see the need of this fast tracking of wind power. Very much a hit and miss technology. Much rather we look into developing tidal which has some consistancy about it. In the short term we should be looking at cheap energy.
The Doctor Posted 19 February 2014 Posted 19 February 2014 I don't see why gas fired power stations are worse than nuclear energy. I'm also not against high energy prices for homes because it forces people to use less power, but we need to keep costs for businesses reasonable or we'll stifle our economy. It's the risks associated - nuclear fission isn't as bad as people would have you believe - the likes of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are in reality freak events - most modern fission reactors are fairly secured against meltdown, but as Chernobyl showed - when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong and results in big areas being uninhabitable for many thousands of years - it's a lot harder to stop than coal/gas fired power stations because fission is fairly self-sustaining
davieG Posted 21 October 2015 Author Posted 21 October 2015 Hinkley C: Is steep price a good deal for British or Chinese? By Dave HarveyBusiness Correspondent, BBC West 7 hours ago From the sectionSomerset Image copyrightAFP/GettyImage captionIs the deal to build Hinkley a good deal for the Chinese or British? Go to the wholesale electricity market today and a unit of electricity, measured in mega watt hours, will cost you around £45. To build Hinkley C nuclear power station, Chinese and French energy firms have been guaranteed £92.50 per mega watt hour. Any market trader can tell you that's a fairly steep price. A seasoned, impartial energy market analyst Henry Edwardes-Evans puts it like this: "The market would never have built this project, not based on the price of the wholesale electricity market." So why do British ministers insist the price they are paying is such good value? Mr Edwardes-Evans points out that this deal is driven by politics, not business. Ministers here worry that the UK relies too heavily on fossil fuels, often controlled by volatile foreign countries, imported coal, oil from the Middle East or Russian gas. In the second quarter of 2015, 50.7% of all electricity in the UK came from coal and gas. Ain't no sunshine The UK is making more electricity from wind, solar and hydro than ever before. This year, 25.3% came from so-called renewables, up from 16.7% a year earlier. "But the wind does not always blow, and the sun does not always shine," Dr Heather Wyman-Payne, an energy analyst at the University of Bath said. It's the most common objection to renewables, and also the most telling. She goes on: "We need something to rely on when the renewables are not generating, when it's dark. And nuclear is the best option for that." She explains the nuclear option as a kind of fixed rate mortgage. Yes, on today's prices, Hinkley Point's electricity looks expensive. But it is guaranteed for 60 years, whatever happens to the Middle East, to Russia, to the global climate. This one plant will produce 7% of the UK's total energy needs. If it works, three more projects are planned, for Anglesey, Suffolk, and Oldbury on the Severn just north of Bristol. Image copyrightReutersImage captionThe planned site for Hinkley C is along the coast of the Bristol Channel "We are paying for certainty", Dr Wyman Payne explains, with a grim smile. Others wonder who is getting the real guarantee. "The only guarantees are guaranteed profits to the French and Chinese companies," says Dr Mike Annis, who studies the ethics of international energy deals at Bath Spa University. They too have taken a fixed price bet, a 35-year guaranteed income stream. And Dr Annis believes the money could have been better spent. "If you spent £25bn on new wind and solar schemes, and the storage technology that is coming on stream, you would make far more electricity than Hinkley will generate." Today, British ministers are smiling. They have secured a £24bn power plant without spending a pound of taxpayers' money. They believe they have paved the way for a new generation of nuclear plants that will, in time, supply a quarter of all our power needs. And they've become what George Osborne calls "China's best business partner". Others worry that UK households will be paying twice the going rate for nuclear power, feeding guaranteed profits to French and Chinese state owned firms, and allowing foreign powers to control our infrastructure at the same time. A good deal? This one is not a business calculation, but a political judgement.
Merging Cultures Posted 21 October 2015 Posted 21 October 2015 I don't think the price is bad. But why is it French and Chinese companies?
Jon the Hat Posted 21 October 2015 Posted 21 October 2015 I don't think the price is bad. But why is it French and Chinese companies? They have £25B to invest.
Merging Cultures Posted 21 October 2015 Posted 21 October 2015 They have £25B to invest. The French?! EDF are building it from what I understand. I know they are one of the best energy firms in the world, but we must have a firm that could build it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.