Jump to content

48 posts in this topic

Posted

Huh? None of the UK energy companies wanted to construct a new nuclear reactor, hence EDF.

Sorta my point; no British company wanted to/was able to build new nuclear reactors. From having the first civilian reactor in the world to no capability or will to build a new one is a bit sad imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorta my point; no British company wanted to/was able to build new nuclear reactors. From having the first civilian reactor in the world to no capability or will to build a new one is a bit sad imo.

 

We've gone from World Leaders in a tonne of areas to trailing behind, we're used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm sorry, I fail to see how, I'm not trying to start anything here, and ok I cannot find a source for my statement. But someone was bold enough to go on the record to say something, I can accept you may only have my word for it, and it may not hold any value as far as you're concerned.
The key point of the statement i remembered was something to do with the voltage used making them inefficient.

(Just like I remember ex Chanceller Norman Lamont admitting the revenue collected from cigarettes back in the 80's was funding over 60% of the NHS)

Just to make a clear stance, I don't have a problem with it per se, I just don't know enough about nuclear power plants to make a stance one way or the other, I was just hoping someone else might remember the story, and offer a sounding board to weigh up pros vs cons etc...

 

the voltage output of the plant is meaningless for efficiency... In the end they all go through a steam turbine, which would be pretty much the same steam turbine a gas or coal fired plant would use.. That turbine being basically just a big fan blade propelled by steam created by fire in the gas / coal plans or heat from a nuclear reaction in this case stores the same amount of energy. So in the end, the turbine is no more or no less efficient. Now you might design the turbine blades differently to get different output ratios, but you could do that for any plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We've gone from World Leaders in a tonne of areas to trailing behind, we're used to it.

Well you're still world leaders/among the best in several areas, though none of them really seem to be industry/engineering-heavy fields. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorta my point; no British company wanted to/was able to build new nuclear reactors. From having the first civilian reactor in the world to no capability or will to build a new one is a bit sad imo.

 

Hah what? Of course they're capable of building it. The UK is on the leading edge of nuclear power.

 

If it doesn't make good business for them they're not going to invest. 

 

We've gone from World Leaders in a tonne of areas to trailing behind, we're used to it.

 

I take it you're one of those 'oh Britain doesn't make anything anymore" sort?

 

 

Well you're still world leaders/among the best in several areas, though none of them really seem to be industry/engineering-heavy fields. 

 
Hah what? Surely you're not serious with regards to industry? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the voltage output of the plant is meaningless for efficiency... In the end they all go through a steam turbine, which would be pretty much the same steam turbine a gas or coal fired plant would use.. That turbine being basically just a big fan blade propelled by steam created by fire in the gas / coal plans or heat from a nuclear reaction in this case stores the same amount of energy. So in the end, the turbine is no more or no less efficient. Now you might design the turbine blades differently to get different output ratios, but you could do that for any plant.

Ok I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm sorry, I fail to see how, I'm not trying to start anything here, and ok I cannot find a source for my statement. But someone was bold enough to go on the record to say something, I can accept you may only have my word for it, and it may not hold any value as far as you're concerned.
The key point of the statement i remembered was something to do with the voltage used making them inefficient.

Electric current from power plants is typically converted to very high voltage (in the hundreds of kV range) to allow for efficient long-range transportation (because higher voltage means lower current meaning less heat dissipation). Then it is converted to domestic voltage in cities. This final voltage doesn't have any incidence on the efficiency of production and long-range transportation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Electric current from power plants is typically converted to very high voltage (in the hundreds of kV range) to allow for efficient long-range transportation (because higher voltage means lower current meaning less heat dissipation). Then it is converted to domestic voltage in cities. This final voltage doesn't have any incidence on the efficiency of production and long-range transportation.

lol I remembered being taught this, and forgot until just this moment, weird how one can remember a miniscule detail in one area but forget something taught in junior school

 

edit

 

Thank you for reminding me of this :) And I mean that in sincerity

Edited by Dushmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Hah what? Of course they're capable of building it. The UK is on the leading edge of nuclear power.

 

If it doesn't make good business for them they're not going to invest. 

 

 

I take it you're one of those 'oh Britain doesn't make anything anymore" sort?

 

 
 
Hah what? Surely you're not serious with regards to industry? 

 

 

Nope, I don't care if Britain makes or doesn't make anything. Its a world economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm glad that we haven't succumbed to the anti-nuclear fears of mainland Europe and other parts of the world. I suppose it helps that although the weather is crap, its never likely to be very extreme like tsunamis or powerful earthquakes, the worst we have to deal with really is flooding.

I wish that we were looking into reactors with a different paradigm though.
China has put a huge amount of effort into developing liquid thorium salt reactors and I wish our government would too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I for one support nuclear energy as a future energy.

 

Cleanest energy production cycle. Requires little fuel that generates enormous energy for years. Somewhat solves the global warming problem. Uranium can be found on other planets and moons too. If good safety regulations are in charge I see no problem of it being the future (except the oil companies maybe).

 

If we take a look at France's nuclear power program they're just doing it right. Having 59 nuclear power plants which consists 3/4 of it's energy consumption, they've never had any serious accident on their plants due to strict safety regulations.

 

Another example is the Russian Federation which is now more careful than ever with it's nuclear plants. They're currently building more plants which will be so powerful that they'll be able to power up whole regions (which we all know are huge over there) while following the "safety first" rule. I've seen them from the inside and they just look safe and reliable.

 

Now a lot of eco fanatics will jump against the development of nuclear energy but if they read more deeply they'll realize that the standard coal-fueled plants present a much bigger thread to nature and people.

 

And remember that while one reactor can cause much of a trouble, a simple leak in a nuclear weapons storage facility can blow the Earth to pieces.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Back on the threat from coal - as a mined resource when you dig up coal you also get radioisotopes; uranium, thorium etc. and the decay products.

When the coal is burned up the stack it goes, and where ever it falls it raises background radiation counts 50-200 times near the power plants, gets into the watershed, into area crops and to some degree is inhaled.

A short but informative read -

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hah what? Of course they're capable of building it. The UK is on the leading edge of nuclear power.

Rolls-Royce probably has some very nifty reactors, but they're naval reactors only, unless that's changed recently. And other than them I don't really see any British company at the forefront of reactor engineering and  manufacturing.  

 

Hah what? Surely you're not serious with regards to industry? 

Yes. I am serious. Britain used to have big homegrown manufacturing primes that completely dominated the world. Not any more.

 

The shipbuilding industry is all but gone. The aerospace industry is not capable of making planes; yes it is a large industry that makes expensive stuff but gone are the glory days of multiple British primes that made entire aircraft, there is no prime that can truly make aircraft any more. BAE can sorta kinda make aircraft but only limited types (Hawk). British auto manufacturers no longer really exist, successful auto brands are either high-end niche products or foreign-owned marques. You have a decent rail network but no big rail manufacturers. Hi-tech industry (i.e. computing) on the scale of Japan/Korea/China/US does not exist. 

 

Britain seems to do some fields very well. Things like healthcare, financial, education and media: i.e. not particularly heavy-industry associated. It is a rare British company that dominates, or is one of the dominant companies in a large manufacturing sector. Pharmaceuticals is a particularly good success story. Aero engines is another shining example. If I remember correctly, JCB is successful.  The British manufacturing industry is also good at lots of niche products.  But these companies seem to be the exception rather than the rule. 

 

So I am completely serious in regards to British industry, and it's decline. Once upon a time it completely and utterly dominated the world, virtually every field had a British company sitting at the top. Now, not so much, which is a bit of a shame imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Back on the threat from coal - as a mined resource when you dig up coal you also get radioisotopes; uranium, thorium etc. and the decay products.

When the coal is burned up the stack it goes, and where ever it falls it raises background radiation counts 50-200 times near the power plants, gets into the watershed, into area crops and to some degree is inhaled.

A short but informative read -

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

I don't care about the radiation, I can't see it. What I can see and smell is the smoke, and that I like far less than radiation :D :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Rolls-Royce probably has some very nifty reactors, but they're naval reactors only, unless that's changed recently. And other than them I don't really see any British company at the forefront of reactor engineering and  manufacturing.  

 

Yes. I am serious. Britain used to have big homegrown manufacturing primes that completely dominated the world. Not any more.

 

The shipbuilding industry is all but gone. The aerospace industry is not capable of making planes; yes it is a large industry that makes expensive stuff but gone are the glory days of multiple British primes that made entire aircraft, there is no prime that can truly make aircraft any more. BAE can sorta kinda make aircraft but only limited types (Hawk). British auto manufacturers no longer really exist, successful auto brands are either high-end niche products or foreign-owned marques. You have a decent rail network but no big rail manufacturers. Hi-tech industry (i.e. computing) on the scale of Japan/Korea/China/US does not exist. 

 

Britain seems to do some fields very well. Things like healthcare, financial, education and media: i.e. not particularly heavy-industry associated. It is a rare British company that dominates, or is one of the dominant companies in a large manufacturing sector. Pharmaceuticals is a particularly good success story. Aero engines is another shining example. If I remember correctly, JCB is successful.  The British manufacturing industry is also good at lots of niche products.  But these companies seem to be the exception rather than the rule. 

 

So I am completely serious in regards to British industry, and it's decline. Once upon a time it completely and utterly dominated the world, virtually every field had a British company sitting at the top. Now, not so much, which is a bit of a shame imo. 

 

So they're not classified as auto makers if they only cater to a high end market or if they only manufacture for a niche market? Absolute rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't care about the radiation, I can't see it. What I can see and smell is the smoke, and that I like far less than radiation :D :p

 

I don't trust air I can't see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So they're not classified as auto makers if they only cater to a high end market or if they only manufacture for a niche market? Absolute rubbish.

Yea , they makeoney and jobs. The issue is that they don't make enough of either to be a major contributor to a manufacturing economy. High returns but low volume does not a manufacturing base make.

Watching the decline of the UK auto and aerospace industries from afar has been sad, especially since I owned & drove MG, Triumph and Sunbeam vehicles in club racing. Tons of fun, once you fixed the electrics :ROFL:

As to aerospace, the most interesting thing going is the Reaction Engines Skylon spaceplane and SABRE engine, which could be revolutionary but is still far from a jobs machine. SABRE doesn't hit the test stand for 3+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't trust air I can't see.

Neither do I. All them clear sunny days make me queasy. Only when it's a nice pea-soup fog can I trust the air that I'm breathing.  :rofl:

 

just kidding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's worth pointing out that modern reactors are designed to withstand deliberate plane crashes after 9/11 and that this plant is replacing an existing nuclear plant in the area that is being decommissioned. This really isn't a nuclear expansion, which is what makes this announcement disappointing. We would need another 10 nuclear plants to keep up with demand and hit emissions targets, making this announcement a hollow gesture.

 

The peak price per unit is still less than solar or wind subsidies yet nuclear is always available, which is important for meeting peak demand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heck, never mind modern reactors. look at the fukushima reactor. despite using one of the worst technologies of the era/generation, it still survived the disaster damn well. A modern reactor of course would have handled it much better down to probably no issues at all except an automatic shutdown. 

 

as it is today, unless you have the capabilities for major hydro plants, then nuclear is the best. even compared to hydro nuclear might be better since hydro has a very big footprint and impact on nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heck, never mind modern reactors. look at the fukushima reactor. despite using one of the worst technologies of the era/generation, it still survived the disaster damn well. A modern reactor of course would have handled it much better down to probably no issues at all except an automatic shutdown. 

 

as it is today, unless you have the capabilities for major hydro plants, then nuclear is the best. even compared to hydro nuclear might be better since hydro has a very big footprint and impact on nature. 

I never understood why they rated Fukushima 7 on INES. Okay, it did spread some radiation but it's nothing compared to Chernobyl which is also a 7.

And we have to add into account that Japan were playing with the devil because it's an older plant than Chernobyl and stands in a earthquake/tsunami zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Another expensive white elephant from a government that's only interested in making life easy for big business.  Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.  This is a massive backward step at a time when sensible countries such as Germany are decommissioning nuclear plants.  Still, it should please the half wits.

 

So, why aren't you happen then? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Speaking of Germany. I wonder if the enviromental orgs that celebrated them closing nuclear are as happy now that their brains may have kicked in and they realize that this means they are now using more brown coal power plants, and buying power from east european power plants using brown coal with less filtration even. (FYI, brown coal is horrible, whereas black coal can actually burn very cleanly, but black is much more rare and isn't mined many places)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.