geertd Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 dont know how acurate this is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bguy_1986 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 dont know how acurate this is Even if it is correct. How many wind farms or solar farms would it take to replace coal, and how would it effect these numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bguy_1986 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Chernobyl: Generation I boiling water reactor. Should have been shut down years before it blew. The Soviets were way too complacent. Fukushima: Generation II pressurised water. Its safety systems largely worked, but then the external and aux power failed due to a faulty layout, the cooling system stopped and H2 gas started being generated. Downhill from there. TMI: the Unit 2 safety systems worked. The failed core was removed and Unit 1 is still working, fully licensed until 2029. An example of how it should work. Gen III+ and Gen IV are much safer, and several types are passively safe so long as no one repeals the laws of thermodynamics or nuclear physics. Some could be buried and run unattended for 80+ years. Bottom line: your nuclear paranoia should be targeting replacing the remaining Gen I & Gen II reactors, not stopping Gen III+ and Gen IV expansion. I know little about this subject but I don't really have paranoia about nuclear power except maybe what terrorist would like to crash into these plants and what would happen but that's still probably pretty unlikely given the security that would go around these things. Wasn't there a problem with what to do with the nuclear waste? There was a lot that we just stored in some mountain isn't there? Has it become any more efficient so there is little or no waste - or is that still sort of a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 ^ With modern reactor designs, using Thorium instead of Uranium (which cannot be refined into weapons grade), not really no. There's some waste, but it's much much less and it's far less harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Several of the modern designs can actually burn the waste now being stored, and the thorium reactor waste is much shorter lived and much lower in quantity. As to a terrorist attack on a reactor, the security has been toughened up considerably. That and you could crash a plane into newer containment buildings without reaching the core. This based on an analysis done after 9/11, http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-Releases/Analysis-of-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Shows-Aircraft-Cr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even if it is correct. How many wind farms or solar farms would it take to replace coal, and how would it effect these numbers? Depends on whether your assumptions is that it scales linearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 It also matters if the placement of whatever facility is under a migratory flyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I only added 3 mile as another event as a meltdown, I'm impressed that the disaster could have been much, MUCH worse, and was contained, and I commend any team that can handle fission reactor disaters, especially when they were mostly averted, hell for all I know Selafield could be heading that way too. My only nitpick is nuclear power may be the most efficient, but it has had over 60 years of research, development and improvements throw at them. Solar and wind haven't. Yes, they're large, ugly, inefficient, whatever, so was nuclear at one point in time. Alternative or renewable energy generators will never succeed if no one is prepared to let them mature, hell, I've seen a prototype wind generator that can be attatched to a flat roof, or the side of a uilding, and that was no larger than a 40 cm pedestal fan, and it could supply power for up to 6 houses when the generator is running at full capacity. I don't have a problem with being called ignorant, but comparing something relatively new, to something that has had 6 decades + of support isn't fair neither. R&D is needed, maybe, just maybe they might impress more people, ok they'll still have haters, but nuclear reactors have haters too. And all US (UK, for that matter) nuclear reactor research came from the military - specifically, SHIPBOARD (first surface, then subsurface) reactor R&D. General Electric (US) is the biggest builder of shipboard nuclear reactors currently today - we have no real idea what advances have been made there as they have been actively AND passively discouraged from applying for licensure for any sort of modern reactor in the United States even in demonstrator form. (What is known, but not actively bruited about, is that there are three sites that have existing licenses FOR reactors that have not been permitted to build - Three Mile Island Unit #2 (replacement of the failed Unit 2 has not been done), NPS #2 (United States Navy Nuclear Power School has an unused second-unit license - the purpose of the second unit is, in fact, to train civilian reactor operators; it was part of the old AEC/Department of the Navy "Atoms for Peace" under Eisenhower) and UMCP #1 - one of the few unused reactor licenses in the immediate vicinity of a major city - the city in question being Washington, DC. Yes - the University of Maryland at College Park is STILL the planned location for this reactor - similar in size to the existing reactor at Virginia Tech (the site is, in fact, next door to the Maryland Fire Institute - by design). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 ~snip~).I get why it's successful, and the reason for it's development, I was just pointing out that stuff like solar and wind generators won't get the chance that nuclear did, and why the military wouldn't invest, obviously they're not going to throw money away, they need something to be viable, in reliability and economics, and output. It's a shame, I see a potential, but hey, it's not like I have anywhere near the kind of money it takes to invest into it's long term future neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bguy_1986 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I get why it's successful, and the reason for it's development, I was just pointing out that stuff like solar and wind generators won't get the chance that nuclear did, and why the military wouldn't invest, obviously they're not going to throw money away, they need something to be viable, in reliability and economics, and output. It's a shame, I see a potential, but hey, it's not like I have anywhere near the kind of money it takes to invest into it's long term future neither. Why do you think solar and wind generators are going to succeed in generating electricity? We're always at the mercy of nature. If the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine, no electricity is being made. That's not ever going to work. Add the size needed as well. How much space do you need to put up wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity as a coal or a nuke plant does? I don't see how it's ever going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Solar cells work well in certain environments, but in areas with lot of cloud cover you have to make the arrays larger to compensate, upping their cost. Wind on average is only on line 30-35% of the time due to either excessive or insufficient winds. They also take up a huge area given their output and there are persistent problems with infrasound pollution and esthetics - not everyone wants them visually and offshore (as in the Great Lakes shores) they're yet another navigation hazard. To work at their best both need local, expensive, storage batteries to buffer excess power for the down times. The economics are improving for solar cells, with cell efficiency rising to where inclement climates are less of an issue, but batteries are still expensive. Winds problems appear overwhelming. The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Why do you think solar and wind generators are going to succeed in generating electricity? We're always at the mercy of nature. If the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine, no electricity is being made. That's not ever going to work. Add the size needed as well. How much space do you need to put up wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity as a coal or a nuke plant does? I don't see how it's ever going to work. These problems can be overcome if they generators get further development. If everyone wants them to fail, then they're never going to succeed. Look at it this way, what if the atom had never neen split? Or another key moment, in which gave birth to nuclear reactors? Coal will run out, Hydro Electric? They aren't as efficient as Nuclear. I was pointing out that that 60 plus years of R and D has done a lot for nuclear power stations, given the same circumstances, solar and wind generators could be improved to become a hell of a lot better, and need less space. And there's no point on earth where the sun doesn't shine through, or wind isn't blowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think we found a Win Win, power, AND a way to get even faster KFC. The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 found this while searching for a better photo of the project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts