Greenpeace activists paraglides into French nuclear reactor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could put a mini generator in every loo so that when you pulled the chain all that water does not go to waste 
Really I think the solution has to be safer Nuclear energy, much more control over the plant location and a better way even at cost of getting rid of the nasty stuff it produces.
I would ban visually polluting wind farms accept offshore windfarms and forget tidal as we have to protect our marine life!
Pace
Really I think the solution has to be safer Nuclear energy, much more control over the plant location and a better way even at cost of getting rid of the nasty stuff it produces.
I would ban visually polluting wind farms accept offshore windfarms and forget tidal as we have to protect our marine life!
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
used to be a sailor and many former colleagues who still sail are stalwartly opposed to offshore wind and for tidal !!
now that idea of a mini generator in every loo !!! I feel a prospectus coming on
now that idea of a mini generator in every loo !!! I feel a prospectus coming on
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the issue here really one of power generation? There is a lot of very conventional potential geothermal (e.g. Iceland) or potential hydroelectric (e.g. Norway) or potential wind power (e.g. Dogger Bank) available this is before even considering options such as photovoltaic arrays or wave power. The challenge here could just be a simpler a more technically tractable problem of building a high capacity power grid. Load balancing across the multiple sources of generation and sources of demand within a large multinational grid could smooth out the differences in generation availability.
High voltage DC transmission has been around since the 1930s for long distance power transmission. According to Wikipedia the current longest power transmission line using this technology is a “2,071 km (1,287 mi) 6400 MW link connecting the Xiangjiaba Dam to Shanghai” This technology also works well over subsea cables so is not restricted to being used on the land. Distance of transmission is not going to be a significant technical problem for say bringing Norwegian hydropower across the North Sea to the UK.
The problem from this perspective is not primarily a technical one but one primarily of the politics and the commercial realities in getting multinational network infrastructure built. There’s not a good track record around the world on this. Cars still need to be made so the steering wheel can go either side and only recently – well within my living memory – has it been possible to use the same mobile phone in more than one country. Oh and did I mention the problem of plugging in electrical items such as hairdryers, PCs and other personal items when travelling!!
If it’s not possible to get the international co-operation needed for a large enough multinational power grid, and nuclear power generation still needs to be part of a national energy mix, then it seems to me that it's time to move on from plutonium and start using the thorium fuel cycle.
High voltage DC transmission has been around since the 1930s for long distance power transmission. According to Wikipedia the current longest power transmission line using this technology is a “2,071 km (1,287 mi) 6400 MW link connecting the Xiangjiaba Dam to Shanghai” This technology also works well over subsea cables so is not restricted to being used on the land. Distance of transmission is not going to be a significant technical problem for say bringing Norwegian hydropower across the North Sea to the UK.
The problem from this perspective is not primarily a technical one but one primarily of the politics and the commercial realities in getting multinational network infrastructure built. There’s not a good track record around the world on this. Cars still need to be made so the steering wheel can go either side and only recently – well within my living memory – has it been possible to use the same mobile phone in more than one country. Oh and did I mention the problem of plugging in electrical items such as hairdryers, PCs and other personal items when travelling!!
If it’s not possible to get the international co-operation needed for a large enough multinational power grid, and nuclear power generation still needs to be part of a national energy mix, then it seems to me that it's time to move on from plutonium and start using the thorium fuel cycle.
Last edited by Stephen Furner; 8th May 2012 at 23:21.
Why are sailors against offshore windfarms? Do you mean recreational sailors, or professional?
Tidal power has worked in places like France, where there is a barrage accross the Rance akin to the one that has been mooted over the river Severn. I think the difference here is that we've been talking about different types of tidal generator - more akin to underwater wind turbines.
Is the marine life problem so insoluble? I would have thought that some carefully placed nets could stop the basking sharks from being sliced and diced. I'd be interested to hear more about it but didn't find much online (not that I looked hard so far).
There used to be a lot of fuss about wind turbines hitting birds, but I understand it's not as big an issue as was originally feared.
Tidal power has worked in places like France, where there is a barrage accross the Rance akin to the one that has been mooted over the river Severn. I think the difference here is that we've been talking about different types of tidal generator - more akin to underwater wind turbines.
Is the marine life problem so insoluble? I would have thought that some carefully placed nets could stop the basking sharks from being sliced and diced. I'd be interested to hear more about it but didn't find much online (not that I looked hard so far).
There used to be a lot of fuss about wind turbines hitting birds, but I understand it's not as big an issue as was originally feared.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything which goes into a net dies unfortunately.
The French one has the advantage of a huge pool behind it and relatively small inlet. The severn one is going to be a collosal barrier.
There are actually plenty of places in Scotland with the same topography but unfortunatey unless you want to power sheep sheds they are hundreds of miles away from the demand.
Then there is the UK planning permission side of things not to mention that the queen owns all the sea bottom. Then building in high currents is an utter bitch as proved by the thames barrier.
Sailors are anti anything they may bang into. They know its only a matter of time before something hits it. Then they are opposed to controlled waters as much as pilots are with restricted airspace. And the big boys hate anything which slows there access to a port and you would need lock gates in the severn.
The French one has the advantage of a huge pool behind it and relatively small inlet. The severn one is going to be a collosal barrier.
There are actually plenty of places in Scotland with the same topography but unfortunatey unless you want to power sheep sheds they are hundreds of miles away from the demand.
Then there is the UK planning permission side of things not to mention that the queen owns all the sea bottom. Then building in high currents is an utter bitch as proved by the thames barrier.
Sailors are anti anything they may bang into. They know its only a matter of time before something hits it. Then they are opposed to controlled waters as much as pilots are with restricted airspace. And the big boys hate anything which slows there access to a port and you would need lock gates in the severn.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed - this is one of the few successful underwater turbines in the UK:
SeaGen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Strangford Lough generator given all-clear
Note - no environmental impact.
The location at the mouth of Strangford Lough is pretty much perfect for it though.
SeaGen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Strangford Lough generator given all-clear
Note - no environmental impact.
The location at the mouth of Strangford Lough is pretty much perfect for it though.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Age: 70
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The walls of a nuclear containment building are able to withstand a commercial airliner crashing into them.
See link to video of a phantom jet hitting a section of wall at 800km/h.
Note wing tips continuing on their path past the wall. The wall was not breeched in this demonstration.
See link to video of a phantom jet hitting a section of wall at 800km/h.
Note wing tips continuing on their path past the wall. The wall was not breeched in this demonstration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been to Kalkar, the never-commissioned nuclear plant near the German/Dutch border, now a theme park.
All I can say is that the walls of the containment vessel are indeed substantial, and in fact there is a number of layers between the outside air and the reactor core.
Having said that, the incident in Japan showed us that you can have a serious nuclear accident even when the walls of the containment vessel are not breached at all. There is a lot of equipment located outside the containment wall, yet vital for the well-being of the plant.
I wonder if a significant fire, say resulting from a 9/11-like event, outside the containment wall and raging for, say, 24 hours, has ever been modeled. Not just on the structural integrity of the containment wall, but also on electricity feed for the cooling systems, the cooling systems themselves, the operators and so forth. After all, on 9/11 it was not the impact that brought the towers down, but the resulting fire.
All I can say is that the walls of the containment vessel are indeed substantial, and in fact there is a number of layers between the outside air and the reactor core.
Having said that, the incident in Japan showed us that you can have a serious nuclear accident even when the walls of the containment vessel are not breached at all. There is a lot of equipment located outside the containment wall, yet vital for the well-being of the plant.
I wonder if a significant fire, say resulting from a 9/11-like event, outside the containment wall and raging for, say, 24 hours, has ever been modeled. Not just on the structural integrity of the containment wall, but also on electricity feed for the cooling systems, the cooling systems themselves, the operators and so forth. After all, on 9/11 it was not the impact that brought the towers down, but the resulting fire.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several shields before you get near the kettle.
First one is a enviroment shield which contains all the farts etc that the engineers put out.
Then you have the containment shield which is the bit you normally see folk walking on and lots of holes marked out on.
Then you have the core with its shield as well. Which normal mortals never gets to see. A select few get to go in with an impact hardness tester and spend 10 mins twice in thier life with lead underpants checking how much neutron hardening has been occuring to see if the physics boys have ****** up again.
First one is a enviroment shield which contains all the farts etc that the engineers put out.
Then you have the containment shield which is the bit you normally see folk walking on and lots of holes marked out on.
Then you have the core with its shield as well. Which normal mortals never gets to see. A select few get to go in with an impact hardness tester and spend 10 mins twice in thier life with lead underpants checking how much neutron hardening has been occuring to see if the physics boys have ****** up again.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moddern reactor designs are tolerant to Backpacker's scenarios. They are designed that on loss of the 'supporting systems' they simply slowly shutdown.
This was also a design feature of the Advance Gas Reactors built in the UK - convection was enough to keep them from going critical.
The water cooled designs from the 60s are much more problematic and often need a massive dump of water or continued cooling. But no one - apart from perhaps the Russians, North Koreans and Iranians, would even think of building that type of reactor.
There is more rubbish spouted about the risks of nuclear power than there is from 'Wee Eck' and the SNP about how Scotland will e energy sufficent from windmills. A modern nuclear plant is reliable (which is really useful on a winter's day), safe and produces precious waste. A windmill relies upon an unreliable resource and is only cost effective if the grotesque subsidy is paid. Even better there is now some evidence that windmills alter the local climate...........
This was also a design feature of the Advance Gas Reactors built in the UK - convection was enough to keep them from going critical.
The water cooled designs from the 60s are much more problematic and often need a massive dump of water or continued cooling. But no one - apart from perhaps the Russians, North Koreans and Iranians, would even think of building that type of reactor.
There is more rubbish spouted about the risks of nuclear power than there is from 'Wee Eck' and the SNP about how Scotland will e energy sufficent from windmills. A modern nuclear plant is reliable (which is really useful on a winter's day), safe and produces precious waste. A windmill relies upon an unreliable resource and is only cost effective if the grotesque subsidy is paid. Even better there is now some evidence that windmills alter the local climate...........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasax
Totally agree! trouble is there are too many vested interests at play too many big buck deals on windfarms and all in the name of "Green".
If the Scots want to ruin their beautiful countryside turning the whole area into one giant windfarm ???
Just because there is a lot of wind up there! 
Location of Nuclear plants should be worldwide approved and agreed and not placed in potential unstable zones like Japan.
Pace
Totally agree! trouble is there are too many vested interests at play too many big buck deals on windfarms and all in the name of "Green".
If the Scots want to ruin their beautiful countryside turning the whole area into one giant windfarm ???
Just because there is a lot of wind up there! Location of Nuclear plants should be worldwide approved and agreed and not placed in potential unstable zones like Japan.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The modern ones use water as the moderator, if it goes next to nothing reacts because things are wazzing around to fast and the reaction dies.
The bench mark i think is under 5 seconds from SCRAM to less than 90% reaction rate.
And once you design a truely civilian energy reactor and they don't have to fanny around with the flux things become a whole heap easier and safer apparently.
The ESBWR has alot going for it, the major one being it doesn't breed.
It can also be run in a self cooling convective mode so you don't have to worry about keeping any pumps running, you just have to top up the coolant tanks which its pretty easy to be automatic without requiring power on site
Its not the most effecient though. And the power generation turbines become contaminated.
The bench mark i think is under 5 seconds from SCRAM to less than 90% reaction rate.
And once you design a truely civilian energy reactor and they don't have to fanny around with the flux things become a whole heap easier and safer apparently.
The ESBWR has alot going for it, the major one being it doesn't breed.
It can also be run in a self cooling convective mode so you don't have to worry about keeping any pumps running, you just have to top up the coolant tanks which its pretty easy to be automatic without requiring power on site
Its not the most effecient though. And the power generation turbines become contaminated.
Totally agree! trouble is there are too many vested interests at play too many big buck deals on windfarms and all in the name of "Green".
Regarding nuclear security... The reactors may be well protected, but if they rely on passive cooling by large tanks of water above the reactor, are these tanks built to equally high standards or could you cause a nuclear disaster by flying your airliner into the pools or fuel storage facilities?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
abdg
It is the veil of "green" a pretense used by many government and industry to make a lot of money.
Nuclear somehow does not fit that veil of Green but maybe it should?
Pace
It is the veil of "green" a pretense used by many government and industry to make a lot of money.
Nuclear somehow does not fit that veil of Green but maybe it should?
Pace
I've always seen nuclear as being 'green' as in friendly-to-nature. It's the 'friendly-to-humans' side of things where it has historically been found wanting, which is why I would prefer to see wind/solar/tidal if they're truly practicable, and nuclear if they're not.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They all have issues, production "greeness" being a big one ie how much CO2 do you produce making the things and how much footprint do place on the enviroment using them per Unit of energy produced. And also how much it would cost to get the energy where it is required and how much transmission drop do you get.
The nuclear regulation is a different beast to what it was 20 years ago or even 50 when the current generation of Nukes were being designed.
The engineers and operators really did take the piss in the past mainly because they were mostly goverment and could also use the national defense excuse. In someways the issues we have today are mainly legacy issues due to this piss taking. There was also alot of none engineers with technical input. Its always an issue if the highly intelligent physics boys don't get some one with a bit of common sense making sure they don't do something daft in the name of science.
There are rather large tracks of land in the US and russia which are basically off limits to humans for a very long time due to enriching and processing contamination. In the UK we also have our issues in various installations and sites which all date back to the same period of lack of regulation or simply ignoring what regulation there was purely for military/national security excuses.
As for Scotland and Nuclear. To be honest I think we have 4 online at the moment which produce over 50% of our energy Torness and Hunterston B has two . But we do export something like 20-25% of total production onto the national grid. The nuclear share is slightly screwed because its a really bad idea to vary the energy production rate in these things so they tend to leave it set and other sources which are more responsive get varied for consumption load.
The current plan of doing away with them is a bit far fetched to be honest. I wouldn't say an expansion in the number of sites is required just a replacement of the ones we have have on the current sites in the borders with modern reactors which can't breed. They can look after GLA and EDI and can export south and the rest of the hydro etc can do the rest of scotland. This next batch of reactors your looking at a 100 years operating by which point hopefully Fusion should be up and running.
O and this is the site for nuclear incidents in the UK.
Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear install....
Also as well you wouldn't believe how **** the material properties were of the metal that were used in the magnox era of reactor production. Especially the American steel. I tried to get some metal for test pieces for some cracking issues and you just couldn't get it with such low UTS or plastic yield point. Speaking to the steel production guys they said they couldn't even make it that poor these days with the current plant in Europe and Japan. The worst stuff you could get was from the US old stock from 20 years ago. But even that was 10-20% better than what was used.
The first source of metal provided samples when I asked for them for the grade used and when tested it out performed the metal used by 165%. It was then I realised it didn't matter what grade you ordered you actually got the "best" stuff but with a different cert with a lower grade on it. All prefectly legal as it was better than the required grade but utterly useless for what I wanted.
The reactors are loaded with tensile and impact test pieces when they are built before going critical. Then every so often test pieces are pulled out and tested to get the current state of the material properties of the metal in the reactor. It changes over time and flux exposure due to neutron creep and hardening. Its one of the reasons why some reactors are now limited to 60-70% output.
The nuclear regulation is a different beast to what it was 20 years ago or even 50 when the current generation of Nukes were being designed.
The engineers and operators really did take the piss in the past mainly because they were mostly goverment and could also use the national defense excuse. In someways the issues we have today are mainly legacy issues due to this piss taking. There was also alot of none engineers with technical input. Its always an issue if the highly intelligent physics boys don't get some one with a bit of common sense making sure they don't do something daft in the name of science.
There are rather large tracks of land in the US and russia which are basically off limits to humans for a very long time due to enriching and processing contamination. In the UK we also have our issues in various installations and sites which all date back to the same period of lack of regulation or simply ignoring what regulation there was purely for military/national security excuses.
As for Scotland and Nuclear. To be honest I think we have 4 online at the moment which produce over 50% of our energy Torness and Hunterston B has two . But we do export something like 20-25% of total production onto the national grid. The nuclear share is slightly screwed because its a really bad idea to vary the energy production rate in these things so they tend to leave it set and other sources which are more responsive get varied for consumption load.
The current plan of doing away with them is a bit far fetched to be honest. I wouldn't say an expansion in the number of sites is required just a replacement of the ones we have have on the current sites in the borders with modern reactors which can't breed. They can look after GLA and EDI and can export south and the rest of the hydro etc can do the rest of scotland. This next batch of reactors your looking at a 100 years operating by which point hopefully Fusion should be up and running.
O and this is the site for nuclear incidents in the UK.
Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear install....
Also as well you wouldn't believe how **** the material properties were of the metal that were used in the magnox era of reactor production. Especially the American steel. I tried to get some metal for test pieces for some cracking issues and you just couldn't get it with such low UTS or plastic yield point. Speaking to the steel production guys they said they couldn't even make it that poor these days with the current plant in Europe and Japan. The worst stuff you could get was from the US old stock from 20 years ago. But even that was 10-20% better than what was used.
The first source of metal provided samples when I asked for them for the grade used and when tested it out performed the metal used by 165%. It was then I realised it didn't matter what grade you ordered you actually got the "best" stuff but with a different cert with a lower grade on it. All prefectly legal as it was better than the required grade but utterly useless for what I wanted.
The reactors are loaded with tensile and impact test pieces when they are built before going critical. Then every so often test pieces are pulled out and tested to get the current state of the material properties of the metal in the reactor. It changes over time and flux exposure due to neutron creep and hardening. Its one of the reasons why some reactors are now limited to 60-70% output.
Last edited by mad_jock; 10th May 2012 at 06:47.
