Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
View Poll Results: Do you think nuclear power is a necessity?
Yes, with the limited coal and natural resource, it is a necessity 62 72.09%
No, we need to look at other sources of energy 22 25.58%
I don't care 2 2.33%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 17.03.2011, 18:05
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

My money's on carbon-neutral biomass generation
.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 17.03.2011, 18:17
piazza's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Küsnacht ZH
Posts: 449
Groaned at 5 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 271 Times in 128 Posts
piazza has made some interesting contributions
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Well Fusion is being revisited again by many scientists. Current laser technology and nanotechnology make it a somewhat plausible idea now. On top of that people are starting to think outside of the square and the mainstream ways of thinking to solve the Fusion problem. Dr Andrea Rossi of Italy has claimed to have invented a Cold Fusion device using nickel, which has the scientific community divided pretty much 50-50 over its authenticity. Fear of the idea being stolen is making it very hard to get solid tests, but the currently demonstrated test are showing promise.

At the same time Dr Heinrich Hora is reanimating the old theories and methods of cold fusion in claiming the reactions can now be started using modern ultra high powered lasers...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank piazza for this useful post:
  #43  
Old 18.03.2011, 13:10
HollidayG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kanton Zürich
Posts: 3,038
Groaned at 50 Times in 35 Posts
Thanked 1,180 Times in 738 Posts
HollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputationHollidayG has an excellent reputation
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

3.7 Cubic Meters of highly radioactive material
3 Cubic Meters of weak and medium radioactive material





Here is the answer that I received from our chief nuclear engineer.
There is also a link here underneath.

Jährlich fallen im KKG 3,7 Kubikmeter hochaktive und 3 Kubikmeter schwach-/mittelaktive Abfälle an.
Weitere Informationen könne Sie hier finden: http://www.kkg.ch/de/i/technische_broschueren_content---1--1111.html
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank HollidayG for this useful post:
  #44  
Old 18.03.2011, 14:26
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Chernobyl nuclear disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

They were experimenting to find out if after suddenly stopping the reactor, would the potential energy in the generator turbines be enough to drive the cooling pumps.




The experimental procedure was intended to run as follows:
  • the reactor was to be running at a low power level, between >700 MW & 800 MW
  • the steam turbine was to be run up to full speed
  • when these conditions were achieved, the steam supply was to be closed off
  • the turbines would be allowed to freewheel down
  • generator performance was to be recorded to determine whether it could provide the bridging power for coolant pumps
It was very irresponsible, they failed, and 50 people died.


The nuclear power stations in the west are immensley superior to the Russian design.

.
First thing to think of is the Russian reactor had NO CONTAINMENT VESSEL AT ALL !

With that in mind the machines operating in the rest of the world are essentially entirely different from a safety perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22.03.2011, 18:09
Uncle GroOve's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mendrisio
Posts: 1,082
Groaned at 7 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 733 Times in 382 Posts
Uncle GroOve has a reputation beyond reputeUncle GroOve has a reputation beyond reputeUncle GroOve has a reputation beyond reputeUncle GroOve has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Fresh from the columns of FT.com/alphaville re. TEPCO's (brilliant) project to expand storage of "spent" (ha!) fuel from 3'450 t 8'310 assemblies:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011...ear-tail-risk/

I just pray that IAEA had the balls to say Dontcha Even Try

Paul
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Uncle GroOve for this useful post:
  #46  
Old 22.03.2011, 18:29
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Chernobyl nuclear disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

They were experimenting to find out if after suddenly stopping the reactor, would the potential energy in the generator turbines be enough to drive the cooling pumps.






The experimental procedure was intended to run as follows:
  • the reactor was to be running at a low power level, between >700 MW & 800 MW
  • the steam turbine was to be run up to full speed
  • when these conditions were achieved, the steam supply was to be closed off
  • the turbines would be allowed to freewheel down
  • generator performance was to be recorded to determine whether it could provide the bridging power for coolant pumps
It was very irresponsible, they failed, and 50 people died.


The nuclear power stations in the west are immensley superior to the Russian design.

.
They also manually overrlued and disabled the safety system that should have kicked in in that moment, shut down the reactor and told them to go to hell. In fact there was a second safety system they had forgotten about or weren't able to shut down and the shutdown cycle was actually initiated but they noticed what was happening and forcibly disabled that system.

In two words: *** ***
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 22.03.2011, 18:32
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
That is a similar article to the one that I heard on the radio this morning.
Uranium and other radioactive substances are contained in minute quantities in all coal deposits. But because so much coal is burnt, the coal plants of the world emit 45 tonnes of uranium into the atmosphere ever year. Most years, the nuclear power plants of the world emit zero.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #48  
Old 22.03.2011, 18:51
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
miss_bean - I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. To supply the amounts of energy we need Today nuclear energy is the only option. As I understand it, solar panels are very inefficient to make, so to make them you need large amounts of energy from somewhere.

I am not a big fan of nuclear power, but until we start to turn off lights in office buildings at night, and take more energy saving measures in the home, there really is no choice.
People will only start saving energy in a meaningful way if and when energy gets much more expensive. Only then will we start wondering whether it really is necessary to leave the office lights on at night and such things. When oil prices spiked to around 200 dollars per barrel in about 2008, even the USA, which is the possibly the world's most car-centric culture, saw a spike in public transport usage. Also, people started trading their SUVs for smaller cars. It was adrop in the ocean but it shows that money is more powerful an argument than pretty stories about the environment. Also, this period was a huge boost for renewables because suddenly energy prices were so high that many things that previously didn't make sense could be made to work econonomically. To stay economic, those technologies are going to require that prices stay up there.

Oh, and because power was so expensive, the power companies were making a huge profit on nuclear and actually investing that money in renewables. But the greenies don't like to hear about that bit.

Well anyway, so eventually rising oil prices will bring about a change. But it's not going to happen by itself. People don't like to pay more. Bills hurt. People will be demanding the government does something. What will you tell a poor faimly who can only just make ends meet today when their energy bill is going to triple? This is where nuclear power comes in. Either you accept nuclear power as a bridge solution to cushion the rise and allow people time to adapt, or we are going to adpat quickly and it's going to hurt a lot of people. It's okay to be a middle class greeny knowing you can afford to pay higher electricity bills or invest in your own photovoltaic toys. But if you're a have not, you're heading for hard times.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #49  
Old 22.03.2011, 19:10
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3,738
Groaned at 72 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 3,972 Times in 2,142 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
There is one good alternative: to use the abundant geo-thermal energy in Iceland to create electricity and thus make hydrogen from seawater. Then use the hydrogen in Europe as a fuel.
Hydrogen is *very* volatile.
Imagine going into your garage in the morning, sitting in the car, turning the key - and !BANG! the oxyhydrogen gas that formed from the gas that evaporated of your tank and the oxygen in the air exploding in a fancy yellow explosion, taking you, the car and the garage to the next life.

That's what basically killed the hydrogen-powered car.


Enjoy the (fuel-) party while it lasts.
Now is the time to own a big, fancy car. 10 years from now, they'll be worthless.


Rainer
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 22.03.2011, 20:11
Ittigen
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Why can't we have hydrogen fuelled power stations? Why does the argument always move to individual cars? Many of us can work from home, you don't have to go to the office.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 22.03.2011, 20:20
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Why can't we have hydrogen fuelled power stations? Why does the argument always move to individual cars? Many of us can work from home, you don't have to go to the office.
Because hydrogen is made using electricity. Hydrogen is a means of storing in the energy. It is not in itself a primary source. So you need power stations (be they nuclear, wind, coal etc) to actually make the hydrogen you can put in your car. Politicians and journalists sometimes refer to hydrogen as a renewable energy but that's misleading (like so much of the energy policy of today's governments).
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #52  
Old 22.03.2011, 20:36
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,242
Groaned at 2,467 Times in 1,784 Posts
Thanked 39,338 Times in 18,541 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Because hydrogen is made using electricity. Hydrogen is a means of storing in the energy. It is not in itself a primary source. So you need power stations (be they nuclear, wind, coal etc) to actually make the hydrogen you can put in your car. Politicians and journalists sometimes refer to hydrogen as a renewable energy but that's misleading (like so much of the energy policy of today's governments).
Indeed.

Unless your 'power station' is fusion powered, it will take more energy to produce the H2 to power it than you will get out of the H2.

It's a losing proposition.

Tom
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #53  
Old 22.03.2011, 21:45
andycs's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 20 clicks from Basel
Posts: 35
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
andycs has earned some respectandycs has earned some respect
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

In answer to the original question then the answer is clearly yes and is the only viable option. The scaremongering headlines certainly do not help the case for nuclear but what is not reported with the same voracity are the threats to human health (and life) from so called clean solutions, see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...-dangerous.php relating to wind and solar. Coal and oil are extremely dangerous both to human health as well as the environment, 1000's of times more so than nuclear. Read this article which, along with the various links provides a much more balanced and in my view sensible points http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...ima_tuesday_2/

Fusion of course will be the ultimate solution but that is a long way off

A
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank andycs for this useful post:
  #54  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:28
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
In answer to the original question then the answer is clearly yes and is the only viable option. The scaremongering headlines certainly do not help the case for nuclear but what is not reported with the same voracity are the threats to human health (and life) from so called clean solutions, see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...-dangerous.php relating to wind and solar. Coal and oil are extremely dangerous both to human health as well as the environment, 1000's of times more so than nuclear. Read this article which, along with the various links provides a much more balanced and in my view sensible points http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...ima_tuesday_2/

Fusion of course will be the ultimate solution but that is a long way off

A
Thanks for those links. Here is another interesting explanation of what happened, from the same site

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...iima_analysis/
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #55  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:31
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Nuclear power plants are a practical option for producing clean, cost-effective power but is nuclear power an absolute necessity ?? I tend to disagree about the need to maintain and develop nuclear power as an energy source altogether. It will for sure detract from the effort to develop other renewable sources of energy in the future?
Nuclear energy is too dangerous, and too polluting. Protection against natural disasters, such earthquakes, floods, or fires are also a concern. As the wildfires raging across Russia / Japan's earthquake have demonstrated natural disasters pose a threat to the security of nuclear power plants.
Isn't it the time to look at the renewable alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal power
Is nuclear energy necessary ? Clearly yes. But alternative energies have to be supported, in order to at least keep the use of nuclear energy at the present level. The extent to which France depends on nuclear energy is hairrising ! Reality is that we will not manage to do without nuclear energy for quite some time to come.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #56  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Unless your 'power station' is fusion powered, it will take more energy to produce the H2 to power it than you will get out of the H2.
Unless? So fusion rewrites the laws of thermodynamics (2nd especially)?


I'm in!!!

Attachment 24972

Last edited by weejeem; 14.10.2011 at 16:03.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #57  
Old 22.03.2011, 22:45
phdoofus's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 2,357
Groaned at 96 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,205 Times in 1,227 Posts
phdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

It sure is gratifying (to someone I guess) to know that science education, statistical reasoning, and properly researching a topic always take a back seat to irrationality. If you're going to start banning things because of how many people die from it, you're going to have to ban a lot of things before you finally get around to nuclear energy.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank phdoofus for this useful post:
  #58  
Old 22.03.2011, 23:03
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Is nuclear energy necessary ? Clearly yes. But alternative energies have to be supported, in order to at least keep the use of nuclear energy at the present level. The extent to which France depends on nuclear energy is hairrising ! Reality is that we will not manage to do without nuclear energy for quite some time to come.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

As exhibit A I present the electrical power market. The first part of this is the base load, mostly nuclear plants with also some heavy coal plants. These plants run flat out day and night and at times of lowest demand they cover or more than cover all demand while at peak times they are backed up by other sources. Why is nuclear power so good at supplying the base load? Almost all the costs of nuclear power are in the construction, setup and security and so whether you run your plant two hours a day or 24, it makes no difference costwise, so the operators run them around the clock. If the plants want to be profitable all the time, the electricity at night must be sold at a price that is slightly more than the running cost, which isn't very much.

It wouldn't make sense to add significantly more nuclear because these additional plants wouldn't be part of the base load but would have to be switched on and off according to demand. Not only are nuclear plants quite slow to start but they wouldn't be as cost effective as they wouldn't be recovering their costs around the clock. So enter the smaller coal plants, the gas plants, even some oil plants, some reneables, hydropower. These all cost more per kilowatt hour than the base load but, there is more to it: As soon as one of these plants goes online, the price for all the electricity adapts to that level, so even if your gas plant is barely covering its costs, the nuclear plnat that is churning away in the base load is also providing electricity at the higher retail price and spinning money into your coffers.

Now enter the newer renewables such as wind and solar. These are unpredicatble, but you can take a gas plant offline or reduce its output at short notice when enough wind power comes online. Wind power is thus economic if and when it is cheaper than gas, or more precisely it must be cheaper than gas by at least the amount that it costs to run the gas plant on standby. There is thus plenty of opportunity to add more wind power without this affecting the nuclear base load at all. In fact it would be uneconomic to wish to replace the base load at present costs because you'd be closing down nuclear plants while keeping more expensive gas plants, and that's not what anybody is doing. There is however enough space on the power balance for a lot more wind to come online, and solar as well without this in any way interefering with nuclear, but simply permitting more and more gas plants to be taken into standby mode and so saving valuable gas.

Hydro is probably the best of all power sources. It is probably cheaper than even nuclear, but can be controlled easily and so used in the peak when prices are highest and saved at night so there is more water available for the peak. It can also be used in tandem with wind and started up at short notice to cover for wind shortfall. If you have storage hydro, you can actually even pump the water back up in the night and so increase the number of nuclear plants in your base load (but don't tell the greenies that there eco-friendly hydro power is in many cases time-shifted nuclear)

So what would happen if you decreased the nuclear in the mix? You would have to take more hydro into the base band, leaving less for the peak. You would have to take gas into the base band, you would have to take coal into the base band, so basically work all your plants harder as well as needing new capacity while having higher production costs.

Earler on I mentioned that the operators can sell base-load nuclear a peak times at the cost of gas power. That sounds like insane profits. Some of that goes to greedy capitalist investors of course , but even more of it also goes into renewables. Where do you think all the money came from to put tens of thousands of windmills up in the North of Germany? Well, I didn't see the Greens pass the hat around. Take out nuclear and cripple the profits of the power companies and they won't be doing much more of that.

But now try explaining that to the man in the street. isn't it so much easier to teach him to bleat "nuclear bad, solar and wind good".
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #59  
Old 22.03.2011, 23:10
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 340 Times in 276 Posts
Thanked 26,264 Times in 11,001 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Unless? So fusion rewrites the laws of thermodynamics (2nd especially)?


I'm in!!!

Attachment 24972
cold fusion espcially. Powered by homeopathic tinctures.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 22.03.2011, 23:46
yjt yjt is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aargau
Posts: 586
Groaned at 12 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 601 Times in 261 Posts
yjt has a reputation beyond reputeyjt has a reputation beyond reputeyjt has a reputation beyond reputeyjt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is nuclear power a necessity ??

Quote:
View Post
Hydrogen is *very* volatile.
Imagine going into your garage in the morning, sitting in the car, turning the key - and !BANG! the oxyhydrogen gas that formed from the gas that evaporated of your tank and the oxygen in the air exploding in a fancy yellow explosion, taking you, the car and the garage to the next life.

That's what basically killed the hydrogen-powered car.


Enjoy the (fuel-) party while it lasts.
Now is the time to own a big, fancy car. 10 years from now, they'll be worthless.


Rainer

Here you go: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

It's just a bit expensive at the moment though
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are Curtains A Necessity? Mrs. Doolittle Housing in general 25 31.07.2011 00:37
Swiss nuclear deterrent Phil_MCR Swiss politics/news 36 27.05.2010 22:52
Google To Go Nuclear flavio International affairs/politics 4 02.04.2010 04:09
The nuclear threat Castro General off-topic 8 11.08.2009 18:21


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0