Cafe Chat Discussion
- Heldwyn
Posted on:
24th Oct 2009 11:50pm
Last Post 1st Jul 2010
Replies 10Discussion: Nuclear power
People claim nuclear power mitigates CO2. What these people do not look at is how much CO2 is emitted in the mining of the ore, transporting of the ore, processing of the ore into yellow cake, transporting the ore and then making the reactor rods, transporting the reactor rods. Then these people do not consider how long the waste material takes to decay in a half cycle. Its something like 500,000 years. A very long time.
- ianc
Posted on:
27th Oct 2009 02:16pmianc says: In the US an estimated 48% of generated power is lost in transmission, we must look at the network as a whole and develop a smart grid, put solar cells in the corridors of the high tension lines, legislate that all new homes must have a solar array, turn entire streets into mini solar power station, more use of turbines where solar is impratical, more research into methods of storing the energy produced. We got a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before we decide what type of power source we're gonna plug it into
- Heldwyn
Posted on:
1st Nov 2009 01:12amHeldwyn says: Base load power can come from solar thermal technology. I think that is a better way forward with the addition of tidal power, wind power and solar photovoltaic systems on peoples rooves. A look at a 24 hour tidal power station in the North West of Western Australia is a feasable solution to the Northwest's power supply solution. There was some debate on this a few years ago. The tidal power station would have been able to supply all of the northwests power. There is one 12 hour tidal power station in the world but I can't remember where is that one.
- werd
Posted on:
5th Feb 2010 11:24amHeldwyn says: Base load power can come from solar thermal technology. I think that is a better way forward with the addition of tidal power, wind power and solar photovoltaic systems on peoples rooves. A look at a 24 hour tidal power station in the North West of Western Australia is a feasable solution to the Northwest's power supply solution. There was some debate on this a few years ago. The tidal power station would have been able to supply all of the northwests power. There is one 12 hour tidal power station in the world but I can't remember where is that one.
werd says: Check out Wikipeadia...
Operating tidal power schemes
* The first tidal power station was the Rance tidal power plant built over a period of 6 years from 1960 to 1966 at La Rance, France.[54] It has 240 MW installed capacity.
* The first tidal power site in North America is the Annapolis Royal Generating Station, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, which opened in 1984 on an inlet of the Bay of Fundy.[55] It has 18 MW installed capacity.
* The first in-stream tidal current generator in North America (Race Rocks Tidal Power Demonstration Project) was installed at Race Rocks on southern Vancouver Island in September 2006.[56][57] The next phase in the development of this tidal current generator will be in Nova Scotia.[58]
* A small project was built by the Soviet Union at Kislaya Guba on the Barents Sea. It has 0.5 MW installed capacity. In 2006 it was upgraded with 1.2MW experimental advanced orthogonal turbine.
* Jindo Uldolmok Tidal Power Plant in South Korea is a tidal stream generation scheme planned to be expanded progressively to 90 MW of capacity by 2013. The first 1 MW was installed in May 2009.[59]
* 1.2 MW SeaGen system became operational in late 2008 on Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland.[60] - Sweetchilliphilly92
Posted on:
25th Feb 2010 10:48amwerd says: Check out Wikipeadia...
Operating tidal power schemes
* The first tidal power station was the Rance tidal power plant built over a period of 6 years from 1960 to 1966 at La Rance, France.[54] It has 240 MW installed capacity.
* The first tidal power site in North America is the Annapolis Royal Generating Station, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, which opened in 1984 on an inlet of the Bay of Fundy.[55] It has 18 MW installed capacity.
* The first in-stream tidal current generator in North America (Race Rocks Tidal Power Demonstration Project) was installed at Race Rocks on southern Vancouver Island in September 2006.[56][57] The next phase in the development of this tidal current generator will be in Nova Scotia.[58]
* A small project was built by the Soviet Union at Kislaya Guba on the Barents Sea. It has 0.5 MW installed capacity. In 2006 it was upgraded with 1.2MW experimental advanced orthogonal turbine.
* Jindo Uldolmok Tidal Power Plant in South Korea is a tidal stream generation scheme planned to be expanded progressively to 90 MW of capacity by 2013. The first 1 MW was installed in May 2009.[59]
* 1.2 MW SeaGen system became operational in late 2008 on Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland.[60]Sweetchilliphilly92 says: Therefore, in these particular examples, there is no feasible way to use tidal power, at least on the scale listed in wikipedia. NSW (containing close to 7.1 million people) has an energy requirement of between 14,200 and 14,500 MW of energy at peak demand. In what way can this area, or any other of substantial size, be run by tidal power when power output is limited to, in the above case, only 240MW? Furthermore, what effect will climate change have on the proper function and maintenance of these tidal generators?
- Sweetchilliphilly92
Posted on:
25th Feb 2010 11:31amSweetchilliphilly92 says: The process you have suggested is actually not much more than the mining of coal ore products and the readying of coal ore products in preparation for use in coal fired plants - only coal fired plants produce much more CO2 on TOP of the readying process, whereas Nuclear Reactors produce much less. Nuclear power may not mitigate CO2, but it does a hell of a good job in reducing those emissions. Furthermore, look at the amount of energy produced per metric ton of uranium, compared to coal, then look at the amount of energy required per tonne to turn into power for us to use. I can assure you that Uranium enrichment, on a per ton basis, is MUCH less harmful emissions-wise.
All people consider how long the waste material takes to decay, it would be reckless and irresponsible not to. Yes, 500,000 years is a long time - but from where has humanity grown in the last 500,000 years? In what state will the earth be, regardless of the method of power use (even "sustainable sources"), due to overpopulation and increased power requirements in the next 500,000 years? The uranium which is being placed deep underground will be the least of our concerns at that point, unless we move to find a stopgap measure to combat the process of Climate Change. 
dingodan
Posted on:
30th Mar 2010 02:05pmdingodan says: When you consider theTidal rise and fall on Kimberley coast becomes an excellent area for Tidal Generation.. Regarding Nuclear Waste it appears they are developing a method of destroying it .
- karlenesoh
Posted on:
31st Mar 2010 11:25amkarlenesoh says: We do need to cut out nuclear power of all kinds and not just because of the Co2 levels even though this is bad why not just put us all on Solar they still can make money of it if that is what they are worried about and hey there is no emissions and the only thing we need is a roof full of solar panels to charge our houses or the government can arrange a solar farm where they can feed the power from it into homes put a couple in every state this would fix more than half of the problems we are having with Co2 levels
- stratman
Posted on:
3rd Apr 2010 10:54amstratman says: What is the future for nuclear?
Well, I follow the money and the money not so long ago sent the price of u3o8 to $150/lbUS.
The contract price at the moment is about $60-65US/lb.
The big elephants in the room when it comes to global growth are China and India and they have both huge numbers of nuclear pants either in operation, under construction or on the drawing board.
This is an energy hungry world and despite the best intentions of environmentalists and comments that alternatives like wind/solar etc can provide the base load power we need now and in the future, these are fantasy.
Nuclear will play a major role for electricity generation in the future and consequently the CO2 footprint it produces will be lower but make no mistake as a society we are still very mucha ddicted to oil and coal and human nature bein what it is we will consume this at increasing rates first then, fght wars over the diminishing resource then turn to alternatives.
Whether we like it or not nuclear will be the next big thing. - mortgageblues
Posted on:
29th Apr 2010 04:16pmmortgageblues says: Most reliable studies do take these factors into account, the reason Nuclear isn't going anywhere is the COST. Try putting a finance proposal together on a nuclear power station and see what risk rating it gets....there is no cheap money here. The truth, glossed by the Nu-clear energy people, is that nuclear power stations take a long time to build and have fairly short life spans, in a high capital low return environment they just don't stack up...
- Vasco
Posted on:
1st Jul 2010 12:15amVasco says: For a slightly different perspective on the nuclear debate...
According to a 2007 Scientific American article "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste".
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
The biggest problem we face is our voracious appetite for 'cheap' energy. Solar, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric and others just aren't up to satisfying us so we either learn to change or suffer the consequences.
- Page 1 of 1