Actually some good results have come from closely spaced Vertical Axis Wind Turbines...
Here's a pic for the pro-nuclear to enjoy.
- Thread starter blacktimberwolf
- Start date
Actually some good results have come from closely spaced Vertical Axis Wind Turbines...
Realisticaly its doubtful you will get your setup costs back selling to the grid unless you live to be 200 but as a back up or for the end of the world these little turbines are fun and useful.
After the great kill off from the coming plague which kills 99.99% of humans (I'll survive obviously, all preppers think they will) I'll spend some of my time blowing up the nearby windfarm, its an eyesore and spoils my view.
After the great kill off from the coming plague which kills 99.99% of humans (I'll survive obviously, all preppers think they will
) I'll spend some of my time blowing up the nearby windfarm, its an eyesore and spoils my view.
That type program has been around over here for a few decades now. It's most popular in West Texas and the US Midwestern states (obviously where they are most reliable) The homes are still hooked up to the powere companies and their electric bill at the end of the month is determined in the usual way; by the reading on the meter. The thing is that when the turbines are producing excess power those meters run backwards (as the power flows back into the grid) to lessen the overall reading. What you described as a "scam" regarding the diference in price paid is probably actually a normal practice used by ALL businesses: They sell their products (in this case electricity) at retail prices, but they buy it at wholesale prices. That's how businesses make their profits.
Last edited:
I'm not "picking fault" - your calculations were out by three orders of magnitude.
You want my contribution? There are less than 500 nuclear power stations in the world. Two have failed catastrophically. Others (e.g. Three mile island) have come close. By my maths that say there is a circa 1 in 250 chance that any given reactor will fail in a spectacular way. Thats not very long odds.
SecondlyThe matter of managing the spent fuel and the decomissioning costs are also indicators that the long term implications require far more consideration than they have received to date.
Thirdly I believe we should be seeking to achieve energy independence not mortgaging our futures to yet another imported fuel
Fourthly it has already be shown that sufficient nuclear power stations cannot be built in time for the anticipated energy shortfall in this country.
I personally think that being "pro" or "anti" any technology as a "moral" standpoint is absurd.
So lets look at the alternative energies. Expensive, inflexible, not 24 hrs, costly to produce, incapable of meeting the anticipated energy shortfall. Clean running and non emitting though and I don't recall a PV panel going into meltdown.
So neither can meet our energy needs in the time available. Perhaps it might be time to build some coal fired power stations and mine the coal that we still have large reserves of and keep our energy spend inside our country and provide some much needed jobs.
At the same time, we should accept that coal is finite and look at entirely new thinking on power. Micro generation, CHP, more off grid, low voltage appliances. For me, as in so many things, the plan is to become self reliant and generate our own - far more sensible and less wasteful - no long power lines, pylons, inherant power loss etc.
Red
The Nevada and Arizona deserts don't have forested lowlands to flood either. But due to the Hoover Dam and the cheap electricity and water it provided, the area soon grew. In any case even without the resulting incresa in human population, the deserts were/are their own unique habitat/ecosystem. I suspect the ecosystem/habitat below the Scottish dams is also it's own unique system and whatever environmental damage done will be unique as well. But there WILL be damage. It may take years or even decades to fully understand that damage; but it will occur.
The real question is whether the gain in electricity is worth whatever damage. Generally I agree that with hydro it usually is. But the results aren't really tallied yet.
That's a very good point British Red,(or several, I should say)
The improvements in technology are demonstrated in the filters and cleaning processes we now use for fossil fuels, and it'll get better because those pollutants that we remove are actually valuable chemicals in their own right.
I'm reliably informed that under my house are layer upon layer of good coal, clay and sand. Digging it out would be a bit of a pain, right enough, but the principle holds
cheers,
Toddy
The improvements in technology are demonstrated in the filters and cleaning processes we now use for fossil fuels, and it'll get better because those pollutants that we remove are actually valuable chemicals in their own right.
I'm reliably informed that under my house are layer upon layer of good coal, clay and sand. Digging it out would be a bit of a pain, right enough, but the principle holds
cheers,
Toddy
Last edited:
I've wondered about this as well. I suppose with the proper gearing you should be able to achieve some success.
That's a very good point (or several, I should say)
The improvements in technology are demonstrated in the filters and cleaning processes we now use for fossil fuels, and it'll get better because those pollutants that we remove are actually valuable chemicals in their own right...
Therein lies part of both the problem and the solution. Whenever something become profitable it WILL be done. And eventually other means of power production will become profitable. Until then dirty power or eco-damaging power will be the norm.
Red wrote (snipped)
"You want my contribution? There are less than 500 nuclear power stations in the world. Two have failed catastrophically. Others (e.g. Three mile island) have come close. By my maths that say there is a circa 1 in 250 chance that any given reactor will fail in a spectacular way. Thats not very long odds."
Your maths is off now I think, you've not included other variables, time, type of reactor, current reliability, estimated life span et al, the odds would be much much much higher than 1 in 250 its not so simple a calculation Any statisticians on site?
You are right about how long they take to build though, thats why we should be pouring concrete now and stop peeing about with 'alternative' forms of energy production IMHO
"You want my contribution? There are less than 500 nuclear power stations in the world. Two have failed catastrophically. Others (e.g. Three mile island) have come close. By my maths that say there is a circa 1 in 250 chance that any given reactor will fail in a spectacular way. Thats not very long odds."
Your maths is off now I think, you've not included other variables, time, type of reactor, current reliability, estimated life span et al, the odds would be much much much higher than 1 in 250 its not so simple a calculation Any statisticians on site?
You are right about how long they take to build though, thats why we should be pouring concrete now and stop peeing about with 'alternative' forms of energy production IMHO
Don't think the maths is off Richard - two catastrophic failures, 500 reactors. Its pretty much that simple. Oh we can figure out what types fail more frequently, how long we may have to wait for failure, but the reality is still the reality. Aproaching 1/2% of nuclear reactors have failed catastrophically. Thats the bones of it.
Matter of interest - why not build coal fired power stations right now?
Matter of interest - why not build coal fired power stations right now?
OK then, lets except the number of 500 civilian reactors. Multiply that time the 60 odd years they've been in service and we come up with a figure of 30,000 "reactor years" for lack of a better term. Granted some of those reactors are newer so lets say the true figure is about 65% of that conservatively; or about 19,500 reactor years. 2 failures only comes to .0003% per reactor year of operation.
If I could pose a couple of questions
Firstly, from what I gather uranium is plentyful at the moment, but it will eventually run out especially as other countries are also building more & more nuclear plants, so is it feasable to rely only on nuclear, building more plants ( & neglecting other means of energy production as some people suggest ) when it's self has only a limited timespan,?
Secondly, are we not in danger of running out of places to stock the spent fuel which needs very specific & stable geological conditions for thousands of years ? (dumping it in the Irish sea is now out of the question)
Thirdly, I have no idea where the UK obtains it's uranium, I presume from foreign lands ,so is there not a risk that the supply could be cut off by some future conflict or political drama.? The world is becoming a less stable place everyday.
I'd like to know your thoughts, cheers.
Firstly, from what I gather uranium is plentyful at the moment, but it will eventually run out especially as other countries are also building more & more nuclear plants, so is it feasable to rely only on nuclear, building more plants ( & neglecting other means of energy production as some people suggest ) when it's self has only a limited timespan,?
Secondly, are we not in danger of running out of places to stock the spent fuel which needs very specific & stable geological conditions for thousands of years ? (dumping it in the Irish sea is now out of the question
)Thirdly, I have no idea where the UK obtains it's uranium, I presume from foreign lands ,so is there not a risk that the supply could be cut off by some future conflict or political drama.? The world is becoming a less stable place everyday.
I'd like to know your thoughts, cheers.
Thats one way of looking at it santaman. Another is the average person lives sixty years. So if they live close to a Nuclear reactor, there is a 1 in 200 chance of them being involved in a major nuclear incident at some point during their lives.
...and yes ged, I'm entirely serious. Unless the plan is that we stop using fossil fuels. It would make much more sense if that is the case to ban passenger aircraft for holidays before we ban electricity generation. PLenty of people are still building coal fired power stations.
...and yes ged, I'm entirely serious. Unless the plan is that we stop using fossil fuels. It would make much more sense if that is the case to ban passenger aircraft for holidays before we ban electricity generation. PLenty of people are still building coal fired power stations.
It would be interesting to know how many people here live in the vicinity of a nuclear power station.?
Apparently there is a lot of regular house moving within a 5km radius of a plant ...in France anyway.
Apparently there is a lot of regular house moving within a 5km radius of a plant ...in France anyway.
Hmmm. some dubious stats being bandied about here - but that is always the way with nuclear!
One ancient, badly maintained and under-staffed reactor at Chernobyl failed catastrophically. Similarly, lots of Model 10 Fords broke down, but we don't judge the reliability of modern cars by Model 10s, do we! The Japanese one, despite being a relatively early design, was subjected to both earthquake and tidal wave, and it was only the fact that the back-up generators driving the water-cooling failed that caused a problem. 3 Mile Island - a Model 10 version - actually caused relatively little damage, even considering the poor maintenance and design (although the movie was - well - a movie pandering to the ban-the-bomb movement of the time). And other than that, very little else of note has occurred in the 50+ years these things have been running world-wide.
New designs are infinitely safer and more efficient. But lets judge them by Model 10 standards, eh?
As far as finite resources of uranium, that is true - "Peak Uranium" could be as close as 2-300 years! However, things like fast-breeders actually reprocess the spent uranium rods into plutonium, effectively doubling the life-cycle. And by then ( or possibly within the next 20 years) nuclear fusion plants should be up and running.
One ancient, badly maintained and under-staffed reactor at Chernobyl failed catastrophically. Similarly, lots of Model 10 Fords broke down, but we don't judge the reliability of modern cars by Model 10s, do we! The Japanese one, despite being a relatively early design, was subjected to both earthquake and tidal wave, and it was only the fact that the back-up generators driving the water-cooling failed that caused a problem. 3 Mile Island - a Model 10 version - actually caused relatively little damage, even considering the poor maintenance and design (although the movie was - well - a movie pandering to the ban-the-bomb movement of the time). And other than that, very little else of note has occurred in the 50+ years these things have been running world-wide.
New designs are infinitely safer and more efficient. But lets judge them by Model 10 standards, eh?
As far as finite resources of uranium, that is true - "Peak Uranium" could be as close as 2-300 years! However, things like fast-breeders actually reprocess the spent uranium rods into plutonium, effectively doubling the life-cycle. And by then ( or possibly within the next 20 years) nuclear fusion plants should be up and running.
It would be interesting to know how many people here live in the vicinity of a nuclear power station.?
Apparently there is a lot of regular house moving within a 5km radius of a plant ...in France anyway.
Considering that most of the French nuclear stations are on the Cherbourg peninsula, and a sw (the prevailing wind for most of the year) would blow radiation over the SE of England, it still remains remarkably attractive to most!
