Is nuclear the way to go?

[xxChrisxx]

Recorded history being the crucial thing Chris.
Even I have talked to nuclear workers who know of cover ups.
I simply do not believe the figures released.

You are free to believe in any conspiracy you want, there's no evidence to sugges that. I've seen the level of control that the Nuclear industry has in place for design and production and they really are second to none.

The point is, with both you and WB, no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise as you are both prone to believe in conspiracys. You've made up your minds, just don't state it as fact, becuase it isn't.

Ok, answer this question.
"What evidence would convince you that Nuclear Power is safe?"

[autogyro]

No form of power production is safe Chris.
Perhaps this is where you are going wrong when trying to convince people.
I agree that it is proven that nuclear plants can be operated without accident and as you put it 'safely'.
This is not nearly enough to put my mind at rest.
I refer to no 'conspiracy' theory, you use this as a convenient foundation for your argument against the anti nuclear lobbies and it is not justified in my case.
I have had plenty of experience with government departments and the military to know for a fact just how much data is restricted and conveniently covered up.
I am not refering to the technical data relevent to the science and engineering involved either.
We are in a recession that demands cut backs in many countries. Nuclear plants can be operated very safely if enough money and effort is put in, like in Sweeden, that seems to be the convenient base of most comments pro nuclear.
The potential risks increase however as the financial base and moral interest declines, as in my sad badly run country.
It could get to the level in some countries, where nuclear power becomes the same as giving a child a box of matches.

[flynfrog]

This is not nearly enough to put my mind at rest.
I refer to no 'conspiracy' theory, you use this as a convenient foundation for your argument against the anti nuclear lobbies and it is not justified in my case.



I have had plenty of experience with government departments and the military to know for a fact just how much data is restricted and conveniently covered up.
I am not referring to the technical data relevant to the science and engineering involved either.

Is this the same info that the "Oil Barrons" cover up too? I am done with this discussion I'm sure the other readers don't care to see this thread any more. The previous point has been made you have no facts only emotions as your reasoning therefor there can be no technical discussion.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I already pointed out (ehem) that emotions have to be taken in consideration.

Just check the situation in Germany: by a miracle (and a particular person) they're going to have nuclear plants beyond 2020, but apparently the fear and insecurity caused by the mere presence of radioactive (what a word!) materials in the country weighs more in the mind of many Germans that the filth they produce in the Sarre (or whatever is the name nowadays) by burning carbon for centuries to produce their great steel.

Many miners have died of silicosis, little penguins cry in their sleep while the Pole melts (ha, ha), but silicosis is silent, penguins don't vote (at least in Germany: in Latin America even horses vote) and this kind of venom takes people one by one, while Chernobyl is anything but silent.

Many inventions in engineering have taken this path before: being perfectly rational and also being perfectly "anti basic-human-emotions", they have gone the dinosaurs way.

For example, I loved an article in SciAm, many years ago (it was the 60's, dudes), that compared the risks with the perception of risk. Most people evaluated risks very badly.

I remember that ladders are riskier than, I don't know, scissors or electric plugs. Tell that to your respective moms and call me later.

Mine still refuses to use a gas oven... She doesn't care so much about the world: like you and me, she cares more about herself. I can dig that.

Answer this:

"Choose only one option:

Push the button on the left: with it, you have one chance in a million of being ripped appart, slowly and painfully, and you'll die screaming.

Push the button on the right: with it, you have one chance in a one hundred thousand of a quick and painless death."

[xpensive]

Very nice anologies Ciro, however, I think WB hit the head on the nail with this xpression;

The reason I'm not going to argue with Edis is simple. He seems to know a lot more than I do about the issue.

The above is gonna be a classic for years to come.

I think it's easy to scare from things you do not understand, which is of course xploited by the coal- and windpower lobby, just to make use of Gyro's vocabulary for once, to continue to slowly pollute our environment and in the latter case stealing the consumer's money for outrageous subsidies. In Sweden 3.5 c EUR per kWh produced just to begin with.

In that context, leaving the energy-issue to politicians and journos is plain stupidity, having a referendum, as we did in Sweden thirty years ago, is even worse, my mother was asked to decide on something she had absolutely no clue of.

[hollus]

Firstly:

Well, solar vs nuclear. Can anyone calculate the size of the solar panel needed to supply London energy needs?

I can.

Let's see: googling quickly I find that London uses 154 Tw-h per year (in 1999, but give me some leeway, will ya?).

Then I check the trusty Enerank site.

Yes, the largest photovoltaic generator in the world by peak power is, naturally, in Spain (have I mentioned we're FIFA world champions already? That's two in a row: solar energy AND football champions).

Olmedilla photovoltaic park is, probably, one of the most efficient photovoltaic systems in the world, because of its size. How large is it? At a mere 180 Hectares, it gives you 85Gw-h.



So, let's see:

Area of photovoltaic cells to satisfy London energy needs: 154 Tw-h/85 Gw-H * 180 Ha = 326.000 Ha, give or take.

Hmmmm.... A square km has 100 Ha last time I checked. So, we need 3260 Km2 of solar cells for London. That's like a third of the West Midlands, in dear old England. Caramba, I'd say. They're a little ugly, don't you think? Compared with the landscape of the previous picture (I'd say you have to imagine yourself walking by these things) even a wind farm or an electric transmission line seems pretty.

If we do the same exercise for the EU, with its 1800 Mtoe used annualy (a Mtoe is 11604 Gw-h), or 21.000 Tw-h, how large is the solar plant we need?

Area to use for Europe energy needs satisfied with solar power? Simple: 444.000 square kilometers.

That's twice the size of the United Kingdom or two thirds of France. I surely would vote for it: let's cover England, Scotland, Wales and the northern part of France (I'd spare Northern Ireland) with photovoltaic cells. Surely health effects are negligible and psychological effects are overstated: most Britons and Parisians I know seem pale and a tad crazy already: they could live under such a roof of sun panels.

Practical? Ecological? You tell me.

Secondly:

Some of us are terrified by the thought of people starting to use nuclear power, ain't we? Surely I am. I don't want Bin Laden to interfere with my Playstation 24x7 usage...

Terrified we are. Let's not use nuclear power! Can we? Sure we can. Or maybe not...

How much nuclear power does Europe use for electric power today? 5%, perhaps?

No. More.

10%?

No. More.

20%?

Almost there. Go upwards, please.

A whooping 30% of Europe's electricity comes from nuclear power? Seriously? Ciro, do you actually mean nuclear power is the main source of electricity in Europe? Are you kidding me?

Yes. That's it: 30%. And, yes, I'm probably kidding you anyway.

You don't believe me? Fool, check the European Energy Commission statistics for 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications ... k_2010.pdf (page 30).

Let's write this again, but use the bold thingy: Europe main source of electricity is nuclear power, not tomorrow, nor next year, but today.

Food for Edis's thought: perhaps all that plutonium around explains guys like Berlusconi and Sarkozy.

Who would have believed it? One in three words written in an european computer (hi, autogyro!) is "powered" by nuclear energy! Their computers (hi, autogyro!) reek of "nuclear electrons", going in and out, all of them carrying their tiny "Danger!" signs.

No wonder them, europeans, (hi, autogyro!) seem already radioactive...

So, I wonder if we're green (very green).

Third:

I live in a country that gets 65% of its electricity from renewable sources. Why? Go figure. Anyway, Colombia uses hydropower: by chance and a particular guy, it is a nuclear free zone (is not like we can afford it: the grapes are green, said the fox, but we took the time to write this law...) and last time I checked the country wasn't submerged in water nor covered with photovoltaic cells.

Frankly, to me, all sources of energy have pros and cons, but hydro, I like. You lose some trees and animals but hopefully you win some algae and fish, if you're smart enough. It's peaceful, at least.

And, let's be frank, to end this post: I think we will continue to use nuclear energy and engineers of the future will find a way around our fears of misuse, gross mismanagement and lack of thorough understanding of consequences, the same way engineers of today have done with carbon energy plants and global warming (that's a joke, of course).

However, Edis, no matter what you or me think in "engineering terms", our use of energy is also commanded by our perception of it and the idea of what's shining (lurking?) in the core of a nuclear plant gives you the creeps, if you ponder it for a while. Nuclear energy, I'd say, is not "as human" as a fire or a water-wheel, things that somehow are already in us. It will take time, I guess.


Hi, autogyro!

Sorry for reposting the entire thing. Surely there are exceptions for long-quoting moderators

I am reading a lot of "Nuclear yes" and "Nuclear no". From a lot of "engineers" that, when it comes to racing cars claim that it is all about compromises... well, I think Nuclear is "also an option". It has its pros, it has its cons.
So what do I also read a lot of "Solar yes" and "Solar no"? It is not a binary question.

So, Ciro, you are saying, roughly, that one would have to cover 10% of the European Union in Olmedillas. Roughly, that's not far from the numbers I estimate for the whole earth, blah, blah, blah (see some pages ago). Sure! True! Is solar ready to take over fully now? No way!

Now, lets see it it might be "also an option". First of all, I almost can live with 10%. Ugly? Probably. Safe? Surely. Cheap? Likely (with mass production). The idea of covering all McLaren fans with solar panels is quite appealing, but probably they would have to be distributed.
So, that's 10% surface coverage. Doable right here an now.

Moving onto the future:
The numbers you posted for Olmedilla suggest that only 30W of the theoretical 1000W of solar radiation at Earth's surface are being concerted in to electricity, giving a 3% efficiency. That's the peak performance. The average performance, the one you cited, is something like 30% of that, logical accounting for nights and clouds. Can it be improved?

Olmedilla is not designed to blanket cover the electricity needs of a country, that is clear to see. Look at all the empty space in between solar cells. Just covering those would likely bring the efficiency to 5%, obviously density was not a factor in the design.
Then, we already have this terrible area covered in ugly, spooky, dark and, yikes, artificial solar panels. The underlying sand was so much prettier... but, since we have ruined the landscape, why not take out one in every 100 panels and put a windmill in its place? They cast a shadow, but a small one, really, and there is plenty of wind up there on top of those panels. Also, the infrastructure is already in place, the transformers are in place, the technicians are in place, hey, there is even wind in the night! The panels surely won't complain about the noise. Am I allowed to claim another 2% from all those windmills? We are at 7%, with technology of here and now...
Moving on 10 years into the future, I think it is reasonable to expect the efficiency of "industrial scale" solar panels to double. Prototypes are already around 20%, Olmedilla at 3%... So, in 10 years time, by about the time when it would be feasible to really cover vast areas in solar panels, we add another 5%, and suddenly Olmedilla2 is working at a 12% efficiency, producing eelctricity both during the day and during the night (although still intermittently).
I say with that we can take all Hamilton Fans from under the solar panels and leave only Button's fans covered.

Solar... it is also an option, and just because it is not ready here and now, there is no reason o claim it wouldn't work. Who could have built all those nuclear reactors efficiently and safely 60 years ago? Yet now, they seem to be a given...

[Shrek]

Can't they put up solar cells on roofs?

[CMSMJ1]

Quality thread.

Nuclear is great..

[xpensive]

I spoke to some engineering collegues at ABB i Västerås Sweden the other night, when they mentioned a research and development venture between EoN, ABB and Saab, working on wire-less energy transfer to an electric car.
Something like the mobile-networks the way I understand it, but much more powerful obviously.

This makes some sense, with EoN's nuclear power plants, ABB's know-how on power-transmission and Saabs xcellence in cutting-edge automotive technology, imagine the repercussion for the world's car industry, mindboggling indeed!

[tomislavp4]

Wireless transfer is the way to go, if you can get the efficiency up

Me and my class entered a design competition here in Sweden last year and won 4th place with such a concept. Our idea was to have induction transmitters under the tarmac which would beam power to receivers in the car. Vattenfall and Volvo liked our idea quite a lot.

Yesterday there was a story on Gizmag about some student that built a prototype. http://www.gizmag.com/e-quickie-electri ... ion/16346/ But they don't say anything about the efficiency which is a big problem! Wigh it solved we could see much lighter, efficient cars....

[autogyro]

Mobile induction charging of batteries and direct traction goes back to the 1920,s
So I dont see Sweeden winning any prizes for it.
There are large losses but then who cares if they use nuclear power, plenty of that in Sweeden.

[xpensive]

Mobile induction charging of batteries and direct traction goes back to the 1920,s
So I dont see Sweeden winning any prizes for it.
There are large losses but then who cares if they use nuclear power, plenty of that in Sweeden.

Of course, didn't you invent that as well, or was it your grand-dad perhaps?

[flynfrog]

autogyro is Tesla

edit its even better if you look at my Av after reading that

[autogyro]

Good luck to them but they need to be careful.
If it does not make a noise and go vroom vroom it wont sell.
Easier to take the silencers off a few Saabs.

[beflox]

Fortunately for many participants, endlessly ranting without a substantive factual basis is par for the course!

sounds familiar