|
|
Post by mak2 on Mar 22, 2011 20:31:04 GMT 1
Considering what happened in Fukushima, is it a bad idea to site nuclear reactors on the coast?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 22, 2011 21:05:52 GMT 1
Only in a tsuami zone. Europe's fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Mar 23, 2011 9:55:32 GMT 1
We are not completely immune from the risk of a tsunami and what about a storm surge?
All our nuclear power stations seem to be on the coast. Does anyone know the reason for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 10:17:41 GMT 1
Don’t you have the slightest tiny concerns over the plant right on our own doorstep Mr Smith? A facility I know extremely well, now being decommissioned.
As for them being on the coast, that is for two reasons. Firstly it is much easier to obtain cooling water, and second when the first commercial reactors were built it was political common sense to site them as far as was reasonable from large centres of population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 23, 2011 10:24:13 GMT 1
Don’t you have the slightest tiny concerns over the plant right on our own doorstep Mr Smith? A facility I know extremely well, now being decommissioned. As for them being on the coast, that is for two reasons. Firstly it is much easier to obtain cooling water, and second when the first commercial reactors were built it was political common sense to site them as far as was reasonable from large centres of population. I must admit that I always casually thought that they were sited by the sea because it was a great cooling facility, but on reflection that is surely nonsense, because for the cooling of reactors (or anything else of value) the corrosive effect of sea-water would be catastrophic? They surely use highly purified water for that purpose? Certainly the adjacency to unpopulated areas makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 10:43:52 GMT 1
Heat exchange Nay
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 23, 2011 10:55:27 GMT 1
Ah Yes!
I see (I think)
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 23, 2011 11:02:55 GMT 1
Don’t you have the slightest tiny concerns over the plant right on our own doorstep Mr Smith? A facility I know extremely well, now being decommissioned. As for them being on the coast, that is for two reasons. Firstly it is much easier to obtain cooling water, and second when the first commercial reactors were built it was political common sense to site them as far as was reasonable from large centres of population. I have no concerns about siting a nuclear plant near me. The sooner the better! I have much more concern for the unbelievable waste of money that is the renewable nonsense. Nuclear = cheap, reliable, clean and safe electricity. Renewables = Very expensive, unreliable and intermittant electricity....at best. In reality - no electricity at all. Tidal - nowhere near commercial deployment. Wave - nowhere near commercial deployment Wind - highly uneconomic and unreliable. Solar - highly uneconomic and unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 11:03:32 GMT 1
The cooling water is 'strained' with large rotating mesh strainers which often catch fish. Salmon is quite common on the Severn and it is a sackable offence to remove them for 'kitchen' recycling. They are meant to be reported to the local water bailiff.
A large salmon was caught some years ago and the water bailiff was duly called.
When he came to collect the fish someone had got there first and stuffed the head in one end of a cardboard drawing tube and the tail in the other and written in felt tip on the tube.
'John West Had the Rest!'
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 12:25:50 GMT 1
Don’t you have the slightest tiny concerns over the plant right on our own doorstep Mr Smith? A facility I know extremely well, now being decommissioned. As for them being on the coast, that is for two reasons. Firstly it is much easier to obtain cooling water, and second when the first commercial reactors were built it was political common sense to site them as far as was reasonable from large centres of population. I have no concerns about siting a nuclear plant near me. The sooner the better! I have much more concern for the unbelievable waste of money that is the renewable nonsense. Nuclear = cheap, reliable, clean and safe electricity. Renewables = Very expensive, unreliable and intermittant electricity....at best. In reality - no electricity at all. Tidal - nowhere near commercial deployment. Wave - nowhere near commercial deployment Wind - highly uneconomic and unreliable. Solar - highly uneconomic and unreliable. I tend to half go along with most of that Mr Smith, but I still think it is essential that we have more than one string on the bow. To my mind the only 'alternative' that makes any sense is tidal. I am in favour of the current tidal schemes, but they have to be regarded at this stage as quite expensive R&D. That said, all R&D is expensive. We could do shedloads to help ourselves on some common sense reduction in our consumption. At the stroke of a pen the government could demand that ANY new development had solar water heating on the roof. It is common place in many countries and does not need to look like an add on with a sodding great tank on the roof. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 23, 2011 12:46:22 GMT 1
Common sense should dictate economising on energy consumption. Idiot government price hikes just destroy the economy. I agree with solar augmenting heating systems to some extent...home made, cheap systems are all that are economic since you don't need heat when the sun's shining to the same degree.
Tidal is a blind alley - wave is the only worthwhile energy source in the sea but the engineering constraints have not been overcome - not even close.
The much vaunted pelamis 2 device languishes alongside Lyness harbour and is only deployed in sea state 2 or less. The Oyster wave convertor is situated on Stromness Pier, smashed to pieces.
The level of experimentation is so laughable that I would say the current effort will result in nothing.
Kids playing with toys...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 13:08:45 GMT 1
The problem is Mr Smith that the R&D models for tidal or wave power, because that is what they are, have to be on a big scale. The guy doing R&D on a new office stapler can chuck his failures in the skip.
And I can't agree that tidal is a blind alley. It is the only one which is dependable, all the rest rely on the weather, including wave power. It might well work out to be un-economic for several decades, but so were many things in their infancy which we now take for granted.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 23, 2011 13:09:04 GMT 1
The problem is Mr Smith that the R&D models for tidal or wave power, because that is what they are, have to be on a big scale. The guy doing R&D on a new office stapler can chuck his failures in the skip.
And I can't agree that tidal is a blind alley. It is the only one which is dependable, all the rest rely on the weather, including wave power. It might well work out to be un-economic for several decades, but so were many things in their infancy which we now take for granted.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 23, 2011 13:37:17 GMT 1
Considering what happened in Fukushima, is it a bad idea to site nuclear reactors on the coast? It is rather silly to draw a parallel with what has occurred in Japan with what might happen in the UK. Nothing is totally risk free and without the infrastructure of nuclear energy we would face a future that would put us back to the Dark Ages. Fact is, the reactor in Japan was a rather old one by modern standards and today's reactors are much safer. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 23, 2011 14:01:44 GMT 1
The problem is Mr Smith that the R&D models for tidal or wave power, because that is what they are, have to be on a big scale. The guy doing R&D on a new office stapler can chuck his failures in the skip. And I can't agree that tidal is a blind alley. It is the only one which is dependable, all the rest rely on the weather, including wave power. It might well work out to be un-economic for several decades, but so were many things in their infancy which we now take for granted. But they've been trying to perfect wave convertors since the fifties. The current fad has been going for a decade with unlimited funding with ZERO result. They're just having a laugh at our expense. I know some of the engineers and a lot of the people involved personally. I can see with my own eyes their failures. I am consulted during "economic impact assessments" and know their planned sites are hopeless. The three favoured sites in the pentland firth couldn't be more wrong - All three sites are in positions where they only get tidal flow on the ebb. During the flood there is zero flow at the sites. Believe me - it's a scam. |
|
