End of Nuclear Power Generation

[kitamesume]

ohh so you meant they havent released the blueprints of those naval reactor for public use? how mean.

[DeadSpaceX]

Not a logical choice to rush the decommissioning of their reactors, seems more an emotional panic response. There has always been a strong anti-nuclear faction in germany, and most of europe though >.> as well as the states and elsewhere in the world. Invisible death scares people.

Read this, and someone was trying to say coal/oil/gas was safer? lol. Have to factor into that not just the plants themselves...but acquiring the fuel, the wells, derricks, platforms, transport, the refining and re-transport >.>

how many coal miners will die in one year? how many oil well workers? forgot those people in your 'safe' solution? how about shipment? accidents on the oceans and on the roads? and oil wells themselves...rememb er bp? nuclear is far safer and more practical than any fossil fuel, less cost in lives and environmental impact until geothermal can make significant headway, and/or fusion.

All the nuclear accidents combined do not equal...even multiplied by 1000 the number of lives fossil fuels have taken, including 'incidental' from radiation poisoning from accidents like chernobyl and fukishima. Unfortunately fear tends to over-rule logic.

sidenote, someone mentioned heat conversion, russia early on developed nuclear batteries based on that (there's some controversy over those...), and the cassini probe carried a modern version. Wouldn't mind having my own personal RTG or several ^_^

[Burkingam]

Not a logical choice to rush the decommissioning of their reactors, seems more an emotional panic response. There has always been a strong anti-nuclear faction in germany, and most of europe though >.> as well as the states and elsewhere in the world. Invisible death scares people.

Read this, and someone was trying to say coal/oil/gas was safer? lol. Have to factor into that not just the plants themselves...but acquiring the fuel, the wells, derricks, platforms, transport, the refining and re-transport >.>

how many coal miners will die in one year? how many oil well workers? forgot those people in your 'safe' solution? how about shipment? accidents on the oceans and on the roads? and oil wells themselves...rememb er bp? nuclear is far safer and more practical than any fossil fuel, less cost in lives and environmental impact until geothermal can make significant headway, and/or fusion.

All the nuclear accidents combined do not equal...even multiplied by 1000 the number of lives fossil fuels have taken, including 'incidental' from radiation poisoning from accidents like chernobyl and fukishima. Unfortunately fear tends to over-rule logic.

sidenote, someone mentioned heat conversion, russia early on developed nuclear batteries based on that (there's some controversy over those...), and the cassini probe carried a modern version. Wouldn't mind having my own personal RTG or several ^_^

There is an interesting article on Wikipedia about nuclear decommissioning. The prices are insane, not to mention they are often financed by the state instead of the private company who owns the plan. It's one of the most rational reasons to favour other energy sources. Now, to avoid this cost, the plant shouldn't be build at the first place. So I guess I most agree with you that we shouldn't decommission an existing plant unless we have a really good reason. Most of the damage has already been done, we might as well get has much energy as possible from it. Keep in mind that uranium mining and transport can also represent some danger. I don't know the numbers. Probably not nearly has bad as fossil fuels. I personally wouldn't chose either unless nothing else is available.

[tomoya-kun]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

[Burkingam]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.

(click to show/hide)

I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.

[tomoya-kun]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.

(click to show/hide)

I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.

I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used.  At least, that's what I've been taught.

[Burkingam]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.

(click to show/hide)

I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.

I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used.  At least, that's what I've been taught.

1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.

[tomoya-kun]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.

(click to show/hide)

I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.

I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used.  At least, that's what I've been taught.

1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.

While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think.  I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.

Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small.  The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere. 

[Burkingam]

While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think.  I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.

Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small.  The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere. 

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

7 of the 10 most powerful power stations in the world are hydro (rank 4,6 and 9 are nuclear). World wide, Hydro accounts for 20% of all energy produced. This is not small.
I agree that is less flexible as of where we can build it but nuclear doesn't beat any fuel plants in this regard. And when it comes to producing only when needed, nothing beats hydro. This has already be stated, read the last few pages for more details.

[mgz]

Nuclear power is probably the most efficient way to generate power at the moment.

No, If you look at costs only, hydro, coal and natural gas are almost always the less expensive. If you only consider energy that can be developed everywhere, Nuclear still gets a very bad score. Here is a chart comparing Nuke, Coal and natural gas.

(click to show/hide)

I really don't see otherwise what criteria makes you thinks it's more efficient. Please explain.

I was under the impression that it was the most sustainable compared to burning gases or coal in terms of resources used.  At least, that's what I've been taught.

1. It's more expensive.
2. Uranium, since it's a militarily strategic resource is harder to obtain for several countries. Can also pose a diplomatic risk.
3. Probably the hardest plant type to dismantle.
4. For almost every designs, the energy output and fuel input most be constant with no regard to demand. In other words, no flexibility.
5. While uranium and coal aren't renewable energy, natural gas has both limited and renewable sources. The cheapest renewable energy is hydro.

While it is expensive, it's not that hard to obtain uranium I think.  I'm sure those Americans have lots of it.

Hydro is inflexible in where it can be used, and the amount it generates is rather small.  The demand for power is enough that it can likely be used elsewhere. 

it is inflexible but it does generate assloads of power things like the hover dam produce silly amounts of energy

[Burkingam]

Yea basically if hydro is available, it should almost always be favoured over nuclear and fossil. The benefits are just too great. It lasts forever too. The hover dam was built in the 30s ans is still perfectly functional. But if it's not available, it's useless to ask.

[per]

7 of the 10 most powerful power stations in the world are hydro (rank 4,6 and 9 are nuclear). World wide, Hydro accounts for 20% of all energy produced. This is not small.
I agree that is less flexible as of where we can build it but nuclear doesn't beat any fuel plants in this regard. And when it comes to producing only when needed, nothing beats hydro. This has already be stated, read the last few pages for more details.

Most usable hydro power in the developed countries is actually already used (at least in Europe this is the case).
 
There is a rather hard limit on how much you can get from hydro. If there is no river, or no height difference, there is not much that can be done.

Also, environmentalists often stop hydro power plants since they have a tendency to put large areas under water.

[Burkingam]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

[Bob2004]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.

Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.

[Burkingam]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.

Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.

The relocalization of the valley's inhabitants is usually the deal breaker. Be carefull though. Your example isn't representative of what usually hapens. the three gorges dam holds the record of the most peoples localized and by far. Also consider that the three gorges dam is the most powerful plant of any type in the world.

[Bob2004]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.

Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.

The relocalization of the valley's inhabitants is usually the deal breaker. Be carefull though. Your example isn't representative of what usually hapens. the three gorges dam holds the record of the most peoples localized and by far. Also consider that the three gorges dam is the most powerful plant of any type in the world.

That is true; it was a more serious example. I don't really know of many big hydroelectric dams (since there isn't really anywhere suited to building one in the UK), so my choice of examples was limited.

That said, in order to provide enough power to make hydroelectric a viable means of providing anywhere near the same amount of power as other sources, dams need to be built on the scale as Three Gorges; smaller dams, while still cheap and efficient, cannot provide enough power to become a viable substitute for nuclear or fossil fuels. And even then, they might not be reliable enough to act as a nation's main source of electricity.

[Burkingam]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.

Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.

The relocalization of the valley's inhabitants is usually the deal breaker. Be carefull though. Your example isn't representative of what usually hapens. the three gorges dam holds the record of the most peoples localized and by far. Also consider that the three gorges dam is the most powerful plant of any type in the world.

That is true; it was a more serious example. I don't really know of many big hydroelectric dams (since there isn't really anywhere suited to building one in the UK), so my choice of examples was limited.

That said, in order to provide enough power to make hydroelectric a viable means of providing anywhere near the same amount of power as other sources, dams need to be built on the scale as Three Gorges; smaller dams, while still cheap and efficient, cannot provide enough power to become a viable substitute for nuclear or fossil fuels. And even then, they might not be reliable enough to act as a nation's main source of electricity.

There are a few nations that use hydro has their main energy source, including mine(Canada), but also Brazil, the Philippines and probably a few others I don't know. The only power failure I have ever had in why life where caused by a cut line. It's definitely reliable enough when it's available.

[Bob2004]

By reliable, I was referring mainly to how the amount of power it can generate depends on environmental factors. It's very highly dependent on climate and the weather; as a result, the amount of power that it generates in winter is significantly less than what it generates in summer. Using the Three Gorges dam as an example again, this graph shows what I mean:



You either need to build enough dams that the minimum amount generated in winter is enough to power everything, which then leaves you with a huge surplus in summer, or rely on other sources to take up the huge amount of slack during the winter months.

[mgz]

There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.

A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.

Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.

but thats china those basically arent even real people

[Burkingam]

@Bob2004 I thought the reservoir's capacity was large enough to stockpile water during summer and use it during winter. But after looking at the graph and making a few calculations I see it's not as simple. Ok, point granted.

 If we want it or not, we will eventually have to switch for renewable energy though. Nuclear fusion which would be renewable is far from ready and might and up a lot costlier than what we have right now. The induced seismicity from enhanced geothermal might be a deal breaker.  Uranium, coal and most of gas aren't renewable. Any non-renewable energy sources use fuel which will tend to become more expensive with time. Wind, hydro and geothermal basically use free fuel. On the long run they are safer bets. A hydro-dam can easily stay operational for 50-100 years. You can't say that for a nuclear plant(or anything else). At the end, there is no perfect energy. Every sources have their disadvantages.