Comments on: Nuclear power? It’s still no thanks http://www.redpepper.org.uk/nuclear-power-it-s-still-no-thanks/ Red Pepper Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:28:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: A http://www.redpepper.org.uk/nuclear-power-it-s-still-no-thanks/#comment-2519 A Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:56:40 +0000 #comment-2519 Oscar, since you feel so inclined to lecture everyone on the current state of nuclear power and electricity, I assume you have a technical background in engineering, chemistry, or physics? Oscar, since you feel so inclined to lecture everyone on the current state of nuclear power and electricity, I assume you have a technical background in engineering, chemistry, or physics?

]]> By: ECooper http://www.redpepper.org.uk/nuclear-power-it-s-still-no-thanks/#comment-1632 ECooper Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:59:56 +0000 #comment-1632 As an engineer, I'd love to see some really thought thorough arguments which describe how we can avoid the huge capital costs of nuclear power station construction, however I am yet to see anything that comes close. It's absurd to think the general public are going to accept a step backwards in their living standards so lets not try that route. Efficiency improvements can, and are being made, which is excellent, however only so much can be done there, we still need new capacity to replace old. You seem to attack efficiency losses of grids in one breath and then propose greater diversity of supply, and even storage, in another. A grid gives you diversity so you can manage changes in system loads and inputs efficiently. True a grid has losses but they are tiny compared to local small scale energy storage. Furthermore you need a solid grid to tie a bunch of windturbines across the nation into the consumers. With storage, I guess there are two options, major capital projects like Dinorwig in Wales, or local battery systems at properties. We don't have enough space in this country for dozens of pumped storage facilities, neither the political will to flood millions of hectares of Wales and Scotland, so we can discount that one. Batteries are pretty nasty things, a kilogram of lead and acid gets you get about 100Whr, which might run your TV for half an hour or let you make one cup of tea. The cost of building, shipping, remanufacturing (every 3-5yrs) and maintaining large battery systems is high in cash and environmental terms. Storing electricity just doesn't work, we can use wind and wave in the future though with an advanced integrated grid to command our washing machines, dishwashers, elecric vehicles, fridges, and even heat pumps to use power when it's available, and stop when it's not. I wish there was an answer, but we no longer live in a world where power cuts are just an inconvenience, so many of the systems society (and our cities) rely on require power all the time. Perhaps the best alternative is carbon capture, but to be honest I'm more nervous about billions of tons of trapped carbon, which will find a way out, than a dozen tons of radioactive hard stuff we can concrete away under a mountain somewhere. An engineer. As an engineer, I’d love to see some really thought thorough arguments which describe how we can avoid the huge capital costs of nuclear power station construction, however I am yet to see anything that comes close.

It’s absurd to think the general public are going to accept a step backwards in their living standards so lets not try that route.

Efficiency improvements can, and are being made, which is excellent, however only so much can be done there, we still need new capacity to replace old.

You seem to attack efficiency losses of grids in one breath and then propose greater diversity of supply, and even storage, in another. A grid gives you diversity so you can manage changes in system loads and inputs efficiently. True a grid has losses but they are tiny compared to local small scale energy storage. Furthermore you need a solid grid to tie a bunch of windturbines across the nation into the consumers.

With storage, I guess there are two options, major capital projects like Dinorwig in Wales, or local battery systems at properties. We don’t have enough space in this country for dozens of pumped storage facilities, neither the political will to flood millions of hectares of Wales and Scotland, so we can discount that one.

Batteries are pretty nasty things, a kilogram of lead and acid gets you get about 100Whr, which might run your TV for half an hour or let you make one cup of tea. The cost of building, shipping, remanufacturing (every 3-5yrs) and maintaining large battery systems is high in cash and environmental terms.

Storing electricity just doesn’t work, we can use wind and wave in the future though with an advanced integrated grid to command our washing machines, dishwashers, elecric vehicles, fridges, and even heat pumps to use power when it’s available, and stop when it’s not.

I wish there was an answer, but we no longer live in a world where power cuts are just an inconvenience, so many of the systems society (and our cities) rely on require power all the time.

Perhaps the best alternative is carbon capture, but to be honest I’m more nervous about billions of tons of trapped carbon, which will find a way out, than a dozen tons of radioactive hard stuff we can concrete away under a mountain somewhere.

An engineer.

]]>