THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 5 (merged)

[peeker01]

ok, let's think this through. france gets 78% of it's electricity from nukes. they cost hundreds
of billions of dollars to build. they make no co2. there have been no fatalities. no serious
incidents.

because there was a cooling system failure in japan, in a 9.0 earthquake on a fault line, the
government of france wants to "surrender" their nukes.

replace them with what? windmills? solar panels? natural gas from russia?

2050 is a long way from now. all the crooks trying to attract the green vote will be gone.
all the greens will be burned for fuel in a post peak french world.

why am i even wasting my time thinking about france?

[Cog]

Good point peeker. Most of the nuclear fear mongers never consider the real life consequences of their "Lets get rid of all those evil nukes" proclamations. Nuclear power has proven to be safer than any other power source devised by man.

[GoIllini]

Thanks for the response, cog.

Did you notice, though, that wind does blow and sun does shine in and near France?

In fact there is a little thing called the Sahara just a few hundred miles away that has vast open spaces with lots and lots of sunshine.

But, I know it can be very difficult for some people to think about more than one thing at a time, and you seem to have hit on your one thing to think about, and you're stickin' to it.

Solar and wind are uneconomical. Why run the country on sustainable peasant technology when you can run it on sustainable modern technology? At worst, Chernobyl and Fukushima will be radioactive for 300 years- 10 half lives of Cesium and Strontium- and displace economic activity from a few hundred square miles. Nuclear has taken up a tiny fraction of the land that wind and solar have already taken up while generating hundreds of times more energy.

There will be more accidents, but chances are that our grandkids will live and work in Pripyat, vacation on the Bikini Atoll, and perhaps our great great grandchildren will hear about Fukushima as they walk through the nature preserve Japan was able to set aside and wonder, "They really had a nuclear disaster here?" kinda like how we wonder about slag dumping 200 years ago in the northeast as we walk through a quiet woods and think nothing of it other than as a historical footnote.

The fact is that every year, 3% of the radioactivity from longer-lived fission products goes away. Yes, it is important to keep Pu-239 out of our drinking water- that's why France reprocesses its waste so it becomes 100% radiologically safe after 500 years- but nuclear is a very land-cheap way of generating electricity. And it doesn't kill birds and contaminate the desert with heavy metals like PV solar.

[dohboi]

Tell that to the folks around Fukushima, which even the officials are now saying will take decades to clean up.

I love how, while France embraced nukes, they were the smartest people on the planet. But now that, in the face of overwhelming direct evidence that it is fatally toxic industry, they turn away from it, they are silly, idiotic, thoughtless...not worth wasting one's time even thinking about.

How quickly things can change for the ideologically blinkered!

[GoIllini]

How quickly things can change for the ideologically blinkered!

Pot calling kettle black.

[dohboi]

"Chernobyl and Fukushima will be radioactive for 300 years- 10 half lives of Cesium and Strontium- and displace economic activity from a few hundred square miles."

Well, thanks for at least being that honest. Too bad if you happen to live in those 'few hundred square miles' which may just happen to include millions of people.

It just stuns me that people are still promoting this toxic industry in the face of the still unfolding catastrophe.

Shameless, really.

[peeker01]

oops.....tried to edit.....pushed the wrong button

[Cog]

Saying you are going to turn away from nuclear energy and actually doing it is two different things. At the end of the day, year, and decade, France will continue to do the smart thing and that is power generation with safe and CO2 free nuclear energy.

[dohboi]

So now peeker has taken to making posts that are mere copies of his earlier posts.

And cog now claims to have perfect knowledge of the future.

Sorry, you guys are just too wild and crazy to even attempt to continue any kind of remotely sane dialogue with.

Best wishes in the ongoing death spiral.

[GoIllini]

It just stuns me... really.

Shameless is taking advantage of a disaster for political gain. The fact is that we now know the cost of western nuclear- 400 plants generating ~35 quadrillion BTUS/year of energy means ~200-300 square miles getting taken out of service for, at worst, a couple hundred years about every 30-40 years. This translates into a radioactive area roughly the size of two midwestern counties over the full 300 year cycle. Compare that with an area the size of the Great Basin for wind energy or the size of California for solar. Nuclear is sustainable and a more land-efficient modern alternative to the wind power of medieval peasantry.

Edit: if you can drop important phrases off of my comments like "At worst, Fukushima and Chernobyl will be radioactive for 300 years", I will have fun with your quotes, too.

[Cog]

Don't confuse Doh-boy with facts. He already said he has plugged up his ears and doesn't want to hear anymore about it.

[peeker01]

gather some info dubie, and we will continue the debate. how do you suppose they will
replace the current electricity demand, not to mention what it will be in 2050?

[GoIllini]

Don't confuse Doh-boy with facts. He already said he has plugged up his ears and doesn't want to hear anymore about it.

I know. He has been that way for three years. Then he accuses us of being ideologues and ignores basic math on land use.

[kublikhan]

Nuclear is sustainable and a more land-efficient modern alternative to the wind power of medieval peasantry.

This is nothing but mud slinging. Wind power has been evolving for hundreds of years. Modern wind turbines are far more advanced than the primitive wind power of medieval peasantry. You post belies the countless advances that have been made in wind power over the centuries, and are still continuing today. If you want to make a point about the economics of nuclear vs wind, you do not need to resort to such ignorant posts.

The history of wind power shows a general evolution from the use of simple, light devices driven by aerodynamic drag forces; to heavy, material-intensive drag devices; to the increased use of light, material-efficient aerodynamic lift devices in the modern era. The first windmills were developed to automate the tasks of grain-grinding and water-pumping and the earliest-known design is the vertical axis system developed in Persia about 500-900 A.D. While the belief that the windmill was invented in China more than 2000 years ago is widespread and may be accurate, the earliest actual documentation of a Chinese windmill was in 1219 A.D.

As early as 1390, the Dutch set out to refine the tower mill design. A primary improvement of the European mills was their designer's use of sails that generated aerodynamic lift (see Figure 4 at the left). This feature provided improved rotor efficiency compared with the Persian mills by allowing an increase in rotor speed, which also allowed for superior grinding and pumping action. The process of perfecting the windmill sail, making incremental improvements in efficiency, took 500 years. By the time the process was completed, windmill sails had all the major features recognized by modern designers as being crucial to the performance of modern wind turbine blades, including 1) camber along the leading edge, 2) placement of the blade spar at the quarter chord position (25% of the way back from the leading edge toward the trailing edge), 3) center of gravity at the same 1/4 chord position, and 4) nonlinear twist of the blade from root to tip. Some models also featured aerodynamic brakes, spoilers, and flaps.

By 1920, the two dominant rotor configurations (fan-type and sail) had both been tried and found to be inadequate for generating appreciable amounts of electricity. The further development of wind generator electrical systems in the United States was inspired by the design of airplane propellers and (later) monoplane wings. The development of bulk-power, utility-scale wind energy conversion systems was first undertaken in Russia in 1931 with the 100kW Balaclava wind generator. This machine operated for about two years on the shore of the Caspian Sea, generating 200,000 kWh of electricity. Subsequent experimental wind plants in the United States, Denmark, France, Germany, and Great Britain during the period 1935-1970 showed that large-scale wind turbines would work, but failed to result in a practical large electrical wind turbine.

European developments continued after World War II, when temporary shortages of fossil fuels led to higher energy costs. In Germany, Professor Ulrich Hutter developed a series of advanced, horizontal-axis designs of intermediate size that utilized modern, airfoil-type fiberglass and plastic blades with variable pitch to provide light weight and high efficiencies. This design approach sought to reduce bearing and structural failures by "shedding" aerodynamic loads, rather than "withstanding" them as did the Danish approach. One of the most innovative load-shedding design features was the use of a bearing at the rotor hub that allowed the rotor to "teeter" in response to wind gusts and vertical wind shear. Hutter's advanced designs achieved over 4000 hours of operation before the experiments were ended in 1968.

Post war activity in Denmark and Germany largely dictated the two major horizontal-axis design approaches that would emerge when attention returned to wind turbine development in the early 1970s. The Danes refined the simple, fixed pitch, Gedser Mill design, utilizing advanced materials, improved aerodynamic design, and aerodynamic controls to reduce some of its shortcomings. The engineering innovations of the light-weight, higher efficiency German machines, such as a teeter hinge at the rotor hub, were used later by U.S. designers.

The development of modern vertical-axis rotors was begun in France by G.J.M. Darrieus in the 1920s. Of the several rotors Darrieus designed, the most important one is a rotor comprising slender, curved, airfoil-section blades attached at the top and bottom of a rotating vertical tube. Major development work on this concept did not begin until the concept was reinvented in the late 1960s by two Canadian researchers. U.S. efforts with the Darrieus concept at Sandia National Laboratories began after the 1973 oil embargo, with the entry of the U.S. Federal Wind Energy Program into the cycle of wind energy development.

Wind Power's Beginnings

[peeker01]

k - take a look at germany's proposed energy budget for the replacement of nukes. wind isn't
even mentioned as a power source......why, you ask.......because if you have calm
days, real powerplants have to be available to pick up the slack.

[GoIllini]

The history of wind power shows a general evolution from the use of simple, light devices driven by aerodynamic drag forces; to heavy, material-intensive drag devices; to the increased use of light, material-efficient aerodynamic lift devices in the modern era. The first windmills were developed to automate the tasks of grain-grinding and water-pumping and the earliest-known design is the vertical axis system developed in Persia about 500-900 A.D. While the belief that the windmill was invented in China more than 2000 years ago is widespread and may be accurate, the earliest actual documentation of a Chinese windmill was in 1219 A.D.

As early as 1390, the Dutch set out to refine the tower mill design. A primary improvement of the European mills was their designer's use of sails that generated aerodynamic lift (see Figure 4 at the left). This feature provided improved rotor efficiency compared with the Persian mills by allowing an increase in rotor speed, which also allowed for superior grinding and pumping action. The process of perfecting the windmill sail, making incremental improvements in efficiency, took 500 years. By the time the process was completed, windmill sails had all the major features recognized by modern designers as being crucial to the performance of modern wind turbine blades, including 1) camber along the leading edge, 2) placement of the blade spar at the quarter chord position (25% of the way back from the leading edge toward the trailing edge), 3) center of gravity at the same 1/4 chord position, and 4) nonlinear twist of the blade from root to tip. Some models also featured aerodynamic brakes, spoilers, and flaps.

By 1920, the two dominant rotor configurations (fan-type and sail) had both been tried and found to be inadequate for generating appreciable amounts of electricity. The further development of wind generator electrical systems in the United States was inspired by the design of airplane propellers and (later) monoplane wings. The development of bulk-power, utility-scale wind energy conversion systems was first undertaken in Russia in 1931 with the 100kW Balaclava wind generator. This machine operated for about two years on the shore of the Caspian Sea, generating 200,000 kWh of electricity. Subsequent experimental wind plants in the United States, Denmark, France, Germany, and Great Britain during the period 1935-1970 showed that large-scale wind turbines would work, but failed to result in a practical large electrical wind turbine.

European developments continued after World War II, when temporary shortages of fossil fuels led to higher energy costs. In Germany, Professor Ulrich Hutter developed a series of advanced, horizontal-axis designs of intermediate size that utilized modern, airfoil-type fiberglass and plastic blades with variable pitch to provide light weight and high efficiencies. This design approach sought to reduce bearing and structural failures by "shedding" aerodynamic loads, rather than "withstanding" them as did the Danish approach. One of the most innovative load-shedding design features was the use of a bearing at the rotor hub that allowed the rotor to "teeter" in response to wind gusts and vertical wind shear. Hutter's advanced designs achieved over 4000 hours of operation before the experiments were ended in 1968.

Post war activity in Denmark and Germany largely dictated the two major horizontal-axis design approaches that would emerge when attention returned to wind turbine development in the early 1970s. The Danes refined the simple, fixed pitch, Gedser Mill design, utilizing advanced materials, improved aerodynamic design, and aerodynamic controls to reduce some of its shortcomings. The engineering innovations of the light-weight, higher efficiency German machines, such as a teeter hinge at the rotor hub, were used later by U.S. designers.

The development of modern vertical-axis rotors was begun in France by G.J.M. Darrieus in the 1920s. Of the several rotors Darrieus designed, the most important one is a rotor comprising slender, curved, airfoil-section blades attached at the top and bottom of a rotating vertical tube. Major development work on this concept did not begin until the concept was reinvented in the late 1960s by two Canadian researchers. U.S. efforts with the Darrieus concept at Sandia National Laboratories began after the 1973 oil embargo, with the entry of the U.S. Federal Wind Energy Program into the cycle of wind energy development.

Wind Power's Beginnings[/quote]
So in other words, you are saying that in the middle ages, folks were driving model-Ts; today they are driving hybrids, and that the mechanical efficiency of wind turbines has gone from maybe 0.2 to .95. This is all fine and dandy but the fact remains that wind turbines today are only a few times better than what we could build 600 years ago on perhaps a 10 quadrillion BTU economy whereas today the world consumes 400 quadrillion BTUs of energy.

I don't want to downplay wind- it's great if we can do it for 10 cents/kwh, but it is not really an effective technology for producing large amounts of sustainable energy. That's where we either need fission or- ideally- fusion to step in. The wonderful thing about fusion is that the waste is as harmless as a balloon at a birthday party and the input can be found in seawater. For the Malthusians in the audience, don't worry, we will run out of Deuterium long before we run out of seawater.

[Cog]

k - take a look at germany's proposed energy budget for the replacement of nukes. wind isn't
even mentioned as a power source......why, you ask.......because if you have calm
days, real powerplants have to be available to pick up the slack.

There you go bringing up unpleasant realities again. Don't you know that green energy doesn't require a working model just a belief model?

[davep]

k - take a look at germany's proposed energy budget for the replacement of nukes. wind isn't
even mentioned as a power source......why, you ask.......because if you have calm
days, real powerplants have to be available to pick up the slack.

There you go bringing up unpleasant realities again. Don't you know that green energy doesn't require a working model just a belief model?

It really needs a viable energy storage medium.

Oh, and I can't see the French getting rid of nuclear power. Maybe one or two old plants, but they rely on it too much as they have little in the way of coal etc.

[kublikhan]

k - take a look at germany's proposed energy budget for the replacement of nukes. wind isn't even mentioned as a power source......why, you ask.......because if you have calm days, real powerplants have to be available to pick up the slack.

Source? I heard otherwise:

While hydro power, geothermal, and biogas play an important role in the renewable mix, wind and solar power will expand the most rapidly under the German renewable energy strategy. It is projected that wind and solar will supply 18% and 7% of national electricity by the end of this decade, respectively.

No nukes, No problem. Germany is proving a rapid transition to renewable energy is possible

There you go bringing up unpleasant realities again. Don't you know that green energy doesn't require a working model just a belief model?

The "unpleasant reality" is that the Germany plans a rapid expansion of it's renewable energy options. But don't let facts get in your way.

That's where we either need fission or- ideally- fusion to step in. The wonderful thing about fusion is that the waste is as harmless as a balloon at a birthday party and the input can be found in seawater. For the Malthusians in the audience, don't worry, we will run out of Deuterium long before we run out of seawater.

I am all for continued fusion research. But It is not ready to meet our energy needs for the next few decades. Thus we must look at alternatives.

I don't want to downplay wind- it's great if we can do it for 10 cents/kwh, but it is not really an effective technology for producing large amounts of sustainable energy.

The economic realities of nuclear energy have changed post Fukushima. Increased costs of safety systems, not to mention nuclear disaster cleanup costs, have made nuclear prohibitively expensive.

In the aftermath of the Japan earthquake and tsunami, nuclear reactors worldwide have been turned off and construction of nuclear plants has been put on hold. Costly new safety measures that might be required because of the Fukushima disaster could make the expense of nuclear power prohibitive to investors as a primary source of energy in the future. Going forward from Fukushima, investors will view clean energy alternatives for instance natural gas, wind and solar as more attractive than nuclear plants. It also might impact utilities. The businesses do not want the nuclear plant risk. Financially, nuclear energy is no longer a cheap option to other sources of energy. Onshore wind farms are 35 percent cheaper than the typical nuclear plant without considering nuclear accident cleanup costs. In the future, choice sources will become increasingly capable of helping meet the world’s energy needs without the financial and ecological costs of nuclear power. For savvy investors, clean energy alternatives promise more profitable opportunities.

Fukushima Disaster Will Drive Up Future Nuclear Power Costs

[meemoe_uk]

but now that, in the face of overwhelming direct evidence that <nuclear> is fatally toxic industry

What? Have they done a new study where a hundred volunteers ate nuclear waste and they all died?
Or has every French and Japanese who tried to switch on a lightbulb powered by nuclear power died touching the light switch by instant nuclear poisoning?
You don't half spout ambiguous nonsense Doiboi.

Nuclear power is very safe, cheap and abundant compared to other power sources.
And I don't think France will phase out nukes. But I'm sure the AGW nuts on this forum will fish out any anti-nuke comments from french politics\commentators they find.