I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.
They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.
I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (AnthonyL)
I don't understand any of that. It's a sequence of non-sequiturs.
Plenty of articles here http://tinyurl.com/zrj29sg but I suspect yours
is a 'how long is a piece of string' question. The answer you get
depends on who's giving it, and what they include in the costing. For
example, Harry will tell you that no-one knows the cost because no-one
knows how to dispose of the waste. That's only true of you're a total
pedant like Harry. Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate
of disposal costs and they're included in the cost of the electricity
<snip> >Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate
I am afraid that is far from true.
If it were then we would not be looking forward to paying 70 or 80 billion
pounds to clean up.
The costs of cleaning up Winscale (oh - sorry Sellafield - that sounds much
nicer) goes up every time it is calculated.
I wonder what the original estimate for disposing of waste from Calderhall was.
Don't forget that most of the stuff at Windscale is nuclear weapons
waste, and nothing to do with power.
Calder Hall would be a better measure - though I wouldn't be surprised
to find some of that stuff at Windscale...
Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs
These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15%
O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.
Fuel costs are around a ha'penny a unit. Fabricated. Uranium costs are
way less than that.
Final electricity costs are dominated by capital costs and the cost of
The rise in interest rates during Thatchers govt was what put paid to
any more nukes. Gas is capital cheap and the gas was free...under the
sea. Just cost of extraction to add on top..
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.
You can find info about our Nucs here (yes TNP I know you know, it's for
I didn't click on them all but of all the ones I did click on, none were in
operation for more than 40 years
that 20% difference has to be critical when amortizing such mega capital
On 2/4/2017 7:45 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Calder Hall didn't quite make 50 years. ISTR that some Magnox got past
40. Current generation of PWRs are targetting 60 years. It is becoming
more realistic to make long term predictions because data on radiation
embrittlement, one of the life limiting factors, is now becoming much
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.
With no viable permanent solution even in sight.
Quite a few failed projects.
Costs at Hinkley point escalating.
Similar projects over budget and long overrun on completion.
Its not a lie to harry as he is so scared that there is no way to treat
nuclear waste. Shame really as he has been living with radioactivity for
all his life and it hasn't killed him. However there is always hope.
A major problem with storing high level waste is the amount of heat it
generates. Sitting it in water for a few decades is the best way to cool
it down to safe heat levels before it can be encapsulated. Water is also
an excellent and very cheap radiation shield. However, that doesn't mean
that it isn't a little unnerving to look into a pool and see a radiation
source glowing down there.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.