In article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, 2987pl snipped-for-privacy@mail.com scribeth thus
OK so aviation takes or chucks out carbon alternative fuels for Jet aircraft anyone?.
Transport, busses lorries on batteries etc don't think so.
In the case of flying is joe publick going to like their flying rationed?..
Any further forward on that yet?..
No, but it does mean only one set of design documents, operation docs and safety case docs - the vast majority of which need not be reviewed for the next reactor, as long as the design remains the same. That vastly reduces the engineering and design costs and speeds up implementation.
I agree that it does not solve the basic problem of overregulation, but it does as least streamline part of the problem of getting new stations licensed.
SteveW
No I blame our loss of expertise in large scale nuclear power plant on that. Pretty much like I said above.
As far as I am aware, we don't have a long and industrious history of solar panel production or wind turbine production. Hence like any other manufactured product, you buy it from whoever makes it at a price you are willing to pay.
Also many renewable technologies are heavily dependant on a number of rare earth elements, of which 80% are currently mined in China, who also do 95% of the refining, so it ought not be too surprising that when lots of the manufacturing is concentrated.
No, building large scale nuclear power generation is difficult, it takes time and planning, and lots of money. However if you invest that time and money and get a standardised / modularised design that can be built (and later decommissioned) with *relative* ease, then it does get cheaper and easier with time. Others have made that investment, we haven't. Hence we buy theirs.
We do still have world class expertise on small modular propulsion style reactors though - hence why we can roll those out far more cost effectively and also export them. There does seem to be some effort going into re-purposing those for commercial power generation:
The worst of the greenies would still vote for that.
Quite. At one time the UK would have been in the forefront of new technology like that. But not since manufacture or anything not software based became a dirty word.
Now perhaps harry will stop with his bollocks that "no one knows what to do with the waste".
And yet they are. Every time.
And again halfway through construction when the rules change, Again.
That?s a lie with heavy aircraft engines, wings and portable nuke reactors and with TV docos and drama too.
Fat chance, and they don?t do that with the high level waste anyway.
Its frequently the nature of any advanced economy, labour prices, business taxes, energy costs etc here are too high to make manufacturing cost competitive unless you are talking about very high tech, high precision stuff. However that does not stop us selling the design expertise, or systems integration etc.
I doubt it, harry is resistant to pretty much any information that does not support his biases and preconceptions.
How many times have you seen him post a link to a site that he claims supports his argument, and it turns out he either never read it, or just failed to comprehend what it says, since it actually does the complete opposite?
If the wind blows all the time why don't we use sailing ships?
(BTW I race small boats. Every decent Wednesday in the summer. Yesterday I went to the pub instead)
Andy
A very few.
Andy
Tell me what is happening to nuclear waste in the UK. Clue:-
Yes, you ARE dense. And your comprehension is poor. There was probably excellent sailing off the coast of Norway at that time. Or even Ireland
Surprised your knowledge of how our weather is driven is so limited.
I'll help you out. <Quote>
High Level Waste (HLW) Waste in which the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their radioactivity, so this factor has to be taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities. Spent fuel is reprocessed at Sellafield to recover uranium and plutonium. HLW is the residue produced during spent fuel reprocessing. The nature of reprocessing means that HLW is produced as an acidic liquid, which is highly radioactive and generates significant heat. This liquid is converted to a stable solid form for storage. The waste is heated to dryness leaving a fine powder, which is mixed with crushed glass in a furnace to produce a molten product incorporating the waste. The product is then poured into stainless steel canisters, where it cools and solidifies. This process is known as vitrification and it reduces the HLW volume by about one third. To date nearly 870 cubic metres of vitrified HLW have been produced and 5,780 canisters have been filled. These are held in a modern, engineered air-cooled store known as the Vitrified Product Store. This has thick concrete walls to shield operators from the high radiation. There is no existing disposal route for HLW. However, current practice is for the canisters to be stored for at least 50 years before disposal. This allows the amount of heat produced by the waste to fall, which makes it easier to transport and dispose. <unquote>
Just stored away. No permanent disposal.
As it is to be left for the heat produced to fall, it cannot be put into a permanent repository for 50 years, so there isn't exactly a rush to get one built!
It is in a purpose built store now, just not a "permanent one" - although the thick, concrete structure is not what most people would call "temporary".
SteveW
SteveW
A whole 870m^3 (Just under 13 standard shipping containers worth)... after 70+ years of nuclear activity huh?
Oh look, they are doing that thing a couple of posts ago some numpty queried "So why is nobody doing it?"
You do realise that "disposal" means stored away don't you?
Is there no way that heat could be safely used to provide something like district heating or to power a Stirling engined electricity generator?
In principle, yes, a sensible use of the heat and it would reduce the need for primary heat generation, whether by FF or renewables. But the idiots like Harry would campaign so strongly against it, that it will never happen, despite the fact that James Lovelock, the father of Gaia and the Green movement, would be quite happy to have a small depository of nuclear waste at the bottom of his garden, from which he would heat his house ('The Revenge of Gaia', P.92, James Lovelock, Allen Lane/Penguin, 2006).
HomeOwnersHub website 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.