Windpower

[jleikppkywk]

There is no ONE BASKET with nukes.

[jleikppkywk]

Don?t have just one mega nuke, stupid.

[tabbypurr]

2 yolks in one egg of course :)

[John Rumm]

Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as well as manufacture on site.

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity obviously.

[1] As is that for petroleum...

[John Rumm]

Do you have so little faith in your argument, that potty mouth insults are really required?

[whisky-dave]

If they are sharing such a close location then perhaps they are effectively in the same basket. I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl, but I do hear that you can now (30+ years later) get close enough to the covered reactor to take a selfie as they are offering tours.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. NONE of those things are in any way simiar to carbon based fuels. It is te smallest atom you can get. It leak through the smallest of holes It is highly explosive. It has a very low flashpoint It needs to be kept under pressure. It chills when it expands It is extremly low energ dnsity by VOLUME so nees massive tanks.

It doesnt make sense even then. Kerosene level hydrocarbons are like lithium based batteries. They are at the top of the curve between good and bad compromise.

In terms of energy per unit VOLUME, nice balance between utility and safety, cleanlisness of burn, they are all 'about right'

Nuclear power shpuld MAKE 'fossil' fuel....

[The Natural Philosopher]

No.

[Andy Burns]

ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating after number 4 exploded?

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were flooded.

Three had core melts. I think the other was offline anyway.

However in the grand scheme of things loss of four reactors was trivial compared to te damage the Tsunamai caused elsewhere.

You aren't that bothered about a grid blackout 30 feet under te sea.

Of course a tsunai that big in the North sea would take out every single offshore wind farm there is. But since Fukushima, probably no nukes.

It is of course an argument for having lots of baskets with one to four eggs in..

Of course diversity is something people are pretty clueless about.

Back in the early days of the Internet, we noticed one day that all IP packets to the North of England were being routed via I think Norway.

Manchester was a big centre, and it was linked to london by two different companies and via 8 different 'diverse' routes with 4 different fibre comnpanies.

Unfortunately they all used the same bit of optical fibre bunch up the M1 that a digger had just taken out

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many single points of failure there are.

With wind, it is the wind itself. With solar, it is the daylight. With Hydro, it is the rain With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply

There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political interference.

you can stockpile 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.

[tabbypurr]

and how often it happens

very frequent

every day

less frequent

rarely

NT

[Andy Burns]

Chernobyl, not Fukushima ... and apparently the other units did operate after 1986 until the last one shut down un 2000 (wouldn't surprise me if they were shutdown in the immediate aftermath and then restarted)

[Pancho]

A potential single point of failure with nuclear is a flaw to a single design, requiring shut down for remedial action, due to risk of failure. Reactor cracks etc.

This is why earlier posts to the thread advocate multiple reactor designs.

This risk obviously becomes smaller as the technology matures and hence becomes better understood.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Sorry, Senior moment - I could have sworn you actually said Fukushima

[The Natural Philosopher]

But it isnt a single point of failure is it?

Reactor crcks are expected and normal and are ultimately what brings a reactors working life to a close.

You dont shut down a whole fleet just because one is cracjed unless there is a political fuss kicked up by activists.

That is a reasonable sane position, but incerases costs.

[Chris Hogg]

Also Chernobyl vodka! Nice and warming, I'm sure. Though not whisky, Dave

[Swer]

Yes they did, but had to be shut down later when it was too dangerous to still be that close to the one which went bang.

[John Rumm]

apart from all the ones that are of course...

and?

So is petrol.

and petrol

Like any liquefied gas then

Like any liquefied gas then

Higher than batteries though...

Others would disagree with you... time will tell.

[tabbypurr]

The main problem with hydrogen is that's it's solely a way to turn one fuel or power source into another - at cost & inefficiency, AND it's harder to deal with than the other fuels we use. So the future prospects for H2 fuel are close to zero. It's only going to become useful if it's generated from no other fuel source in some way. One distant possibility is solar panels that float on the sea producing hydrogen rather than electrons.

NT

[Vir Campestris]

Well, yes one with a shared fence with Fukushima wouldn't be running. On account of having been hit with the same tsunami... but we don't have them.

Andy